Why Rules Lawyering Is a Negative Term

Seramus · Jul 2, 2019

Among my groups, citing a rule once is a welcome reminder... especially when an honest mistake seems like it is about to be made. Having an argument about the rules right then and there is what earns you the title Rules Lawyer. Having an argument about the rules after the game is a grey area - allowed to an extent, but unwelcome if you persist.

That attempt to debate during an unwelcome moment is the KEY in our groups.

Zardnaar · Jul 2, 2019

I can gets rules lawyer when the DM doesn't know the rules or changes thing on the fly/inconsistent rulings. Some rules are fairly clear.

I don't mind the DM changing rules as long as it's clear and upfront. Or if they want to errata something you can change say a feat you have picked.

Maxperson · Jul 2, 2019

lowkey13 said:
1. Ruling.

2. Brief objection (if any) is made.

3. Play moves on. If necessary, further comments after game.

That's how I do it as both a player and a DM, with one slight modification. If it's a very important situation, I will allow a 3a second brief argument if they can explain it in a different way that might make a difference. If one, or occasionally two brief explanations don't do it, play moves on and we can discuss it later.

Sacrosanct · Jul 2, 2019

billd91 said:
If you don't see the strong correlation, it probably has more to do with not being in touch with the common usage than anything else. I wouldn't say most cheaters are rule lawyers either. That's definitely just a subset of cheater.

But the idea that a rules lawyer is someone who digs for exploits and interpretations that are "technically correct" but questionable to a layman's reading of the rule (just like lawyers finding technical loopholes in the law) is very widespread in the hobby and has been for well over 20 years. All you have to do is look at the long-running Knights of the Dinner Table as a standalone comic and back in its early days in Shadis Magazine to see how long the idea has been around.

They’ve been around when I started in 1981, and I suspect since 1974. I don’t think any DM has all of the rules memorized. And with a username like mine, you might be shocked to learn I’ve made mistakes in the past as a DM as well

I don’t think anyone is calling someone who reminds the DM of a rule is a rules lawyer. I think the distinction is when the person does something that generally goes against the context of the spirit of the game design based on a loophole and demands the DM cater to that rule after the DM already ruled otherwise.

Horwath · Jul 2, 2019

lowkey13 said:
Instant replay (VAR) is the death of sport. And once it gets its toe in .... it just gets worse and worse.

VAR is THE BEST thing in sports as there is still large corruption for many sports.

The "mistakes" by referees, intentional or not, have ruined the reputation of many sports.

on topic, as a rule lawyer myself, I can say that is can be a very bad thing as it can halt the game to a dead stop when rule lawyer and DM get into a debate on the rule and rule lawyer is correct

Hussar · Jul 2, 2019

Heh. DM'd today and I made a mistake. I thought that Guidance in 5e was d4+1, not d4. Player piped up and said, "Isn't that d4?"

Me: No. It's d4+1
Player: Are you sure?
Me: Well, I was until you said that. One sec. Whoops, you're right. D4.

To me, that's the job of a rules guru. I had a number wrong, not a MASSIVE mistake, but, a mistake, I fixed it and we moved on.

There's no rules lawyering going on there.

But, let's be honest here, when we're referring to rules lawyers, it's those gamers who are attempting to twist the wording of the game for their advantage. And, in doing so, make the game a LOT less fun for everyone else. So, yeah, I think [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] makes a good point. Rules lawyers are dysfunctional gamers. They actively hurt the enjoyment of the table.

it all comes down to the level of impartiality which distinguishes a rules lawyer from a rules guru.

Maxperson · Jul 2, 2019

Horwath said:
on topic, as a rule lawyer myself, I can say that is can be a very bad thing as it can halt the game to a dead stop when rule lawyer and DM get into a debate on the rule and rule lawyer is correct

As a non-rules lawyer, I won't grind the game to a halt and argue like that. It's not fair to the DM or players. If the DM won't quickly see the light, I will stop arguing the incorrect ruling and have a discussion about it after the game.

Sadras · Jul 2, 2019

What I find works best is if you turn to the rules lawyer and say "I understand that if any more words come pouring out your..." particularly if we're having chicken for lunch.

Maxperson · Jul 2, 2019

Sadras said:
What I find works best is if you turn to the rules lawyer and say "I understand that if any more words come pouring out your..." particularly if we're having chicken for lunch.

I don't get that one at all.

Sacrosanct · Jul 2, 2019

Maxperson said:
As a non-rules lawyer, I won't grind the game to a halt and argue like that. It's not fair to the DM or players. If the DM won't quickly see the light, I will stop arguing the incorrect ruling and have a discussion about it after the game.

Huh. Judging by the Druid armor thread, this post strikes me as a bit odd because it describes the opposite of what you are doing in that thread.