The Fine Print: Rules Lawyers in D&D

[Bibliomancer]

Lucy: But Aslan, how? We sacrificed you on the Stone Table, destroyed your soul, and then, for good measure, erased your truename and unwrought your chakra binds! Peter destroyed you, DMPC!

Aslan: Ah, but Lucy, Peter's knowledge only went back to the first publishing of the game. If he had looked even further back, into the randomness and chaos of the drafting process, he would have known that if a creature who committed no treachery was killed through use of a number of rulebooks exceeding two dozen, the Table would crack, and all rules would revert to Rule Zero.

Admittedly, this thread is primarily an excuse to use the above phrasing, but the question is an interesting one:

What do you do when your players attempt to utilize Rules-Lawyering? Do you cut the conversation short, refer to the Rules Compendium, or let them try to justify destroying the multiverse with a paperclip?

Players, how do you react when a fellow player tries to use the forbidden techniques of rules-lawyering? Do you go along with it, or take the opportunity to kill his character while he's distracted?

[Vizzerdrix]

All players should be punished for knowing the rules.

*Nod nod nods.*

[Starbuck_II]

All players should be punished for knowing the rules.

*Nod nod nods.*

This isn't paranioa, citizen. Please report to the nearest processing center.

[Nero24200]

Players, how do you react when a fellow player tries to use the forbidden techniques of rules-lawyering? Do you go along with it, or take the opportunity to kill his character while he's distracted?

Depends, pointing out a minor mistake witha spell or feat - Fine.

Attempting to abuse RAW loopholes and create obviously unintended effects (Pun Pun being the best example) - D4 up the nose.

[HunterOfJello]

Question 1: Is the player playing a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, or Erudite?

If yes, throw books/dice at them.

If no, then discuss with them.


~~~


Unfortunately, this sort of thing is the reason why so many books get banned from tables. Players want to be all powerful and break the game and DMs have to be 3 steps ahead of the player or else.

[KellKheraptis]

Question 1: Is the player playing a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, or Erudite in a universally broken manner?

If yes, throw books/dice at them.

If no, then discuss with them.

Fixed that for you. Being nigh on godlike and playing passively is fine, and a response like above will likely elicit return fire of either heavier, denser objects.

Also note most extreme responses to subjective matter arise from those who do not actually know the rules or interactions thereof. If I get a book thrown at me for making a case for the Rainbow Servant (NOT an obscenely overpowered class, and the only saving grace of the Warmage) being 10/10 casting, expect the corresponding response to be...unpleasant.

EDIT : And your edit says it all. It's the PLAYER. I can work just fine as a FS Illusionist 2/Metaphysical Spellshaper 3/SCM 3/Tainted Sorcerer 1/Mindbender 1/Incantatrix 10 in an unoptimized party, without outshining anyone, and in the event we need the extra firepower, I have it on tap in a moment's notice. I can ascend to godhood, and invulnerability, with a single use of the Dusk Giant trick, but that doesn't mean I will. The player is the issue 9/10 times.

[Thiyr]

Regardless of who it is, we let them bring it up, and then based on situation, we let either go with it or say "okay, well, we're not gonna do it that way for reason x":

-When reason x is "because I say so", we tend to get irritated as the people making gut decisions like that are doing that for player reputation and it sounding like it could be abused (say, a character having their backup ranged weapon being a ballista, even if they'd need to use 2-3 feats, activate psionic powers, and waste a ton of money on getting it functional so long as he dosen't have to go through enclosed areas).

-When reason x is a situation like our half giant using expansion twice and then jumping through a skylight onto a person and doing 125-some-odd d6s of damage, then the DM'll usually tone it down to lower levels (in this case he dropped it to 10d6 'cause he felt that was just too much. Player didn't even realize it till he looked it up)

-When reason x is "Actually, the guy wouldn't be able to reach into a box, grab something, and still double move, he could only get a single move after grabbing it" while pointing to that section of the phb, or pointing out something that would've otherwise needed to be house ruled, the DM tends to go with it, mostly so that we're all playing by the same rules.

(note, all the above have actually occurred. good times.)

[Kylarra]

Unless we're playing paranoia, I'm pretty upfront with the rules and I expect the same courtesy from my players. My first response to them trying to add something or get me to okay something new is "what are you trying to do?". I fully expect there to be people with greater system mastery than me and/or more free time to surf op-boards.

So yeah, most of the time we don't get into rules lawyering because I know what the players are capable of ahead of time. Alternatively, my usual modus operandi is to let it go through once and then we'll deal with it afterwards. No point in scrapping the character in the session itself*.

*This has the usual caveats of the hidden trick not wrecking the game for the other players and/or being of some sort of manageable aspect with skillful DMing. Obviously things on the level of pun-pun and jumplo/diplomancy get shut down hard on the first shot.

[Runestar]

I don't think rules lawyering is inherently wrong (is there even a universally accepted definition for it?), but I admit that it does slow down the pace of the game dramatically, so as a DM, I would institute a houserule that while the game is ongoing, the DM's word is final. Any objections or questions, raise after the game, and we will work together to address the issue if you feel you have been shortchanged somehow.

Or if you are not sure, approach me before the game to see if I can accept that rule, or have to ban it for good reason (like it potentially breaking the game). Don't keep quiet and wait to spring it on the gaming table, only to find out that the DM won't let it fly.

I do recognize that players who interpret the rules in one manner (which may well be the correct one) would expect to play the game in a different manner from what the DM might envision when the latter interprets and runs the game in his own way. So when things don't go their way, it is only natural to want to speak up and try to reclaim what you feel is "rightfully yours".

My point is basically to bear in mind the bigger picture (the integrity of the campaign) and not be in such a rush to voice your objections to every single opposing rule.

[KellKheraptis]

I don't think rules lawyering is inherently wrong (is there even a universally accepted definition for it?), but I admit that it does slow down the pace of the game dramatically, so as a DM, I would institute a houserule that while the game is ongoing, the DM's word is final. Any objections or questions, raise after the game, and we will work together to address the issue if you feel you have been shortchanged somehow.

Or if you are not sure, approach me before the game to see if I can accept that rule, or have to ban it for good reason (like it potentially breaking the game). Don't keep quiet and wait to spring it on the gaming table, only to find out that the DM won't let it fly.

I do recognize that players who interpret the rules in one manner (which may well be the correct one) would expect to play the game in a different manner from what the DM might envision when the latter interprets and runs the game in his own way. So when things don't go their way, it is only natural to want to speak up and try to reclaim what you feel is "rightfully yours".

My point is basically to bear in mind the bigger picture (the integrity of the campaign) and not be in such a rush to voice your objections to every single opposing rule.

The crux of it, right there : Subjectivity. There are still people to this day here that swear by "The warmage and warlock are broken because they aren't coooore" and their perennial holdover from 1st/2nd edition : "Psionicks iz borkteded! No book rules changed! All bad!" And sadly, no amount of objective definitive parameters (aka the RAW) can change that, because through the virtue of circular logic they fail to see anything as right other than the narrow vision they hold. The real irony of the 2nd Ed guys is that the 2nd Ed Psionicist was a pale shadow of it's former self, and handily stomped into the ground by anything remotely close to it's level-3 or so.

[snoopy13a]

I
I do recognize that players who interpret the rules in one manner (which may well be the correct one) would expect to play the game in a different manner from what the DM might envision when the latter interprets and runs the game in his own way. So when things don't go their way, it is only natural to want to speak up and try to reclaim what you feel is "rightfully yours".

The DM's interpretation of a rule should always be the correct interpretation. It doesn't matter if the DM's interpretation doesn't make much sense or if most people would disagree with him/her. Some of a DM's duties are to interpret rules and to create new rules for conditions when the game rules don't apply to a particular situation. Players can advocate their position and argue for their side but when it comes down to it, the DM's interpretation ought to be the correct one.

[KellKheraptis]

The DM's interpretation of a rule should always be the correct interpretation. It doesn't matter if the DM's interpretation doesn't make much sense or if most people would disagree with him/her. Some of a DM's duties are to interpret rules and to create new rules for conditions when the game rules don't apply to a particular situation. Players can advocate their position and argue for their side but when it comes down to it, the DM's interpretation ought to be the correct one.

No such thing exists, nor ever should it, nor ever will it. It most definitely DOES matter if a DM's rulings make sense, and most definitely IS important that it is thought out. Knee-jerk Rule-0 abuse equates to a narrow mind with a control issue. Also known as "this person has no place WHATSOEVER EVER being behind the DM screen." A DM's first duty is to run a fun and enjoyable game, and inconsistent and nonsensical rulings are a sure-fire way to not only deny the players a fun time, but also a good way to lose the game (not that said DM would be playing the same game, as DnD most definitely does have defined parameters). As in the players tell the DM off and walk.

[Tackyhillbillu]

EDIT : And your edit says it all. It's the PLAYER. I can work just fine as a FS Illusionist 2/Metaphysical Spellshaper 3/SCM 3/Tainted Sorcerer 1/Mindbender 1/Incantatrix 10 in an unoptimized party, without outshining anyone, and in the event we need the extra firepower, I have it on tap in a moment's notice. I can ascend to godhood, and invulnerability, with a single use of the Dusk Giant trick, but that doesn't mean I will. The player is the issue 9/10 times.

The argument "I have all this power, but I promise not to use it unless we really need it" bothers the hell out of me.

It results in two possibilities. One, it never comes up. That's fine. If you don't use the power, it is just like you never had it. In fact, there was no point to ever having it. But feel free to optimize.

---

The second: "Hey guys, looks like we are in danger. Guess I better take the kids gloves off, and show you all why your notion that your characters are useful, important, or any way matter to the course of the battle is completely and utterly wrong. See, I can do this each and every battle, but I don't, because I'm taking pity on you and making sure you have something to do. You should be thankful and grateful. After all your utterly useless and pathetic characters continue to live because I was skilled enough to make this monstrosity."

See that? That pisses me the hell off.

[ScionoftheVoid]

What do you do when your players attempt to utilize Rules-Lawyering? Do you cut the conversation short, refer to the Rules Compendium, or let them try to justify destroying the multiverse with a paperclip?

Players, how do you react when a fellow player tries to use the forbidden techniques of rules-lawyering? Do you go along with it, or take the opportunity to kill his character while he's distracted?

1. Let them justify it if I can't find a quick ruling, if it's taking a while to sort out I'd give a vote: argue this rule for a while longer or accept a ruling favourable for the players until the end of the session and I'll look it up before next week.

2. @ the bolded section: Rules-lawyering is not a bad thing, you make it sound like there is a circle of hell saved for rules-lawyers. I participate myself. Our DM usually falls back to "this is how things work in my world", though that goes for flavour stuff too (I wasn't allowed to have a really big sword with the stats of a Halberd (I thought it had reach) because the weapons worked differently, despite my accepting the weapons disadvantages as well and the fact that no-one in-game can tell its stats! I also got the same response when pointing out that, using the default fluff, Gnomes are more similar to Hobbits than Halflings are). I am allowed freedom with material and character building though I have to be wary of houserules, whether knee-jerk or merely as-yet unmentioned (I really need a full list sometime).


Edit: @/\ You don't have to be massively over the top when describing your actions when using full potential. It can be described as a stroke of luck, particularly if the DM is in on what you're capable of. The monster could have rolled a one just when you cast your SoD for all the other players know. I use this method of holding back unless I feel that my character is threatened, though because we don't often play past lower levels it's more like saving my resources for when we need them. Basically nova-ing when in danger and providing tactical advice (and/or asking for Wis/Int chacks to try and stop really stupid actions that have already been declared) at other times.

I've apparently got to tone down the advice though. DM feels like I'm playing other peoples characters for them, though I wrote all but three of the sheets in a group of seven players (including myself and my sheet, not including the DM. He's the eighth player in our group, at the moment anyway) and helped with two of those. I could play the whole party, and far more efficiently, if I wanted to and could be bothered with the paperwork. Apparently "the ground will disappear from underneath your [my] feet" if I do it again. Advice which is perfectly in-character ("you'd be best summoning a spider here, or nothing at all" when half the party was down a monstrous spider's pit with web and approaching monstrous spider) included.

[KellKheraptis]

The argument "I have all this power, but I promise not to use it unless we really need it" bothers the hell out of me.

It results in two possibilities. One, it never comes up. That's fine. If you don't use the power, it is just like you never had it. In fact, there was no point to ever having it. But feel free to optimize.

---

The second: "Hey guys, looks like we are in danger. Guess I better take the kids gloves off, and show you all why your notion that your characters are useful, important, or any way matter to the course of the battle is completely and utterly wrong. See, I can do this each and every battle, but I don't, because I'm taking pity on you and making sure you have something to do. You should be thankful and grateful. After all your utterly useless and pathetic characters continue to live because I was skilled enough to make this monstrosity."

See that? That pisses me the hell off.

I can do the same with Wizard 20, core or not. Saying the capability is the fault of the player is tantamount to a witch hunt, and my stance on the sentence for mindcrimes of that magnitude is legendary on other forums. Villainizing the player only amounts to being incapable of grasping the concept that casters are mechanically superior, and wanting to play a caster doesn't necessarily mean wanting to play a superior character mechanically. You've summed up the opposition to the Stormwind Fallacy flawlessly, even to the point of self-righteous indignation. Any caster that plays with the kid gloves on is being a responsible player, and probably having fun playing god, while the party mows down the opposition. If things go haywire out of the blue, having a Deux Ex Machina is a GOOD thing, especially if the DM knows it.

Yell at the designers for making all classes bow to the feet of the CoDZillas, Wizards, Archivists, and Erudites, as your wrath for responsible Tier 1 players is horridly misguided.

[Piedmon_Sama]

I am constantly making life harder for myself with the environment rules. "Don't forget that standing in deep water, my movement is reduced to a quarter-speed. Don't forget that in low-light we have a 20% miss chance to hit the goblins. Don't forget that we're fighting on an incline, so Tumble check DCs are +2." My friends hate bothering with the environment/surrounding rules and would like it if every battle took place on a big chessboard, but come on, how boring is that?

When I'm running the game, it's a time-issue. If it takes longer than a minute to resolve, I'll make a ruling and that will be the end of it. Also there have been a few times when I turned out to be mistaken (like thinking that a charge gives you +2 to hit/damage, or that drawing an arrow and knocking it in the bow are two separate actions) and I decided to do it my way instead. There's a quote somewhere on these boards that I really liked for when your players bitch about a houserule. "Excuse me, but we're not playing Dungeons & Dragons--this is [PiedmonSama]'s RPG, closely based on Dungeons & Dragons."

[Tackyhillbillu]

I can do the same with Wizard 20, core or not. Saying the capability is the fault of the player is tantamount to a witch hunt, and my stance on the sentence for mindcrimes of that magnitude is legendary on other forums. Villainizing the player only amounts to being incapable of grasping the concept that casters are mechanically superior, and wanting to play a caster doesn't necessarily mean wanting to play a superior character mechanically. You've summed up the opposition to the Stormwind Fallacy flawlessly, even to the point of self-righteous indignation. Any caster that plays with the kid gloves on is being a responsible player, and probably having fun playing god, while the party mows down the opposition. If things go haywire out of the blue, having a Deux Ex Machina is a GOOD thing, especially if the DM knows it.

Yell at the designers for making all classes bow to the feet of the CoDZillas, Wizards, Archivists, and Erudites, as your wrath for responsible Tier 1 players is horridly misguided.

It isn't the capability that bugs me, and I stated that. It is the use of that capability. Yes, Casters are untouchable in 3.5, if you play in a certain fashion. If you don't, they can fit in among a part of Tier 3 and 4 quite well. But it is when the Kid gloves come off that bothers me.

Games have an element of risk. Your characters choices have consequences. If you make bad ones, he dies. Only, having your Incantrix monster removes that risk. So no, having a Deus Ex Machina is not a good thing. It is a terrible thing. It destroys the game.

I do blame 3.5's designers for making some incredibly stupid choices. I actually think they learned from quite a few of them, which resulted in a number of the changes inherent in 4e. But I also blame those players who elect to exploit those mistakes, in order to create a character that removes all point in playing the game.

---

Also, Stormwind has nothing to do with this. The Stormwind fallacy is "An optimized Character cannot be roleplayed well." It is false.

My point is "A character who can beat the entire adventure in one round, by himself, and elects to use that power breaks versimiltude, and destroys both the story, and the game." How well your Tainted Scholar/Ur-Priest is roleplayed is of no interest to me. I still don't want to be sitting at the table if you pull him out.

[KellKheraptis]

It evidently was the capability as you spelled out the "class features" of a core-only Wizard to a tee. And there is always a bigger fish around the next corner. No one but the Wizard will notice the power creep, if indeed there is any, or if indeed any is needed. As I stated, it doesn't matter if I play a Wizard 20 in core or a CL 177 Master Spellthief Ultimate Magus, the end outcome is the same : I play nice and the party is better for it, or the DM decides to shut his brain off one session and face the party against something 9 CR above what it's capable of and save the day by playing dirty. That is the class, not the player, and any player who isn't pulling out the big guns when threatened with imminent and potentially lethal force is deliberately nerfing themselves, thus invoking TSF. An example :

Party ECL is around 10. DM Springs a CR 12. My wizard buffs the BSF while dropping something to limit mobility. Party defeats CR 12 with passive magic carrying the day (enlarged touch-attacking BSF able to punch through DR from full PA, bad guy aggro-ed to the BSF and locked down).

Same party, now facing a Balor. Breaching Obelisk invoked for mini-time stop to activate Duelward in case he uses an autokill, buffs go up in the remaining. Round 1 amounts to curb stomping the Balor along with the BSF and Glass Cannon, using BFC as needed. By level 10 I can get a melee form going that will make most CR 20's cry. Do I use it like that? No, since I see it as horridly inefficient. But should it come to pass that all the guns need to come out blazing, so be it. And I'm not shy with the Reach and Chain metamagic, meaning the whole party still gets to have fun with it. My main goal is ensuring the DM is going to have to earn his keep in killing a player's character. At least as far as playing a Wizard goes. The best description would be playing Risk. Long term, lots of strategy, some tactics, and a bit of luck from the dice.

[Boci]

"Excuse me, but we're not playing Dungeons & Dragons--this is [PiedmonSama]'s RPG, closely based on Dungeons & Dragons."

That is fine as long as the players are told about your houserules in advance. If not, then it more understandable that they will be a bit taken aback when you spring them in mid-play.

[The Big Dice]

KNowing the rules isn't a bad thing. Having a player who knows the rules inside out is a useful resource for a GM to have at the table.

Hewever, rules lawyering is bad.

Rules lawyering is often considered one of the most annoying things a player can do. It's when a player with extensive knowledge of the rules uses said rules to browbeat the GM into submission.

It's also using knowledge from outside the PHB. I'm looking at you all you Polymorph fans who know the Monster Manuals inside out. I know you could say your character is using Lore skills to know about these things. But hand drawn pictures and hand written accounts aren't going to give an accurate idea of what things are really like.

Never heard of a cameleopard? Or seen a Chinese lion? They are based on secriptions of real animals. And they aren't even close to the real things.

[Roderick_BR]

In my group, we call "Rules Zero" as "common sense". And that's it.

[Boci]

In my group, we call "Rules Zero" as "common sense". And that's it.

But what about when the DM generally makes a mistake:

DM: The demon casts mirror image on himself.
PC: Don't I get an AoO?
DM: No because he was using a spell like ability and they do not provoke AoOs.
PC: Yes they do. Since he cannot take a 5ft step away he will need to cast defensivly or provoke an AoO.

Is the Dm just su[pose to say "Rule 0"?

[KellKheraptis]

But what about when the DM generally makes a mistake:

DM: The demon casts mirror image on himself.
PC: Don't I get an AoO?
DM: No because he was using a spell like ability and they do not provoke AoOs.
PC: Yes they do. Since he cannot take a 5ft step away he will need to cast defensivly or provoke an AoO.

Is the Dm just su[pose to say "Rule 0"?

Personally I say he takes his AoO and rereads the rules.

[Piedmon_Sama]

If the DM has been assuming that (Sp) abilities didn't provoke AoOs along with the party for a long time, and it's been working fine, then sure (that was what was going on with the Charging example I gave). If the DM thinks it's dumb that (Sp) abilities take longer than casting spells (I never understood why they made it that way myself), then it's his game and his right to change it. He probably shouldn't arbitrarily change it over the protests of his players, but I think virtually every campaign will have little deviances like that because the DM thinks it makes more sense a different way, or just doesn't like a certain rule (like I think it's retarded that putting an arrow in a bow and drawing aim is effectively treated as a free action by the game, so I changed it.)

[Pluto]

Rules Lawyering doesn't go far when I DM.

Partially because my group plays very loose with the rules.
Partially because the rules are often silly and problematic.
Partially because the game is broad enough to have innumerable miswordings and loopholes.

Printed rules don't go as far as situational rulings.

For example, if a Warmage player argued that Rainbow Servant has full casting because text trumps table, and if I hadn't noticed him struggling alongside the party Soulknife and Fighter, I wouldn't let that fly.
If a Warmage player asks for Rainbow Servant to grant full casting because he's struggling to contribute beside the party Artificer and Factotum (and if I've noticed him struggling), I'll throw him a bone.

If I believed that WotC had created a perfect game, I probably would listen a lot more closely to the rules and people who nitpicked at them.

[Boci]

If the DM has been assuming that (Sp) abilities didn't provoke AoOs along with the party for a long time, and it's been working fine, then sure (that was what was going on with the Charging example I gave). If the DM thinks it's dumb that (Sp) abilities take longer than casting spells (I never understood why they made it that way myself),

What do you mean? Most spells and spell like abilities both take a standard action to cast.

(like I think it's retarded that putting an arrow in a bow and drawing aim is effectively treated as a free action by the game, so I changed it.)

So archers cannot full attack anymore? They need to draw arrows and notch them as free actions others they can make only 2 attacks (assuming you change it to a swift action).

[sofawall]

I am known as a rules lawyer at my table, but I usually leave it outside the game. I tend to tell my DM the amusing things I've thought of/noticed/read online, but don't actually use the vast majority of them.

Leads to a lot of head-desking though.

[Runestar]

The DM's interpretation of a rule should always be the correct interpretation. It doesn't matter if the DM's interpretation doesn't make much sense or if most people would disagree with him/her. Some of a DM's duties are to interpret rules and to create new rules for conditions when the game rules don't apply to a particular situation. Players can advocate their position and argue for their side but when it comes down to it, the DM's interpretation ought to be the correct one.

But then he would be correct only because he is in authority (ie: he is the DM and his word is final) and not because he is an authority in the rules (he is correct because he has interpreted the rules correctly). The first is possibly the most expedient and convenient, but I feel it would be difficult to retain the respect of your players in the long run.

My stance however, is that in the interests of keeping the game flowing smoothly, players have to realize they won't really have the time to articulate their stand as much as they may want to, so I just go with a gut feel. I am certainly not going to let the session come to a grinding halt for 10 minutes while a player tries to figure out how a complicated rule might work. If he can show me the correct ruling/FAQ within 15 seconds, good for him. Forget it if he has to go trudging through piles of splatbooks. It just would not be fair to everyone else.

It is the lesser of 2 evils for me. We get together once a month to enjoy a solid 4 hours of roleplaying and monster-mashing, so we try to maximize that enjoyment. Granted, I do my best to learn the rules and prepare adequately, but in the heat of things, I will still forget some things here and there. Heck, I still don't quite get how grapple and flight really works, and if I use fiends, I will probably forget to apply their resistances every now and then.

[Piedmon_Sama]

What do you mean? Most spells and spell like abilities both take a standard action to cast.

Woops, my bad. Good thing the only time I threw a creature with (Sp) abilities at my players it got mashed before it could even take an action, so I never had a chance to make that mistake. :V

So archers cannot full attack anymore? They need to draw arrows and notch them as free actions others they can make only 2 attacks (assuming you change it to a swift action).

Others what? Sorry don't quite get your meaning.

[Boci]

Others what? Sorry don't quite get your meaning.

If drawing forth and notching an arrow is anything more than a free action, it prevents archers from full attacking.