Rules Lawyers

[Dancingdeath]

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?

[Batcathat]

I predict this thread will have the same issue as the one about GMPCs in that people will probably have different opinions on what exactly counts as a Rules Lawyer. Is it specifically someone who uses their knowledge of the rules to their advantage (and/or other people's disadvantage) or simply someone who's a stickler for the rules as written?

[Spore]

To put it bluntly and briefly.

I do not like sticklers for the rules, but I understand a need for a solid framework for the game. We had a DM, that enjoyed a bit of freeform where the rules ruined his fun, and gave a bit of freedom to the players as well. The lawyer in question was the only one whose character was actually sound by the rules and he refused to receive freebies outside the rules. I understood that sticking with the rules wouldve cut our character's power down which made him shine a bit more, because if your character is grounded in gritty-ish realism, and your DM removes rules that enforce such realism because they annoy the group, you are bound for a bad experience.

[CharonsHelper]

There two general things that people mean when they say "rules lawyer".

1. Rules Traditionalist: Those who want everyone to play by the rules. They may be open to house-rules, but they need to be consistent house-rules known beforehand - and none of this "seat of the pants" calls etc. (Full disclosure: I lean pretty heavily this way - though I'm 100% fine with house-rules which are known quantities. Usually. )

Having one or two Rules Traditionalists at the table CAN be very beneficial - as they know the rules and can chime in to help - and they will play the rules just as hard on themselves as everyone else. But they can be a bad fit for GMs/tables who don't really care about the rules and want to play seat-of-their-pants style.

2. Rules Sharks: These are the players who try to always get more for their character. They always read the rules in the best possible light for their character, and they're often inconsistent in how they want the rules read for themselves and the NPCs they're fighting. If the GM calls them on their misreading, they'll try to haggle to still get more than the rules state. etc. Nobody likes these guys.

[Quertus]

So, as a self-proclaimed Rules Lawyer, I agree with Batcathat that how you define the terms will change the outcome of the inquiry.

I believe in following the rules, and not allowing Knights to move diagonal, Pawns to take 3 turns in a row, or Queens to spawn Bishops at random intervals, no matter what the demands of The Plot, no matter to whose advantage the rules are.

I also happen to enjoy a good rules debate - it really is one of the most fun parts of a game. (Mind you, that was a good rules debate - most anyone who is not my brother probably isn't capable of a good multi-hour debate; most IME aren't capable of good debate for even a few minutes).

But that wasn't the question. The question was, are they evil. And yes, yes I am batting for team Lawful Evil.

Still, I think that the idea of bragging about superior game knowledge, or GMs who quiz people on the rules is... strange. And "terroriz[ing] the group with their tiny shred of power" is the province of a bad GM, not of a Rules Lawyer. Maybe play with better Rules Lawyers people?

[Pex]

The good rules lawyers pick their battles. They don't question everything. If a character's life hinges on it say something. Otherwise gauge the room and the moment. If a player is at his most excited state enjoying the moment of absolute coolness but what he wants to do breaks the rules on a minor technicality, let it go and say nothing. If a rule break occurs but it doesn't make a difference to what's happening, let it go and say nothing. Say something when the error is blatant and it makes a significant difference to how the game is to be played. Most DMs tend to correct the error with no animosity. No matter what, when the rules lawyer does say something but the DM goes with the rule break anyway with full knowledge that's what it is, the rules lawyer should let it go and say nothing more.

[zarionofarabel]

As a GM I make it so I know all the rules of the system I am using that way the players don't need to so they can concentrate on playing their PCs. I do not use the rules to gain an unfair advantage over the players as I already have that advantage as I am the GM.

As for players that try to twist rules to give them an unfair advantage over me as a GM? Well, I simply have a dragon eat their PC!

As for players that try to twist rules to give them an unfair advantage over me as a player? Well, I would retaliate in game by having my PC attack and kill their PC! I also make sure that my PC is the most powerful combat PC in the group so this is an easy task to accomplish in case this scenario arises.

As for players that simply learn the rules and use their knowledge of the rules to assist a GM who doesn't know the rules as well as they should, well, more power to them!

NOTE: As GM you should know all the rules to the system you are using. If you don't, switch to a system that uses simpler rules so you can remember them all. Personally I can't stand a GM that uses a system that is too complicated that they can't remember all the rules. There are systems out there with rulesets that fit on an index card!

[Vahnavoi]

You might as well ask: lawyers... are they evil?

Because we all know what the stereotypical answer to that question is, and the concept of "rules lawyer" evokes it. Lawyers are evil... because the stereotypical lawyer is thought of as arguing from dubious interpretation of law for a case of dubious morality, in a distinctly smug and self-serving manner.

Of course anyone who behaves remotely like the stereotype is a god-damned pest.

But if you're willing to look past the stereotype, then no, #notalllawyers are evil. It's perfectly possible that the guy thumping the rulebook and arguing for a specific rules interpretation that's in their advantage... is being perfectly reasonable, right and justified. I still don't like rules lawyering during actual play. It takes time and attention from playing the game. If your case cannot be made and solved in a minute or so, then save it for after the game or between sessions.

[Jason]

Depends on what you mean by "Rules Lawyer", because having someone in your games who knows the rules in addition to you the GM can actually be very helpful, if they use their powers for good rather than evil.

Having someone who likes to interrupt a typical action scene to point out that you didn't use exactly the right modifier and then is willing to bring everything to a screeching halt to debate the point is not helpful.

Having someone the other players can ask obscure rules questions to while you are handling someone else's obscure rules question is actually very helpful.

[NigelWalmsley]

Rules are vital to the operation of a TTRPG, because it is a cooperative medium that depends on everyone being able to agree about what is happening and what the effects of actions are. In a book, a monster can simply be however tough the plot requires it to be, and the heroes can defeat it or not defeat it based on how the author thinks the plot should develop. That doesn't work in a TTRPG. The monster has some stats, and the players have abilities and choose tactics, the monster will be defeated or not defeated in some way that is nominally fair based on the rules.

That said, this doesn't mean that you have to follow the printed rules exactly. But it does mean that if you are going to deviate from those rules, it should be done openly and explicitly because it produces a better game, rather than implicitly because you simply forgot what the rule was supposed to be (or thought it was clashing with your vision for the story). Frankly, "rules lawyering" is often a result of two people with roughly similar levels of familiarity with the rules, one of which simply happens to remember a rule the other forgot.

[Spiderswims]

Rules Lawyers.... are they evil?

No? More annoying then anything. But they are easy enough to put in their place.

As long as you are playing a RPG like D&D that is very complex and has tons of content. A rule lawyer might whine "that orc is moving faster then the Official Rules Official Normal Orc Movement Rate!" And as a GM you just need to sit back and laugh "Hum, oh why yes, it does appear that way...wonder what feat, magic item, class ability, power or magic effect that orc could be using...hummm".

And it's easy enough to block the rules sharks....really all you need to is shark up the game and watch the feeding frenzy. You will watch the rule shark whine quick enough "wait no fair, the drow are using my rule trick!"

[JNAProductions]

It depends.

A Rules Lawyer who strives to make sure the rules are applied properly and fairly is generally good for the table-they can take it too far, but if they're a good player, they'll understand that when the GM says "This my ruling, and that's how we're doing it," it's time to drop it until at least the end of the session.

A Rules Lawyer (described above as a Rule Shark, which is a term I have not heard before but like a lot) that is trying to game the system for their advantage, ignoring rules when it would detract from them but being a stickler when it helps them, is just being a bad player.

Back when I was playing 5E in a gaming shop, I was far and away the most knowledgeable on the rules. The DM would goof up reasonably often, and it was usually a quick fix. As an example, we were fighting... Magog, I think, and he made an attack of opportunity against a target he couldn't see. I pointed out you can't do that, the DM asked if I was sure, I said yes, and there was no more attack of opportunity.

Part of it also depends on the GM's style and announcements. If the GM starts at session zero with "So, I'm going to be sticking with rule of cool and rule of fun, rules be damned," then I would expect a Rules Lawyer to either not play, as the table is not for them, or to accept it and not point out when rules are broken. If the GM says "We'll be sticking to the rules, excepting for these houserules," and then gives a short list of explicit houserules, then it's much more reasonable for a Rules Lawyer to point out when someone goofs.

Above all, whether or not I'd like a Rules Lawyer at the table really depends on what they're like as a player. Fair and equitable, fun to play with, and knowledgeable? Fantastic! A conniving almost-cheater who's looking for every advantage and doesn't care about other people's fun? Nope. Not allowed at my table.

[Alcore]

Rules Lawyers.... are they evil?

i don't think of myself as evil... doee that count?

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.

.... while i do take the role of wet blanket that second sentence sounds more like a mix/maxer or power gamer...

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.

wow...

The minutae being so overlooked is part of why i don't DM anymore...

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?

probably not.

Some DMs appreciate my presence. In a Play by Post game there was this pit and the players were all on and i remarked what the DC should be to jump over (someone asked). By the time the DM came back online we crossed the pit, fished the gnome out of the hole, role played and we were ready for him.


Others would ask me a question or start a discussion on how one could build X (fortunately i don't optimize characters so character related questions were rare). Sometimes, after the DM ruled something* and we carriedvit out i would mention a rule system in some obscure book that was exactly what was needed.

*never undercut a DM. Private message or nothing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't mind someone reminding me/the DM that we agreed to resolve certain situations <like so>. As long as they don't do it in a nasty or accusatory tone. Often "didn't we say we'd <X>?" or "isn't the default rule for that <Y>?" is enough. It leaves room for me (or the DM) to say "yes, but because of <PDQ>, I think we should <ABC>" as well as "doh. Yeah, you're right." I also don't mind people acting as resources for answering "what's the best way to do <X>?" or "what's the default way to handle <Y>?"

What I can't stand is people weaponizing rules. "You have to/can't do <X> because pg 666 of rulebook ABC, combined with this one phrase (ripped totally out of context) in this other obscure text means that you have to..." or "but the rules say I have to <X fun-unfriendly action>". Rules are not sacred texts. And, more importantly, neither are your interpretations of them, even if backed up by legions of internet folks. Because that's what it comes down to most of the time. People insisting that their own personal interpretations are "the rules". And often using that as an excuse to cover party-fun-unfriendly behavior. It's My Guy Syndrome, Rules edition. Printed words make poor weapons and even worse shields. You can't deflect blame for your own actions onto the rules. They didn't make you do anything. You chose to act that way, and then blame the defenseless and innocent rules.

If the rules ask you do un-fun things, ignore them or change them. They exist as suggested resolution mechanisms and content to help the group as a whole have fun. They're not in control. They can't be--they're inanimate. Only people can make choices. And only people can bear responsibility for their choices.

As a side note, I firmly believe that the DM (in D&D at least) can't break the rules. Because he's given the express authority to disregard or change any rule at any time for any reason. This does not mean that he should do so, especially not for no reason. But he's not bound by the rules; he makes the rules. Of course, that means he bears greater responsibility if (and when) he screws up. Something something Spiderman.

[ExLibrisMortis]

There's nothing wrong with rules lawyers per se. But yes, a part of the asshattery you encounter in gaming is due to or worsened by rules lawyering. Knowing the rules gives a certain power; the baseline assumption of playing a game is that you follow the rules, so an appeal to the rules can be an effective way to guide others' behaviour at the table. As such, asshattery supported by rules knowledge can be more difficult to deal with than "regular" asshattery.

As a side note, I firmly believe that the DM (in D&D at least) can't break the rules. Because he's given the express authority to disregard or change any rule at any time for any reason. This does not mean that he should do so, especially not for no reason. But he's not bound by the rules; he makes the rules. Of course, that means he bears greater responsibility if (and when) he screws up. Something something Spiderman.

This is the concept of discretion (or prerogative).

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is the concept of discretion (or prerogative).

Yes, and as far as the game is concerned, the DM is Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary all in one. Only a full-scale revolt can stop him (with drastic consequences). SO legally (using game rules as laws in this analogy), he's unassailable. Morally (and practically if he wants to have a game), there's a lot of things he should not do.

The point being, telling a DM "You're wrong, the rules say you have to X/can't do X" is meaningless. The rules say that the DM can do whatever he wants. It's better to say "if you don't rule X/do rule X, that would be bad for the fun of the table because PDQ reasons." Rulebooks make for very bad weapons. And the reverse goes for a DM claiming that they have to do X (where X is something anti-fun) because the rules say so. Rulebooks make even worse shields.

[Dancingdeath]

Yeah I didn't mean literal evil. Semantic arguments are illogical and piss me off. Maybe I just mean arrogant players/GMs. Or both to a degree. They're fun killing nozzles for feminine hygiene products and should be thrown out after one use.... for the same reason.

My cardinal rule is Story>Rules 100% of the time. We're adults playing make believe. You can't get too serious about it or the whole thing falls apart.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Yeah I didn't mean literal evil. Semantic arguments are illogical and piss me off. [...]

My cardinal rule is Story>Rules 100% of the time. We're adults playing make believe. You can't get too serious about it or the whole thing falls apart.

(1) Semantic arguments are not illogical. All logical arguments require semantics. Each logic itself has an appropriate semantics--that's part of the definition of "logic" (there's a lot of interesting differences between formal and natural language, too!). What I think you dislike is hair-splitting about the meaning of words (like what I'm doing now), but sometimes it's still important to make the point (like now, when you say bad things about my beloved semantics).
(2) Exactly because we are adults, we can get very serious about playing make-believe. I'm a grown-up gamer using grown-up cognitive skills to play grown-up make-believe. The thing doesn't fall apart until you stop playing.

[NigelWalmsley]

The whole point of having rules is to take them seriously. If you don't want people to argue about what the rules mean, you can play a ruleslight game like Munchausen. I promise you that you will have zero disputes about what the rules covering the game are. But the downside of that is that you don't have any rules to keep the story on track for a specific genre or setting.

[Alcore]

You see, I just don't believe that story trumps rules all the time. There is this thing called suspension of disbelief. I'm sure we have all heard of that term cuz building a story with dungeons and dragons tends to require building something like a bridge. You got to make it believable and you can do this by grounding it with rules. Thus you build the belief that the world is believable and we can all escape into fantasy Land.


Every one of my settings to date, even if all I'm doing is writing a novel, has rules grounding it. Nothing breaks my suspension of disbelief like a villain that just has as many minions as he needs, who has as much money as he needs, and everyone just travels at the speed of plot. So all my maps are hex maps with a hex having a specific amount of miles in it. Each kingdom has its own stat block with its number of troops carefully placed or not so carefully. The point is it is that there is a finite number of them and the kingdom can only generate just so much capital to support so much of a kingdom. Even my towns have stat blocks usually they are so small that they don't actually register on the kingdom scale but they are there. I take these from the number of systems. Dungeons & dragons 3.5 edition, Pathfinder, mutants and masterminds second edition. that last one is more for novels when I don't want any main characters, whether heroes or villains, to follow a predictable level progression.


I suppose I'm less of a rules lawyer and more of a simulationist. I like to think that I'm not too bad about it.


Cuz if I can build a world that's believable enough no one will question when something doesn't quite work right when I make a mistake. Because the suspension of disbelief holds it up well enough that the players, or the audience if they're reading a novel, can simply enjoy themselves.




Sounds like you got burned pretty bad by someone you consider a rules lawyer. They probably are. Just try to bounce back and don't let this incident hold you back.

[Dancingdeath]

These are words I'm typing. Anyone wish to argue about that?

[Zhorn]

These are words I'm typing. Anyone wish to argue about that?

I will argue!
I have no direct counter to what you have written, but in your writing you imply that the use of wish is permissible, therefore I would like to use wish, as permitted by your very writing, to change your statement to include an assertion we all know to be false and worthy of argument!

[Rynjin]

There two general things that people mean when they say "rules lawyer".

1. Rules Traditionalist: Those who want everyone to play by the rules. They may be open to house-rules, but they need to be consistent house-rules known beforehand - and none of this "seat of the pants" calls etc. (Full disclosure: I lean pretty heavily this way - though I'm 100% fine with house-rules which are known quantities. Usually. )

This is pretty much the camp I fall into, as both a GM and a player. I think houserules are fine, and even on the fly calls; so long as they're consistent. I have a friend who houserules away people being Flatfooted on the first round of combat for Pathfinder (with the caveat that they're still vulnerable to Sneak Attack), and that's fine; it's not the way I run things, but it's fine.

The problem comes win when you have a guy who says "people aren't Flatfooted on the first round of combat" and then forgets 3 sessions later and tries to whack your Flatfooted AC and gets huffy if you call them on it.

No? More annoying then anything. But they are easy enough to put in their place.

As long as you are playing a RPG like D&D that is very complex and has tons of content. A rule lawyer might whine "that orc is moving faster then the Official Rules Official Normal Orc Movement Rate!" And as a GM you just need to sit back and laugh "Hum, oh why yes, it does appear that way...wonder what feat, magic item, class ability, power or magic effect that orc could be using...hummm".

As long as you, as the GM, made sure to build them that way, sure. If you made a mistake of some kind and are just trying to bluff to cover it, that's just kind of toxic.

[MoiMagnus]

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?

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.

[Unavenger]

(1) Semantic arguments are not illogical. All logical arguments require semantics. Each logic itself has an appropriate semantics--that's part of the definition of "logic" (there's a lot of interesting differences between formal and natural language, too!). What I think you dislike is hair-splitting about the meaning of words (like what I'm doing now), but sometimes it's still important to make the point (like now, when you say bad things about my beloved semantics).

...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.

Now can we please resume saving the world?

[Tanarii]

If the rules ask you do un-fun things, ignore them or change them.

As a side note, I firmly believe that the DM (in D&D at least) can't break the rules.

But the DM believes the party surviving isn't fun. The rules are there for the players protection. Clearly carefully defined rules, and quoting them when broken, is the only defense.

[noob]

No? More annoying then anything. But they are easy enough to put in their place.

As long as you are playing a RPG like D&D that is very complex and has tons of content. A rule lawyer might whine "that orc is moving faster then the Official Rules Official Normal Orc Movement Rate!" And as a GM you just need to sit back and laugh "Hum, oh why yes, it does appear that way...wonder what feat, magic item, class ability, power or magic effect that orc could be using...hummm".

And it's easy enough to block the rules sharks....really all you need to is shark up the game and watch the feeding frenzy. You will watch the rule shark whine quick enough "wait no fair, the drow are using my rule trick!"

What that player did was not rule lawyering but instead basic rule ignorance.

Monsters have whatever stats the gm gives them and it can be the ability to run at the speed of light and destroy galaxies if the gm wants the monster to in dnd like rpgs due to the word of the gm is law structure of dnd likes games and the ability they often give to just add content as wanted if you are a gm.

Just because a player thinks they are a rule lawyer does not means they are one.
A real rule lawyer would be doing stuff when they have proof: for example their friend try to throw a moon at the planet and they say "hey this moon is above your carry capacity by 10 grams because you did let your axe fall on it 1 minute ago and your tophat of splendour apply only to social checks and not to checks based on splendour"

[Saint-Just]

...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.

Now can we please resume saving the world?

Let justice be done, though the world perish! You made a general statement about semantic arguments (they are illogical), ExLibrisMortis made a specific statement (semantics are required for logical arguments), and then you act like your original point was about bad semantics. But it was about semantic arguments in general. Bad semantics, anyone? That's what I get for trying to answer two posts in haste. Sorry.

Just because a player thinks they are a rule lawyer does not means they are one.
A real rule lawyer would be doing stuff when they have proof: for example their friend try to throw a moon at the planet and they say "hey this moon is above your carry capacity by 10 grams because you did let your axe fall on it 1 minute ago and your tophat of splendour apply only to social checks and not to checks based on splendour"

If you make a parallel with real-life lawyering, lawyers are supposed to be able to see opposing side arguments. Even when there is an impartial judge not being able to disprove the opposition's arguments would make a lawyer nearly (but not absolutely) useless.

There is a significant difference between between house rules (which are very widely accepted), internally consistent but non-obvious situations ("I said to players this is a kobold, but in truth it is a doppelganger, so he is much stronger than he looks") and outright mistakes. And therefore there is a significant difference between DM who takes care to disambiguate those situations (and make sure it is not a third one) and a DM who see any disagreement with them as a challenge to their authority (or always say "yes, yes, I am sure, I will not tell you why").

[Unavenger]

Let justice be done, though the world perish! You made a general statement about semantic arguments (they are illogical), ExLibrisMortis made a specific statement (semantics are required for logical arguments), and then you act like your original point was about bad semantics. But it was about semantic arguments in general. Bad semantics, anyone?

I made no such "general statement". I'm not the same person as the OP, unsurprisingly, which is what these weird "Username" and "Avatar" things are for (although I should at some point get a personalised one, mine is still different from OPs, so the point stands).

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.

[Pex]

But the DM believes the party surviving isn't fun. The rules are there for the players protection. Clearly carefully defined rules, and quoting them when broken, is the only defense.

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