How do I deal with a rule lawyer?

[Calico_Jack73]

Suggest to him that he might find more enjoyment in tabletop wargames. Roleplaying games by virtue of the infinite number of situations presented by them must have flexible rules that can be changed on the fly in order to keep the game moving along. Most wargames have a very strict set of rules and nothing is allowed outside of those rules. I've found most Rules-Lawyers to be happiest playing wargames such as Battletech & Warhammer 40,000 where it is actually beneficial to have someone at the table who knows the rules inside and out. Starfleet Battles also seemed to attract a bunch of them.

 

[+5 Keyboard!]

I fall squarely on the side of the rules lawyer on this one. I cannot stand games in which the DM coddles the players because he's afraid of some kind of confrontation or letting the players down or derailing his carefully laid campaign railway tracks by killing a PC off. I say let the dice fall where they may. Maybe you all should let the rules lawyer have a crack at DMing. Sounds like he knows his stuff way better than the current DM.

BTW, I would love to hear the other guys side of the story.

 

[Halivar]

Suggest to him that he might find more enjoyment in tabletop wargames.

Oh, for heaven's sake, please don't do that. I wargamed for ~10 years before picking up D&D, and the most irritating players were the ones who switched from D&D because there weren't enough rules for them there. Rules lawyers are a plague on wargaming, and one of the reasons I stopped playing.

I'm telling you folks, you don't know how good you have it. Try joining a DBM or WRG 7th game, and you will learn a new definition of rules-lawyering pain.

Maybe you all should let the rules lawyer have a crack at DMing.

If the lawyer doesn't like the way the group runs their game, he ought to start his own. Don't force your style of play on the group, especially if you're only a player. It's bad form.

PS: I for one, hate games run by rules-lawyers. They run table-top strategy games. I'm here to roleplay.

 

[diaglo]

In that case, I strongly advise that the DM stop fudging the dice, and let the PCs die. It will improve the game.

qft

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Oh, for heaven's sake, please don't do that. I wargamed for ~10 years before picking up D&D, and the most irritating players were the ones who switched from D&D because there weren't enough rules for them there. Rules lawyers are a plague on wargaming, and one of the reasons I stopped playing.

I'm telling you folks, you don't know how good you have it. Try joining a DBM or WRG 7th game, and you will learn a new definition of rules-lawyering pain.

If the lawyer doesn't like the way the group runs their game, he ought to start his own. Don't force your style of play on the group, especially if you're only a player. It's bad form.

PS: I for one, hate games run by rules-lawyers. They run table-top strategy games. I'm here to roleplay.

<LAUGHS>

I guess you are right though nobody can crunch Battletech To-Hit numbers like a Rules-Lawyer can. Me... I always had to count it out on my fingers.

 

[+5 Keyboard!]

Just a quick note: nowhere in any D&D book I have ever seen, does it state this. Indeed, the attitude that the DM is always right has been the death of more than one otherwise perfectly good game group.

Actually, it has been stated in many Game Rule FAQs and sage advice responses on the WotC boards (not recalling it in any Core Rules books, though). While I"m not advocating this and fully agree that kind of tyrannical thinking is the bane of a well-run game, I'm just pointing out that this has been suggested by the game designers in the past. I think it's just their way of saying, "Well, it is your game and you have the freedom to tweak things however you want." This, of course, is usually followed by an "official" ruling of how the DM should run the given scenario.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Actually, it has been stated in many Game Rule FAQs and sage advice responses on the WotC boards. While I"m not advocating this and fully agree that kind of tyrannical thinking is the bane of a well-run game, I'm just pointing out that this has been suggested by the game designers in the past. I think it's just their way of saying, "Well, it is your game and you have the freedom to tweak things however you want." This, of course, is usually followed by an "official" ruling of how the DM should run the given scenario.

Personally I think the DM deserves to have that rule... They do all the work!!!
All a Player has to do is just show up and be entertained. A DM has all of the prep work to do and is the one held responsible when a game doesn't live up to expectations.

 

[irdeggman]

Just a quick note: nowhere in any D&D book I have ever seen, does it state this. Indeed, the attitude that the DM is always right has been the death of more than one otherwise perfectly good game group.

DMG pg 6, under “What is a DM?” and “Adjudicating”

“When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you’re in charge. That doesn’t mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you’re the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good player will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook.”

It goes on to provide guidelines on changing the rules, etc.

So pretty much it does state that the DM is always right (using different words) becasue he is the final arbiter of any rules and can supercede the written ones too.


Chap 1 of the DMG gives some good guidance on how to be a DM, including how to deal with players and rules.

Chapter 1 of the DMG II gives more guidance on running a game.

 

[Felix]

Personally I think the DM deserves to have that rule... They do all the work!!!

Heh. This reminds me of my fiddle lessons. I had the tip of my left middle finger cut off about 7 years ago, and it made it hard to reach the G string; I mentioned this one time, and my instructor's response was brilliant:

Oh, is it hard? Nobody cares; they only care about the music. Play it again.​

I stood there shocked, and then we both started laughing. After that I didn't mention my finger, I tried harder, and I only cared about the music.

 

[+5 Keyboard!]

Personally I think the DM deserves to have that rule... They do all the work!!!
All a Player has to do is just show up and be entertained. A DM has all of the prep work to do and is the one held responsible when a game doesn't live up to expectations.

In my own games, that's pretty much the way it goes, too. But, then, I play by the book, know the rules extremely well, and even then encourage my players to point out if I've made a mistake. It fosters a feeling of cooperation and good will between us. If I have a rules lawyer in my group, I put him to work looking stuff up while I'm running the game to verify a rule or get some elusive information I'm not recalling. I tend to be pretty brutal because I don't pull any punches and my players know that. They also know that it's always going to be fair, by the book, and never with any malice on my part. (The only exception to this, I would say, is if I see that a TPK or plain dumb PC death is about to happen if the players do something stupid. I usually take a moment to advise the player(s) that their character(s) are about to die if they don't play it smart and offer a few suggestions of tactics they could use. While those may not be a guarantee of successfully surviving the encounter, it provides them with a few ideas they may not have thought of.)
Also, the brunt of the workload falls squarely on the DM's shoulders, but without the players, there's no game. And honestly, my players entertain me just as much as I entertain them.
I guess the point to what I'm trying to say is that it's a group dynamic and the DM should have the final say, but should never close himself off from players' critiques, advice or concerns with a ruling. Mutual respect both ways makes for a good gaming environment and the DM never has to think in terms of "I do all the work, so what I say goes."