Why Rules Lawyering Is a Negative Term

lowkey13 said:

I pay $25, cash for the heads of Paladin players, and fund research for a time machine for the sole purpose of traveling back in history and removing the class from the D&D timeline.

Some people are like, "Would you kill baby Hitler?"

And I'm all like, "Yeah, because he's the reason we have Paladins. Probably."

Click to expand...

None of that sounds like it would be particularly effective. $25 doesn't buy a lot of assassin, and certainly not one capable of taking on Paladins. Your research into overturning the laws of physics is likely to be poorly funded if not impossible, something further suggested by the size of your bounties on Paladins. And you seem to fail to realize that it's Charlemange you need to go after, and not the megalomaniacs who are trying to grab what he willingly gave away, so even if you get into the time stream I'm skeptical of your ability to actually accomplish anything, not the least of which is that since almost every European is a descendent of Charlemange that any attempt to kill baby Charles would result in your own non-existence, thus rendering you in a time paradox that can only be resolved by your eternal and inevitable failure.

But I'm more concerned about your table contract. I know many groups have a rule where you are not allowed to play an evil character or a non-heroic character so as to minimize table conflict. At your tables do you have a rule where no one is allowed to play anything but anti-villains, criminal anti-heroes, and downright evil gits? Because the problem I'm struggling to understand is that Paladin is a concept, not a class, and can exist even if the class is removed. It turns up in a ton of places, some even surprising - for example, Philip Marlowe is on close inspection a Paladin whose hard-boiled exterior serves partly as a disguise but is also partly the result of Marlowe being too saintly for this corrupt world and having to bear with the pressure that brings on him. Aragorn isn't actually a D&D ranger, but a Paladin who is dressed up as a woodsman to allow him to serve his community without distinction and humbly. Steve Rogers is also a Paladin, who like Marlowe is too saintly to actually continue to serve with the forces of law because he's more lawful and righteous than the institution is.

Monk by contrast (like Ranger or Druid) tends to just be a bundle of mechanics, and it's much easier to get rid of them if you want to get rid of them.

I think rules lawyers are great in the forums, to give us good solid debates on RAW.

I think they are also a good resource for a DM who does need help understanding the RAW of the game.

Where rules lawyers "go dark side" is believing that the rules are above everything else, including the fun of the group and the DMs ruling. I don't mind a player arguing the rules, hears the ruling, and just nods and moves on with the game. But the player that will not back down and keeps arguing, and then sulks when they didn't get their way...that's where the bad rap comes in.

I'm going to echo [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] on the "challenging the DM" thing. Here's the thing. Let's say I have ... picking a random low level monster ... goblins. Goblins have "Nimble Escape.[FONT=&quot] The goblin can take the [/FONT]Disengage[FONT=&quot] or [/FONT]Hide[FONT=&quot] action as a bonus action on each of its turns[/FONT]." But let's say the rules guru forgets that and asks why they didn't get an opportunity attack. So instead of a dynamic fight scene where small vicious humanoids come running out of the bushes and stabbing the PCs and then ducking back under cover before the PCs can react you have to get into a discussion of rules. It takes people out of the moment and reinforces the rules of the game, not the scene and story.

This doesn't rise to the level of rules lawyer unless the player argues about it, but it's still annoying. I customize monsters on a pretty regular basis and maybe my black cloak orcs have a couple of levels of swashbuckler and can engage in similar hit and run tactics. I don't want to stop a scene to reaffirm, once again, that I'm following the rules. I get it. As a DM (and player for that matter) I make mistakes now and then. If I don't remember specifics of how a rule works, I'll ask if anyone remembers. If I'm consistently doing something wrong, let me know. Discuss it with me outside of combat. But unless it's obvious that I'm screwing up, save it for later. Even if I am screwing up, think twice about whether it's more important to be right than it is for the entire table to have an immersive experience.

I have served as 'rules lawyer' to a table where the DM was not very familiar with the rules. I had a copy of the Players Handbook, and when he got stuck on a decision, I would pull out the book and see what relevant material I could find. Maybe the text provided an answer, maybe he still had to interpret the situation on the fly.
Importantly, unlike the negative stereotype of a rules lawyer, I was not trying to undermine the DM's authority to make that final decision but to buttress him (and his decision) with knowledge.

Eltab said:

I have served as 'rules lawyer' to a table where the DM was not very familiar with the rules. I had a copy of the Players Handbook, and when he got stuck on a decision, I would pull out the book and see what relevant material I could find. Maybe the text provided an answer, maybe he still had to interpret the situation on the fly.
Importantly, unlike the negative stereotype of a rules lawyer, I was not trying to undermine the DM's authority to make that final decision but to buttress him (and his decision) with knowledge.

Click to expand...

I think that’s what people are calling a Rules Guru - a player who is helpful in reminding folks about RAW while leaving the final word to the DM.

DM Dave1 said:

I think that’s what people are calling a Rules Guru - a player who is helpful in reminding folks about RAW while leaving the final word to the DM.

Click to expand...

I'm a self-professed Rules Lawyer. It's there - ok used to be - in my signature. I'm a rules lawyering drama queen...

I don't consider being a Rules Lawyer something negative, just one way to play. What many posters here have an actual problem is not with rules lawyerism is with munchkinism. A rules lawyer finds loopholes and exploits, however annoying that might be. What a rules lawyer doesn't do is outright cheat.

MoonSong said:

I'm a self-professed Rules Lawyer. It's there - ok used to be - in my signature. I'm a rules lawyering drama queen...

I don't consider being a Rules Lawyer something negative, just one way to play. What many posters here have an actual problem is not with rules lawyerism is with munchkinism. A rules lawyer finds loopholes and exploits, however annoying that might be. What a rules lawyer doesn't do is outright cheat.

Click to expand...

But, in finding loopholes and exploits, the rules lawyer sucks all the fun out of the game and actively poisons the table. It's one thing to keep to the rules, that's fine, we're playing a game after all. But, deliberately looking for loopholes isn't playing the game that the rest of the table is playing.

It's no different from online gamers who look for exploits in games to get ahead of everyone else. All they do is make the experience worse for everyone else.

As the guy who most often brings up rules citations at the table, here's the important difference I see between me and a rules lawyer. I try to remind people of rules they've forgotten or clarify rules they've gotten wrong. If the rules are fuzzy on a topic I'll say so while asking the DM for a ruling. Once a ruling is given, or if the DM says plainly they're altering the rules, that settles the matter. I serve as a reference and a reminder.

What I don't do is try to exploit an imprecisely stated game element to claim a PC ability can achieve things that are clearly outside the purpose and power scale of its design. Some people will try to sweet talk the DM into allowing things on the basis of "It doesn't say I can't use it to do this." The really serious offenders won't even acknowledge the rules ambiguity and just flat out claim it can do what they want it to do, until someone else bothers to double check their reading. I consider such actions an abuse of the rules and avoid them strenuously.

Rules lawyers have a bad rep because they're always fighting for the most personally beneficial reading of the rules, rather than the one that's fun or balanced or RAI. Creative use of player abilities is well and good, but there is a line where you're clearly just pushing to suspend the rules in your own favor.

MoonSong said:

I'm a self-professed Rules Lawyer. It's there - ok used to be - in my signature. I'm a rules lawyering drama queen...

Click to expand...

Interesting, do you truly embrace the actual negative definitions of these stereotypes?

The reason I consider a rules lawyer a negative - they don't use the rules for the betterment of the cooperative game and the good of the table (I like the term rules guru, for someone who actually does). They use the rules(specifically their statement of the rules) for the betterment of their own situation without regard for the fun of the table. This 1) actively sucks fun away from the other players and 2) even worse tends to draw the DM into protracted, generally pointless, rules discussions that massively eat into precious game time (I've seen a player eat up 2 hours of a 4 hour session because the DM was too inexperienced to shut him down).


The drama queen, as I've seen the term used, is also problematic in that the actual stated goal of the player is to make the game all about them. This is generally undesirable in a cooperative game like D&D because it takes too much of the DMs time away from focusing on the fun of the group.

MoonSong said:

I don't consider being a Rules Lawyer something negative, just one way to play.
What many posters here have an actual problem is not with rules lawyerism is with munchkinism. A rules lawyer finds loopholes and exploits, however annoying that might be. What a rules lawyer doesn't do is outright cheat.

Click to expand...

I actually have much less of a problem with munchkins (aka powergamers) than I do with rules lawyers. Munchkins tend to take the straightforward approach of making as powerful a character as they can for a given game. This, IMO, is a fully acceptable play style and can easily be melded into a group.

Rules lawyers, on the other hand, tend to(as stated above) be a disruptive presence to the flow of the table and that's a much worse issue (again, IMO) than anything munchkins do.

Oofta said:

I'm going to echo [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] on the "challenging the DM" thing. Here's the thing. Let's say I have ... picking a random low level monster ... goblins. Goblins have "Nimble Escape.[FONT="] The goblin can take the [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/combat#Disengage"]Disengage[/URL][FONT="] or [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/combat#Hide"]Hide[/URL][FONT="] action as a bonus action on each of its turns[/FONT]." But let's say the rules guru forgets that and asks why they didn't get an opportunity attack. So instead of a dynamic fight scene where small vicious humanoids come running out of the bushes and stabbing the PCs and then ducking back under cover before the PCs can react you have to get into a discussion of rules. It takes people out of the moment and reinforces the rules of the game, not the scene and story.

This doesn't rise to the level of rules lawyer unless the player argues about it, but it's still annoying. I customize monsters on a pretty regular basis and maybe my black cloak orcs have a couple of levels of swashbuckler and can engage in similar hit and run tactics. I don't want to stop a scene to reaffirm, once again, that I'm following the rules. I get it. As a DM (and player for that matter) I make mistakes now and then. If I don't remember specifics of how a rule works, I'll ask if anyone remembers. If I'm consistently doing something wrong, let me know. Discuss it with me outside of combat. But unless it's obvious that I'm screwing up, save it for later. Even if I am screwing up, think twice about whether it's more important to be right than it is for the entire table to have an immersive experience.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's the best example. The DM is free to invent any abilities they want for a monster, so I'd never challenge a DM on that basis.

I won't challenge a DM just because I disagree with a ruling, but I might if I consider that the ruling is unfair and is hurting the fun at the table. I don't try to twist the rules, but I will make the DM aware of the rules and even argue on the behalf of other players. If a rules call is ruining the fun at the table already, then IMO there's not much harm in taking the time to hash out the situation.

In fact, I invite the same behavior when I am DMing, even though it goes against the common wisdom. A player who tries to twist the rules in their favor will find themselves shut down hard in my game. But if players have a serious issue with one of my rulings, we put the game on pause and hash it out. IME, it's lead to a table where players really only challenge my rulings when I've made a bad ruling. And I've learned the humility to admit when I make a bad ruling and retcon it.

As another player pointed out, challenging a DM at the table can lead to issues, as some DMs will take it personally. IMO, it's actually a useful and important DMing skill to not take such challenges as personal attacks. It's a matter of hearing your players and recognizing when you've made a poor call that is pulling them out of their engagement with the game. It can definitely be an issue with a DM who hasn't learned those skills. At that point, it's definitely important for the rules guru/lawyer to be able to identify whether the issue is worth pursuing (is the mood already ruined by the call, such that challenging it can only make things better or leave them the same, or is the rest of the table willing to accept it such that you should just swallow your protest and move on).

At it's best it is co-DMing, but admittedly at it's worst it is backseat DMing. I'll grant that there is a peculiar sort of player who tries to rules lawyer in order to twist the rules and power game, but in my personal experience that's been a rarity at my table. Much more often it's been about calls the player disagrees with because they feel it is unfair or simply because the call makes what they were doing play out in an unexpected manner (such as a player who has expertise in Acrobatics wanting to run across a tightrope but the DM calling for an Athletics check).