lowkey13
I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
So, I saw the following on another thread, in response to a comment that "rule lawyers have the reputation they do."
"Oh, and a side note to this: Yes, and people hate real lawyers, until they're on their side. Funny how that works, isn't it? People don't hate rules lawyers, they just hate people that disagree with them, and they especially hate it when the people that disagree with them have a point."
Is this true? Do people LOVE rule lawyers, and only hate people that make succinct points that disagree with them? What do real-world lawyers have to do with this? Well, it's time for a deep dive!
Let's start with the concept of what a rules lawyer is, and the differences (and similarities) between a rules lawyer and an actual lawyer. The idea of rules lawyers not only goes back all the way to beginnings of D&D, it pre-dates it, to the origins in wargaming.
There has always been a tension between the exhortation to players to know rules (see, inter alia, p., OD&D Men & Magic p. 4 "If you are a player ... you will find there is a great advantage in knowing [the rules] herein[.]") and the admonishment to, um, not be a jerk (see, inter alia, AD&D DMG p. 230 "IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME."). Notice Gygax's use of the term "Barracks lawyer," a phrase carried over from the military and wargaming; "rules lawyer" had not yet superseded it in popular use.
But in that Gygaxian admonishment, we see the origin of the issue of the primary issues with Rules Lawyer (hereafter, "RL"). That the RL demands that their rules, in isolation, be followed, and that the RL is generally disliked (that it is a negative term).
Let's start with the reverse order; that the RL is widely disliked is so well-known that by the end of the 80s, Dragon Magazine could publish an article (making fun of gamers at conventions by classifying them as birds) and reference that the "Great Crested Rules Lawyer ... is arguably the worst pest of all convention birds." It is easily seen that this is a pejorative term, and has been for some time. But, more importantly, why?
This is where it is necessary to understand the difference between a rules lawyer and an actual lawyer, and between games with rules, and .... legal systems. Let's examine them:
1. Attorneys are (sometimes) necessary, rules lawyers are not. I want to emphasize this; if your significant other, for example, is complaining that all you ever do is argue about petty details and the relationship isn't fun and your nothing but a nitpicker, you probably don't want to respond ... "Yeah, well people need attorneys too!" Or, maybe you do ... and if you're married, you will need an attorney. The point is that this is attorneys are needed- if you're getting a divorce, or charged with a crime, or someone has brought a suit against you. But you don't bring an attorney to a dinner party with friends, or a pickup basketball game? So why would your bring one to your TTRPG?
2. Attorneys are paid, by you, to understand that actual law, and then advocate, as best as possible, for your position. RLs, on the other hand, only advocate for their own advantage. This is a very important distinction; once your attorney has all the facts and understands the law, he will then understand the best way to advocate for you; and that may be to settle an action (for example) when the facts and the law are not in your favor. An RL will just bloviate forever, and only accepts those things that are favorable to the RL.
3. Finally, games aren't the law. The law is an evolving institution that has existed for a very long time, and has to deal with "RL" types ... and reacts very strongly against it. And there are all sorts of ways that the law deals with them (differences between law and equity, procedural rules, prior cases, etc.). RPGs, however, aren't. To given an analogy to sports (which, by the nature of not being an RPG, doesn't need as complicated rules ... well, theoretically at least), you can either continue to make more and more and more rules to try and cover every possible situation (similar to American football), with the downside of the rulebook getting increasingly complex, and no ability to ever fully capture all possible cases (what is a "catch") or you can make a very simple rulebook (similar to, um, futbol, aka soccer) with a lot more discretion and fewer rules. There's no right or wrong answer, and both approaches have their drawbacks.
Finally, there is a difference between reasonable discussions about rules, and the dreaded RL. The RL is the individual who does not understand that this is a game, and looks solely to better their own position; it is merely one aspect of an otherwise dreary personality.
That's why my tables long ago adopted a rule- if you have a question about a rule, you raise it once; once a decision is made, there is no further discussion about the ruling until after the game. Because life is too short.
Anyway, I thought I'd shed some history there, because it's rare that someone manages to badmouth attorneys. I mean, compare them to gnomes ... but RULES LAWYERS! That's a bridge too far. Attorneys are people too.
"Oh, and a side note to this: Yes, and people hate real lawyers, until they're on their side. Funny how that works, isn't it? People don't hate rules lawyers, they just hate people that disagree with them, and they especially hate it when the people that disagree with them have a point."
Is this true? Do people LOVE rule lawyers, and only hate people that make succinct points that disagree with them? What do real-world lawyers have to do with this? Well, it's time for a deep dive!
Let's start with the concept of what a rules lawyer is, and the differences (and similarities) between a rules lawyer and an actual lawyer. The idea of rules lawyers not only goes back all the way to beginnings of D&D, it pre-dates it, to the origins in wargaming.
There has always been a tension between the exhortation to players to know rules (see, inter alia, p., OD&D Men & Magic p. 4 "If you are a player ... you will find there is a great advantage in knowing [the rules] herein[.]") and the admonishment to, um, not be a jerk (see, inter alia, AD&D DMG p. 230 "IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME."). Notice Gygax's use of the term "Barracks lawyer," a phrase carried over from the military and wargaming; "rules lawyer" had not yet superseded it in popular use.
But in that Gygaxian admonishment, we see the origin of the issue of the primary issues with Rules Lawyer (hereafter, "RL"). That the RL demands that their rules, in isolation, be followed, and that the RL is generally disliked (that it is a negative term).
Let's start with the reverse order; that the RL is widely disliked is so well-known that by the end of the 80s, Dragon Magazine could publish an article (making fun of gamers at conventions by classifying them as birds) and reference that the "Great Crested Rules Lawyer ... is arguably the worst pest of all convention birds." It is easily seen that this is a pejorative term, and has been for some time. But, more importantly, why?
This is where it is necessary to understand the difference between a rules lawyer and an actual lawyer, and between games with rules, and .... legal systems. Let's examine them:
1. Attorneys are (sometimes) necessary, rules lawyers are not. I want to emphasize this; if your significant other, for example, is complaining that all you ever do is argue about petty details and the relationship isn't fun and your nothing but a nitpicker, you probably don't want to respond ... "Yeah, well people need attorneys too!" Or, maybe you do ... and if you're married, you will need an attorney. The point is that this is attorneys are needed- if you're getting a divorce, or charged with a crime, or someone has brought a suit against you. But you don't bring an attorney to a dinner party with friends, or a pickup basketball game? So why would your bring one to your TTRPG?
2. Attorneys are paid, by you, to understand that actual law, and then advocate, as best as possible, for your position. RLs, on the other hand, only advocate for their own advantage. This is a very important distinction; once your attorney has all the facts and understands the law, he will then understand the best way to advocate for you; and that may be to settle an action (for example) when the facts and the law are not in your favor. An RL will just bloviate forever, and only accepts those things that are favorable to the RL.
3. Finally, games aren't the law. The law is an evolving institution that has existed for a very long time, and has to deal with "RL" types ... and reacts very strongly against it. And there are all sorts of ways that the law deals with them (differences between law and equity, procedural rules, prior cases, etc.). RPGs, however, aren't. To given an analogy to sports (which, by the nature of not being an RPG, doesn't need as complicated rules ... well, theoretically at least), you can either continue to make more and more and more rules to try and cover every possible situation (similar to American football), with the downside of the rulebook getting increasingly complex, and no ability to ever fully capture all possible cases (what is a "catch") or you can make a very simple rulebook (similar to, um, futbol, aka soccer) with a lot more discretion and fewer rules. There's no right or wrong answer, and both approaches have their drawbacks.
Finally, there is a difference between reasonable discussions about rules, and the dreaded RL. The RL is the individual who does not understand that this is a game, and looks solely to better their own position; it is merely one aspect of an otherwise dreary personality.
That's why my tables long ago adopted a rule- if you have a question about a rule, you raise it once; once a decision is made, there is no further discussion about the ruling until after the game. Because life is too short.
Anyway, I thought I'd shed some history there, because it's rare that someone manages to badmouth attorneys. I mean, compare them to gnomes ... but RULES LAWYERS! That's a bridge too far. Attorneys are people too.