[Help] Am I a rules lawyer?

[Lela]

we had to kick him out, eventually.

what's the worst kind of rules lawyer? an overly argumentative one who doesn't even know the rules in the first place.

Makes sense to me. I'd hate to kick a player out but I'd do it if I had to.

 

[MatthewJHanon]

I think the easy way to dray the line is to say if it is annoying your group then it is rules lawyering, otherwise, its fine.

 

[Thels]

The DM doesn't have to be a walking rulebook, there might be things he doesn't know from the top of his head or remembers wrong. I know that I note a lot of rules to the DM myself too. The DM is fine with it, but some of the players find me annoying if I remember a rule in favor of the DM (They usually forget about the times I remember a rule in their own favor). Heck, sometimes the DM even asks, he, how did that work again? Though if I reminded the DM of a rule and he says he knows but plans to do it otherwise, I'll shut up. I might get back to it after the game's over (on the ride hime for example) if I think it's imbalancing, but don't try to push things.

You should just try to feel the other people's opinions about you when you note the DM of a rule. If they sigh and think, there she is again, better shut up next time. If they listen to you patiently, they're probably fine with it. Or you could indeed ask.

 

[WizarDru]

I have a (admittedly bad) habit of mentioning it when I see rules being used "wrong" (differently then in the book). If the DM says that it is a house rule and I think it is fair, I usually drop it... but if I do not consider it fair, I will bring it up to the DM that I do not beleive that it is fair, and why I do not think so.

Is this too far? I can provide examples, if requested....

Examples might clarify things, but I think several folks have already listed the basics. I have at least one rules lawyer in my group...and I'm thankful for him. His clear understanding of the rules exceeds my own on several points, and he points out possible rules errors both beneficial and otherwise. This isn't a bad thing.

It becomes a problem when the rules lawyer is so married to the rules that he/she cannot see that the rules serve the game, and not the other way around.

For example, from my game:

Me (DM): "The creature attacks three times, and then casts horrid wilting."

Player: "Is it hasted? That was a full attack action and a spell."

Me (DM): "It has the quicken spell like ability feat."

Player: "Oh. Cool. And OUCH."

The same player will point out when he or a fellow character is likely to incur an AoO, when he accidentally added a bonus he shouldn't have, or when I give a save when I shouldn't.

Having someone there to error-check your rulings is good, as long as they're willing to accept that sometimes the rules need to take a back seat to the game itself.

 

[diaglo]

what i find worse as a player is the other players who purposefully forget rules in hopes the DM won't notice.

and then when the DM doesn't...


i remind them (player and DM) and the player says "whose side are you on?"



i'm not playing a game to get one over on the DM.

edit: but i freely admit...i suck at the rules.

 

[WizarDru]

what i find worse as a player is the other players who purposefully forget rules in hopes the DM won't notice.

and then when the DM doesn't...


i remind them (player and DM) and the player says "whose side are you on?"



i'm not playing a game to get one over on the DM.

edit: but i freely admit...i suck at the rules.

For pity's sake man, if you haven't gotten them down after 25 years, when ARE you going to learn them?

 

[diaglo]

For pity's sake man, if you haven't gotten them down after 25 years, when ARE you going to learn them?

i relearn them every session. i think someone said memory is the first thing to go when you age.


i relearn them every session.

 

[kkoie]

Yes your a rules lawyer. No thats not a bad thing. So long as you are willing to ultimately accept the DMs decisions, then you are ok.

 

[Nellisir]

Re: Re: [Help] Am I a rules lawyer?

For example, from my game:

Me (DM): "The creature attacks three times, and then casts horrid wilting."

Player: "Is it hasted? That was a full attack action and a spell."

Me (DM): "It has the quicken spell like ability feat."

Player: "Oh. Cool. And OUCH."

One of my players does this, and it's beginning to drive me seriously nuts. I believe the DM should NOT be required to explain every "unusual" occurrence in the game. If you have difficulty with the rules, then having a "ruleschecker" is good, if they're circumspect about it. If you understand the rules, however, having someone repeatedly and verbally dissecting the NPC's actions into their component rules becomes unbelievably annoying, particularly when whatever conclusion the player arrives at is flawed.

Holding back the full rant
Nell.

 

[Voadam]

After thinking about my recent games, I began wondering if I wasn't one of those always-dreaded "rules-lawyers". When does "following the rules" go to far? Does reminding the DM that a rule doesn't work exactly the way it's being used for/by another PC count as rule-lawyering? Or is it ok to bring it up, as long as you accept it when the DM says "It's a house rule"?

I have a (admittedly bad) habit of mentioning it when I see rules being used "wrong" (differently then in the book). If the DM says that it is a house rule and I think it is fair, I usually drop it... but if I do not consider it fair, I will bring it up to the DM that I do not beleive that it is fair, and why I do not think so.

Is this too far? I can provide examples, if requested....

It is ok to bring up rules issues. You want to know how the rules apply to your character. For example in the game I play in I said "I don't think charging normally provoked an attack of opportunity. Here is the PH reference." When the DM said this is the way I'm running it, I then accepted it, noted it for reference and we got on with the combat.

If you don't ask, you won't know if it is a change in the rules that apply to you or whether it is simply a special condition for the creature you are facing or the situation (for example, there is a Beyond Monks feat that gives you a tripping AoO against charging foes). The DM does not have to give up secret powers, (he could say "that is how it normally works yes, but he still makes an attack as you charge.") but he should say whether the rules have changed.