Zhaleskra
Adventurer
Some of us don't give the hind end of a rodent about "optimization". There are those who believe the spirit of the rules is infinitely more important than the letter.
In praise of the rules lawyer
- Thread starter Walking Paradox
- Start date
Some of us don't give the hind end of a rodent about "optimization". There are those who believe the spirit of the rules is infinitely more important than the letter.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
A lot of people seem to only think a person's a rules lawyer if they happen to disagree with the DM, judging by this thread.
*munches popcorn*
Please, do continue lynching gamers such as myself in a thread in praise of rules lawyers, though. We are one of the few remaining groups that are allowed to be trashed and hated upon in an otherwise civil messageboard and noone cares. I don't mind the witch hunt, every person that dogpiles on with their anti-rules lawyer venom only further proves my cynicism.
*munches popcorn*
Please, do continue lynching gamers such as myself in a thread in praise of rules lawyers, though. We are one of the few remaining groups that are allowed to be trashed and hated upon in an otherwise civil messageboard and noone cares. I don't mind the witch hunt, every person that dogpiles on with their anti-rules lawyer venom only further proves my cynicism.
Hussar
Legend
I prefer the term rule guru to rules expert, but, that's just me.
Rules lawyers, to me, are usually fairly benign and I can see how people see it as a neutral term. And, really, no DM worth his salt should ever be annoyed at being corrected when he's outright wrong. When the player can point to the book and say, "No, this isn't right" and the DM simply over rules the player, barring standing house rules that should be known up front, the DM should have the good grace to stop and fix his ruling.
Now, if its a case where the ruling could have more than one interpretation, the player shouldn't bog the game down either. Getting through it quickly and as painlessly as possible is the goal of any rules questions.
The problem seems to come when ego starts to enter into the equation. There are some DM's who get all huffy when a player has the temerity to question his judgement. Me, I've gotten over that.
What truly does annoy me though, is someone who thinks they're a rules expert but isn't and, despite being corrected time and time again, still insists that he or she is a rules expert. If you don't know, but you think something is wrong, LOOK IT UP FIRST before arguing with the DM.
Rules lawyers, to me, are usually fairly benign and I can see how people see it as a neutral term. And, really, no DM worth his salt should ever be annoyed at being corrected when he's outright wrong. When the player can point to the book and say, "No, this isn't right" and the DM simply over rules the player, barring standing house rules that should be known up front, the DM should have the good grace to stop and fix his ruling.
Now, if its a case where the ruling could have more than one interpretation, the player shouldn't bog the game down either. Getting through it quickly and as painlessly as possible is the goal of any rules questions.
The problem seems to come when ego starts to enter into the equation. There are some DM's who get all huffy when a player has the temerity to question his judgement. Me, I've gotten over that.
What truly does annoy me though, is someone who thinks they're a rules expert but isn't and, despite being corrected time and time again, still insists that he or she is a rules expert. If you don't know, but you think something is wrong, LOOK IT UP FIRST before arguing with the DM.
DumbPaladin
First Post
Argues with the DM, usually ad nauseum. Not simply disagrees with the DM, which is pretty much always a player's right. But there are good ways and bad ways to go about disagreeing with the DM.
The ones that don't know when to shut up and move on are the rules lawyers.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Rules lawyer is usually a pejorative term. If you want to try to reclaim it as a positive, you're welcome to try but, as I think you're seeing from this thread, you've got an uphill climb. So no sympathy from me if you try to play the victim card. I'll just play my itty-bitty violin for you.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
Absolutely. If I'm DM and someone points out a mistake, great! I'd feel bad if I found out afterwards. There's a lot going on during a game, no one's perfect, I'll obviously forget things or make wrong calls, it's nice to have other knowledgeable players to catch it. So long as they're willing to do the page searching for me. And it's just basic fairness and decency to try to make your houserules BEFORE they come into play. Both so players are aware and so they have a chance out of game to argue about them if they dislike them (or is removing unpopular houserules also taboo?).
I'm fine with just griping, I don't need sympathy. I'm just being the mirror to all the totally mature DMs that actually get upset when their unassailable, perfect judgement is dared questioned and felt the need to gripe about it on here.
Wepwawet
Explorer
Sometimes it's the DM's fault.
I'm only a rules lawyer when the DM doesn't know the rules and keeps on making the game unbalanced and unfair.
And believe me, in that case I'll argue ad nauseum. Or just leave the game, it's usually much better.
Zhaleskra
Adventurer
Like most player types, the rules whatever can use zir expertise for good or evil. The evil one will only correct it when it benefits the player party or worse, only zir character. One on the side of good will want consistent rules even when it works against the party or zir character.
As someone else said, the difference between expert and lawyer is in the beholder.
That difference is usually in mannerism and confontationalism. The expert presents and explains the rule to inform the GM.
The lawyer argues and wheedles. Its annoying and disruptive behavior.
No offense to Danny, who is a lawyer, but it got termed "Rules Lawyer" as a negative play on the way lawyers are percieved by society.
This doesn't speak to whether the rules lawyer is actually RIGHT about the rules. Its simply that he's going to argue for his version of them vociferously. He's a right-fighter, in that he has to fight to prove he is right.
Add to all of this, is playing with a DM who doesn't know that the smurf he's doing. He gets the rules wrong, etc. And he thinks he's right. His judgement is unassailable.
If you have a DMoron, that's a problem.
If you have a Rules Lawyer, that's a problem.
In a good table, you've got a rules expert on whom to rely on correct interpretations of rules when questions come up, and you've got a DM who will ask and listen when somebody knows the rule.
