Why Rules Lawyering Is a Negative Term

Sacrosanct said:

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.

Click to expand...

If you're trying to get a rise out of me, you'll have to do a lot better. I don't believe for one second that you think posting in an online discussion is the same as playing D&D.

Oh, and what I'm doing in that thread is the same thing that you and everyone else there is doing. Posting in circles for hundreds of posts.

Maxperson said:

I don't get that one at all.

Click to expand...

Lol. It was a GoT reference, when the Hound basically informs a Lannister soldier that his conversational skills where increasing the Hound's appetite for chicken. Of course it was said with less grace. If you haven't seen it then yeah it would make absolutely no sense.

I was playfully suggesting such tactic could work on rules lawyers.

Sadras said:

Lol. It was a GoT reference, when the Hound basically informs a Lannister soldier that his conversational skills where increasing the Hound's appetite for chicken. Of course it was said with less grace. If you haven't seen it then yeah it would make absolutely no sense.

I was playfully suggesting such tactic could work on rules lawyers.

Click to expand...

LOL Or people who saw it, but didn't remember it.

Celebrim said:

Well, just when I thought this was going to be an unambigious hate bash of rules lawyers, you've managed to find the ambiguity.

The problem I foresee even though I've never observed this first hand, is that there are GMs that do not believe that the game should be about fairness or that the players should know what the rules or are what to expect of them. There is a theory of GMing out there that the best game is always constructed by the arbitrary whim of the GM, and that the expectation that the game will be fair ruins the game.

Click to expand...

In the non-adversarial end of the spectrum, there are some dm's who flat out do not care about the rules, and expect everyone to just go along with their vision of the universe, so anyone mentioning a rule would be treated as an interruption or disruption to the game. The rules don't matter, they say, just do what seems logical. (The fact that you don't really know anything about the situation because all facts - even facts about your own character - are mutable isn't seen as a hindrance to planning or making meaningful choices.)

If you prefer to play a structured games, these dm's will frustrate the hell out of you and genuinely not understand why you're upset.

lowkey13 said:

Respectfully, I think that you're incorrect.

A bad DM doesn't care what players, including but not limited to, a RL, says. A RL doesn't save a session, s/he just makes it worse. If the DM is, in fact, a bad DM, then everyone will recognize it and pretty soon leave. OTOH, if the problem is the RL, then they are ruining it for everyone else.

However, a decent DM will listen to a player who briefly states that a ruling was incorrect. As I pointed out earlier, at my table it's pretty simple-

1. Ruling.

2. Brief objection (if any) is made.

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


See, the difference between a RL and a regular player who happens to know the rules is that there is no overarching belief in doing something for "justice" or whatever justification is needed - just, "Hey, doesn't it work like this? No, okay."

But for every night you think you've saved, go back in your history (when you went too far, as you put it) and think about how many nights, and parts of nights, have been wasted for absolutely no good reason?

*shrug* Again, no one thinks of themselves as the bad guy. But there's a reason people generally do not enjoy having Rules Lawyers at the table. In my experience, being right, and having fun, are not the same thing.

(And all of this is assuming that the RL is "right." Which ... well, is not always the case.)

Click to expand...

That's a very black and white way of looking at it. In my experience, very few DMs are bad all of the time. It's much more common for a decent DM to get a reputation as a bad DM because they get into a stubborn rut every now and again. And, respectfully, I've sat at my table whereas you have not. I know for a fact that there have been times when a bad call was changed because I was there.

As I've said, I follow the protocol outlined above myself in most cases. But sometimes a cherished PC's life is on the line and some DMs will occasionally behave irrationally in these situations. At those times, I think it's okay to dispense with protocol, and address the issue until an agreeable resolution can be reached. I think it's far better to hold up game than to allow a player's night to be unfairly ruined by a bad call. (And, yes, I feel this way irrespective of which side of the screen I happen to be sitting on.)

As to your question about pros vs cons, if you've been paying attention you should already know the answer. I'm a respected member of my table and have been at weekly games for roughly two decades. That's over a thousand sessions of D&D. Somewhere in the ballpark of 6,000+ hours. I certainly wouldn't tolerate a disruptive presence at my table for that long, and neither would they.

That said, my point is and has been that we can all benefit from being able to admit when we are wrong with grace and humility. We all have more fun at the table if we listen to each other rather than one figure bringing a "my way or the highway" attitude. Believe me, I have GM'd a great many times so I know it is a considerable amount of work, for which players oftentimes are less than grateful. But there is good rules lawyering/guruing and there's bad. I think it's important to remember that just like a DM usually isn't all good or bad, the same thing applies to rules lawyers/gurus and just about every other play style out there.

ultimately, the negative behavior is not rule knowledge, or pointing out forgotten or mis-remembered rules. the problem is when people argue with the DM.

however, because of the name attached to this negative behavior (wasting everyones time arguing), the label sometimes gets applied to those of us who read and remember the rules. sort of like how people will call you a munchkin or power gamer if you simply build an optimized character. because they dont have that skill, and are jelous or angry that you have a skill they do not.

the biggest rules issue, tends to be when unclearly worded rules are read to mean different things by different people. with 5e, it can also be an argument over which optional rules apply. house rules can cause issues, especially as people making house rules often dont think through all the implied consequences beforehand.

a lot of people argue because of their ego. they cannot see themselves as being wrong, ergo the other person is wrong, and the rules are just their leverage to be RIGHT whatever the cost.