PDA

View Full Version : Rules Lawyers Unite



the quinn
2008-07-27, 02:06 AM
Hello all,
I am sorry to say that I am a rules lawyer.
I have been one for 4 years
This is a thread to take about rules lawyering in dungeons and dragons, all editions.
Do you consider it a bad thing? Do you consider it a good thing?

Jade_Tarem
2008-07-27, 02:24 AM
Hello all,
I am sorry to say that I am a rules lawyer.
I have been one for 4 years
This is a thread to take about rules lawyering in dungeons and dragons, all editions.
Do you consider it a bad thing? Do you consider it a good thing?

I think most consider it a bad thing, except at the moment they're doing it. :smallamused:

Dairun Cates
2008-07-27, 02:51 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_lawyer

I'm going to say most people consider it a bad thing. While the wiki article isn't the only interpretation of the phrase (most people I know define it as someone who sticks so close to the rules that they interrupt gameplay and argue with the GM over it), it is generally a bad phrase.

quiet1mi
2008-07-27, 03:10 AM
with out rules lawyers, no one would remember the complicated rules on encumbrance and such

the quinn
2008-07-27, 03:13 AM
Yeah, right now i am DMing a game and I find this state of mind helpful, rather that having to look up rules in the book, I just recite it from memory. Would you call that rules lawyering?

the quinn
2008-07-27, 03:14 AM
I can do that to quiet1mi

Dairun Cates
2008-07-27, 03:16 AM
Yeah, right now i am DMing a game and I find this state of mind helpful, rather that having to look up rules in the book, I just recite it from memory. Would you call that rules lawyering?

Knowing the rules is part of being a GM. Knowing the rules to an extreme is a useful tool for a GM. Obeying the rules to a letter and never varying in favor a good time, that's generally where it becomes rule lawyering. Rule Lawyering is really more about remembering all the rules except rule 0.

the quinn
2008-07-27, 03:20 AM
So... is any one else a Rules-Lawyer?

Matthew
2008-07-27, 04:02 AM
I have done it before, for sure. Nowadays I prefer to just let the game master run the game. That's what he's there for.

ghost_warlock
2008-07-27, 04:35 AM
I'm a bit of a rules lawyer, I'll admit. Most of my rules lawyerishness comes from a desire for internal consistency. Some people can 'wing it' or are willing to let things slide (bend/break the rules) for the story, but I usually prefer to let the rules dictate the story, to an extent. If that makes any sense... Maybe I need an example.

Say you have a character who wants to take a particular action to increase the cool-factor or drama in a situation, something that's pretty tough or difficult to imagine working. I don't like to fudge the rules or difficulty of the action just so that character can look cool. On the other hand, if a character pulls something like this off, I'm not going to cheapen the victory because I think it'll ruin the story if things are too easy.

I don't tend to like extremely cinematic games, just breaks my suspension of disbelief too much.

I typically only argue with a DM over rules that give some characters circumstantially unfair advantages over others - usually this means I argue over the weird house rules.

Some specific examples:

If DMs expect members of certain character classes to pay/quest for training when they level while other classes don't, I'd fight that. Specifically, I had a DM who wanted arcane casters to seek out a trainer when they leveled and pay for the trainer to cast each spell the PC wanted to learn (so the PC could see the spell in effect). Wizards, and other characters who keep spellbooks, had to pay for the spells a second time to write them into the character's spellbook. This applied even for the spells the characters were supposed to get for free by RAW. So, each time a wizard leveled he/she'd have to pay 4*(spell level*trainer caster level*25gp) just for the spells he'd normally get for free. Other casters (ie., divine casters) continued to learn all of their spells for free. This was for an otherwise standard Greyhawk campaign.
Weird interpretations of the DR rules have lead to some arguments in the past, too. One character (character A) had DR and the other (character B) didn't. The characters were afflicted with an effect so they essentially shared hp (when one took damage, the other did, too). When character A (DR) took damage, the DM wanted to halve the damage before applying DR so that character B (no-DR) took more damage. Then, when the character B took damage, the DM wanted to apply DR after splitting the damage so that character A took less damage - I count that as clear DM favoritism. And, no, a DM girlfriend was not involved. :smallwink:
In another, modern, campaign I was playing a character who happened to be immune to electricity damage. The DM wanted an NPC to immobilize my character with a taser. I fought this because it made no sense. In the end he decided to run my character over with a truck and pin him beneath one of the wheels. Which was perfectly fine with me. :smallwink:


I try to keep RAI in mind, though. :smalltongue:

bosssmiley
2008-07-27, 05:50 AM
I've rules lawyered before. Sometimes you have to go down that path to make the most of your character in the hellish, bizarre situations you end up in. Besides, a rolling, somersaulting tumbling charge across unstable terrain is awesome enough (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) that most people will allow it. :smallwink:

I try not to rules lawyer exploits out of poorly worded rules (that's just tasteless) or connive my way out of the GM's plot twists (that's just obnoxious and disrespectful to the other players).

The ancient arts of rules lawyer-ism should only be used for good. :smallbiggrin:

ericgrau
2008-07-27, 07:35 AM
I think knowing the rules is extremely useful. But yeah, rules 0 always takes precedant. And exploiting/abusing/twisting the rules is just plain horrendous.

When I play and the DM does something different from the rules, I usually don't even mention it. As far as I'm concerned, that's now the rule for our game (especially with a veteran DM). I mostly say something when the DM or someone else asks about a rule, or when I try to do something and someone says, "You can do that? And nobody adds their BAB to that roll? Oh."

Moriato
2008-07-27, 01:53 PM
I think knowing the rules is extremely useful. But yeah, rules 0 always takes precedant.

I feel the same way. I know the rules very well, at least as well or better than anyone I play with, and I will say something if someone has it wrong. Only a few things really bug me. It bothers me if someone *insists* they're following the rules, as they're written, when they aren't. If you're the DM, and you want to change the rule, that's fine, it's your game, but own up to it. Call a house rule a house rule. Also I feel very strongly that both sides should be playing by the same rules. For example; if npcs don't have to roll to confirm a critical on a natural 20, that rule should apply to pcs as well. Stuff like that. If that makes me a rules lawyer, so be it.

Chronos
2008-07-27, 02:04 PM
with out rules lawyers, no one would remember the complicated rules on encumbrance and suchSo what do you call someone who not only knows all the encumbrance rules, but also has the maximum load table memorized?

Um, not that I know anyone who's done that, of course.

Siosilvar
2008-07-27, 02:07 PM
I feel the same way. I know the rules very well, at least as well or better than anyone I play with, and I will say something if someone has it wrong. Only a few things really bug me. It bothers me if someone *insists* they're following the rules, as they're written, when they aren't. If you're the DM, and you want to change the rule, that's fine, it's your game, but own up to it. Call a house rule a house rule. Also I feel very strongly that both sides should be playing by the same rules. For example; if npcs don't have to roll to confirm a critical on a natural 20, that rule should apply to pcs as well. Stuff like that. If that makes me a rules lawyer, so be it.

Seconded.12

its_all_ogre
2008-07-27, 02:07 PM
i am a rules lawyer, can't help it.
i do not like it when dms change rules partway through anything, most players make characters expecting the rules to work as written, when i homebrewed a load of stuff (fixing monk, soulknife, twf, casters some other stuff) i printed out a little booklet containing all of it for their perusal.
also re-wrote most of the races entirely and added in hobgoblins, goblins, gnolls, replaced half orcs with my version of orcs and added in kobolds. changed most of the standard races except humans.
but it was all there for them to see.
i dislike it when half way through a game the dm changes rules to cover their own mistakes, even fudging dice rolls goes against my tastes.
the dice pretty much dictate what happens, if players foolishly start a fight with too hard npcs they die...
all this was explained at the start of the campain though, should have come as no surprise.

RTGoodman
2008-07-27, 02:09 PM
I've rules lawyered before. Sometimes you have to go down that path to make the most of your character in the hellish, bizarre situations you end up in. [...] The ancient arts of rules lawyer-ism should only be used for good. :smallbiggrin:

Yep, sounds about right to me. I'm not a perpetual rules lawyer, but I can certainly "turn on" that trait when need be. As a player, I try not to unless the game is turning out VERY badly; as a DM, I'm not a rules lawyer so much as a guy that knows the rules and enforces them unless there's a very good reason not to.

Matthew
2008-07-27, 02:24 PM
I feel the same way. I know the rules very well, at least as well or better than anyone I play with, and I will say something if someone has it wrong. Only a few things really bug me. It bothers me if someone *insists* they're following the rules, as they're written, when they aren't. If you're the DM, and you want to change the rule, that's fine, it's your game, but own up to it. Call a house rule a house rule. Also I feel very strongly that both sides should be playing by the same rules. For example; if npcs don't have to roll to confirm a critical on a natural 20, that rule should apply to pcs as well. Stuff like that. If that makes me a rules lawyer, so be it.

There shouldn't really be a 'sides' issue. After all, it's not PCs versus NPCs or Players versus the Game Master. If the Game Master decides it's more fun (generally) for NPC X to work by different rules, that's up to him. Obviously, it's no good if he's actually lying to you about the rules he's using (given that you've agreed on certain rules to begin with), but there's also little point in discerning between "rules" and "house rules", especially when Unearthed Arcana is thrown into the mix (which is to say an abundence of optional rules). In the game environment there's only ever "the rules you understand that you are playing by," it doesn't matter one whit what their source is or what you call them within that context, as long as you know about them (and even then you don't need to know about the ones that don't concern your character at all).

Mind, I am not saying you can't play like that or you're wrong to play like that, but it is very much a playstyle concern.

Last time I gave in to my baser impulses is probably quite a good example of this sort of stuff. My level one Human Ranger was fighting a Goblin. He'd shot an arrow at it on his previous turn and it was now within reach of a move action; I wanted him to drop his bow, draw his sword, move to the Goblin and make an attack [Free Action, Move Action in combination with drawing his sword, Attack Action]. The DM ruled that it took a full round action for him to draw his sword; the Goblin charged, attacked, and knocked my Ranger down to 0 hit points! I got a bit of a huff on, opened the PHB and started leafing through the rules to 'demonstrate' that the DM was wrong. I interrupted the flow of the game to make my complaint, and the other players just looked on bemused. DM refused to reverse the ruling. I realised what a child I was being, and sucked it up.

Moriato
2008-07-27, 04:49 PM
There shouldn't really be a 'sides' issue. After all, it's not PCs versus NPCs or Players versus the Game Master. Mind, I am not saying you can't play like that or you're wrong to play like that, but it is very much a playstyle concern.

There's always conflict, whether it's players vs npcs/monsters, or players vs players, or players vs their own personal problems, or whatever. A game with no conflict would be extremely boring, so there's always sides, whatever they may be.


Last time I gave in to my baser impulses is probably quite a good example of this sort of stuff. My level one Human Ranger was fighting a Goblin. He'd shot an arrow at it on his previous turn and it was now within reach of a move action; I wanted him to drop his bow, draw his sword, move to the Goblin and make an attack [Free Action, Move Action in combination with drawing his sword, Attack Action]. The DM ruled that it took a full round action for him to draw his sword; the Goblin charged, attacked, and knocked my Ranger down to 0 hit points! I got a bit of a huff on, opened the PHB and started leafing through the rules to 'demonstrate' that the DM was wrong. I interrupted the flow of the game to make my complaint, and the other players just looked on bemused. DM refused to reverse the ruling. I realised what a child I was being, and sucked it up.

Like I said, that's fine. You *were* correct according to the RAW, but if the dm says that's the rule, then it is. What would start to piss me off is if the DM insisted that this is the way it's written in the book, or if after this incident I saw a monster or npc do the exact same thing, and not take a full round to draw their weapon. Assuming they didn't have quickdraw or something that would allow them to ignore that rule. Or if suddenly, mysteriously, all the npcs gained an extra feat of quickdraw. A dm using rules that way to give his npcs unfair advantages is most likely the type of dm that feels it's the dm's job to "win" at D&D by killing off his players, and just not the type of dm I want to play under, and I'd probably simply stop playing.

Matthew
2008-07-27, 05:01 PM
There's always conflict, whether it's players vs npcs/monsters, or players vs players, or players vs their own personal problems, or whatever. A game with no conflict would be extremely boring, so there's always sides, whatever they may be.

Indeed, but those are imaginary sides, not real ones (or to put it another way, it's not a dichotomy). That said, if you just mean you don't want it to work one way for one character and another for some other character, I wouldn't agree, but no doubt that's preferential. Truly arbitrary decisions on the other hand, I wouldn't be okay with.



Like I said, that's fine. You *were* correct according to the RAW, but if the dm says that's the rule, then it is. What would start to piss me off is if the DM insisted that this is the way it's written in the book, or if after this incident I saw a monster or npc do the exact same thing, and not take a full round to draw their weapon. Assuming they didn't have quickdraw or something that would allow them to ignore that rule. Or if suddenly, mysteriously, all the npcs gained an extra feat of quickdraw. A dm using rules that way to give his npcs unfair advantages is most likely the type of dm that feels it's the dm's job to "win" at D&D by killing off his players, and just not the type of dm I want to play under, and I'd probably simply stop playing.

I probably wouldn't be too bothered by that, because I assume the GM has a reason (and not necessarily a rule related reason). I might question it after the game if I really cared, but not within the actual game session (assuming I didn't succumb to my baser instincts). I generally trust the Game Master to be fair, which doesn't have to mean treating all instances of similar events exactly equally, but rather creating challenging encounters.

Really, though, the issue was that I brought it up during the actual game by "appealing to the book" and overstepped my bounds as a player. If the GM had asked me to look the rule up, it would have been a different story.

erikun
2008-07-27, 06:21 PM
I've learned to use my powers of rule-lawyering for good. More specifically, I'm normally the most experienced one at any of our tables, so if the DM is having trouble deciding on how to resolve something, I try to give him a summary of how the rules relate to the situation.

Of course, I have used this power to create a trip/disarm TWF/reach chain fighter... standard attack roll +2 for the trip, use free attack for a disarm at +4, free AoO if they try to stand up OR try to pick up their weapon... and yes, I would use that AoO to trip+hit them again...

krossbow
2008-07-27, 06:22 PM
Some times, the only thing in between your party and death at the hands of a psychotic DM is a Rule's lawyer unfurling his plan.

Chronos
2008-07-27, 07:54 PM
Like I said, that's fine. You *were* correct according to the RAW, but if the dm says that's the rule, then it is.A caveat on this, though: Anything is houseruleable, and a houserule, by its nature, can't be "wrong". However, if a DM is going to use a houserule, he should tell his players in advance. In Matthew's case, for instance, if he had known that it would be a full-round action to draw his sword, he might not have let that goblin get within single-move-range to begin with.

aarondirebear
2008-07-31, 02:31 PM
Rules lawyers are often annoying as all hell.
Especially when they question your rule 0 rulings.

nobodylovesyou4
2008-07-31, 02:50 PM
So... is any one else a Rules-Lawyer?

every time i play with a new GM, i find myself doing it; usually its because the gm doesnt know the rules.

the quinn
2008-07-31, 02:57 PM
The thread it lives,
Btw here is a small rules lawyerly thing I have done
Did you know on the mind flayer tactic there is said to be a power called mind warp that doesn't exist.

Tadanori Oyama
2008-07-31, 03:09 PM
I have a rules lawyer living in my heart. I try to keep him chained but he always manages to serve up a writ at the worst time.

Knowing the rules isn't a bad thing, nor is reminding other players and DMs about the rules. My problem with a rules lawyer in my campaign (and other people's problems with me when I do it as a DM) is that they can insist the exact rules be followed. Every D&D game I've played has some diversion from the rules, usually for the sake of story or to avoid what I think will be a major problem, i.e. climb checks when I really want the PCs over that cliff.

sikyon
2008-07-31, 03:11 PM
If you're playing soccer, does the goalie change the size of the net when the other team is on a breakway because it makes the game more fun?

No.

Why should you do it for D&D?

Changing them before is fine, that's your perogative, it's a game. As long as everyone know's the rules, and they can made decisions based off of those rules, it is fine.

But if I'm in the middle of combat and you tell me THEN that we arn't using tumble (so that I cannot tumble under the giant blocking the door) while I've spent effort setting myself up into a tumbling position, I am not going to be impressed.

Honestly if that happened I'd just sit out the rest of the encounter until I got a firmer grasp of the houserules. I do not like being railroaded. Having an obvious plot is fine, logical steps for us to follow. But forcing us to do things, which is exactly what changing the rules are, is wrong.

Remember people:

It may be the DM's world, but it is the players who tell the story.

Shatteredtower
2008-07-31, 03:38 PM
If you're playing soccer, does the goalie change the size of the net when the other team is on a breakway because it makes the game more fun?

No.

Why should you do it for D&D?Because there is no other team in D&D. If you find the preset conditions make an event frustrating and unplayable for your players, you're on hand to tweak things as necessary. If the problem runs in the other direction, however, it's usually best to let them have their cakewalk and move on. Trying to amp up the difficulty mid-encounter has a way of backfiring spectacularly.

It's a bit like customer service: it doesn't work very well when it can't deviate at all from a preset program.


It may be the DM's world, but it is the players who tell the story.As long as we also remember that the DM is one of those players.

RukiTanuki
2008-07-31, 05:28 PM
Personally, it's only a "rules lawyer" when the person uses their knowledge for personal gain. In other words, the line is crossed when you argue a point not because you think it's the most reasonable interpretation, but because it's difficult to argue against you.

Claiming you can buy a 10-foot ladder, separate its pieces, and sell two ten-foot poles for a profit as a result is rules-lawyering to me. It's not anywhere near the reasonable interpretation for inworld events; an assumption is being made about the physical structure of the ladder (it could be one pole with rungs attached at their center point); it's presumptive to think that any ten-foot hunk of wood is equivalent enough to the "ten-foot-pole" item being sold to adventurers that a merchant would accept it for the same trade value; and so on.

This and similar examples are amusing thought exercises, but much like Pun-Pun, just because you could make a case, does not mean you should. :)

Leewei
2008-07-31, 06:34 PM
I rules-lawyer frequently. I want to be able to strategize and develop my characters in a way that is interesting to me as well as effective. If done in the right way and for good reason, rules-lawyering is a good thing. Good reasons include "for the fun of it" and "to avoid frustration". The right way generally means "non-disruptively".

Disruption and argument from badly-timed and heated 'lawyering gives this practice its bad name. The lighter side of this cookie is near-definitive knowledge of how the system works as well as the ability to amuse yourself and fellow rules enthusiasts with optimization chatter and silly game mechanics. The trick is to realize when it's fun for everyone and when it's boorish.

Rei_Jin
2008-07-31, 07:47 PM
I WAS a rules lawyer. I have ALL the books. Yes, all of them. That's for 3.0 AND 3.5. No, I'm not going to 4th Edition, through personal choice. No, I don't have the campaign specific books, they mean nothing to me. I make my own campaign worlds, and have even self-published one.

I was a rules lawyer, and an utter bastard at it. I was that bad, that my friends became Rules Lawyers to try and keep up with me, which only spurred me on to greater heights of Rules Lawyer-ism. This destroyed our group, and has permanently scarred our friendships.

I learnt my lesson.

Now, I use my powers for good, not for evil. I try to build characters that use as few remote rulings as possible, yet I still build strong characters. I help others build characters that they only though possible in their dreams.

I build strong, optimised characters. I don't exploit the rules, and I don't build infinite damage loops. Why break the thing that you love?

Some of you here will remember the School of Stilton Bearded Cheese. Some of you won't. But it was my way of trying to help out other gamers who didn't have the same rules knowledge that I did.

I've returned to the playground after a long absence, as things more important than gaming came into my life. But, I have spare time at work now, and I have returned here, for fun and friends.

In short, D&D is just a game, but it's a game I love. Knowing the rules is a good thing, but living by the rules is pointless. Doing that leaves no room for the love of the game.

Live by love, not by rules.

sikyon
2008-07-31, 08:53 PM
Because there is no other team in D&D.

That is a ridiculous statement. Players vs monsters. Protagonists (PC) vs antagonists (whatever the DM decides). Players vs DM (solving DM puzzles). There is no story without conflict, there is no conflict without sides.


BIf you find the preset conditions make an event frustrating and unplayable for your players, you're on hand to tweak things as necessary. If the problem runs in the other direction, however, it's usually best to let them have their cakewalk and move on. Trying to amp up the difficulty mid-encounter has a way of backfiring spectacularly.


I do agree though. this is what I normally do. If I make a mistake, I don't let the players suffer for it.



It's a bit like customer service: it doesn't work very well when it can't deviate at all from a preset program.


It's also abit like a contract. You can change the terms at will, but you must inform all parties involved with 30 days advance notice (figurativly).



As long as we also remember that the DM is one of those players.

As long as we remember his is only a single player, which is often hard to do when he holds universal power.

Theodoxus
2008-07-31, 09:41 PM
There are rules lawyers, and then there is rules-lawyering. One is fine, the other down right obnoxious.

Without rules lawyers, the game bogs down as people look up specific effects and what counters who and if a wooden pallisade really will fit in a portable hole.

Without rules-lawyering, the game doesn't bog down over whether Calm Emotions allows the cleric to move willy-nilly around a crowd of formian soldiers. Nor does it bog down because there isn't a 2 1/2 hour argument over whether Luke Skywalker earned a dark side point when he choked the gammorian guards and thus a Jedi Guardian should be able to use Force Choke with no penalty. (please I swear to all that is holy, do NOT start up that argument in this thread - take it elsewhere - it's insidious, and will not die.)

I am a rule lawyer. I do not, however, practice rules-lawyering. I'd prefer to keep my seat at the table. The DM would toss me out post haste.