In praise of the rules lawyer

[S'mon]

I certainly appreciate rules experts who know the rules and can explain them clearly and objectively to me. A rules lawyer is one who takes an adversarial approach, arguing rules for their advantage. This is not a good thing BUT it might be a defense mechanism where the GM himself is being too adversarial and the player responds with rules-lawyering in trying to keep his character alive. If it happens a lot with different players the GM should consider his GMing style.

 

[Heathen72]

Since my last thread, the one about whether or not railroading can be a good thing, generated so much discussion, I figured that I might as well bring up another pet peeve that many gamers have: The rules lawyer.

Somebody who forces the GM to look up everything before making a ruling (or who does the looking up himself), or who demands a rules explanation for everything that the GM says happens, is obviously a human hemorrhoid. On the other hand, there are people whose knowledge of the rules or of facts that are external to the rules but part of the action can actually aid the flow of a game.

Has anybody here ever found a rules lawyer to be helpful?

People with knowledge of the rules can indeed be very helpful, and an excellent resource. My knowledge of the latter day versions of D&D is somewhat incomplete, so I rely on my players better knowledge of the game.

The term Rules Lawyer is classically used to describe someone who uses his knowledge of the rules as a blunt instrument, browbeating the GM with them to get their own way. They are a nuisance and a blight on the game.

You have framed your question in an interesting way. You dressed a rules lawyer as a rules expert, and then ask if rules lawyers can be helpful. It muddies the waters, and results in praise being given to Rules Lawyers that should rightfully be directed to Rules Experts.

 

[Heathen72]

As someone else said, the difference between expert and lawyer is in the beholder.

That difference is usually in mannerism and confontationalism. The expert presents and explains the rule to inform the GM.

The lawyer argues and wheedles. Its annoying and disruptive behavior.

No offense to Danny, who is a lawyer, but it got termed "Rules Lawyer" as a negative play on the way lawyers are percieved by society.

This doesn't speak to whether the rules lawyer is actually RIGHT about the rules. Its simply that he's going to argue for his version of them vociferously. He's a right-fighter, in that he has to fight to prove he is right.

Add to all of this, is playing with a DM who doesn't know that the smurf he's doing. He gets the rules wrong, etc. And he thinks he's right. His judgement is unassailable.

If you have a DMoron, that's a problem.
If you have a Rules Lawyer, that's a problem.

In a good table, you've got a rules expert on whom to rely on correct interpretations of rules when questions come up, and you've got a DM who will ask and listen when somebody knows the rule.

I would give you XP, but I have given you too much. Well said.

 

[Psion]

I have known and worked with several rules experts who have been immensely helpful at the table.

I think the colloquial "rules lawyer" is a specific form of expert, who is not so helpful.

Exactly. To me, rules lawyer has a very specific meaning. In fact, I'd suggest that being especially sharp with the rules isn't necessarily one of them. It's more about behavior, trying to use the rules as a way to "get your way", without regard for the impact on the flow of the game or concerns of the GM or other players.

If you have ever seen The Gamers: Dorkness rising, think of Cass. Daphne (a beginner) obviously manages to make an awesome character using choices he thinks are sucky, but he insists on things like making an elf monk character "because it's a core option" despite the fact that the GM said there are no elves or monks.

 

[Umbran]

Victim of the Stormwind Fallacy.

Not based on what was said, no.

Neither, "I don't care about optimization," nor, "The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter," equates to, "I think optimization runs against roleplaying."

The issue of the Rules Lawyer is not about the Stormwind Fallacy. It is about taking more than your fair share of the GM's time, preventing others from having fun, and often being a bit of a jerk to the GM in the process.

 

[Mark CMG]

Since my last thread, the one about whether or not railroading can be a good thing, generated so much discussion, I figured that I might as well bring up another pet peeve that many gamers have: The rules lawyer.

Somebody who forces the GM to look up everything before making a ruling (or who does the looking up himself), or who demands a rules explanation for everything that the GM says happens, is obviously a human hemorrhoid. On the other hand, there are people whose knowledge of the rules or of facts that are external to the rules but part of the action can actually aid the flow of a game.

Has anybody here ever found a rules lawyer to be helpful?

There are times in a RPG when the players will not have all of the information and having to "explain" what is happening in regard to the rules might as well be giving away the fun. So, too, if the only time(s) everything is not explained is because there is some secret the players should not be aware, then the GM might as well put a neon sign over those instances as well (like only rolling for secret doors when there are actually secret doors to be found). Because of these correlated instances it is best for the game if the GM rarely if at all "explain" a situation in terms of the rules. If the players cannot trust their GM then that is another issue entirely having nothing to do with the rules.

 

[Zhaleskra]

For the record, I'm fine with someone saying "I don't think it works that way."
My likely answer would be "you may be right, we'll look it up after the game, for now it works the way I ruled." or in a game specific example "Maybe <insert god's name here> likes you/is mad at you today" in response to misremembering the mechanics of the spell (World Tree).
If you argue with me after that compromise or "yes, I forgot the rule", you've established yourself as a jerk. My opinion, and all the usual disclaimers.

 

[Hussar]

For the record, I'm fine with someone saying "I don't think it works that way."
My likely answer would be "you may be right, we'll look it up after the game, for now it works the way I ruled." or in a game specific example "Maybe <insert god's name here> likes you/is mad at you today" in response to misremembering the mechanics of the spell (World Tree).
If you argue with me after that compromise or "yes, I forgot the rule", you've established yourself as a jerk. My opinion, and all the usual disclaimers.

What if your mistake results in a PC death? Or serious penalty or failure for the PC? Do you then retcon? Or simply shrug and move on?

 

[billd91]

What if your mistake results in a PC death? Or serious penalty or failure for the PC? Do you then retcon? Or simply shrug and move on?

Generally, if it involves a PC death, we'll look it up and resolve it at that time. That's important enough to stop. Anything else, we keep on moving, no tag backs.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Sometimes the WT gods are capricious. Not my fault you don't own a bound Heal the Awful Wound*. Having that spell bound is "Adventuring 101" on the tree.

*Especially because if I'm teaching you World Tree, I will tell you to get this spell bound.

Actually, that's another thing I like about World Tree's tone: not the GM's responsibility to remember your character's abilities, that's why they're on your character sheet.