Why Rules Lawyering Is a Negative Term

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

In my group I was given the joking title of "Rules Lawyer of Justice". This is because while I have rules lawyered on my behalf and others, just as often it was on the DM's behalf (including times that it went seriously against my own interests).

However, I recognize that in the end the DM's word is law. Admittedly, in my younger days somewhat less so.

My point is that, in my opinion, healthy rules lawyering is about fairness. It's about playing a game where we can have realistic expectations of what the rules are. And in fairness, there are some DMs who sometimes forget that their goal isn't to "win the game", and the RL exists in these cases as a buffer between them and the other players, helping to nudge the DM back in the direction of arbitor rather than adversary. (If the DM wants to win, then their victory is a foregone conclusion.)

Like anything, it can certainly be taken too far or misused. However, when used with tact, intelligence, and maturity, I don't think there's anything wrong with a bit of rules lawyering.

Don't confuse Rules Lawyer with someone that knows the rules well and shares knowledge openly. RL is looking to twist the rules for their own personal gain, it's not a problem if you mention a rule whether it hurts or helps himself or a fellow party member. At my table I used to give out inspiration points if someone points out a rule that hurts them or a fellow player.

 

[Oofta]

First I just want to comment on the "everybody likes rules lawyers when their on your side". Nope. Not me. But it was written by a dedicated rules lawyer who thought it was fun to find some exploit in the rules for personal gain so they probably do believe it. In my experience rules lawyers care more about gaming the system than they are about playing the game.


Rules lawyers have a bad reputation because they disrupt the game with arguments often twisting words and spells in their favor. It's not that they know the rules well, it's that they hunt for gray areas in the rules. Their goal is to "break" the game, not have fun.


I have several versions of rules lawyers. Most of them are some mix.


The cheaters.
You know who they are. They apply misapply bonuses, "misread" rules in their favor on a regular basis (everybody does it now and then) deliberately fudge the rules. This is most often done with some obscure multi-class and feat combination perhaps along with a magic item. Anything so that when you ask them they can rattle off


I had a guy (in 4E) that said they had a power that "ate" enemy action surges. He never had his books on him and hand-wrote his version of the rules that he would show the DM. When he was finally caught he just looked sheepish and said "well nobody ever questioned it" which was completely untrue.


In another campaign (I wasn't the DM), we had a cleric who had ludicrously high DCs for his spells. When asked how he did it by another player, he just sniffed and said "it's complicated". Nobody could ever figure out other than "magic math".


The nitpicker/metagamer.
During a game the nitpicker will question everything the monsters do. Expect lots of "how did they do that" and "monster ___ doesn't work that way". Uggh. Please. Put away the monster manual and just enjoy the game. This gets to the point of rules lawyer when they start arguing with the DM about minutae of actions and abilities. I run a cinematic game and if it doesn't affect the outcome I'll take liberties now and then. Like the guy that really had time to get to the door and lock it waits until you come around the corner to give you a hand signal before closing and locking the door.


We had one guy (the cleric from above) who would literally have the MM open and let everyone know exactly what the text of the creature's abilities were. Then he'd keep track of HP, abilities like legendary saves, tell people what spells to use to use up those legendary saves, etc.


The arguer/pouter/whiner.
I kind of lump these people together, but they will argue until they are blue in the face that their interpretation of the rules is the correct one. If the DM takes a hard line and will not argue about it during the game (which is what I do, we can discuss it after the game) they'll whine about it. "But I reeeeaaally waaaannnnaaaa". When done whining they'll pout.


We had a guy who was flying while invisible. In heavy armor. He thought he should be undetectable but the DM "only" gave them a stealth after they complained when the DM pointed out that it was an enclosed space and that he barely had room to fly above the enemy.


The exploiter.
Give them an inch, they'll take a mile every time. Write a book in natural language and not in technical gamer terms and they try to chisel out every advantage possible. I'd reference the thread that spawned this topic, but don't want to derail the topic.


Usually this is something along the lines of "the rules don't specifically state". An example from back in the day (pre errata) was reloading dual hand crossbows. The rules didn't specifically state that you had to have a hand free to draw ammunition, so therefore ammunition just magically transferred itself from your quiver to the crossbow.


This also happens when someone is multiclass a/b/c with feat x. Unlike the cheater above, there may be some gray area but they will spend hours scouring the message boards for exploits that might just work. See the simulacrum army exploit or pun-pun for an example.


They may also selectively quote rules, skipping over clarifications so it sounds better. For example use the Mold Earth cantrip on pavement and "read" the rules and state that it affects a 5 ft area of earth or stone. Then they'll excavate a 5 ft cube of pavement skipping over the part that excavation requires loose dirt. Oh, and just for funsies they'll do this directly underneath someone and then "trap" the target in the stone that's reformed around them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why Rules Lawyering Is a Negative Term

The same reason "Rules Paladin" would be a negative term...

…Further humorous digression, because I've reached that age where hearing one thing will send your mind wandering off into the past:

So, I sometimes date myself by mentioning something that happened back on UseNet, now I'm going to carbon-date myself by mentioning something from BBS days. Whatever the offline qwk reader I was using was, it let you define a set of taglines that it would randomly add to your messages.
One of mine was "I'm not a Rules Lawyer, I'm a Rules Activist."

Yeah, not worth the setup at all, and that was one of my better ones.

 

[Celebrim]

That is an interesting approach. So, from my perspective, I would rather tear off all of my toenails and fingernails with an ice pick than run the 3e or PF ruleset ...

lol.

3e D20 is the best and worst of systems. I can sympathize with both those that love and hate it, as I've certainly spent a lot of time hammering the system into shape.

And with that in mind, I run my games with the general idea that, "Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered." Sort of a meta-rule. See, the trouble with having everything specified (or, as you put it, clear and unambiguous) is that I want players to be delighted with their own sense of adventure, and I don't want them to feel that everything must be put there for them to do it.

So this gets straight to the heart of it. I'm not going to claim a DM that runs a railroad is the exact analogy for a player that is a rules lawyer, but as it is something else that is usually denigrated and with good reason, and because I think the motives of the two participants are often the same, let me talk about railroading a second.

I've been very fortunate to never have a railroad DM but I've played with and talked with a lot of players that have. The group I was with the longest as a player, had lost its long time DM just after I joined, and while they had been players in his game for years and enjoyed it, it was clear that they also had a good natured resentment (if you can imagine such a thing) toward the fact that he had DM PC's and pet NPC's and he railroaded them relentlessly and they never really had any agency. They'd tell horror stories of his abuse with arbitrary and unfair rulings, and then laugh about it because what else could they do and there is still a sort of fun in that sort of thing. But they would also tell the new less railroady DM later that he ran the best and most enjoyable game they ever played.

The problem with a subjective standard like "pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered" is that pigs and hogs are pretty much the same thing, and the farmer here can do whatever the heck that he pleases. The farmer gets what he wants, and the pigs can't object. When you say something like, "It's only when the player acts in an inequitable manner, attempting to break the game for their own benefit that negative rulings have to be made.", my first thought is, "Why if you don't want players doing that, do you have rules that permit it?", and my second thought is, "Does this mean the entire game you play is basically, "Do what makes the farmer happy, least you be slaughtered?"" As a player, I don't want to be in a game where the only rule that matters is, "Mother may I?"

I tend to have as my meta-rule, "Run the game the way you would want it run if you were the player." This is of course a very subjective self-centered rule as well, and maybe you are in fact running the game that you would want to be in if you were the player. Certainly I know players on the boards that bristle at the very idea of railroading, but when I asked my group of players some 8 years ago what sort of game they wanted, they all basically said, "We want to be on rails. We want you to have some epic story in mind, and we want to experience and discover it, and we don't want to spend much time trying to find the fun or make or own fun."

I really don't like justifying the spirit of the game when it comes to rules. That's a discussion for table social contracts and the like. With respect to rules though, the claim that the perfect is the enemy of the good shouldn't be used as an excuse for having bad rules, and really I don't think you should have a rules set where the player is asked to not try too hard to succeed lest the DM's wrath be roused against him. It creates a structure were the actual processes of play have basically nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with intimate knowledge of the judges personal biases - like knowing better than baking something peanut butter flavored for Paul Hollywood.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I tend to have as my meta-rule, "Run the game the way you would want it run if you were the player."

I tried that, but my players still didn't like Weapon v Armor Type adjustments.

 

[Celebrim]

I tried that, but my players still didn't like Weapon v Armor Type adjustments.

There is no rule I miss more than Weapon vs. AC adjustments, and it is one of two rules I'm forever tempted to port forward from 1e - the other one being casting times in segments.

Sadly, there is only so much granularity you can stuff into a single system before the costs start outweighing the benefits.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[S'mon]

I teach lawyers. Really I AM a lawyer. I still hate those New York lawyers I've dealt with.

 

[billd91]

There is no rule I miss more than Weapon vs. AC adjustments, and it is one of two rules I'm forever tempted to port forward from 1e - the other one being casting times in segments.

Sadly, there is only so much granularity you can stuff into a single system before the costs start outweighing the benefits.

I'd also say that the 1e version was a mess - full of inconsistencies (a shield's effect isn't consistent), no baseline (wearing no armor is often worse than... wearing no armor), and extremely punitive to monks. 2e's implementation as an optional weapon was much more cogent, though poorly described in the 2e DMG.