Rules Lawyers

[Quertus]

1) Some peoples get their fun from showing they're superior to the other players and/or from ruining the fun of others. Those peoples are problematic to play with, it doesn't matter if they are rule lawyers, munchkins, powergamers, or that guy that want to be the "main character" and have all the plot revolve around his "very special" PC.

2) A lot of peoples love arguing. But don't confuse that with them wanting to brag about their knowledge, or them wanting to "win argument at all cost". They're just seeking for sparing partner in those semantics and hair-splitting games. It is fine as long as they're not completely oblivious of their surrounding and don't notice that they are ruining the fun of the other peoples by killing the pacing of the game. For those kind of peoples, the best way to handle them is to convince them to postpone any argument to the end of the session, when all the uninterested peoples are packing their stuff and all the hair-splitters can start arguing.

3) Peoples prefer when situations resolve in reasonably predictable ways. The main problem is that not everyone predict things in the same way. Some peoples are here to play a game with rule, and find sticking to the rules much more predictable than making on-the-fly exceptions because it arbitrarily felt right to the DM. Some peoples are here to play a make-believe, and find following what the story would naturally create to be much more predictable than some obscure rule technicality leading to some absurd resolution.
=> When taking two peoples from opposite side, they will hate each others for pushing the game toward what they find illogical and unpredictable.

1 is, indeed, a problem. Well, the first part is only *usually* a problem - "showing off" can be done well.

Combining 2&3, it should be logically obvious that the people who don't like arguing should read the room, and spotlight share with those who do. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

If, however, your enjoyment is so fragile that you *cannot* share the spotlight, or your immersion so shark-like that it cannot survive when it stops swimming, then it seems to me that it would behoove you to give the rules lawyer the +2 "aid another" bonus, with a "he's right" or "that sounds cool - let's do that". If the whole table consistently does this (especially with a rules traditionalist), it communicates to the GM what kind of game you want run: a cooperative one, where everybody has fun, because you play by the rules, and do so quickly and efficiently. When the table consistently communicates that they are willing to stage such a "mini-coup", perhaps the GM will even be Incentivized to actually learn the rules of the game, to just natively run the type of game that the group wants: one that follows the rules, so that there's no need for rules lawyering, and you can remain immersed.

[icefractal]

Combining 2&3, it should be logically obvious that the people who don't like arguing should read the room, and spotlight share with those who do. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

That depends. If the rest of the group all likes to argue, then sure, either accept it or find another group. But if it's one person? I don't think "arguing about the rules" is an inherent part of the TTRPG experience that people necessarily sign up for when they agree to play D&D.

Like, if I wanted to periodically stop the game to play a round of Smash Bros, or MtG, I don't think anyone would need to "spotlight share" with me doing that - they'd be well within their rights to say "Do that some other time, right now we're playing D&D."

Also - "always side with the rules lawyer so things get moving faster"? That's assuming the player in question is even correct, and regardless it's creating a perverse incentive, the same way giving obnoxious shouty customers whatever they want just to shut them up does.


Which is not to say that I never rules-lawyer. But I always try to check the rubric for whether it's even merited:
1) Could the thing that happened plausibly be within the rules? For example, the GM has an enemy move and attack with two weapons. That's something that can be done with a feat that you can get at 1st level, so whether the GM remembered to actually give the NPC that feat I don't much care - they easily could have and it would still be the same CR.

2) Does it change anything? A player shoots at a prone enemy and hits by 10, but they forgot to take the take the prone modifier into account. But hitting by 6 is the same as hitting by 10 in this case, so no, it doesn't change anything.

3) Does it change anything important? On its last turn alive, the Ogre hits a PC for 7 damage. But really, it should have only been 5 damage because of some Strength damage it took. However, the PC didn't die and will still need the same amount of healing resources (because it's Lesser Vigor and will be enough for either, say). So while there was technically a change, it wasn't important. This one is a little subjective, because if it's very quick OOC, like a simple reminder ("Counting the bonus for charging?") then the threshold to be 'important' is much lower than if it's going to need an extended discussion.

The main area where I'd stress about something that other players might prefer to let fly is things happening "because plot", because that just grates on me. And even then, it's more that I want a justification. A city built so you can't teleport into it? Sure, that's possible, there's even a special underdark mineral to facilitate it. Some random forest blocking teleportation "just because" and not being considered unusual or strategically important by the world at large? Eh, now it bugs me.

[Cluedrew]

I think there are three things that could be meant by rules lawyers:

Rules Knowledge: Someone with an incredible knowledge of the rules. This is neither good nor bad it is just a tool basically.

By-the-Rules: Those who have a preference (perhaps a strong preference) for doing things by the book. Few house-rules and all should be clarified ahead of time. Generally with little time for rule of "cool". These people aren't evil but could be a mismatch with the rest of the group.

Exploitation: People who conveniently forget rules that they don't want to be applied them, argue for any rules that they think will benefit them and may even change their interpretations of a rule depending on the situation. If is actual evil in play styles than this one might be evil.

[ExLibrisMortis]

...Okay, so last time we had a thread mired in semantics, I objected to the semantics on the basis that people were choosing to define their good GMPC's into nonexistence rather than answer the question. Today, people are trying to define their bad semantics into nonexistence via bad semantics, which is extraordinary. To be clear, we are talking about the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings, or the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.

But anyway, the point is that semantics is a word with multiple meanings. OP clearly, obviously meant one of those meanings, and then along comes ExLibrisMortis committing the fallacy of equivocation and trying to pretend like they meant something different. Rather than assuming the OP meant something that was clearly nonsense, why not assume that they actually meant something that meant something, and argue against that? Unless, of course, there's no point arguing semantics (in the sense that OP and I both mean it), and even less point in arguing semantics about the word semantics, and the only way to defend that decision is by pretending that everyone means something they don't.

It's interesting that you do all the things you berate me for. No, we're not using that first definition. That's a non-standard use that you don't see much (and isn't in the Oxford or Cambridge dictionaries, not in the Wiktionary, and not mentioned in the wiki article on semantics or propaganda). It's pretty clear that you pulled up a non-standard definition just to support a complaint you were making anyway.

Funnily enough, even if we were using that definition, what I wrote applies. The statement "semantic arguments are illogical" isn't true under any interpretation of "semantics".

[JadedDM]

I think there are three things that could be meant by rules lawyers:

Rules Knowledge: Someone with an incredible knowledge of the rules. This is neither good nor bad it is just a tool basically.

By-the-Rules: Those who have a preference (perhaps a strong preference) for doing things by the book. Few house-rules and all should be clarified ahead of time. Generally with little time for rule of "cool". These people aren't evil but could be a mismatch with the rest of the group.

Exploitation: People who conveniently forget rules that they don't want to be applied them, argue for any rules that they think will benefit them and may even change their interpretations of a rule depending on the situation. If is actual evil in play styles than this one might be evil.

Only one of those three sounds like a lawyer to me.

[Unavenger]

No, we're not using that first definition. That's a non-standard use that you don't see much.

...

Are you kidding? That's the one definition of semantics that one sees all the time - literally every time I've heard someone say "That's just semantics." The first person to mention semantics in this thread said "Semantic arguments are illogical and piss me off." You then acknowledged that he meant "hair-splitting about the meaning of words" while simultaneously denying that he was using the correct word for it.

It's interesting that you do all the things you berate me for.

No.

You're the one who saw someone saying "Semantic", clearly referring to technicalities about the meaning of words - specifically the meaning of the term "evil" - and then decided that rather than the common definition that 99% of people use, and the only one that made any sense in this context, they must really have meant the technical definition that you had to link because you knew that the person you were responding to wouldn't be familiar with it. You knew that wasn't what they meant - because why would you have to explain what someone means, to them, if they already meant it? - and chose to challenge what they meant because you judged them to be using the word incorrectly.

They obviously didn't mean that the study of meaning was illogical. That would have been completely out of the left field. And the fact that you yourself acknowledged that you knew what he meant and chose to interpret his words differently because "The study of language is illogical" is an easier argument to counter than "Pedantry around what words mean is illogical" because the latter is and the former clearly isn't.

The statement "semantic arguments are illogical" isn't true under any interpretation of "semantics".

Then actually argue in favour of the idea that, as you put it, "hair-splitting about the meaning of words", isn't - at least as a general rule which it's reasonable to say when everyone's arguing about exactly what evil means instead of whether rules lawyering is bad (and yes, it was obvious that evil wasn't meant literally) - illogical.

[Quertus]

That depends. If the rest of the group all likes to argue, then sure, either accept it or find another group. But if it's one person? I don't think "arguing about the rules" is an inherent part of the TTRPG experience that people necessarily sign up for when they agree to play D&D.

Like, if I wanted to periodically stop the game to play a round of Smash Bros, or MtG, I don't think anyone would need to "spotlight share" with me doing that - they'd be well within their rights to say "Do that some other time, right now we're playing D&D."

Also - "always side with the rules lawyer so things get moving faster"? That's assuming the player in question is even correct, and regardless it's creating a perverse incentive, the same way giving obnoxious shouty customers whatever they want just to shut them up does.


Which is not to say that I never rules-lawyer. But I always try to check the rubric for whether it's even merited:
1) Could the thing that happened plausibly be within the rules? For example, the GM has an enemy move and attack with two weapons. That's something that can be done with a feat that you can get at 1st level, so whether the GM remembered to actually give the NPC that feat I don't much care - they easily could have and it would still be the same CR.

2) Does it change anything? A player shoots at a prone enemy and hits by 10, but they forgot to take the take the prone modifier into account. But hitting by 6 is the same as hitting by 10 in this case, so no, it doesn't change anything.

3) Does it change anything important? On its last turn alive, the Ogre hits a PC for 7 damage. But really, it should have only been 5 damage because of some Strength damage it took. However, the PC didn't die and will still need the same amount of healing resources (because it's Lesser Vigor and will be enough for either, say). So while there was technically a change, it wasn't important. This one is a little subjective, because if it's very quick OOC, like a simple reminder ("Counting the bonus for charging?") then the threshold to be 'important' is much lower than if it's going to need an extended discussion.

The main area where I'd stress about something that other players might prefer to let fly is things happening "because plot", because that just grates on me. And even then, it's more that I want a justification. A city built so you can't teleport into it? Sure, that's possible, there's even a special underdark mineral to facilitate it. Some random forest blocking teleportation "just because" and not being considered unusual or strategically important by the world at large? Eh, now it bugs me.

Interesting take.

If the GM wants to get the rules wrong, we should respond, "Do that some other time, right now we're playing D&D." Because I don't think "butchering the rules" is an inherent part of the TTRPG experience that people necessarily sign up for when they agree to play D&D.

OK, now that I've gotten that out of my system…

Pretty much agree with your 1-3, with the note that I put emphasis on the importance of the simple reminder ("Counting the bonus for charging?") & properly training the table.

-----

always side with the rules lawyer so things get moving faster?

Well, it will make things faster, and help everyone have fun, won't it?

Perhaps more specifically, Always side with the Rules Traditionalist. Always side with the "Rule of Cool" player. Don't play with the Exploitation rules lawyer.

Basically, anyone you'd actually want to play with, why aren't you backing them up? Especially if you don't have to answer, "what's in it for me?", because the answer is simple: that faster game you were craving (and accusing the other person of stealing from you).

Granted, this is only [good] if they're right (that the rule that they are expressing is correct / would be cool). Imagine if the OP in this thread had said "he's right" rather than sitting through a 2 hour rules debate.

Myself, I "he's right" whoever I believe is right, whether that's the player or the GM. IME, that's the way that the healthiest groups work.

But, for those who cannot go that far as to become the Rules Encyclopedia, and give a more… discriminating response, I'll contend that defaulting to "he's right" for the Rules Traditionalist will put you in a much better mindset - and a much better game - than just staying silent will. Same for defaulting to "that sounds cool - let's do that" for the guy with the cool ideas. I need to work on this one myself

-----

I don't think "arguing about the rules" is an inherent part of the TTRPG experience that people necessarily sign up for when they agree to play D&D.

I think I've gotta disagree here.

If I'm playing… Smash Bros, then the system handles the rules engine, and there's no "arguing about the rules" minigame.

But if I'm playing MtG? Yeah, "Loxodon Warhammer has errata that makes it use keyworded 'lifelink' now". "Fast effects don't work that way, and 'Interrupt' is no longer a spell type". Oh, and the judges got this one wrong: "Circle of Affliction has a triggered ability, meaning that you can only use it once per trigger" (my housemate came back from the pre-release raving about that card, and I had to correct him / what the judges had said).

So I think that anyone who signs up for any human-interpreted rules and *doesn't* realize that they've signed up for rules debates is delusional.

-----

But if it's one person?

This is actually the tricky part.

Bob is deathly afraid of spiders. It's just one person, but you're going to completely ruin the game for him if you summon spiders and bring out that cool spider mini you love and have been looking forward to fielding. In fact, that's *why* you built this character, and have been playing them for the past year in anticipation of this moment.

Do you summon the spider, now that you've learned about Bob's fears?

Playing the game "with cheats" (not by the rules) completely ruins the game for me. Now that you know this, do you allow the rules to be handled wrong, or do you allow the conversation where I explain how Circle of Affliction has a triggered ability?

-----

That said, morality is hard. Maybe the groups that didn't understand that metamagics added to spell level would have been happier had they remained ignorant of the rules. Maybe "fixing" their game, making them stop casting Maximized Empowered Cure Light Wounds out of a 1st level spell slot, actually reduced their net happiness.

Power, responsibility, something something.

[Tanarii]

Unfortunately, it's actually true for some DMs in black not blue text.

Sure.

And those DMs should be wanting to kill the PCs within the rules, and thus appreciate a successful rules lawyer.

[Altheus]

I wouldn't say evil as such, I don't mind discussions of rules but NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME!!!!!

Also, once the GM has spoken the rules lawyer needs to stop arguing for things. Also, not complaining about calls that haven't gone the way they wanted.

Rulings not rules is the way of things at my table.

[Dancingdeath]

This really isn't the site to go to if you just want people to agree with you that rules lawyers, however you define them, are awful.

[JNAProductions]

This really isn't the site to go to if you just want people to agree with you that rules lawyers, however you define them, are awful.

If all you wanted was agreement, I’d recommend not posting something on a discussion forum.

[Willie the Duck]

Rules Lawyers.... are they evil? I've encountered a few and they always kill the fun of a game. At least in my experience. If the only way they can feel they can have fun is to brag about their superior gaming knowledge then they can do so somewhere else. And God help you if you get one as your GM. They'll try to quiz people over rules, obsess over minutae, and generally terrorize the group with their tiny shred of power.
I may be a bit bitter over a recent experience with one over on rpol but I can't be the only one who feels this way right?

<preemptively replacing 'evil' with 'problematic' or maybe 'doing something wrong'>
Well, here's the thing -- much like 'powergamer,' 'min-maxer,' or whatever other gamer-type monikers one chooses to bring up, people most often use those terms for someone when they do the thing in excess or to the detriment of other people in the group having a good time. So are they a problem? Mostly only as a tautology since they don't get the term unless they are being a problem. Hardly unique to gaming. Sure you could use the term drinker for anyone who ever drinks, but if someone is known as 'a drinker,' it's probably because they drink to the level where it's a problem.

Beyond that, I am going to fall back on my standards of 'this is for what session 0 is designed,' and 'the purpose of the game is to be played and enjoyed, if something (anything) facilitates that, I applaud it, and if something is taken past that point and to the level where it is detrimental to that goal I do not applaud it.'

[Talakeal]

I think there are three things that could be meant by rules lawyers:

Rules Knowledge: Someone with an incredible knowledge of the rules. This is neither good nor bad it is just a tool basically.

By-the-Rules: Those who have a preference (perhaps a strong preference) for doing things by the book. Few house-rules and all should be clarified ahead of time. Generally with little time for rule of "cool". These people aren't evil but could be a mismatch with the rest of the group.

Exploitation: People who conveniently forget rules that they don't want to be applied them, argue for any rules that they think will benefit them and may even change their interpretations of a rule depending on the situation. If is actual evil in play styles than this one might be evil.

I agree, when people say rules lawyer they typically mean one of these three things, the trouble is figuring out which one!

Some people also use rules lawyer to mean someone who is exceptionally argumentative about rules, or simply unwilling to stop debating and let something go.

[CharonsHelper]

This really isn't the site to go to if you just want people to agree with you that rules lawyers, however you define them, are awful.

Can we say that people who paint large swaths of people with a broad brush as awful, are in fact themselves awful?

[Ajustusdaniel]

Now, depending on the system and who's running the game that night, I'll often have a better grasp of the rules as they apply to my character, than the GM does. When, for example, I'm planning to pull shenanigans with light levels, I've sat down and worked out the fairly complex rules governing the interaction of ambient light, artificial light, and magical light and darkness in Pathfinder. As such, when I've done that research, and then invested in game resources (spells known or prepared, feats, or magical items bought) I feel fairly comfortable asserting that it does in fact work according to the rules, even when they are counterintuitive.

On the other hand, because I play with largely the same circle of people and our GM/table relationships aren't generally adversarial, if I come up with a particularly bizarre or powerful idea, I'll approach the GM to discuss it before making that investment and give them the opportunity to nix it as a houserule.

[Alcore]

This really isn't the site to go to if you just want people to agree with you that rules lawyers, however you define them, are awful.

You wanted vindication? Definitely the wrong place to go.


You opened a discussion thread. You posed your questions and we answered. You have been mildly toxic for, and to, people providing different viewpoints.


Sorry you think i am an awful person and no amount of interection will ever change your mind...

[Cluedrew]

Only one of those three sounds like a lawyer to me.

Well I suppose it depends on the lawyer... and how broken the legal system is. But that is a debate for another day and probably a different website. Regardless to connections to real lawyers I know I only use one of the three but I have seen all of them used on occasion.

Some people also use rules lawyer to mean someone who is exceptionally argumentative about rules, or simply unwilling to stop debating and let something go.

I think that would be the "by-the-rules" type... or a particularly annoying sub-group of them. That one was definitely the broadest of the three - actually the first probably is the broadest, but not in a way that I feel it needs sub-division.

[ExLibrisMortis]

This really isn't the site to go to if you just want people to agree with you that rules lawyers, however you define them, are awful.

It really isn't. Sorry . If it's any consolation, it's the best site to visit if you want a rules lawyer on your side, too.

Spoiler: Mildly off-topic about semantics

Show

Are you kidding? That's the one definition of semantics that one sees all the time - literally every time I've heard someone say "That's just semantics."

Hmmm... interesting. I've literally never seen it used that way. I suppose it's an evolution of the common use of "semantics" to mean "arguing about the meaning of words rather than doing practical things" (this is the usage in Mirriam-Webster's first example), like the common use of "rocket science" to mean "very complicated stuff". It's metonymical; basically another word for "framing". Wonder why the dictionary doesn't just say "framing" .

It's possible it's more common in US English--Mirriam-Webster is a US dictionary, Oxford and Cambridge are British. I'm not precisely British, but my English leans that way.

(Also a good example of why pedantry around what words mean can be useful--regional usage differences can be quite striking.)

You're the one who saw someone saying "Semantic", clearly referring to technicalities about the meaning of words - specifically the meaning of the term "evil" - and then decided that rather than the common definition that 99% of people use, and the only one that made any sense in this context, they must really have meant the technical definition that you had to link because you knew that the person you were responding to wouldn't be familiar with it. You knew that wasn't what they meant - because why would you have to explain what someone means, to them, if they already meant it? - and chose to challenge what they meant because you judged them to be using the word incorrectly.

You know, I wasn't even talking about the use or meaning of "semantics" until you brought it up. I was pointing out that it's very funny to apply "illogical" to "semantics", which the OP might not have realized. Which is why I linked a page about the connection between logic and semantics. Maybe the humour was too subtle (I'll add more smalltongues next time), but it wasn't all that serious. This whole topic isn't that serious.

They obviously didn't mean that the study of meaning was illogical. That would have been completely out of the left field. And the fact that you yourself acknowledged that you knew what he meant and chose to interpret his words differently because "The study of language is illogical" is an easier argument to counter than "Pedantry around what words mean is illogical" because the latter is and the former clearly isn't.

You think I'm straw-manning, but I'm not--I'm actually arguing about something different than what you say I am. (To be clear: I don't think you're straw-manning me either. You're reading it differently than I intended. It happens.) What I take issue with is not "the study of language is illogical"--I mean, I take issue with it, but I don't think the OP meant that--but rather the idea that calling something "illogical" is pejorative (implying that "logical" is good, "illogical" is bad; I think the OP also meant to imply that "semantics"--in the "framing/hair-splitting" usage--is bad). People misuse "illogical" like that a lot, usually to dismiss things they don't like out of hand. Now, I think it's bad to associate "illogical" with "bad", or "waste of time", the way the OP and yourself seem to have used it here. So every now and then, it's worth challenging people on that sort of thing, in a light-hearted way. And the same thing goes for the use of "semantics"--even if we're talking about framing. It isn't illogical, it's not a waste of time, and it's not bad.

I'm pretty much done arguing about this in public--I think I've explained myself as much as is required. But you're more than welcome to send me a PM if you want to continue the discussion.

[icefractal]

Perhaps more specifically, Always side with the Rules Traditionalist. Always side with the "Rule of Cool" player. Don't play with the Exploitation rules lawyer.

...

Myself, I "he's right" whoever I believe is right, whether that's the player or the GM. IME, that's the way that the healthiest groups work.

Ah, ok, it sounded like you were saying "always side with the non-GM", which I'd disagree with - the GM is a player too, not some outsider who we should band together against.

But if I'm playing MtG? Yeah, "Loxodon Warhammer has errata that makes it use keyworded 'lifelink' now". "Fast effects don't work that way, and 'Interrupt' is no longer a spell type". Oh, and the judges got this one wrong: "Circle of Affliction has a triggered ability, meaning that you can only use it once per trigger" (my housemate came back from the pre-release raving about that card, and I had to correct him / what the judges had said).

Well, two things -
1) Competitive games have a greater reason to stick strictly to the rules.
2) MtG rules are much tighter than D&D and have definitive answers to most things that don't require "argue about what the paragraph structure implies and which dictionary definition of particular words is more applicable".

Even so, I'd say that if we were playing casually and someone insisted on doing things with tournament-strictness, that would be a mismatch. Like, say my turn comes up and I draw a card and then untap my lands. That's wrong. It's against the rules. But 99% of the time it makes no difference (assuming I didn't try to do something between the events, obviously). If somebody demanded the game to immediately end because of that mistake, I wouldn't play with them again.

Playing the game "with cheats" (not by the rules) completely ruins the game for me. Now that you know this, do you allow the rules to be handled wrong, or do you allow the conversation where I explain how Circle of Affliction has a triggered ability?

Sometimes players aren't compatible. If you require hour-long rules debates mid-game to have a good time, we shouldn't play at the same table. If we didn't find that out until after the game is already happening, one of us should probably leave - which one depends on how the rest of the group feels about it.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I've generally taken pride in knowing the rules and knowing what they mean as written, so maybe I'm a rules lawyer. And I don't think rules lawyering is evil. The rules fundamentally govern how a player interacts with the game and how a player can expect actions attempted to be resolved.

I recently got very upset at my GM because a fellow party member cast Dimension Door and was targeting a space he couldn't see that happened to be occupied. The rules say, in no unambiguous terms, that the spell fails and you take damage. The GM decided that the spell would succeed and the player would be shunted to the next open space and take damage. This is obviously a big deal and drastically changed what would happen, and was a huge save for the player in question.

[Quertus]

Some people also use rules lawyer to mean someone who is exceptionally argumentative about rules, or simply unwilling to stop debating and let something go.

I think that would be the "by-the-rules" type... or a particularly annoying sub-group of them. That one was definitely the broadest of the three - actually the first probably is the broadest, but not in a way that I feel it needs sub-division.

The more I think about it, the more I think I agree with Talakeal.

When I proudly proclaim that I'm a rules lawyer, I'm not saying that I'm knowable about the rules (some systems I am; others, I'm not). I'm not really trying to express that I'm a rules traditionalist (I mean, I am, and I think I'd like the GM to know that, too). And I'm certainly not trying to say that I'm into exploitation.

No, I think what I intend to communicate with that phrase is 1) that I *care* about the rules; 2) that I *enjoy* debating the rules¹.

Now, this can be viewed (by those who do not share the rules lawyer's passion for the rules) in all kinds of negative light, as an unwillingness to let things go. But, "dude - best part of the game!" Why would anyone ever "let that go"?

It's like role-playing - why would anyone ever "let that go", or expect to have to let that go (outside "my guy")? Why would anyone expect "make the group better" to be something to consider letting go?

¹ actually, is more than just "enjoy" - I find debating the rules *fulfilling*. We defeated the lieutenant of the Evil Legion of Doom? Meh. Could be a plot railroad, or owed to Arangee, and will matter for at most this campaign. But a good rules session? That's a victory that we came by honest, and that will stick with us forever - the group has actually leveled up their skills! Rules lawyering makes all games going forward better! It's like exercise, but fun.

[InvisibleBison]

No, I think what I intend to communicate with that phrase is 1) that I *care* about the rules; 2) that I *enjoy* debating the rules¹.

Now, this can be viewed (by those who do not share the rules lawyer's passion for the rules) in all kinds of negative light, as an unwillingness to let things go. But, "dude - best part of the game!" Why would anyone ever "let that go"?

I'm not sure how serious you're being here. But assuming that you're completely in earnest: Debating the rules isn't actually part of the game.

[Quertus]

Ah, ok, it sounded like you were saying "always side with the non-GM", which I'd disagree with - the GM is a player too, not some outsider who we should band together against.

Well, two things -
1) Competitive games have a greater reason to stick strictly to the rules.
2) MtG rules are much tighter than D&D and have definitive answers to most things that don't require "argue about what the paragraph structure implies and which dictionary definition of particular words is more applicable".

Even so, I'd say that if we were playing casually and someone insisted on doing things with tournament-strictness, that would be a mismatch. Like, say my turn comes up and I draw a card and then untap my lands. That's wrong. It's against the rules. But 99% of the time it makes no difference (assuming I didn't try to do something between the events, obviously). If somebody demanded the game to immediately end because of that mistake, I wouldn't play with them again.

Sometimes players aren't compatible. If you require hour-long rules debates mid-game to have a good time, we shouldn't play at the same table. If we didn't find that out until after the game is already happening, one of us should probably leave - which one depends on how the rest of the group feels about it.

For clarity, I *was* (mildly facetiously) encouraging "always side against the GM" - but as a "training mode". Gah, this is hard if you don't get the joke.

The GM is the one making the rulings; it is the process of making rulings (which is in the GM's hands) that this is intended to affect. Thus, it *looks like* "gang up against the GM", when, in fact, it is "gang up to make good process".

Or, if you want a longer version:

So, I don't *seriously* believe that "always side against the GM" is the optimal play. However, it takes 2 to tango rules lawyer, and, *usually*, the GM is always one of those two. So this technique is to train the GM to say "yes", and to train yourself to be involved. (Also, it's a reference to another poster saying that only rebellion overrides the GM, so I was encouraging "rebel early, rebel often".)

So, yes, I actually *could* see a group always siding against the GM (in fact, I've seen it IRL, when one or more of the players knew their ****, and the group repeatedly told the GM to can it until the GM got onboard). But even I don't actually "GM is always wrong" that way (although I should more often than I do for players with cool ideas).

So, no, it's not what I do, and I don't advocate it as a permanent solution, but, if a player lacks the ability to contribute in a better way, there are worse things to do in that situation than teaching the GM to say "yes". My contention is that "remaining silent" is one of them.

-----

Yes, sometimes, players really aren't compatible. However, as much as I enjoy multi-hour rules debates, I don't *require* them. So, if they're a negative for you, just "he's right" when it comes up, to get the GM to not drag their feet for multiple hours. That way, everyone can have their fun.

And, if an actually *interesting* rules question comes up, and I haven't been hogging the spotlight, maybe consider actually letting those of us who care crack open the books mid-session to see whether (say) the hardness of magical items actually changes in antimagic or not (most interesting sounding thread at a glance in the 3e forum). OTOH, if nobody knows, and nobody cares, I'm happy with a ruling on something like that.

Something fundamental, like, "do Metamagic feats require higher level spell slots" or "do we actually *have* to have an upkeep phase" I tend to want to actually research to get right; otherwise, I'm usually good with "anyone know the answer? Anyone care? No to both? OK, ruling?"

-----

Saying "tournament-strictness" is funny, because it was actually at a tournament where… darn senility… that one card got messed up. But those who play MtG with me know my mantra of "Untap, Upkeep, Draw" - and you'll hear children I've trained chanting it as they play.

My brother, on the other hand, managed to draw *before every single upkeep* when he had a newfangled rotting dinosaur in play, that made him discard a card every upkeep. Given that he's a spike who has won far more than his fair share of tournaments, I found *that* particular set of infractions annoying; most times, though, I'll just give a gentle reminder (not Nybor's).

-----

I've seen people argue both sides of whether having clear, tight rules should make rules lawyering more or less common. So I'll not weigh in on that at this time.

But "competitive"? No, I don't think that that's quite right. Puffer fish sushi is poisonous if done wrong (right?). Bad things can happen with nuclear reactors if you break the safety rules. Neither of those are competitive, yet they both sound like they'd have compelling reasons to stick to the rules.

I think what actually drives adherence to rules is the concept of stakes. Sure, competitions have built-in "win/lose" stakes, but the potential for the huge investment of time that a campaign represents to be wasted really *ought* to drive RPGs to follow rules more strongly than simple MtG matches, IMO.

[icefractal]

"Stakes" is pretty accurate I think, and I'm not going to complain if someone wants the rules done exactly right when it's a life or death situation for the character.

What I've seen though, is people going into full argument mode over something that will make no meaningful difference. Like - what does it matter whether the arrow did 10 or 20 damage to you here? You're not dead either way, and we're going to rest after this fight, so it's really pretty moot.

As for "training the GM to say yes" - that assumes that's a desirable goal. I've been in games where one player pressures the GM into things a lot, and it's not great. And I'd note that the GM always saying "no" is as fast as always saying "yes" - not that I'd want to play that way either, less so in fact, but hey, it is fast.

I guess I am stipulating something here - that rules lawyers (or at least players indistinguishable from rules lawyers up to that point) are not always correct. I've seen a fair number of people sure that the rules worked the way they thought, insisted on looking them up, and then ... no, they were in fact just wrong. Hence my not assuming "yes" is correct.

[Quertus]

"Stakes" is pretty accurate I think, and I'm not going to complain if someone wants the rules done exactly right when it's a life or death situation for the character.

What I've seen though, is people going into full argument mode over something that will make no meaningful difference. Like - what does it matter whether the arrow did 10 or 20 damage to you here? You're not dead either way, and we're going to rest after this fight, so it's really pretty moot.

As for "training the GM to say yes" - that assumes that's a desirable goal. I've been in games where one player pressures the GM into things a lot, and it's not great. And I'd note that the GM always saying "no" is as fast as always saying "yes" - not that I'd want to play that way either, less so in fact, but hey, it is fast.

I guess I am stipulating something here - that rules lawyers (or at least players indistinguishable from rules lawyers up to that point) are not always correct. I've seen a fair number of people sure that the rules worked the way they thought, insisted on looking them up, and then ... no, they were in fact just wrong. Hence my not assuming "yes" is correct.

Again, my stakes are "the entire campaign was a waste of time".

And training the GM to say yes to the rule encyclopedia rules traditionalist: knights cannot move diagonally like bishops, and you cannot just dump mana into Circle of Affliction.

Sure, the guy who *thinks* he knows the rules isn't always right. Which is why *I* side with whoever is right, so we can get back to something worth doing (I enjoy a *good* rules debate, not wallowing in human stupidity / ignorance).

But, if you don't know and don't care, if the player is someone worth playing with, why not side with them (and if they aren't, why play with them)?

My point is to try to change players' attitudes towards one conducive to changing GMs' attitudes towards creating a fun game for everyone.

And isn't that the goal, to have fun?

[Seto]

Not only is the question dependent on your definition of a rules-lawyer, it's also very system-dependent. If I'm running a narrativist system where the assumption of the game is that rules serve the story, I'm fine with twisting the rules. If I'm running Pathfinder, I try to stick to the rules as much as I can because mechanical consistency and depth is such a huge part of that system's design. It's the kind of game where players seek a challenge that can only be fair if everybody is relying on the same agreed-upon rules.

So, I very much welcome at my table a player with deep rules knowledge, able to volunteer information on specific rules that I don't have in mind. However, even so, there might be cases where I don't go with the rules. For example, when they involve a complex subsystem unfamiliar to me, and I don't want to get into it. Or when I think a particular situation benefits from ad-hoc rules: one session comes to mind where the players were hunting a giant boar, and dug a trap in the form of a trench with sharp wooden spikes to interrupt a charge. Rather than applying a preexisting trap statblock, I whipped up something on the fly with a modified attack roll (against AC for damage, and against CMD to stop the charge). I ran it past the players, who thought it was fair, and we went with it. Even when I improvise an ad-hoc rule, fairness and consistency with general resolution rules are my goals. In the same way, when I commit a rules error, I generally correct it after the fact if it's detrimental to the PCs, and I don't correct it if it was beneficial to them.

I however get annoyed by players who plead with me every time I make a ruling that's not the best possible outcome for them. Some people truly believe that bargaining and negotiating about what happens is part of how TTRPGs are played. Hell, I'm sure some systems encourage such metagame negotiations. But not D&D.

TLDR: It's not a question of rules, it's a question of attitude. The arguments might be about rules, it might be about realism, or rule of cool, but the "lawyer" attitude is the same. The annoying "lawyery" players are those who consider that "argue with the GM to promote your characters' interests" is a normal and expected part of every session, rather than a way to solve an actual disagreement. Like, if you've got a real concern about fairness, by all means, I'm ready to hear it. But "bargaining with the GM" is not a minigame that I enjoy.
To put it another way, I guess I'm ready to hear "defensive" use of lawyering - you should be able to argue your case if you think I'm treating your character unfairly. But "offensive" use wears my patience down quickly - "the circumstances are so favorable, I really should get a +5 to that roll".

[Talakeal]

One thing to remember is that RPGs are seldom written very precisely, and even the best written rules can still be misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise. So you often get situations where two reasonable people come away with different readings of the same rule, and in this case they may think they are one type of rules lawyer while their friends think they are another.


Another type of rules lawyer that I see quite often are people who go by the letter of the rules rather than the spirit.



Also, I think the exploitative type of rules lawyer might be the most accurate to the term. I have talked to several lawyers irl who say that a lawyers job is to make the argument that will win the case regardless of truth, personal beliefs, facts, or what is right (from either a moral or legal standpoint) and it is expected of them to argue one interpretation today and a totally opposite one tomorrow if it helps them win.

[Ajustusdaniel]

One thing to remember is that RPGs are seldom written very precisely, and even the best written rules can still be misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise. So you often get situations where two reasonable people come away with different readings of the same rule, and in this case they may think they are one type of rules lawyer while their friends think they are another.


Another type of rules lawyer that I see quite often are people who go by the letter of the rules rather than the spirit.



Also, I think the exploitative type of rules lawyer might be the most accurate to the term. I have talked to several lawyers irl who say that a lawyers job is to make the argument that will win the case regardless of truth, personal beliefs, facts, or what is right (from either a moral or legal standpoint) and it is expected of them to argue one interpretation today and a totally opposite one tomorrow if it helps them win.

Quoth Aaron Burr, "The rules of D&D are whatever are boldly asserted and plausibly maintained."

[Democratus]

Rules lawyers are the physicists of the RPG world.

• Invaluable in discovering new ways to apply the rules of the world.
• Capable of creating weapons of terrible power.

[Xervous]

I subscribe to the exploitative definition of rules lawyer as the standard context. That being said I’m generally in the encyclopedic knowledge category and often end up facilitating whatever game it is being played. I was promised X rules system as a player but there’s arsepullomancy and rules bending five different ways to service the plot? That’s just me being lied to and my time wasted. If you can’t be honest about the game you want to run, can run, why should I put such faith in you as a storyteller or referee?