
BltzKrg242 |

That's a munchkin, not a rules lawyer.
The terms are synonymous in some circles. Using your knowledge of the rules to create effects that the GM doesn't approve of...
Anyways, Being a munchkin can get you termed rules lawyer as well. Not everyone has played Munchkin.
Hrm.. I have not played that in a while. I think it's high time to get out the cards.

BuzzardB |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I don't really think of myself as a rules lawyer, but more of just a rules database.
I'm usually the guy who the group turns too when a rule is in debate before anyone reaches for a book.
I sometimes have a habit of speaking out when someone gets something blatantly wrong but im also the first the shut up when the GM says "yes but i'm going to do it this way".

GrenMeera |

I know I've been accused of being a rules lawyer, but I think in some situations it can be understandable.
My GM often tries to cheat in order to screw us. He's not a very good GM, but he's a good friend and we will sit through his game to see it all the way to the end.
But, not all people are great at running a game. Sometimes it can get very frustrating when the GM is trying to abuse you. It can get very frustrating when the GM plays favorites. Frustration can lead to arguments. It's sad and unfortunate and everybody should attempt to learn to grow beyond this, but this does not mean we should have expectations of perfection.
A single example I have is when a creature was rending us multiple times in it's attack. The rend rules specify that you may rend no more than once per round. I was trying to save the party from a TPK by showing the GM that he was not following the rules.
If he replied with, "I'm changing that for this fight" or some other GM fiat, I probably would have let it slide. It is hard sometimes to not push an issue when the response is "You're wrong, the rules don't say that".
I will admit that it is a failing on my part to not let it slide, to avoid being defensive. I understand why people get frustrated with rules lawyers holding up the game. I am not perfect. It can certainly be difficult to keep your mouth shut when your party is being ripped to shreds over a stubborn, uninformed GM.
The world has a lot of perspectives. I make my plea for understanding on the side of us irritating rules lawyers. Please be patient with us, we are often trying to help in a positive way.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I tend to not let my vast knowledge get in the way of other peoples games
Uh-oh. I see the word "vast" in here. That could be the problem...presentation. Arrogance is NEVER appreciated in my group.
Rules lawyers are fine at my table as long as they:
1. Aren't arrogant about it. Calling your knowledge "vast", even if it's true, isn't humble at all as far as I'm concerned. The rest of the players at my table will grumble at your arrogance and probably issue social smackdown.
2. Use their knowledge for neutrality. We're all big kids playing a game we know is pretend, and we don't mind if the monsters have an advantage. Or we do. Or both. But don't favor one over the other.
3. Understand the GM fiat and Rule of Cool and house rules are in place in our group FOR A REASON. And often a very good one. We'll even explain it to you if needed.

Molten Dragon |

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.
Sounds like my table. we have a genetic engineer and 3 practicing attorneys one of which is a judge. Its funny because we all look to the engineer when there is a rule question. And like others have said above, communication is key. We will stop in mid swing in combat to hash out a rule if need be. GM has final say of course. "Rules lawyering" is ok in our group but be prepared to "cite" your authority and be prpared for oral argument on it as well.

![]() |

To those accused of being rules lawyers, some solace (or indictment):
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is a pattern." (To paraphrase Ian Fleming)
Where do you lie?
One week, a character dies because the GM decides (after the PC is swallowed whole) that you can only cut yourself out with a dagger, instead of any light slashing or piercing weapon. That's one.
Next week, the BBEG is focused on having a particularly nasty weapon she uses. The party includes a disarm specialist, so the GM invents a swift-action ability (on a cleric, no less) to pick up her dropped weapon without provoking an AoO, so that the only way for the disarm specialist to contribute to the fight is by announcing to-hits and damage rolls. That's two.
Next week, the trap specialist decides to check the suspicious altar for traps before taking the item from on top of it. Wanting to be thorough (and not being in any time crunch), they want to Take 20 to search for traps. The GM says you can't T20 on Perception, and forces a roll. Comes up low, party takes the trap to the face. That's three.
So it's "a pattern" now. Is the player who protested all of these a "rules lawyer"? Assuming he was never belligerent/arrogant and never held up the game more than a minute or two, is he in the wrong? Because these are the situations where I keep seeing the term "rules lawyer" get applied.

GrenMeera |

I would also like to add that the negativity of "rules-lawyers" seems focused upon the fact that a rules debate can hold up the game.
If this is true, a debate requires two people. As a rules-lawyer player, I am in the wrong. However, this also means that the GM that ignores the rules also is in the wrong. It takes two to tango, and two stubborn people to hold up a game.
GMs have a lot on their plate, but they are not excused of all wrongs or considered infallible. I say this as both a player and GM.
When running a game I am less familiar with (Deadlands comes to mind as I had an example of this two years ago), when I am butchering the rules I hope and pray my players will tell me so (and one of them did, and I thank him still for that).

Bruunwald |

Rules lawyers are great. In a game where one of two things is true:
1. All the other players AND the GM are also rules lawyers (and may you someday actually play for five consecutive uninterrupted minutes).
OR
2. The GM is less knowledgeable and appreciates the help the rules lawyer gives (and by that I mean HE HAS ASKED FOR IT).
Both situations are very rare. That means that, no matter how nice you may be, or how much the rest of the world may appreciate your knowledge, you will probably not be making many friends if you persist in being inflexible or allowing the GM to play in a style more comfortable to him (if that style is rules lite).
This question invariably splits the community, which is silly, since the answer has always come down to the comfort level of the group. That is the only realistic, fair and right answer. Rules lawyers are neither good nor bad, they are simply either convenient or inconvenient.
Usually, they are inconvenient. But that doesn't make the rest of the group good or bad, either. It just makes them inconvenient to the rules lawyer.
The answer therefore, is, tone down the rigidity in a normal group. Or get a group of like-minded individuals.

Paj |

As a GM I love having someone at the table who knows the rules as well or better than myself - asking a question and getting a quick answer is way faster than looking it up.
The difference between a player who knows the rules and a Rules Lawyer is whether or not they try to browbeat the GM with the rules.
I've had the good fortune of having always played with players who trust my judgement and accept when I make a ruling against the rule books. They've had the good fortune of a GM who listens to their arguements, gives a counter arguement, and then allows for their closing arguement before making a decision.
RPGs are games of rules, kinda silly to play them with no regard for the rules.

![]() |

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.
A heavy focus on the rules can take decrease the level of enjoyment of the game.
There is a limit to how far you should go with the rules.
Frequent (and often pointless) discussions about using the proper rules can take up precious role-playing time.
I've been in games where there are frequent 30+ minute game breaks in order to go over some obscure rules - how boring.
People that dwell on rules can be difficult to be around. At times it seems the person in question might talk more about the rules than the actual game and give lectures to the other players - as if to say; "I know the rules better than you...look at me... aren't I smart." - I hate that.
And is sticking to the rules paramount to a game's success? - I would say no.
How I judge the success of a game is by the level of engagement of the players, and by how fun overall the game was.
Who says the rules need to be consistent to have a good time? The rules might change depending on the circumstances of the game - and that is a good thing.
For example: I just recently GMed a game in which all of the PCs were knocked unconscious, all but one. There was only one player with positive HP and there was one monster left.
I did not want a TPK in this situation (total party kill) and so I took some liberties with the rules.
I said to the last player standing; "The sight of your comrades - hurt and unconscious - inflames your will. Adrenaline surges through your veins as you realize - you are the last hope for the survival of your group."
I gave this PC a +5 to hit, and thankfully that was enough to defeat the monster.
Changing the rules like this added so much suspense and fun to the game.
The rules aren't so important for having a good time.

Arnwyn |

Arnwyn wrote:So it's "a pattern" now. Is the player who protested all of these a "rules lawyer"?To those accused of being rules lawyers, some solace (or indictment):
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is a pattern." (To paraphrase Ian Fleming)
Where do you lie?
Yes. (But see below.)
Assuming he was never belligerent/arrogant and never held up the game more than a minute or two,
That's quite the assumption. I see no evidence one way or the other from the OP. I guess I'm to wildly speculate when I answer, for s~@!s and giggles? *shrug* My post above only takes the information we've been given into account.
is he in the wrong?
With all that said: No. Those are pretty egregious rule violations (well, #2 is debatable) - so much so one must wonder why they weren't documented in a "House Rules" document of some sort, or question what game they're really playing (and, more importantly, why the heck they weren't presented beforehand). In such circumstances, I, for one, would welcome a rules lawyer in our midst. It would, if nothing else, bring to the forefront a discussion about what type of game everyone wants to play, and manage expectations.
But, doing it 3 times in (relatively) short(?) succession, with everyone in the group "accusing" said player of being a rules lawyer? Yep - my original post was more than accurate. That player may not be a good fit for that particular group. (Who knows? This is all speculation based on a random messageboard example anyways.)
[Aside: #2 could be okay... can the PCs gain this ability as well? New abilities that counter existing abilities are hardly new in d20 (*cough*3.x's Close Quarters Fighting*cough*).]

![]() |

I consider myself a rules lawyer but have been toning down the last few months. Mainly because I have not absorbed PF as well as I did 3.5 and would rather save my arguments to get me back up to being 90% of the time correct instead of the 80% of the time I have been in PF(worked up from 70% right after the hardcover CRB came out and I had 3.5/beta/hardcover jumbled up in my head). The other reason is that I play a great deal of Pathfinder Society and a four hour time slot really is a problem compared to a home campaign where we can pick up where we last left off.
A friend and fellow player/judge told me he read somewhere in I think the 3.5 DMG that it said you should not argue about rules because in the end, you will be right as often as you are wrong but you will always loose that time debating. I scoffed and laughed at this because back then I was in that 90% correct phase and said that may make sense for casual players who do not actually care about the rules anyway but that does NOT apply to me.
Do I sound cocky? I am sure some have already skipped to the next post. That does not change that 90% of that time I was the one correct. Even at my worst, I was still correct batter than a margin of 2 to 1 compared to everyone in that group. If they had not fouled up in the first place themselves, I would not have felt the need to chime in the vast majority of the time. Yes, I am putting the blame on them, where the fault was derived from the overwhelming amount of occasions.
I use to hate the idea of letting cheating go by without speaking up. It encourages more cheating in the future as people begin to think that is the way it is done. I am currently wondering if it is better to let some stuff slide because most people can only take so much. I did this last week with a new group full of people with almost no experience. It is kind of like how learning is better done in small chunks. Too much of a data dump all at once results in nothing getting absorbed.
I have begun wondering if the real problem is that people just cannot take being corrected multiple times in front of other people. Even a player I knew who said he loved it when he was shown the correct rule because he would never again make the same mistake got sick and tired of me calling him out so often. I can give him this much, I did not feel like dragging out every issue of Dragon magazine(we were playing 3.5) and searching for the exact issue with the sage advice column to show him the stuff clear as day. That does not change how often he was wrong. He became very frustrated with me, so much he decided to issue an ultimatum that I should shut up or he would discontinue to play in the same group I was. Well I was so sick and tired of all his cheating too. I decided to withdraw from that group rather than put up with all his cheating and the judge's carelessness.
Again, I hate letting the cheating go by but I see so many of you advise to talk about it after the game. Maybe pointing it out to the judge so he can later decree the correct method would be easier to accept when it comes from the expected authority figure of the game. What really bothers me about that is that I do not want to type up multiple pages between games( yea, I see how long this post is getting). Then find out the judge or player couldn't even bother to read them(most likely case since they couldn't be bothered to read the rules in the first place). How often do people really want to bother talking about it at night? Especially when they really want to get home because they go to work the next morning. How many people will show up before game when people don't even show up on time. In that case, why not nip it right off when the problem arises? Oh yeah, I already answered that above, because people cannot be logical and learn from their mistakes. They have to take it personal and get angry/frustrated/embarrassed/or feel bullied when they are corrected(often) in front of other people.
Sometimes I wish the casual players who do not care about the rules would just quite pretending they play Pathfinder and would go find some indie game of cooperative story telling. That is really what they really want to do. Show off how bad ass they think their character is. I have had my fill of players with delusions of how the rules work and when you show them the real math or point out all the set up prerequisites and hindrances that they casually ignore, they complain that they got their ass handed to them because you are trying to stifle them with rules when they had a cool(illegal) character concept.
Imagine if right next to the favorite option in the upper right corner, there was also a disdain option. How many hits would that get? I'll make a post right after this for the haters to hate. HaHaHaHaHaHa!

3.5 Loyalist |

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.
Laugh it up, explain you are afflicted with the curse of reading and knowing the rulebook. GASP! Truly this is against the spirit of roleplaying, and such rules knowledge confines you to the lowest of rungs of mushroom hoarding Norwegian retard gnomes.
Use your skills for good, not evil. Sometimes the rules lawyer cops flak because they stand in the way of the cheese-mongers. Remember your mushroom knowledge training!

The Saltmarsh 6 |
Anyone with a good knowledge of the rules can be called a rules lawyer .
What matters is how you use that knowledge if your willing to argue the smallest detail which has little or no effect on the game then your a rules lawyer , but on the other hand if you just use it to point out mistakes which effect game play in a more serious way then your just a good player .

Klaus van der Kroft |

I often forget half the rules, which is why I really enjoy the fact one of my players is a Rules Lawyer. Whenever I forget something, I just look his way and he fills in. We've been playing together for over 15 years now, so most of the times I don't even have to give him the cue; he knows when I'm forgetting something. The guy has absolutely encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. He even knows the homerules I make better than myself!
That said, I have am adamant about two rules:
1.- All houserules are presented before the game starts.
2.- I have the final say on rules, no matter what the book says.
And my players are perfectly fine with it. Of course, my personal opinion is that the day my players no longer trust me to make good judgment calls, that's the day I'll have to stop DMing. So it's a mutual thing: They trust me to be a good DM, and I trust them to trust me being a good DM.

Alitan |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Just wanted to chime in; there are very few house rules to which I can't/won't adapt.
Provided:
*They are consistent and consistently-applied
*They are laid out prior to use
On Rules Lawyering:
I'm "that guy" in most of my groups -- the one the GM pokes when he wants to know a rule. I don't usually speak up unless asked, though I have pointed out the occasional, "Oh, hey wait, there's another step/option/problem with that, it works this way until we get the GM to change it" thing when I know a player isn't as caught up on the shift from 3rd ed to PF.
I'm comfortable with my GMs these days; I won't argue a rule in play, and I trust them that whatever happens is going to be fun. If it's a rule that I feel needs to work AW, I will bring it to their attention after things wind down.
So far it's working, and god knows I spend a lot of time looking things up myself (because despite my group's belief, I DON'T know all the rules).
TL;DR: Trust your GM, time your comments; waiting to be asked usually helps. :)

Funky Badger |
Rule one - don't be a dick.
Pointing out, for example, you can't trip-lock anymore in 2 seconds, I think is alright. Arguing for 10 minutes about, well, pretty much anything, not so good...*
*Arguing during the game, that is, although, to be fair, arguing about rules out of the game is fairly tedious too...