What do you do with a rules-lawyer? [3.5]

[celestialkin]

Edit:
Sorry, I got in a little bit of a rant down there after finally saying whatever the player wanted to hear after he kept insisting and insisting and insisting on a set multiple for magic items, after I kept telling him again and again to not even worry about magic items, since there are beyond ware in my setting/multiverse and he COULD NOT BUY THEM NORMALLY, if at all.

Spoiler

Show

Oh my Sardior, how many times do you have to point someone in the direction of that page in the DMG saying "The rules aren't in stone, and fun take priorities over mechanics" until you finally get it through their head that you couldn't give a rat's posterior about the mechanics.

Don't get me wrong, I try my best to make sure I stick to the mechanics so that I am not simply giving victories away, or simply killing their PCs off, but that is just my playing style. Geez. There is a chance this player/other DM (who I quit his game already...) might no longer be able to come for a year due to his possible new work schedule at his job, and I am actually hoping for it. Id prey for it if I had a god. Honestly, does this make one a bad DM and/or person?

So, do other DMs suffer similar problems? Does it get to you as bad as it just did for me?

Either way, how do you all handle this issue?

If you like, want to share some of your own stories to vent (as I did, sorry)?

[bosssmiley]

1. Make sure the rules lawyer is aware of Rule 0.
2. Tune out the whining.
3. Exploit their knowledge of the rules for the greater good of the party.

[Charity]

The Bossman, he speak many truth, the sage say 'your opponants strengths become your strengths when suitably harnessed'.

[FatherMalkav]

Honestly just sitting down with the player out side of the game and talking is the best option. It's a tired suggestion i know, but it works. The guy sounds like a jerk so he may not back down. Just remind him, this is your game and you make the rules. If he doesn't like that he is welcome to find another.

[AKA_Bait]

Honestly just sitting down with the player out side of the game and talking is the best option. It's a tired suggestion i know, but it works. The guy sounds like a jerk so he may not back don't. Just remind him, this is your game and you make the rules. If he doesn't like that he is welcome to find another.

This is pretty much true.

As a note, I wouldn't call the person referenced a Rules Lawyer either.

Frankly though, if you are literally praying someone stops playing your game... perhaps it's time you asked them to leave.

[Telonius]

Ask your friendly neighborhood Bard:

First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

More seriously, most of the advice here is pretty good. The Guild does not require all Ye Olde Magick Shoppes to stock every single item in the DMG and Magic Item Compendium.

General availability of magic and magical items is the sort of thing that you really ought to make clear to the players before you start a campaign. Many disagreements can come about because of a difference between what they expect and what actually happens. This player was apparently expecting to be able to visit the local WalMerlin's and pick up whatever he asked for. He is being a royal pain about it, but there are a few things you could have done to head off the situation before it started.

Moving forward, I would definitely suggest you don't give in; don't give him exactly what he wants. Explain to the whole group, clearly, that items will not be universally available. But offer a compromise. There is a local magewright that might be able to help him out, for a fee, if he provides the base spells and half the XP required. If he doesn't have the spell, this could be a quest item.

[valadil]

I have a little trick that I use to preempt the rules lawyers. Instead of D&D we play Valadil's Game, an RPG tightly inspired by and closely resembling D&D 3.5. I make it clear that that's what we're playing and that it means I can do what I want with my game. I don't actually change rules very often. This just helps put the idea that its my game into my players heads and it dissuades the optimizers and builders from joining. It also puts players in the mindset that this isn't just another dungeon crawl.

[PnP Fan]

We've got a competitive rules lawyer in my group. He's also a good player, and a friend. This works well, because one of our GMs is much more interested in story than he is in rules. So whenever a rules question comes up, the DM just turns to our Rules Lawyer and says, "Hey, Lawyer, look this up for me." And he's happy to do that. It helps keep the workload on the GM down, and the lawyer is happy because his opinion is valued, and everything is being done "right". But not all rules lawyers are like this, and sometimes you've just got to give them the boot. not because they're lawyers, but because they're jerks.

[celestialkin]

Well, he is not quite a jerk. It just seems that he can't wrap his head around the concept that the rules are not gonna work as described in he books, if at all. Sort of like he can't quite function is such a...how can I put it...unorganized game or situation?

I believe I remember something about this in my developmental psychology class last year. Something about things started with an A word (basically, those who think that all things have many different solutions/ends, while the other are more "strict" and believe all things eventually lead to the same end/result, or something like that)?

Either way, out of the five of us in our group he, I, and another switch DMing our own campaign worlds each week. So I can't just kick him out, although I stopped going to his game. Hence why I am hoping he will not be able to come for another year.

I have a little trick that I use to preempt the rules lawyers. Instead of D&D we play Valadil's Game, an RPG tightly inspired by and closely resembling D&D 3.5. I make it clear that that's what we're playing and that it means I can do what I want with my game. I don't actually change rules very often. This just helps put the idea that its my game into my players heads and it dissuades the optimizers and builders from joining. It also puts players in the mindset that this isn't just another dungeon crawl.

We've got a competitive rules lawyer in my group. He's also a good player, and a friend. This works well, because one of our GMs is much more interested in story than he is in rules. So whenever a rules question comes up, the DM just turns to our Rules Lawyer and says, "Hey, Lawyer, look this up for me." And he's happy to do that. It helps keep the workload on the GM down, and the lawyer is happy because his opinion is valued, and everything is being done "right". But not all rules lawyers are like this, and sometimes you've just got to give them the boot. not because they're lawyers, but because they're jerks.

You know what, I think I'll try a combination of the two of these solutions above, along with the advice of having a sit-down with him (amazing something so simple never came to mind...).

I really do love that idea valadil. Simply brilliant if I do say so myself!

PnP's story reminded me of how things often end up happening in our games. I too prefer the story and plot over memorizing every bit of rules in the game, so I just realized that I too often look over in his direction when I need a quick rules-fix. Using rules-lawyers for the greater good does work I guess.

Much appreciated for the help guys!

[SadisticFishing]

Personally, I believe magic items are both fun and in the spirit of the game.

Not having magic items is like not having feats.

/shrug, I've never met the guy, but I may agree with his base point, to a degree.

Remember, the game is about fun for everyone. Everyone likes pulling out their new shiny sword, or that weird item they just read about and want to try out.

[Jack_Simth]

Get a 60-second timer (sand timers work well for this, as they're nice and visual).

If a rules question comes up at the gaming table, flip the timer, and give him the 60 seconds to make his case. If he can't bring it up with supporting documentation in that time, you make a ruling, which stands until the end of the session. After the session, he has all the time he wants to make his case, but the table ruling stands for the session, and events unfolded as described, even if you're convinced later. Catch: you must make a note and follow through on the "bring it up after the session" for this to work. Justification for doing things this way? Need to keep the game flowing as much as possible.

If you've got someone that seems under the impression they can simply buy any magic item wherever, ask them if they can point to a passage in the core books that says all items are available for purchase. You'd be amazed how many arguments a politely worded "show me where it says that" will actually halt.

[BRC]

Personally, I plan to write "Rule 0" on many pieces of paper, and then roll them up into little balls. When somebody tries to rules-lawyer at me in an annoying manner, I throw one of the paper balls at them.

[celestialkin]

Get a 60-second timer (sand timers work well for this, as they're nice and visual).

If a rules question comes up at the gaming table, flip the timer, and give him the 60 seconds to make his case. If he can't bring it up with supporting documentation in that time, you make a ruling, which stands until the end of the session. After the session, he has all the time he wants to make his case, but the table ruling stands for the session, and events unfolded as described, even if you're convinced later. Catch: you must make a note and follow through on the "bring it up after the session" for this to work. Justification for doing things this way? Need to keep the game flowing as much as possible.

If you've got someone that seems under the impression they can simply buy any magic item wherever, ask them if they can point to a passage in the core books that says all items are available for purchase. You'd be amazed how many arguments a politely worded "show me where it says that" will actually halt.

Dude, I have had one of this 60 second sand timers for about two years now, but I had never gotten the chance to actually use it. Plus that idea is great. Thank you!

[celestialkin]

Personally, I plan to write "Rule 0" on many pieces of paper, and then roll them up into little balls. When somebody tries to rules-lawyer at me in an annoying manner, I throw one of the paper balls at them.

What about little paper planes?

I am so printing some right now.

[BRC]

What about little paper planes?

I am so printing some right now.

I'm no good at making paper airplanes, or else I would use them.

The alternate plan is to write "Rule 0" on a piece of paper that you hang from a thwacking (or poking) stick

[Jack_Simth]

Dude, I have had one of this 60 second sand timers for about two years now, but I had never gotten the chance to actually use it. Plus that idea is great. Thank you!

Not my idea originally, but you're welcome. It's a very old idea, when it comes down to it.

A few corollaries:
1) If another player has an opposing position, they don't get to interrupt. They get their own 60 seconds of time on it.
2) You need to sell the players on the idea of this method BEFORE IT COMES UP. This is important. Ideally, you also need to get them to agree that it's a good idea to run things this way (most reasonable people will). You don't spring it on them when someone challenges a ruling - before a game session even starts, you mention it to them, and lay it out, and get them to agree to it before it's actually needed. If you simply spring the method on the players on the next rules challenge, it's likely to be seen as a roundabout method of simply dismissing them.

[Douglas]

If you've got someone that seems under the impression they can simply buy any magic item wherever, ask them if they can point to a passage in the core books that says all items are available for purchase. You'd be amazed how many arguments a politely worded "show me where it says that" will actually halt.

In this case there's a slight problem with that approach - it actually does say something to that effect in the back of the Magic Item Compendium.

A player points to an item published in this book or the Dungeon Masters Guide and asks, "Can I buy this?" The answer should usually be, "Yes."

Granted, if you read the entire section there are a few caveats such as the gp limit based on community size and the possibility of special circumstances or time constraints changing things, but the rules lawyer player is going to focus on that first sentence and downplay the rest and, for what it's worth, I think he'd be right. The only real answer to that is a combination of rule 0 and "not in my campaign", which I get the impression this player just doesn't understand.

[Jack_Simth]

In this case there's a slight problem with that approach - it actually does say something to that effect in the back of the Magic Item Compendium.

Granted, if you read the entire section there are a few caveats such as the gp limit based on community size and the possibility of special circumstances or time constraints changing things, but the rules lawyer player is going to focus on that first sentence and downplay the rest and, for what it's worth, I think he'd be right. The only real answer to that is a combination of rule 0 and "not in my campaign", which I get the impression this player just doesn't understand.

Funny how I specified "Core books", isn't it? There's a reason for that.

If you branch outside of Core, you get some contradictory things - like notes that if you lose the pre-requisites for a PrC, you lose all PrC abilities. This makes for some interesting things, like the Quantum Dragon-Disciple 10 (plus a many other transformative PrC's, the Ur-Priest, and a few others).

Outside of core is also where you go for most of the infinte loop gamebreakers, the more broken PrC's, and so on. Granted, not everything in core is reasonably balanced, but there's a lot more broken stuff in non-core than there is in Core (although much of that is due to there being a lot more non-core stuff than core stuff).

There's a lot of stuff in the Magic Item Compendium that permits casters to seriously step on other class's toes. Runestaves, for instance, greatly bypass the benefits of a Sorcerer's spontaneous casting over the Wizard's prepared casting. A Wizard with a good Runestave or two (which he has the ability to make!) is a lot harder to get into the "you didn't prepare for this" place where you force them to buff their allies so that someone else can get the spotlight.

WotC splatbooks really do need to be taken on a case-by-case, and often, page-by-page, basis.

[Oracle_Hunter]

How come nobody suggested the Universal Backup Plan?

Oh, right, you probably wanted a serious response.

[MeklorIlavator]

Did you tell the group before hand that this was going to be extremely low magic? And how blatant have you been? Are you just saying "no, you can't have that" or "No, there are no magic items in this verse"? If you aren't being blatant enough, it might not be rules lawyering, just rules confusion.

[LordOkubo]

We've got a competitive rules lawyer in my group. He's also a good player, and a friend. This works well, because one of our GMs is much more interested in story than he is in rules. So whenever a rules question comes up, the DM just turns to our Rules Lawyer and says, "Hey, Lawyer, look this up for me." And he's happy to do that. It helps keep the workload on the GM down, and the lawyer is happy because his opinion is valued, and everything is being done "right". But not all rules lawyers are like this, and sometimes you've just got to give them the boot. not because they're lawyers, but because they're jerks.

To be honest, as a Rules Lawyer, I find that most often the reason this can't be done is because DMs insist that the rules don't matter, and that my character doesn't need to know the limits of his own abilities. If DMs could just pretend for five seconds that they care about someone else's opinion besides their own it might make things a lot easier.

[BRC]

To be honest, as a Rules Lawyer, I find that most often the reason this can't be done is because DMs insist that the rules don't matter, and that my character doesn't need to know the limits of his own abilities. If DMs could just pretend for five seconds that they care about someone else's opinion besides their own it might make things a lot easier.

Well, it depends on what your arguing. In My Humble Opinion, I believe a DM has the right to run roughshod over any rule they want, under one condition,
that they tell the PC's about the change ahead of time, preferably before characters are made.


Now, rule Interpretations are different, though generally a DM should be open to players suggestions, and ready to say "No" if it's outrageous. If a houserule prevents somebody from doing something, the player should have the right to take back what they just did, under the assumption that the character would, in fact, know his/her own limits.

[Collin152]

What do you do with a rules-lawyer? [3.5]

Stick him in the scupper with the hose-pipe on him.
Er-ly in the marn-nin'.

[Aquillion]

Well, it depends on what your arguing. In My Humble Opinion, I believe a DM has the right to run roughshod over any rule they want, under one condition,
that they tell the PC's about the change ahead of time, preferably before characters are made.


Now, rule Interpretations are different, though generally a DM should be open to players suggestions, and ready to say "No" if it's outrageous. If a houserule prevents somebody from doing something, the player should have the right to take back what they just did, under the assumption that the character would, in fact, know his/her own limits.

The key thing to remember when invoking rule 0, though, is this:

The purpose of the game is for everyone to have fun. This includes all the players (both the rules lawyer and everyone else)... and of course it includes you, too.

But sometimes DMs lose track of this, and end up with a situation where they stick their feet in the mud and shout "HELL NO" over something stupid, houseruling relentlessly even when it isn't really making the game more fun for anyone involved.

Basically, in a situation like this, you're taking away a toy the player wants (whether it's a particular rules interpretation they like, an item, a class you're banning/modifying, whatever). If it's obvious they really want it, you have to step back, take a deep breath, and decide exactly why you're not allowing it -- would it unbalance the game and make it less fun for other people? Would it make it too hard for you to DM in some fashion or wreck something you put a lot of work into (making it unfun for you and, probably, unfun for all the players including the one asking for it, eventually)? Is there a way to work around these problems without denying the thing completely?

Once you've answered those, you can explain your answers to the player. If they still don't give up on it... well, sometimes people are annoying.

But basically, you should figure out what sort of game your entire group wants, and what sort of game you're good at / can enjoy providing, then try to find some workable compromise between all these. Try to have everyone be clear on what they want out of the game, what they're good at running, and so on. If you can't reach a compromise... there's not much to say. Sometimes people are just not compatible.

At least at first, try not to get into the mindset of blaming one person for everything, or deciding that their way of playing is "wrong". Everyone has their own way of playing; some people prefer more rigid rules, or a more by-the-book style. Others like more free-form with less dice and more decisions made on the fly. Mostly none of these are wrong. Instead, view it as an incompatibility between you and them, and try to resolve it.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Well, he is not quite a jerk. It just seems that he can't wrap his head around the concept that the rules are not gonna work as described in he books, if at all. Sort of like he can't quite function is such a...how can I put it...unorganized game or situation?

This is perfectly fine, provided the differences in the rules are outlined at the start of the game so everyone is aware of them. If rules change in the middle of the game, there had better be a really good reason. Usually, rather than houserule anything in the middle of the game, you should make a note about the matter, and discuss a houserule to correct whatever problem you perceive after the game. This is how I do it, mostly. "You know, guys, X is a bit too easy/hard, how about we change that?"

The GM is a Pratchett-style god -they get their power from the players willing to play with them. Just because you don't like X rule doesn't mean the players aren't all for it.

The rules in RPGs exist for good reasons - like mechanical consistency and predictability. Consistency is the most important facet, in fact - you have to be able to trust, with some confidence, that X is going to be resolved the same way each time.

Really, before making any sort of judgement about anything, you'd have to outline what the issue was. I'd be pissed off playing under a disorganized GM whose rules change all the time.

If it's just the magic items, that's gravy - my Dark Sun game had next to none, and if I do run my Ravenloft campaign, there'll likewise be nearly none. My 4E Dragonlance game is sparse on magic, too. But I sure hope you told the players before they even created characters for your game that there's no magic items (easily) available. That may not be every player's idea of a good game.

[chevalier]

Stick him in the scupper with the hose-pipe on him.
Er-ly in the marn-nin'.

I give you ONE INTARWEBS.

[Collin152]

I give you ONE INTARWEBS.

Bout time. I've always wanted one.

[Staven]

Instead of rules lawyering rules lawyers by citing rule 0, I dealt with one a different way. First, I broke his legs with an aluminum baseball bat. Then I showed him his precious copy of Unearthed Arcana before lighting it up. Once he starts complaining and saying he'll get a new one, I gave him a cataract (don't ask me how). Now, he can't read his rulebooks anymore, and I yelp loudly in his ear when he tries to remember some broken PrC. He's pretty much forced to RP now.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

I cast this:

Enforce Rule 0

Abjuration, Evocation, Transmutation, Enchantment (compulsion), Illusion (figment)
Spellcraft DC: 0
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: touch
Area: Worldwide (40.000 miles radius)
Duration: Permanent
Saving Throw: Natural 20 on will (see below)
Spell Resistance: No (see below)
To Develop: no cost (DC ). Seeds: Ward (DC 14), Weather (DC 25), Transform (DC 21), Compel (DC 19), Delude (DC 14). Factors: Ward against up to Epic spells (+180 DC), Up to 100 HD targets (+170 DC), Transform supernatural ability (+10 DC), Overcome transformation immunity (+10 DC) Remove Magic Immunity (+105 DC), Unreasonable Action (+10 DC), Stricter Compulsion (+11 DC), Delude all Senses (+10 DC), Follows Script (+9 DC), Appears other than it is (+4 DC), Increase area from 2 miles to Worldwide (+80.000 DC), +1000 vs dispelling (+2000 DC), +1000 spell save DC (+2000 DC), +1000 vs Spell Resistance (+2000 DC), Permanent (5x)
Mitigating Factors: 1997 additional casters offering 9th level spell slots and 20.000 XP each. (or 25.475 casters offering just 9th level slots)

This mighty spell rewrites Reality itself to the caster's wishes-or seems to. Affecting the entire world, it surpresses and prevents the casting of any spells or spell-like effects (including epic ones) the caster chooses (no save), transforms creatures, items and objects so that they lose abilities or shape the caster does not desire and compels creatures not to take actions the caster does not wish them to take. Any creature of 100 HD or less and any item or object is subject to this spell. Creatures that would have immunity to the compulsion are still affected because the immunity is stripped from them, magic items can be transmuted because their magic properties can be surpressed and magic immunity is not an obstacle to this spell's power. Magic, even epic magic, cannot be used to defend against, dispel, aid in resisting or controlling the effects of this spell because the spell surpresses such magic. The insidious nature of the spell is obvious (or rather not) due to the powerful illusion that conceals the presence of the spell from all senses; subjects will believe the results of the spell to be the natural laws of reality rather than an external alteration, explaining away failed spells and items due to the laws of magic, changed creatures and objects as the natural state of things and strange behaviour as choices of the individuals in question.
The spell, except for the part that controls magic, can be negated by a natural 20 on a will save for each individual or item but the spell's wicked creator has thought of that; the spell's effects take 10 minutes to apply, enabling the spell to be cast 10 times due to its 1 min casting time before any restrictions on magic apply, requiring 10 natural 20s in a row to resist (pretty much impossible)

[Raum]

I'm going to play devil's advocate - Are the rules a problem to the 'rules lawyer' because they don't match the book or because they aren't applied consistently within the game? To me they're separate issues. In the first case, the 'rules lawyer' needs to be told the book isn't being used for whatever rule / section. In the second, the DM needs to decide whether he's playing a game (which implies consistent rules) or simply telling an arbitrary story...and then be honest about whichever it is. Either way the initial onus is on the DM to communicate to the player.

Now if the player has been told what's going on and is ignoring said information...well you may have a player who isn't interested in playing the same game as the DM.