How do you deal with rules laywers??!!

[Trickstergod]

Everybodies posted some rather good responses in my opinion, so I'll try not to be overly long-winded when most everyone else has already done a wonderful job.

My own way of dealing with rules-lawyering is, essentially, as such:

If someone wishes to dispute the rules with me, they can, so long as they're curt about it, and understand that if I disagree with whatever they just told me, then that's it - for the moment. I'm fine with being contradicted, so long as it doesn't bog down the game. The exception is if my mistake is going to get a character killed, in which case, I'll let the player rattle my ear off so long as it sounds like an honest to goodness grievance as opposed to just trying to worm out of the character dying. But that's the only exception. Even if I'm mistaken, unless a character is going to die, it's not important enough to slow down the game.

On the other hand, I let my players know that, after game, they can argue with me all they like, and get their gripes off their chest. It's not slowing down game, so it doesn't hurt to listen, and, in turn, affords me more time to argue my own point. If I'm wrong, hey, great, I'm not perfect, and if I screwed up, I'll fix any mistake I just made. And, even if I'm right, I still made sure the door was open for complaints, instead of letting the player grow to resent me for just ignoring them out of hand. But the important thing is, that this happens outside of the game, and not during it, so it doesn't slow anything down.

 

[cptg1481]

Rules

While we sure had our ups and downs in the begining I think we have reached an understanding. I'll always listen to thier side of a point and if it is taking too long I'll tend to err on thier side until later. I'll ask them if I'm not absolutely sure about something so we have a fair game; however, if I don't ask that means I "am" absolutely sure that I am correct and further discussion is not acceptable. Now, I love my players (think they love me too) and absolutely trust them to be fair and consistent when it comes to rules (and they trust me too).

I tend to use my players as a resource, like someone else said...I mean it is in the best interest of my monk character to know the in's and out's of the grapple rules (for example) and instead of me trying to memorize that set of rules verbatum I let him do it and consult him always when I consider a grapple with an NPC. He's more than happy to help me figure out the numbers.

Likewise, the cleric helps me when I have an NPC cleric csting spells, the fighter helps with remembering which feats work how and so on.....

I even have them help me look up stuff when its not thier turn to keep the game going, makes the job a lot easier.

My players usually even help me with my math....which is also in their best interest since while I'd never screw them intentionally, I'm not real good with absolutes.

 

[jasper]

Ok there are rules lawyers and rules gurus.
Lawyers will argue argure over a misplaced comma, or the difference in word on same feat/ability in different parts of srd,phb etc.
You are the Dm the supreme court of the rules. Rule and move on. Even if this means Perry Mason is still mumbling over a call, throw the next encounter at them.
Let them win! this works especially when they want a certain view of the rules/spells which help the party wipe out the enemies. Next encounter the monsters use the same ruling on the group.
Ok Perry, the orcs start doing party tactic 1A. You are surprise since tactic 1A always surprises the opponent. The bard is mashed to ground, and the tank is cut in half. Roll init.

 

[Enceladus]

The first rules lawyer to highjack my storyline gets a strongly worded piece of my mind. I give them a verbal dressing down in front of the entire group so serve as an example of what happens when you open the rule book while I'm talking. If they continue to be impossible I boot them out as I have done so many times in the past. Plenty of people waiting to play in my game.

I just can't stand rules lawyers.

 

[randomling]

I'm actually really lucky on this front. On the rare occasion I DM, my friend Tallarn (from these boards) is a fantastic help with the rules. He's been playing RPGs (mostly D&D) for twelve or thirteen years, and I've been playing about eighteen months, so needless to say he knows the rules better than me. Or rather he has the kind of mindset that holds onto them.

So when I DM, Tallarn tells me the rules. He's scrupulously honest about it, and always argues what he thinks is the right interpretation, whether that goes for or against the PCs. He thinks he annoys other DMs -- but not me! I love it.

That's my contribution. I have DMed a rules lawyer and it was horrible. Tallarn isn't a rules lawyer: he's a rules consultant. That's a significant difference.

 

[Henry]

If they continue to be impossible I boot them out as I have done so many times in the past. Plenty of people waiting to play in my game.

If that works, then that's great! For our group, that's not an option, because not only are we all friends and choose to play together, but the number of available players fluctuates wildly these days, and there are not backup players available.

Rules Lawyers, meaning "people who know the rules", are not a problem, they are a resource, especially if I am not strong on a particular part of the rules, such as spells or spell creation or item creation, or some such. However, there will be problem players out there, whether they are arguing rules, or whether they are simply arguing the way an event happened. It's not a function of knowing rules; it's a function of being disruptive.

Story is important to me, but playing by the same rules as everyone else is also important, because I want to avoid accidental arbitrary rulings in case I get too "caught up" in what I am trying to present. One foible I can have if I am not careful is in insisting on things going the way I had "scripted," because the situation looks cool in my head. But I also want to make sure I do justice to my players and not invalidate what they do. If they villain dies in the first 10 minutes of the game because a player came up with a brilliant plan, then that's fine, because I can transfer his plans to a more important villain, and they should receive notice that it was indeed a smart plan.

But the Rules Lawyers are there for me to get gist of the rules as they are presented, without digging on the spot, and without short-changing my players or my NPC's.

 

[MarauderX]

As a DM, what I say goes unless proven in about 0.02 seconds. The players are welcome to correct me for FUTURE situations, but I never go back and change things to make it right. I don't like to be a rules lawyer, I like to have fun, so I don't like to stop to have someone dictate word for word out of the PHB. Not only that, but if you have players that make you question yourself it gets out of hand and you the DM become a push over, which is no good. I've seen it happen time and again as a player, and even though my fellow lawyer player may be right I still don't like it. Make a ruling and move on; live with it and don't hold a grudge as a player.

 

[Psion]

Though people are quick to throw bile at rules lawyer, I think it is fair to say that there are two sides to every story.

While bogging down the game with minutia is not desirable, I think you need to be fair to the players and give them consistent underpinning to the world. Some players need this more than others.

At any rate, if you really have rules lawyers on your hands and not just some players who need a little stability, I think the best thing to do is:
1) Point them to the section of the DMG about the DMs best friend and quick rulings and that you will occasionally be using these in preference to specific minutia.
2) State your policy with respect to handling arguments in play (Mine is "if it can't be resolved in one minute, the DM makes a call, and then AFTER the game you make sure that you and everyone else knows the right rule.
3) If a rule just strikes you as wrong, at least be consistant. Write down your ruling and make it a house rule, and make it available to all the players.
4) If you have someone with true rules-lawyerism on your hand, harness his powers for good purposes. Enlist him as a "rules librarian" (This only applies for "true" rules lawyers. Rules weasels who only look out for themselves need not apply.)

 

[Enceladus]

If that works, then that's great!

I've actually only had to do that one time. Probably won't ever have to do it again. Sure felt good though!

Most of my gaming group I've known for years and they trust me to do a good game.
You know how they say you're your own worst critic? I think that I may be the worst lawyer out of our whole group, but thats mainly because I want to be fair to my players and would never intentionally screw them over. AND because I've earned their trust and intend to keep it. The one guy I had to get rid of, whenever I'd desribe a scene or something happening he'd go for his PHB. That's what pretty much did it for me.

 

[the Jester]

Tell them that it's a ruling, not a discussion, and you can discuss it after the game's over. Make exceptions when it means somebody is gonna die.