On being a Rules Lawyer


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I've been accused of being a "Rules Lawyer" multiple times, now while I don't know how to respond to it, I do know I like to stick to the rules in regards to everything. I thoroughly dislike houserules, and I have the most complete working knowledge of the Rules across our gaming groups commited to memory.

Is there a limit to how far I should stick to the rules, or should I start trying to let things slide for the sake of no longer being called this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

House rules are not a bad think IMHO. "Surprise" house rules and arbitrary rulings are a different thing altogether. I think you should talk to others and find out why they don't want to stick to the rules. Personally, I don't like inconsistency. I think that is how a lot of "rule lawyers" are. I also don't see it as a bad term. In my groups(whenever I get to play) people often ask me, since it is more time saving than opening a book.

Liberty's Edge

You should let things slide for the sake of people (including yourself) having more fun.

Not for the sake of people who would tell you that the way you play is BADWRONGFUN.

Curiously enough, it is often the rules lawyers who are accused of spoiling other people's fun by telling them how they should play, while here it is the exact opposite.


As someone who has suffered of the "surprise house rules" and arbitrary rulings at times, I can say that they ruin fun a lot more than any rules lawyering does.
And trust me, I say this as a rules lawyer myself, but if the DM doesn't just suddenly houserule something, he usually asks me how the thing works by the book.


I tend to not let my vast knowledge get in the way of other peoples games, however recently I've been told in a somewhat nasty way that I'm a rules lawyer and nobody likes a rules lawyer.

I've also started getting groups of people who haven't played before to start, our gaming group has tripled to quadrupled in size since I've started bringing in more people.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

'Rules lawyer' means more than just sticking to the RAW.

The kind of person who usually gets called this is the kind of guy who quotes the rule when it's advantageous to him, but stays silent if a 'wrong' ruling benefits him.

Of course, you can get accused of this on these forums by anyone who disagrees with you! It's a bit unfair, especially in the rules threads!


Question: Is your rules-lawyering in the middle of a game or after? Are they longwinded arguments? What is your general tone when discussing rules?


Well, I definitely don't do that. If I know that a rule has been missed, I can usually quote ir or atleast find it easily to settle any dispute even if it negatively affects my character.

EDIT: I prefer to stick to the rules rather than improvise ina any given situation.


You can tell them what the rule is, and then let them decide if they want to use it or not. As long as they are made aware then you have done your job. You might want to run a few games also, if you are not doing so. It will help the newer players learn the correct way.


I run almost every game that everyone in our groups is in, multiple groups of 4, usually different adventures.

In fact I hardly get to play anymore becuase everyone relies on me to run, I really wanna run, hence I'm starting to turn to PBP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

'Rules lawyer' means more than just sticking to the RAW.

The kind of person who usually gets called this is the kind of guy who quotes the rule when it's advantageous to him, but stays silent if a 'wrong' ruling benefits him.

Of course, you can get accused of this on these forums by anyone who disagrees with you! It's a bit unfair, especially in the rules threads!

That is a munchkin* aka borderline cheaters. :)

They tend to "forget" the rules if their character is in trouble.

It is the job of the good rule lawyers to crush our evil twins beneath our heels so that people will love us, or at least not hate us as much. :)

I must be bored...

Serious comment:The rules lawyer has the stigma of being the guy who holds the game up arguing with the GM.


wraithstrike wrote:

Serious comment:The rules lawyer has the stigma of being the guy who holds the game up arguing with the GM.

I have been guilty of that before, but I try to let it slide. In our group it's called "GM Says" or "GM no Jutsu".

So I mostly stay quiet even if I know a rule has been missed.

Actually had an argument with one of the other GMs about how applying Archetypes worked, GM believed you could multiclass Archetypes even if they replaced the same thing. EG Rogue(Rake)2/Rogue(Sniper)2


I think the main problem that people (or at most times DMs) have with rules lawyers, is if the rules are blocking what they call the cool factor. Even though i am often for the rule of cool, then the suprise house rules can very easily make players mad, because it goes against the players expectations to the game, and i think everyone having the same exectations is important so as to avoid a bad group karma, hence the reason it is a good idea to stick to the rules.

Personally i have had multiple DMs that threw bosses with arbitrarily high CMD against our group, because i had a grappling monk and apparently it is not cool if the undead boss knight gets immobilized like that, which resulted in me being angry because i felt like the DM was just taking a dump on my char. This was due to the fact that my expectations not living up to the rules the GM wanted to run.

Other examples of suprise house rules include: Enemy soldiers being immune to all AOE attacks (caused by the boss), uncrittable bosses, auto succeed on spell casting checks for defensive and so on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes I just can't help but blurt out a correction.


Anomander wrote:

I think the main problem that people (or at most times DMs) have with rules lawyers, is if the rules are blocking what they call the cool factor. Even though i am often for the rule of cool, then the suprise house rules can very easily make players mad, because it goes against the players expectations to the game, and i think everyone having the same exectations is important so as to avoid a bad group karma, hence the reason it is a good idea to stick to the rules.

Personally i have had multiple DMs that threw bosses with arbitrarily high CMD against our group, because i had a grappling monk and apparently it is not cool if the undead boss knight gets immobilized like that, which resulted in me being angry because i felt like the DM was just taking a dump on my char. This was due to the fact that my expectations not living up to the rules the GM wanted to run.

Other examples of suprise house rules include: Enemy soldiers being immune to all AOE attacks (caused by the boss), uncrittable bosses, auto succeed on spell casting checks for defensive and so on.

I actually have a GM notorious for for doing that, and even when I ask how, he claims something or somesuch. Reason why I stopped playing under him.

Silver Crusade

If it makes you feel better, not only can I be kind of a rules lawyer, but I also have a JD.


Elamdri wrote:
If it makes you feel better, not only can I be kind of a rules lawyer, but I also have a JD.

JD?

Silver Crusade

A Ninja wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
If it makes you feel better, not only can I be kind of a rules lawyer, but I also have a JD.
JD?

I have a law degree.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Elamdri wrote:
A Ninja wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
If it makes you feel better, not only can I be kind of a rules lawyer, but I also have a JD.
JD?
I have a law degree.

Having a PhD degree in Law does help in running RPGs, certainly :)


I might consider doing Law, planning on doing University in 2 years. But back to the crux of the problem, am I wrong for bring a stickler for the rules


i would say only if it slows down the game a lot. What our group started doing was just look up the correct rules or discuss the rules between sessions and not during the actual sessions, so you dont waste hours in a meaningless discussion. Then we just make sure everyone knows the correct rule the next time.

Ofcourse there are things you might need to look up in the books during the game, but try to keep it to a bare minimum if you can.(or discussions with your fellow players to a minimum, if you remember all the rules)

Silver Crusade

Part of a DMs job is to make judgements, and sometimes that means doing something that is not 'by the book'.

However, if a rule already exists to cover a situation, you should start by following the rule. Only if you think that is not working do you think about changing it. If so, think carefully! There may be unintended consequences...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From a DM's perspective then, what I find problematic is that I very firmly see the rules as a framework for what I want to do with the game. Following rules ARE important, because it brings CONSISTENCY and thus PREDICTABILITY to the game. If a game does not have these qualities, people can't make their own judgements on strategy. Things fall apart.

However, it's not all or nothing. It is a degree of predictability that is necessary, not complete predictability. If I want to ignore a rule because I want something cool to happen, I am bloody well going to do so. I have never been a "killer DM" or anything of the sort. I don't ignore rules to kill PCs, I don't do it to feel superior to anyone. I do it, quite consciously, because I want something specific to serve my players.

What typically happens, though, is that one of my players pipes up EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. I make a judgement call. It's not enough to him that I have made a quick decision. He ALWAYS picks up the rulebooks and tells me what some obscure rule about horse encumbrance says. It delays things, it makes building a mood impossible, and it annoys me utterly. Sure, my mastery of the rules is far from perfect, but the time I have to prepare, I want to go into understanding the module/writing my own adventure. Reading up on horse encumbrance is not what I call worthwhile time investment. Long ago, I did have the time to do that... but no more.

And so, next campaign I DM, this guy is going to get ONE warning.

Silver Crusade

A Ninja wrote:
I might consider doing Law

Don't.

It's expensive, stressful, the market is bad, and lawyers don't make nearly as much as people think they do. I've got over 200,000 in loans and job prospects are looking pretty poor, and that's considering I graduated in the top third of my class from a good school.

Unless you have a family member who is an attorney or you are rich, I wouldn't recommend it.

OT: Sticking to the rules isn't bad per say. Houserules are fine, so long as the DM lets you know in advance. It sucks when you build a character around a specific concept and then a houserule sinks your build.

Arguing with a GM about rules is a very touchy thing. You need to have a bit of instinct for it. I certainly wouldn't let a GM constantly screw me over when the rules are in my favor, but at the same time, you don't want to be that guy who is constantly correcting and flipping through books.

Typically, if I have a problem in a game with a bad rules call, I note it and discuss it with the GM after the game (and that's what I make my players do when I GM). The only time it's appropriate to disrupt the flow of the game for a bad rules call is when it's significantly detrimental to a character or the party as a whole.


If you're accused of it more than once (like I have), then its time to back it off. If the singular rules lawyer at a table gets his rules correction at the cost of the fun of his table mates then its not worth it (the it being the satisfactio of your ego). Better to bring it up after the session is finished or in an e-mail to the DM.


slightly confused here, are you the GM as you seem to metion above or a player?

A Ninja Wrote:

I run almost every game that everyone in our groups is in, multiple groups of 4, usually different adventures.

In fact I hardly get to play anymore becuase everyone relies on me to run, I really wanna run, hence I'm starting to turn to PBP.

If you are the GM and are being accussed of being a rules lawyer isn't that your'e job?

I know you say you like to stick to the rules and don't like house rules but if this is the case and you are the GM who is making the house rules anyway?

Also as well if you say you can't help but blurt out a rule correction now and again...that's a GM's job too. If you don't do this you run the risk of a bunch of power gamers taking advantage of you and running the game they way they want and becoming demi gods

I would have thought that any house rules should generate from you not from the players, if they like you to GM then I don't see what their problem is, let them step up to the mark so you can play.

If you are the player it can be annoying for the GM who is running the game and the players who are having fun, if this the case be a help not a hinderance and all will be well.


I think it is based a lot on players' emotions. In the exciting moments of a battle, a gamer builds up a preconceived notion of what they will be able to accomplish on any given turn.

For example, I have a relatively new player running a spellcaster. He wanted to scorching ray a flying enemy, and was surprised when I told him the active Cloak of Winds spell would penalize it (causing his rolls to result in missing). He didn't understand why a windy effect would affect his laser-like rays, but them's the breaks, no?

Just like a doctor's job is to sometimes deliver bad news, the rules lawyer has to rain on someone's parade. Players/GMs have already let a scenario play out in their mind of how a given action will effect a battle, and it can be rough "letting go" if it won't work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is the GM's job to rain on that particular parade. Sure, if I saw blatant disregard for being a fair GM, such as: GMPCs, excessive rewards to the GM's new girlfriend, a killer attitude, or always driving through GM fiat, I would speak up. However, if I did, I would do so with the unspoken or explicit addendum that I wouldn't play in a campaign where this continued.

Slavish devotion to the horse encumbrance rules are far, far, FAR less important than keeping a campaign entertaining and moving. The rules are a TOOL, not an end in and of themselves. Don't rain on your GM's parade unless you deeply and truly understand this.

Silver Crusade

From the Core Rule Book

The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

Why is it that most "Rules Lawyers" tend to omit this particular rule?

I hear a lot of cries of anguish against "arbitrary decisions". In the course of a game the GM has to make decisions to keep the game flowing. If you have a decent GM then, hopefully, the decisions are not "arbitrary" but actually have a meaning and a purpose.


If a rule is made to keep the game flowing, then yes, it is not arbitrary.

However, not all DM rulings are made to keep the game flowing. Some just really are arbitrary.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There are two opposing views on this spectrum:

1. GM is the master of the story and rules are just guidelines for him to guide the game they way he/she sees fit. He/she is the final arbiter of any rules.

2. Rules must be precise and comprehensive so that they can protect the players from GMs that abuse GM Fiat/Rule Zero. The more rules that precisely say what the PC can do, the better. Leave as little to GM interpretation as possible.

The first end of the spectrum usually gravitates towards 1E/2E ruleset, where many things were left to GM's decision and assumption was made that he/she is the final arbiter on things like non-combat abilities or magic item availability/creation.

The second end of the spectrum leans towards 3E, which has perhaps the most baroque ruleset of all D&D iterations and gives far more agency to the players (eg. skills and magic item crafting).

Needless to say, these two extremes don't really get along. The first one is heavily entrenched in various OSR circles, the second one is represented (in the most pure and aggressive form) at The Gaming Den.


I wonder where the third people trying to find a good middle ground are hiding.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*waves*

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:
I wonder where the third people trying to find a good middle ground are hiding.

Everywhere, and I think they're the majority of D&D gaming populace :)

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you think one rules lawyer is bad, imagine this if you can. A table of 6 PC's and 2 GM's... of which 6 are practicing criminal attorneys, one is a sitting criminal court judge, and the other is an electrical engineer. EVERY comma has a meaning... every prior edition and errata carry weight as "legislative intent". Blog posts are printed off and brought to table as "persuasive authority" but only FAQ and Dev's posts count as "binding authority". Unfortunately, sometimes players have been known to slip back into the mindset of the "adversarial system" where if something is missed that goes against the GM, it was the GM's fault for not catching it (although incorrect rulings against the players are always ret-conned to the correct result). There are usually 5-6 laptops or Ipads at the table w/ the SRD or electronic copies of the rule books always open. Flow charts of the grapple rules are laminated for quick reference.

And yet for all of this, we still take one full Friday off a month to game all day (9 am to midnight)... and have for the better part of 6 years. So the moral of the story is that "rules lawyers" aren't inherently evil. But anything the distracts from the fun of the game should be avoided at all costs. So really, it just depends on your table.


harrdog wrote:

If you think one rules lawyer is bad, imagine this if you can. A table of 6 PC's and 2 GM's... of which 6 are practicing criminal attorneys, one is a sitting criminal court judge, and the other is an electrical engineer. EVERY comma has a meaning... every prior edition and errata carry weight as "legislative intent". Blog posts are printed off and brought to table as "persuasive authority" but only FAQ and Dev's posts count as "binding authority". Unfortunately, sometimes players have been known to slip back into the mindset of the "adversarial system" where if something is missed that goes against the GM, it was the GM's fault for not catching it (although incorrect rulings against the players are always ret-conned to the correct result). There are usually 5-6 laptops or Ipads at the table w/ the SRD or electronic copies of the rule books always open. Flow charts of the grapple rules are laminated for quick reference.

Scary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As with most terms, "rules lawyer" is used to mean different things when put in different contexts and presented with different intent.

I am not a rules lawyer. I could be. I know the rules pretty well. I read and comprehend pretty well. I come from a family of attorneys and my own degree is in physics and I work as a program manager so I am pretty good at seeing things from multiple angles and reaching a reasonable conclusion. But I view gaming as a social endeavor that is 95% about getting together with friends to get away from the stress and strain of daily life. So I do my level best to not allow my own personal selfish desires interfere with the group's fun. That means that minor rules infractions are typically ignored unless enough of the occur that I feel a need to contact the GM offline. If a major rule is being broken, or if breaking the rule is having a serious negative impact on the game, then I might suggest that we stop and think about the situation before moving on.

Luckily I play with other professional adults, most of whom are in the IT realm. Of our group of six, two of us could be "rules lawyers" if we wanted to, but both of us have nearly identical views of the real goal of the activity, which is to have fun. So we both make mental notes of things the GM does and touch base offline to decide if we should address a particular rules issue or not. If so we approach the GM outside of the game in a non-threatening way and attempt to work through the situation.

When one of us is the GM we typically touch base after each game to see how the other viewed the game. Not just from a rules perspective, but we touch base on the body language, comments and game engagement of the other players and then we strategize how to address any issues. For example, if we have a player who seems to be checking out (texting on their phone, leaving for frequent phone calls, etc.) we will discuss what we need to do to get them back into the game. But we also discuss rules interpretations because since we play together, we want to be as consistent as possible.

I can't remember the last time we had a serious rules issue interfere with fun in the game. And I have a few house rules that come into play myself.


My GM and myself (when I GM) are really good at defining what bothers us as GMs, what we disallow (I am about to start Council of Thieves and any character can be any core race + tiefling and any racial ability in Core, Combat, Magic, APG, and ARG for those races), and setting expectations on understanding the rules for any ability or spell.

If you grapple or summon or counterspell etc, you need those rules or stats on your character sheet. No flipping though books. We expect if any character has any question before a session that they talk to the GM and get a consensus of opinion on how it will work before we play.

For example, I know my GM hates, I MEAN HATES, grapple checks. He hates what grapple does, he hates how it still seems to slow down encounters, he hates how it can end an epic encounter, but he doesn't interfere with it.

Knowing it is a pet peeve of his, I decided to work out with him and clarify how the crocodile's death roll works for my animal companion. I thought it was first round grab, second round confirm grab activates deathroll (damage and prone condition) and then get my regular bite damage as maintaining a grapple.

He pointed out that maintaining a grab is a standard action and so death roll is part of what you can do on that standard action and replaces your other options because it is an enhancement to just damage (much like a wolf's trip attack). He might be wrong, but I kinda agree with him. The most important thing is we decided before the game that that was how it would work, and we both felt good with the answer.

When combat happened there was no lawyering or surprises, no disappointment on my part, and no aggravation on his part. We save that for before or after game play. My gm (and myself) make it a point to be consistent.

I cannot stress how important communication is before and after game play, how important it is to define abilities on the character sheet for identifying potential conflicts and speeding game play, and how important it is for the gm to be consistent. You do that and it will cut down on the negative stereotype of lawyering and also players who slow down game play with poor understanding of their chracter or rules that apply to them.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


When one of us is the GM we typically touch base after each game to see how the other viewed the game. Not just from a rules perspective, but we touch base on the body language, comments and game engagement of the other players and then we strategize how to address any issues. For example, if we have a player who seems to be checking out (texting on their phone, leaving for frequent phone calls, etc.) we will discuss what we need to do to get them back into the game. But we also discuss rules interpretations because since we play together, we want to be as consistent as possible.

I can't remember the last time we had a serious rules issue interfere with fun in the game. And I have a few house rules that come into play myself.

This.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

'Rules lawyer' means more than just sticking to the RAW.

And that can be a SEVERE problem. The game simply can't be run entirely on RAW. And if you take a look at the worst munchkins you'll ever see, the predominant majority of them are those who argue corner interpretations of RAW.


Isn't a corner interpretation technically a deviation of RAW in its purest form?


If you are disrupting the flow by countermanding the story as the GM is rolling it out then it's a bad way to be a rules lawyer.

If you just point out the rule and then let it go then you've said your piece and moved on. ARGUING with the GM is bad. Save rules disagreements/arguments until after the game.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

"Rules lawyer" is what insecure GMs call people with superior system mastery.


A Ninja wrote:
I tend to not let my vast knowledge get in the way of other peoples games

This concerns me a little. It may be that the rules lawyer thing is just the gaming group's way of dealing with a different issue entirely.

For example: A girl that starts crying at the checkout line in a grocery store when they have to call for a price check, isn't crying about that.

Do you suppose it's possible that your knowledge of the rules is being presented badly, that perhaps those in the group are getting an arrogant vibe from you or that you have a measure of hubris because of what you know? As the old adage goes "It's not what you say, it's how you say it."

Ultimately, it is difficult to say if you are or are not a rules lawyer without actually being present during one of your games. Since this thread is here, and it's being brought up in your games though, there is something wrong.

Personally, if I see something happening during game where a rule is being used incorrectly (like your example of the rogue/rogue multi-classing archetype thing) then the way I typically will handle it, is that I'll wait until the game session is over, then have a private talk with the individual, be it DM or player. That way, they aren't embarrassed about being called out, and it doesn't interrupt the game.


Elamdri wrote:


Arguing with a GM about rules is a very touchy thing. You need to have a bit of instinct for it. I certainly wouldn't let a GM constantly screw me over when the rules are in my favor, but at the same time, you don't want to be that guy who is constantly correcting and flipping through books.

This!! Sometimes you let it go, and just handle it after the session or during a break. It depends on the GM, and other factors to numerous to name.


Tempestorm wrote:

From the Core Rule Book

The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

Why is it that most "Rules Lawyers" tend to omit this particular rule?

I hear a lot of cries of anguish against "arbitrary decisions". In the course of a game the GM has to make decisions to keep the game flowing. If you have a decent GM then, hopefully, the decisions are not "arbitrary" but actually have a meaning and a purpose.

There is a difference between knowing a rule and changing, and just not knowing the rule.


Most "Rules lawyer" accusations come out during a few types of situations

1) It's your turn and your planning on an action that is then denied by a GM's lack of rules knowledge or on the spot home ruling. This can be very annoying. My suggestion would be to let them know that that is not how the rules state it and move on. Taking the GM's decision. I would then approach the GM after the game and check whether the GM plans to always rule as such or plans to learn the rule as it's written and follow that. This prevents the game from bogging down while at the same time giving you closure on a rules issue affecting you. Your looking to set up a consistent ruling in this case that will allow you to make informed choices later in the game.

2) Some one else turn and they decide to do something that the rules do not allow. The GM lets the action happen through lack of game knowledge or some arbitrary choice. Some players will speak up and voice that the action does not work that way according to the rules. My suggestion in this situation is to shut up and swallow your conviction. No one wants another player making choices for them / trying to back seat play their character. You may attempt to talk to the player after the game if you think they are open to learning more.


3) You've bent a rule to JUST about breaking and the GM feels that your interpretation not only lays outside of the spirit of the rule, but adversely affects his game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's a munchkin, not a rules lawyer.

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
A Ninja wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
If it makes you feel better, not only can I be kind of a rules lawyer, but I also have a JD.
JD?
I have a law degree.
Having a PhD degree in Law does help in running RPGs, certainly :)

I feel that rules debates are far closer to Theology. Hence all the hate towards the heretics whoever they are and whatever their heresy as long as it is different from my own orthodox understanding of the rules.

There's a reason they are called Flame Wars. Burn the heretic !!!

1 to 50 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / On being a Rules Lawyer All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.