Why Rules Lawyering Is a Negative Term

[Celebrim]

and extremely punitive to monks

That was a feature IMO.

There is certain class which isn't to be mentioned in this thread. Well, as much as that class is hated by the OP, I hate the Monk more.

As far as the inconsistencies go, I did make some tweaks to get it doing what I wanted it to do, but I loved the general idea and I loved its effect on gameplay and that it meant that there was no single best weapon (though two-handed sword still was the likely contender in that role, the one-handed swords were no longer obviously superior to everything else in the game).

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

A bunch of these sorts sound familiar, but this one in particular… Same edition, same MO. His character had a ridiculously high AC, based on his scrawled notes and table. Dude would also turn out to be cheating at his dice rolls.

I had a guy (in 4E) that said they had a power that "ate" enemy action surges. He never had his books on him and hand-wrote his version of the rules that he would show the DM. When he was finally caught he just looked sheepish and said "well nobody ever questioned it" which was completely untrue.

 

[Blue]

I don't see reminding someone of a rule as rules lawyering at all. We do it, and others are thankful because they aren't as versed in the game. Of course I'm also the person who let the DM know when the last errata nerfed my character some - holding to the rules when they help you and hiding them at other times is a whole different term, one not polite enough to post here.

Rules lawyering, to me, is about finding the loophole or other advantage that shouldn't be there or violates the spirit but not the letter of the rules. "Rule A says this, and when that interacts with Rule B that means this" or "Rule C says this applies except in these listed cases, and this new case from a later book isn't listed, so it applies". The other case is when the DM makes a ruling because of a specific exceptional circumstance and a player would rather not have it and argues for by-the-book.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Celebrim]

That's a pretty big claim!

I'm not doubting your antipathy, mind you.

I think you may underestimate my hatred.

So, let's make some sort of standard.

You've undoubtably removed the class from your games. But, as a practical matter you could still play a honorable, righteous, fighter who had protective healing magic in your game right?

But I've not only removed the class from my game, I've altered the rules so that you can't even play the concept.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Li Shenron]

After this thread I am still undecided whether I hate lawyers or rules lawyers more... let's just conclude the usual: kill them (both) and take their stuff.

 

[jgsugden]

Do we ever go wrong when we group people together, slap a label on them, and then sling hatred at them? It makes it so much easier to be rude when you can depersonalize it!

 

[Sacrosanct]

Do we ever go wrong when we group people together, slap a label on them, and then sling hatred at them? It makes it so much easier to be rude when you can depersonalize it!

today a right wing white nationalist was just sentenced for killing a woman when he drove into a crowd. Am I comfortable with slapping a label on his group? Yep. Are rules lawyers as bad as white nationalists? I'll leave that up to debate, but I'm comfortable saying rules lawyers are a bad things for a game like D&D. Great when it comes to designing rockets or writing code, but for reasons several people have mentioned already, pretty horrible for a subjective game that's supposed to be fun for everyone.

 

[Shiroiken]

IMX people hate their own lawyers as much as any other lawyer.

Man (answering phone): Hello?
Lawyer: I just thought about you, and decided to give you a call.
Man: That's nice!
Lawyer: No, that's $400...