Is rules lawyering inherently bad?

[The Indescribable]

JoeJ wrote:

Kudaku wrote:

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

A discussion about whether or not rules lawyering is bad is focused on the legalistic definition of rules lawyering to defend stances...

Really? I don't see anyone doing that.

What I do see are people trying to agree on the definition of "rules lawyer" so everyone's on the same page.

For example I would not consider what Smashomancer describes in the original post as rules lawyering, so to me the thread title is nonsensical.

According to Wikipedia:

"A rules lawyer is a participant in a rules-based environment who attempts to use the letter of the law without reference to the spirit, usually in order to gain an advantage within that environment."

It didn't appear to me that the OP was doing this.

As any teacher will tell you wikipedia is not an acceptable source, besides, a lawyer's job is not to win the case, that's a trial lawyer, a lawyer's job can range wildly.

[voideternal]

There's no "right" or "wrong" associated with the act of citing the rules.

However, any communication you do, whether it be rules-citing or role-play, should take the other person's feelings and goals into consideration.

If there is a conflict in which the GM sometimes rules one way, sometimes another way, it's probably okay to cite the rules, because it would keep the game more consistent, and other players will generally appreciate rule-consistency as it advances their own goals and keeps them at ease.

If there is a player with a sub-optimal character and you cite the rules in an attempt to help optimize, your attempt may sound condescending. Especially if the player in question is feeling good about her character and her goal is not to optimize.

So, citing the rules is neither good nor bad. But communication can be good or bad, depending on how much you consider your opponent's feelings.

[DetectiveKatana]

I prefer to refer to myself as a "Rules Investigator." I know the rules, and if I don't know a rule I know how to find them. I am also usually the guy who pipes up when it seems like rules are being ignored. I get the significance of Rule Zero, and that the DM has final say, so I only ever extend rules discussion during game when I feel it's important to the survival of the group.

Examples:

"So the troll moves and full attacks."
"Oh, do trolls have pounce in Pathfinder (legitimately curious, having not read Pathfinder's troll entry)."
"Well, they've got three attacks."
"Yeah, but you don't normally get to move and full attack."

(If they had been able to full attack and move, I'm pretty sure we would have died).

I think if someone is going to do the Rules Lawyer thing, they shouldn't use it to exploit the system they should be using it to make sure that no one is getting screwed over. Unfortunately, the term "Rules Lawyer" often seems to come with the implication that the person is using it to make broken characters or to justify something that is very technically within the letter of the rules.

[The Indescribable]

DetectiveKatana wrote:

I prefer to refer to myself as a "Rules Investigator." I know the rules, and if I don't know a rule I know how to find them. I am also usually the guy who pipes up when it seems like rules are being ignored. I get the significance of Rule Zero, and that the DM has final say, so I only ever extend rules discussion during game when I feel it's important to the survival of the group.

Examples:

"So the troll moves and full attacks."
"Oh, do trolls have pounce in Pathfinder (legitimately curious, having not read Pathfinder's troll entry)."
"Well, they've got three attacks."
"Yeah, but you don't normally get to move and full attack."

(If they had been able to full attack and move, I'm pretty sure we would have died).

I think if someone is going to do the Rules Lawyer thing, they shouldn't use it to exploit the system they should be using it to make sure that no one is getting screwed over. Unfortunately, the term "Rules Lawyer" often seems to come with the implication that the person is using it to make broken characters or to justify something that is very technically within the letter of the rules.

we had a guy who used to make outrageous characters, refuse to show the rules then pretend they were house rules. He also was evil. And not the cunning charismatic evil that can make a game enjoyable. The kind that ritually eviscerated the druid's dog and cooked goblins. Which admittedly I tried some of them.