I guess I am a rules lawyer... Is that so bad

[Henry]

There's nothing wrong with knowing the rules... as long as you don't attempt to use them to usurp the benevolent dictatorship.

As long as the DM has final say over any rules questions, then there's not problem with gently reminding him. In my own case, it happens during the game and I don't mind, but some people dislike having the game disrupted in this fashion, even briefly, so it's best to go with the rules of etiquette for your group.

But my personal philosophy is that for the sake of harmony in the game, the DM's word is final. If the DM has to make a final call, the group should stop arguing the point, and agree with it at least until the end of the session. Then, the group may want to re-discuss and decide how to handle it for next session.

There's a time for discussion, and a time to play; it's best to avoid the former until after the latter.

 

[EricNoah]

As DM, I appreciate it when someone who knows the rules better points out where I've blown it. What I don't do, however, is go back in time to fix things -- if I've screwed it up, we'll all just live with it and then get it right next time.

As a player, I try to gauge if the DM is interested in being informed of a correct rule; and then I offer it as a suggestion and leave it at that.

 

[Nail]

Re: Re: I guess I am a rules lawyer... Is that so bad

"Ladies and gentlemen, I have to admit something: I have read the Player's Handbook--twice. Maybe even four times. I sleep with it under my pillow. I take it to work. I print out little quotes from Mialee and tape them to my computer monitor. What does all this mean?

(raises hand)

Uhh...you're a member of D&D anonymous? :^)

 

[WayneLigon]

... but sometimes it bothers me. Well he forgot to remove the extra starting equipment that Realms character get. I...Also our other player accidently added an extra point of str to damage only. ...Do I need help, or should I just keep my big fat mouth closed and let it go??

I wouldn't consider that 'rules lawyering', I'd consider that 'error correction'. No reason not to mention it. Or not expect it will be followed, in the case of extra-equipment-boy.

 

[Cassander]

As DM, I appreciate it when someone who knows the rules better points out where I've blown it. What I don't do, however, is go back in time to fix things -- if I've screwed it up, we'll all just live with it and then get it right next time.

How can someone know the rules better than an epic loremaster?

Or do you have a rules deity in your group?


---
Put your pole down, Billy! Canoeing is a row playing game, not a roe playing game.

 

[Seule]

A Rules Lawyer, or Twink, uses the Dark Side of the Cheese. You, like myself, use the Light Side of the Cheese. The key question is whether you use your Rules Knowledge powers for good or evil, and it sounds like you are very emphatically on the side of good. Pointing out rules that will help the DM and hurt yourself, assisting others in making powerful yet legal characters, these are the hallmarks of the Light Side Cheesemaster.
May the Cheese be with you.

--Seule

 

[Murrdox]

I don't have the entire PHB memorized, but I do like to PLAY by the rules.

A couple of the people I play with suffer from the "That doesn't make sense" syndrome. I hate this thing.

Basically, anytime I quote a rule or something that says something can or can't be done, this guy just says "That doesn't make sense" and an argument ensues, even when I show him what the freaking rule says.

Attacks of opportunity were and still are a headache with him. He still thinks he should get them when he shouldn't, and he still thinks other things shouldn't get them when they should.

A nice example is the "5-foot step" rule... namely, that you can take a 5-foot step out of a threatened area without taking an AoO. His thinking was namely that a Wizard shouldn't be able to step 5 feet away from a fighter and cast a spell in his face... any fighter is going to attempt to block him from doing so.

Even though I explained that you CAN do that... you just have to "ready" an action to prevent the Wizard from backing up... he didn't buy it. Even though I tried to explain that the Wizard is using all the time he could usually use to move 30 feet to carefully evade the fighter and back up only 5 feet (1/6 his normal movement) he didn't buy it.

So to make him and this other guy happy, we came up with a rule that if you want to take a 5-foot step out of a threatened area, you have to make opposed RFL saves to do so. If you fail, you can't back away without taking an AoO.

Dumb and Unnecessary? I think so. But anyways, it seems like almost every session he wants to re-write some rule because it "doesn't make sense". I loved the one where I was playing a Cleric, and I called out my initiative to the DM was "22" (I had a +2 init from dex, and I rolled a 20). He promptly said, "But you're wearing full plate, you only get a max +1 dex bonus! You CAN'T get a 22!". I told him that the max dex bonus only applies to AC, and nothing else, and he promptly said "That doesn't make sense" and that it should apply to everything involving dex. Sighing, I explained that doing so would muck up RFL saves, Ranged attack bonuses, Dex based skills... and finally he gave up and realized he was being stupid.

Is there any nick-name for this kind of a player?

 

[ForceUser]

Is there any nick-name for this kind of a player?

Heh, that guy is classic rules lawyer, man.

 

[spunky_mutters]

I have that same problem as a player. I caught myself arguing with the DM that a monster should have hit me the other night. While not really an argument, I can't resist bringing something up if it seems like it's being played wrong. What I do is limit myself to a single suggestion to the DM about how I think the rule goes, and why. If he chooses to play it a different way, I shut up. The last thing I want to do is hold up play to argue rules.

When I'm the DM I know that there is an onus on me to know the rules, as I am the final arbiter. But since players tend to have more time on their hands, I encourage them to look up rules governing anything they are going to try, or spells they are going to cast. That way when the player's turn comes around, we have the rules at hand and there are no arguments. It also means the spell is there for me to glance at to see if the player is interpreting things in a manner that I would disagree with. It helps to keep things moving as well. The key is being open to correction, but knowing who's in charge, both as a DM, and as a player.

 

[Celebrim]

I agree. I've got no problem having a rules expert on the table, just so long as when I say my opinion differs from him and rule differently, that he respects that. Nothing makes the job of DMing easier than a bunch of guys doing their own accounting automatically, who know the rule, and who relate what actions they wish to perform in a clear manner.

You aren't a rules lawyer.

A rules lawyer, if he doesn't like a rule, argues that the rule is wrong and provides an explanation based on real life. If the rule favors him in the current situation, even if it makes no sense to apply the rule, he will argue that 'That is what the book says'. If the rule is ambigous, he will argue that it has some meaning other than the clearest interpretation - if the less intuitive interpretation benifits himself. If the book is absolutely clear, he will argue that the design is flawed, because the ability is 'useless' unless it works the way he wants it to work. A rules lawyer cares more about getting his way, than he cares about the game everyone has got together to play. A rules lawyer insists that the DM is violating some contractual relationship implicit in the gathering, and insists that since he didn't know the DM wasn't going to abide exactly by the text of the rules as he understood them, that he has the right to retract his action and try a new one. A rules lawyer expects that his every action will have exactly the outcome he foresaw, and is angry when it doesn't. A rules lawyer sees no contridiction in his own behavior. A rules lawyer sees his behavior not only as essentially to the game, but as the meaning of the game itself, and furthermore assumes that all the other players are behind him because he is fighting for 'thier rights'. A rules lawyer assumes that the purpose of the game is to outwit the DM by any means, and that the game is a contest between his will and cunning and the DM's will and cunning. Failing to outwit the DM, the rules lawyer resorts to pestering the DM, putting social pressure on the DM, or staking his friendship on the ruling the DM makes. I've even seen rules lawyers result to intimidation and use thier physical presence as a tool against the DM - invading the DM's personal space, shouting, and otherwise trying to demonstrate thier size and strength. And to top it off, a rules lawyer at the end of the game sees himself as having made the greatest contribution to its success and feels he deserves therefore a significant reward or at least the respect and devotion of his peers.

In short, a rules lawyer has alot in common with all lawyers.