FIRELIGHT FABLES CANDLES - Get premium fantasy-scented candles for your D&D games! Use promo code THEDMLAIR to get 10% off. www.firelightfables.com/ DM LAIR NEWSLETTER - Monthly RPG book giveaways and free D&D 5e and Pathfinder 2e goodies emailed to you every week! - thedmlair.getresponsepages.com/
I’m definitely a Rules Devotee. I’ve said, “No, that spell doesn’t work that way. It works this other way that hurts me.” more than once during a game.
@@dantemoose420 That and at least in my case, I don't insist on it and let the GM make their rulings. It's more a "Hey, GM, did you remember that specters have Life Drain and we're supposed to roll a Con-Safe on hit? Yes, you did, but you ignored it because we're level 1 and the chance of a one-hit-kill with that ability is a little too high for your liking? Alright then, you're the boss."
@ No. According to this video the Rules Lawyer abuses the rules in his favor. I follow the rules to the letter. Sometimes it helps me and sometimes it doesn’t. But I point out the correct rules in both situations.
I appreciate you making the distinction between Rules Lawyer, Sage and Devotee, and specifically their intent. Knowing someone's intent is very important when addressing such issues. Also a thrown weapon is a ranged attack, which gets a penalty against prone creatures.
@@sleepinggiant4062 they are referring to pathfinder 2e, it don't have advantage or disadvantage, it does have something like it but not the same rules
I haven't heard about the sage or the devotee. I have a rule sage in my group. It actually took me a while to realize his potential, as I generally tend to not really care all that much about the rules and leans heavy towards rules as fun. But to have this guy who not only knows all the general rules, but often knows other peoples classes better than the players playing them knows them was a huuuge benefit when we got in 2 new dnd-players in my high-lvl campaign (lvl 17 when they joined). He took care of them so I could focus ob running the game. Awesone
Ohhh, rules sage is a great way to put it. I have an obsession with learning systems that gives me a pretty tight understanding of the rules, but not for personal gain I'm just autistic and want to know it all. I had played with a Rules lawyer once, they had kept all their pestering focused on a new player since myself and another player had a better understanding of the rules, and we sorta used our combined knowledge to overrule their attempts to control the newbie.
I never had one of those in my group. The closest we came was when the chaotic-neutral fighter with 18/00 strength, facing a horde of kobolds, asked for a ruling -- "How much damage does a kobold do?" I looked it up and told him 1-6 damage. So he grabbed a kobold, popped its head off, held it by the ankles, and proceeded to do 1-6 damage with each swing (plus his strength bonus).
Defining terms from the outset was an excellent way to tackle this, especially since there often isn't a clear or commonly held definition of a "rules lawyer" in most such discussions. Well done!
As soon as a rules lawyer enters the game, my game switches to Paranoia. SERVE THE DM THE DM IS YOUR FRIEND! The DM wants you to be happy. If you are not happy, you may kill the Rules Lawyer. The DM is crazy. The DM is happy. The DM will help you to become happy. This will drive you crazy until you kill the Rules Lawyer so we can back to playing D&D.
In my first game group, I learned from a DM how to deal with challenging players in a funny way. Out of the group, there were 3 engineering majors, one data science major, and me the lowly political science guy. It was wild watching how they would handle issues though. We had a guy who was both a min-maxer and kind of lawyer adjacent. He wasn't a jerk about it, but there were frequent "actually" moments. There was a session where we were at a tavern and the DM mentioned that we heard a noise outside. My buddy was like "I go outside to check it out" and the DM had him roll vs damage. He noted that the player's INT was high enough to know that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line but his wisdom was low enough for him to not realize what a bad idea that would be to do. The rest of us were dying laughing at the whole thing. A new character was rolled up and there was more humility.
I recently left a game where there was a "Rules Lawyer" DM. Every questionable / unclear action had to be looked up. Rulings were almost always skewed against us. They frequently spent 10-15 mins or more looking up examples of similar rulings on reddit or other sites during game sessions. They couldn't be bothered with player feedback or just making a ruling to keep the game going... And that wasn't the only issue that DM had, but yeah, glad I left.
@sggames4787 That sounds more like a Rules devotee positioned against the players for some reason. Perhaps because of another devotee or lawyer and no sage. The DM has no personal stake in the game in terms of winning or losing, it's not a game of us vs them. The DM also has nothing to prove to anyone, their rulings are the law. Sure, a DM should try to be consistent about it and signal what might happen. They can also make a quick ruling to maintain the pace and later look it up and let the players know that going forward they'll use the real rule. Or not, occasionally shit just happens and the players got to deal. That's also why there's a screen. The DM can make up anything behind there, as long it helps with the drama of the story being told together and the overall enjoyment of everyone at the table (including themselves). So maybe he was not that experienced, or got called out on a few rulings and got insecure about it. Sticking to the rules to deal with those darn players. Ofc some groups just don't work well together and it sounds like that was the case.
@@CitizenMio You do realize that a DM can see the game as themselves against the players, right? It absolutely should be the DM facilitating an adventure for the players, but it doesn't always work that way. This particular DM had a story they wanted to tell, and did what they could to keep us on the railroad, which usually meant making sure rulings went against us whenever possible, which led to the obsessing over questionable rulings and looking up rulings on the internet, because they could establish "precedent" then for how they wanted it to go. There were no "rules lawyers" or "devotees" among the players.
Most annoying is when the rules lawyer wants to drag the game to a halt just because they missed an attack or took some damage. My general rule is if a character's fate doesn't hang in the balance and we can't resolve it in a few seconds, I make a call and we move on. We can discuss it in detail after the game. If I'm wrong, then we know for the next time.
DM here, gotta say I love the rules lawyer at my table. After multiple hours dming my grasp on the rules starts to slip and he always corrects me when I mess up 😂
i have a fledgling rules lawyer/power gamer in my group, sometimes you have to put your foot down and just say "no" and move on to the next player. Usually this is when the other players start rolling their eyes or sighing.
I have a massive rule's lawyer in my dnd group. So sometimes in my dnd group the dm can't run the session so he asks a player to run a "combat dungeon" a.k.a bunch of rooms that just have combat encounters, any items found will be listed and given to the dm next session for him to see if it is ok, also it gives a free long rest after the session. NOW, one of the players who becomes this temporary dm is a rule's lawyer who will use the fact that he is the dm to push his shitty rulings. Some rulings include, if you are invisible you cannot be damaged (because you need to be targeted to get damage even aoe attacks), if you levitate or fly away from an enemy they cannot have attack of opportunity (attack of opportunity only work on one plane of battlefield combat), persuasion checks are mind control and can be used on players (no, just no both in a ruling and player agency). It gets to a point where every time he brings up a rule, I as a player rush to the rule book and call out his bullshit. Funny enough doing that has started to make me a rule sage like.
I admit that I fit your category of Rules Devotee. I always make sure that I keep myself in check and certainly never want to succeed by virtue of a rules mistake. As a DM I happen to run a party with a Rules Sage, our former DM, and a Rules Lawyer. Fortunately I am a RAW DM, but the Rules Lawyer almost always argues HIS interpretation of a rules versus mine. It has caused problems. However, I basically have a rule that I will make a ruling at the time and recheck everything in between sessions... amending any permanent game situations that may have arisen because of a mistake I made. In most cases this will not necessarily be a true retcon; rather something happens in game that causes the result of the incorrect ruling to be effectively rectified accordingly. I/E. if something causes the party to be captured because I made a mistake, the next session, they might be rescued. or an even happens that allows them to escape.
Thank you for telling the actual definition of rule lawyer. So many people use it as a buzzword like "metagaming" anytime something happens that they don't like. I'm not sure if I'm a rule sage or devotee, but i don't feel like a rule lawyer. The only thing I would disagree is when you said that only rule lawyer say "technically". For example, in a curse of strahd campaign I ended up later quitting because of the actions of the dm (I could make an entire list), we were in Death house with a rogue/thief. He looted a jewelry box and didn't share the loot (even said "I'm just playing my character"). He told us that the box was empty. My cleric rolled a insight vs his deception. I rolled a 24 insight, but he rolled a 23. Because he rolled a nat20, the dm made him win. So yes I ended up saying "technically a nat20 is not an automatic success" (especially for a insight vs deception). For me it's a way to tell the dm "Here's how that's supposed to work, but the final call is yours". There were other basic rules, like when he denied the doubling the dices of the paladin on a crit smite or denied the rogue of advantage on an attack when he was hidden. I just wished in those cases to hear from the dm "we will check it after the game, we need to move on" or "You're right, but I'm using homebrew" rather than just "Trust me, I'm the dm". To be a good player, a good way is usually to experience both playing and dming.
I generally convince my rules lawyers to become rules sages/experts. It's not hard to do as it makes them feel important (which they are in the new role) as long as they understand the DM has the ultimate say in what happens.
I always tell new players: "I welcome reminders about rules. There is a lot I will forget about during the game, and getting some help remembering is a big plus. What I don't welcome are 15 minute pauses to the game to discuss a Reddit thread on how Detect Magic should ACTUALLY work. If a discussion about how the rules work lasts longer than 60 seconds, I will give my ruling, or if I feel uncertain, roll a d6 and if it's +4, I run it how the player suggests. Otherwise, I go with what my gut instinct was." Works pretty well at dissuading that kind of behavior at my tables.
I had believed myself to be a rules' lawyer, but apparently I am the sage. I have had many times when I brought up any time I noticed a rule was being broken/misunderstood, but it has not always been to my benefit (has been detrimental a few times and killed my char once). I also try to make it clear to the DM that I am fine if they want to home rule, making it work differently in their campaign.
I think the table I'm at is somewhere between Sage and Devotee. We'll have mild arguments about the rules, but we're pretty good at just agreeing with wondering and moving on. (or plainly just moving on if we disagree with the DM) and our DM is also a fan of "the rule if cool" because it's usually more fun than being committed to following the rules
I probably used to be a bit of a rules lawyer. Over the course of time, I've tried to move towards using my powers for good and just being a resource for rules knowledge. I think another thing that might help in your confrontation with the rules lawyer is to let them know that having someone at the table who knows the rules so well is a great resource to have at the table, but that's really being offset by all of the arguing. You'd love for them to stay in the game and be that resource, but you need to be able to make decisions and move things forward. Those rules discussions can always happen between sessions if they think it's important. This has a better chance of making them feel less attacked and make them feel valued for all the work they put in to learning the rules while still addressing the issue and setting boundaries. After that, make a point of asking them rules questions when you aren't sure about something. Being given those opportunities will help them build on that role as well as vent their their inner rules lawyer.
This is Brian VanHoose from Knights of the Dinner table to a tee. For anyone who has not read this and wants a good laugh at all the shenanigans that go on in RPGs you could do worse than to check it out.
I haven't run a game in years, but my idea for 'beating' rules lawyers is to simply customize things (not homebrew) If they're facing a group of goblins, have them use nonbasic stats and a hodgepodge of armor/weapons
W advertisement. I actually buy firelight fables a bunch and every bundle is top tier, and each order I've purchased has come with three tester candles and a whole bunch of goodies alongside of it free of charge. I sound like such a product placement but firelight fables is a small company and has really good customer support I feel like I need to speak up in favour of the good ones.
I can count myself among the lucky ones. I never had a rules lawyer in groups I GMed and only ever met one in a group I played in. Back then I was playing with a group of fairly new players, all of whom were fellow soldiers. However, this one player was "very experienced" and started a discussion with the GM in the first session. Or better, he tried to. After listening to him for about a minute the GM simply told him: "End of discussion, accept my ruling or leave." He stayed. Thus the problem was solved and it came never up again. All of us had great fun. The experienced player later said that this game was the best he ever had because the rules were treated as "suggestions".
I am the Rules Sage of my various tables. I won't being up anything unless it's asked of me. "Hey, when it's a Grapple, it's Athletics vs... what again?" "Fortitude DC." "Thanks! (Other player) Roll your Athletics check."
I'm definitely a Rules Sage. The key for a Sage or Devotee to not devolve into a Lawyer is to pick your battles. Not every rule break needs to be fixed, especially if it's the fifth time it happens and you mentioned it the first two times. The DM/Players either don't remember or don't care because the rule is interfering with the fun. This happens a lot in 5E where a player casts a bonus action spell and then a non-Cantrip spell. The player is not doing Fireball/Quickened Fireball because that's obviously wrong, but I have witnessed a DM overlooking/not realizing when a player does Misty Step/Fireball or Healing Word/Spirit Guardians. It internally irks me, but players got annoyed way too many times of this correction I stopped doing it.
This is a great video! I recently joined a group where the GM and the players were new to Pathfinder 2e. I was the only one with experience with playing PF2e. I let the GM borrow my books and the starter kit. During play, he would ask me for rule advice/ clarification and if I knew, I would tell him. Other times, I would quickly try to help find the rule. Soo I might be a Rules Sage? Lol
I'm fortunate in that I have not dealt with a rules lawyer, but I have dealt with a problem player that was playing a barbarian whose subclass allows his character to have extra attack, but causes him to suffer from a level of exhaustion after he comes out of rage because of it. He wanted me to rule of cool it so that he didn't suffer from a level of exhaustion after coming out of rage because if he rages three times before a long rest, he does from exhaustion. I told him I would allow him to choose a different subclass, but refused to change the subclass.
Generally speaking, I tend to have a better grasp of RAW than my DMs. I do not tend to question what the DM's side does when it comes to monsters - as they have their own set of rules - with the exception of clarifying things such as "does X get to repeat the save? / that condition does Y, can I really do Z?" and things of that nature. If I am more strict, it's often against myself, or in benefit of the DM/another player. An example being when doing group initiative, one of them has not yet done their thing as there's a lot to keep track of - or if the fighter should have rolled with advantage due to an unusual condition. This has generally fostered good will, and tends to make the combat more engaging (I like challenges, and making sure the fighter can do their thing). I do like the rule of cool and waving off weird rulesets (see 14'5e mounted combat), but I aim to use it sparingly as a player for those occasions when a neat narrative moment can happen.
I was a rules lawyer when I first started (i read all the source books of 5e before starting) then realized i was holding the game all the time with technicalities and that also frustrated me, and i stopped doing that. Now I just leave it at DMs ruling most of the time after a small explanation. There is still hope for other rules lawyers 😂
I have a strict table rule for every game that I run and I make sure all players have read and agreed to them: If we disagree about how a rule should be applied and we can't come to an agreement within moments, shelve it, write it down and we'll talk about it after the session. If I was wrong, we can retcon my decision.
Okay, but I do agree with the "grab their leg when they drop you" bit, tho. If they've got you grappled, it should totally be an option to grab them back instead of them just dropping you like a turtle on Aeschylus's head. I've got a DM that likes grappling and dropping low-level player characters with flying beasts way too much.
I regularly use the word technically to say how it works RAW. As in "technically it wouldn't work this way, but it's your call". I also think the "it's not fair" refrain isn't entirely unreasonable. It can feel incredibly unfun when someone else gets a privilege you don't get.
Rules lawyers can be born of poor DM'ing (though it often isn't). It's good to establish early that players may respectfully challenge a ruling occasionally, but your word is final and you will not allow them to argue with you. This allows people to challenge when you forgot something or really screwed up a ruling. I try to be gracious and if a player can quickly articulate a plausible reason why they should have got advantage or whatever, I usually allow it unless I have a good reason not to. When I let them bend the rules, I try to be very clear where Rules as Written actually would not allow what they are doing even though I'm allowing it this time. This cuts off a lot of future haggling. If they keep questioning me, I tell them the ruling is final and we're moving on. If I very much disagree with the player and they are really spun up about a ruling, I tell them to write down their thoughts and I'll review it for next time (unless it's something we can quickly look up). I will not entertain constant questioning. If they keep doing it, I tell them that if they don't like it, they are free to find another table and that they are slowing down the game for everyone else. On letting someone have advantage when they shouldn't, but they had a well articulated story reason: You can always adjust things on the backend to not let the advantages be overpowering. The whole point of D&D is to get people to roleplay and be creative. I like rewarding players that are so invested in the world that they want to think about how mental state, and situational things might affect their abilities.
I've personally never had a problem with rule lawyers and like having someone in the campaign that knows the rules deeply as an advisor if even I have questions. Granted I'm also the kinda person who will happily tell someone to piss off I'm Dming and make a call.
I think there's a fourth category: Rules Masochists. Basically devotees that are hell bent on not being seen as lawyers so much that they usually or always point out why their (or the rest of the party's) stuff doesn't work and how they should suffer for it.
I feel that following the rules fall between two extremes from Pirates of the Carbbean: 1. Captain Teague Keeper of the Code - The Code is the law. 2. Captain Barbosa - The Code is more like guidelines than actual rules. I lean more towards the second.
We used to have a combined rules lawyer/devotee/powergamer in our group. He caused so much trouble because he felt that the rules were set in stone regardless and that that if he had purchased a rulebook then not using the rules as written meant he had wasted his money. However, I knew that if I needed a rule I didn't know or couldn't remember, I knew his expertise would help me out.
When I dm, I try not to spend a lot of time looking up rules. If something comes up that does not have a clear ruling, I just do what makes the most sense at the time and look it up later.
I consider myself a devotee. I would rather fail fairly than cheat to win. One of my pet peeves is when a player casts a spell that has no effect and decides to retcon their spell choice and insist on casting something else instead.
I guess I’m not a rules lawyer based off this definition. I guess I’m more a rules public defender? I don’t argue the rules to benefit my character, I argue on behalf of everyone at the table including the GM. I also understand that rule 0 (rule of cool) applies to all rules and that the GMs ruling is theirs to make.
This makes sense I always called myself a rules lawyer but hated the assholes that ruined the title I'm more of a rules sage. Often send private messages when players break rules so the dm can fix it if they want or ignore it if they choose without be calling anyone out mid game. And am always happy to recite rules or spells to avoid lengthy stops to look it up. So I guess I'll embrace rules sage from now on
In my campaign we don't have lawyers. The rogue, cleric, and possibly his son are sages, I'd consider myself a devotee. I'm not super familiar with the rules, but dangit, I want to follow rules, even if I come close to death. Which has happened on occasion.
I'd say I'm somewhwere between a purist and a sage. I know the rules and will point them out, even if it cost me or my party to do so. However, I ususally don't get mad if the rules are bent/broken for a specific moment or for someone to have a 'rule of cool' action. I say usually, cause I do get mad if the rules are bent/broken specifically to stop/frustrate/ruin the party's course of action at the last possible minute when it's too late to change or adapt what we did (As we already did it). This is normally done to 'protect the plot', or because the dm's plans would have otherwise been ruined by the players unaccounted for actions. Otherwise known as the "DM screw job."
I occasionally have one of those. My take is, if you don't like some of my rulings you can talk to me after the game. If most of my rulings aren't to your liking, I am not the right GM for you. I don't allow constant arguments during the session.
Ok real talk here. If you have cat smell issues. Get yourself some Milton fluid (the stuff you used for sterilising baby bottles) in a spray bottle. Stuff works a charm for that kind of thing. Helpful announcement done for the day 😅
One of my groups has all three. A rules lawyer. A rules devotee. & A rules sage. It's always funny to watch the rules lawyer get picked apart by the rules sage & rules devotee. The rules lawyer is slowly losing their will to debate.
I wish I had a Rules Sage at my table. I play that roll at the table I play on but for the game I DM it's more like "If Grant forgets the rule and I don't remind him then uhh I forgot the rule too 🙂" They usually don't mind or make an argument when I remember halfway through the next turn and have to run stuff back though lol. Probably because of how often I remind them about rules that help them. I just wish they would help me out instead of trying to get one over lol. Which means I'm usually locked in for the whole session lol
You mean I could have grabbed for the guy that knocked me out of the air mid-strike as I was jumping from one roof to another? (Yeah, no. I missed my dex saving throw. I even had to ask the DM if I took damage.)
Jera. My favorite Rune. I once had a private label essential oil line by that name and still use it on ebay. Harvest. You get out what you put in. What more can anyone ask from the Gods?
I have a player who tries to insist he's not a min-maxer... He's a min-maxer. I have to check him a lot... he's very excited to exploit the rules, but when i come back next session and tell him every other DM and player plays that rule differently, he gets severely butthurt. I really enjoy when he leverages that knowledge to benefit the other players, but it doesn't happen often. I'm almoat to conversation 2 with the guy to explain that he's letting his tiberius stormwind show. Given that his roommate (the rules sage) plays a party favorite, it's gonna be an awkward conversation . I'm desperately hoping that he'll continue to improve and wont fall back into old habits.
I'm a rules sage who usually knows the rules better than the rules lawyer does and yes I 'well actually' them all the time. That usually shuts them down. The best instance of this I actually asked "You want to argue rules with me?" and the other 3 people at the table quickly and emphatically told that person "No you do not."
One of he fastest ways to have me leave a game is to state we’re using “the rule of cool”. I’ve very icy a rules devotee & I find the “rule of cool” to be one of the worst concepts instituted by modern role players. I’ve actually packed my belongings & walked out of a game when the gm used the rule of cool to resolve one of my actions, It was an incredible turn-off. This isn’t a story telling session, its a game, game possess rules & they are there to adjudicate outcomes of players actions, ignoring them for “story” purposes loses the point of the game; somewhere gamers started to believe that failing at something or having your character die became illegal, and that’s what the rule of drool removes from the game. If your players miss the vital clue to continue your story then they’ve failed, it’s ok. you may be suprised b the players ability to problem solve in that situation, but you’ll never know because of the dreaded “rule of drool” where you spoon feed your adult players. If you don’t want to have them fail to break down a door, then don’t have them roll; tell them after x amount of time they eventually get through the door, its that simple, however, once you have them roll dice the players should live with the results, it’s your fault if they fail the vital roll, you required the roll in the first place. The “rule of cool” diminishes players agency, regardless of what gm’s say, and lead to a less then satisfactory game in my opinion. I feel like I earned nothing when the “rule of cool” is used to forward the “story” instead of the game’s rules. I’d rather earn my rewards, and live with my failures honestly rather than use that ruinous rule. Folks wouldn’t ignore the rules of monopoly or risk for the “rule of cool” so why the hell do we ruin our games with its destructive nature?
“…there is something I hate even more - the smell of cat pee permeating my basement.” 😂😂😂😂 I have six cats and plug-in scent thingies in every room of the house. Might need to check out those candles. But the cats are totally worth it, am I right? Anyway, back to this week’s video.
Could you lay out at session zero that if that kind of behavior is shown that character wil receive a permanent level of exhaustion that cannot be cured. If they purposely let thier character die to get around it to play another character then that new one will also start with 1 level of exhaustion. Each and every time they exhibit that behavior they receive another level of exhaustion. If they don't like those rules then don't play.
Session 0: No arguing with me unless I contradict the rules. Be respectful and keep the game moving forward. Rules lawyers have always been those that know the rules well and can say how they work. Bad rules lawyers will argue only in their favor. Good rules lawyers will let he DM decide how things work and only chime in when asked. Never heard the other terms used.
I dont think that was a Rules Lawyer. Im a relatibly new DM, and its always useful to me to recieve help from veteran players about some rules i am not aware of. The guy you interpreted its more like a player who just cant take an L. I had one once, i just stood firm, he kicked himself quite soon he saw he was unable to control me or the other players, that campaign lasted 2 beautiful years.
Right around 7:45 you say that Rules Lawyers will "forget" the rules when a rule is at their disadvantage. This isn't a rules lawyer, this is a cheater... and while i absolutely admit that Rules Lawyers can be problematic, its not ok to say that every rules lawyer is a cheater.
Oh. This video is interesting. I can imagine Luke doing a video for every type of problematic player. There are certain behaviors that are seen as rude and problematic in TTRPGS, but I don't fully understand why. The most confusing for me is the power gamer. I was into video games long before DND. In that video gamer subculture, powergaming is normal. It is vital for competitive play. Rules lawyers are confusing for me too. Knowing the rules is vital to playing a game at all. This video has the best explanation of rules lawyers I have seen. Now I finally get it. Knowing the rules wasn't a bad thing after all. Rules sages know the rules, and they benefit the game. They can help other players and even the DM understand the rules for a smoother game. Rules devotees can be a nooying, but at least they are fair. Rules lawyers are a whole other thing. They are not bad because they know the rules. They are bad because they argue with the DM and exploit the rules for themselves. I can see why this can be toxic. Even the skit at the beggining makes it clear. It is interesting that the rules lawyer has a Pathfinder book. That is hardcore. That book is so crunchy and chonky. I recently started reading this book. So it is a neat coicidence. Ultimately the worst thing about the rules lawyer is insubordination. This is a bad thing for any player to do, regardless of how much or how little they understand the rules. The DM is the ultimate authority of a game group. They have the final say when players disagree on something. Also rulings are a thing. Never mind having an encyclopdedic knowliage of the rulebook. Any player and DM worth thier salt should understand the basic concept of rulings. TTRPGs are different from other kind of games, because they give the DM a lot of leeway. Understanding and using the rules is one of the several roles a DM does. There is even a whole section about it in the 2014 DND DM Guide. It is at the back of the book with a picture of fancy dice. So the DM should be the final authority of the rules. They can delegate the task to the rules sage, but it is thier choice. Rules lawyers mess with this. Good video. If Luke is interested, this could turn into a whole series on etiquette and problematic players. I encourage that, but no pressure. I wonder what is Luke's take on power gamers. The only problem I can see is that mixing power gamers with other players will make them too OP. That makes the difficult task of balancing encounters even worse.
PS There is a certain way a ruling works. The DM makes a decision in that moment. Then the whole group accepts it and moves on. They let it go. The group will likely forget the incident by the time the next game session starts. The rules lawyers in the skit uses rulings as precedence. Who does that. Let it go dude. I wonder whether this skit is an exaggeration or some rules lawyers out there are really that extreme.
Basically you are playing a game of working together so you shouldnt do behaviors that hinder, block or reduce the fun of others. Powergamers do that by picking a strong build that destorys the balance of the group, pushs weaker players out and by attaching themselves to the party, they cant be handled properly as they hide in the party. The rules lawyer only fights rules to get power and annoy people. "Well techinally i can make a vortex grenade because my character knows interplaner workings" or "i charmed the boss to tell me how to kill him, how is that "hurtful to the target and their views" Also the only time you should interject if something is truly wrong like "yo i got a flaming sword, so i burn the foe"
That little skit is why I hate running 5e more & more every year. It's designed around "rulings not rules" with a slanted exception based design that incentivizes stonewalling any efforts at actually making a ruling. WRT the cat pee, check out breeze litterboxes, they suspend the litter above a drain tray with a pee pad that you can easily swap out regularly.
That how i feel about other games, in 5e it is "This is what it is, i can listen to X but dont try to shame me or boot" Meanwhile other games expectyou to be a robot.
You forget that some DM's do this as well. They bend the rules to benefit their own campaign and "win", which is utterly pathetic. I hate DM's who are inconsistent in their rulings for this reason.
I only "rules lawyer" when the DM is using rules from another game because I showed up to play this game, not that one. If the DM wanted to run that game he should have said let's play that game, because I love that game, too. For instance, DM said let's play 3rd edition, then starts using rules from AD&D. My guy, we should have just played AD&D, it's so much better. At the time it was really hard to get the books, though.
"Uhm Acshuley about your opening skit. Grabbing an edge is a reaction and therefore the rules lawyer (if that is his real name) would not have had a reaction to make his reactive strike!"
Why do I always feel bad for his players in the skits like the over increased DC or nonsensical disadvantage like I feel sorry for his poor players they deserve better even when the whinner is trying to portray them as the problem he ends up the 1 looking terrible like DC 25 to simply grab ahold jeez
Also he missed a type that was what was mostly in the skit "the rules tester" the player that often enjoys finding cool or funny official moves and trying them to see if they work well in actual games and usually are the noncaster player or are trying to come to the DM with an official base to avoid nonsensical imposanle DCed on the fly calls
@theDMLair what can you say? We'll let's start with just this skit. Uh, the impossible DC could have set to something that made a lick of sense (could easily have been the AC of the creature he was trying to grab) which with a 21 would have eliminated all the other problems in the skit, but if not we can move to the impossibility of prone in a 0 gravity environment let's identify where the arbitrary line is for prone is it relative to gravity(all fish attack at disadvantage), the fight(any changes in elevation and everyone suddenly has disadvantage), or simply realize there is no up in zero gravity and not give debuffs for no reason...and with just those 2 the player wouldn't have tried to rules lawyer the couple of times (a lot of rules lawyers are just normal players that are tired of bad homebrew calls and the DM's gf getting preferential treatment)
FIRELIGHT FABLES CANDLES - Get premium fantasy-scented candles for your D&D games! Use promo code THEDMLAIR to get 10% off. www.firelightfables.com/
DM LAIR NEWSLETTER - Monthly RPG book giveaways and free D&D 5e and Pathfinder 2e goodies emailed to you every week! - thedmlair.getresponsepages.com/
Lawful Good = Rules Sage
Lawful Neutral = Rules Devotee
Lawful Evil = Rules Lawyer
well put! :D
True evil = Lawyer.
Well put. We have a Rules Sage in my group. Dang useful and because he knows the rules so well he just makes crazy builds.
I’m definitely a Rules Devotee. I’ve said, “No, that spell doesn’t work that way. It works this other way that hurts me.” more than once during a game.
Yeah, same. I do this so often we have our own term for it in my tabletop group that is an abbreviation of my username.
I'd argue that the difference is that you're rules lawyering against yourself, rather than against the DM.
@@dantemoose420 That and at least in my case, I don't insist on it and let the GM make their rulings. It's more a "Hey, GM, did you remember that specters have Life Drain and we're supposed to roll a Con-Safe on hit? Yes, you did, but you ignored it because we're level 1 and the chance of a one-hit-kill with that ability is a little too high for your liking? Alright then, you're the boss."
@ No. According to this video the Rules Lawyer abuses the rules in his favor. I follow the rules to the letter. Sometimes it helps me and sometimes it doesn’t. But I point out the correct rules in both situations.
I appreciate you making the distinction between Rules Lawyer, Sage and Devotee, and specifically their intent. Knowing someone's intent is very important when addressing such issues.
Also a thrown weapon is a ranged attack, which gets a penalty against prone creatures.
Technically, it's all attacks not within 5' have disadvantage, and those within have advantage.
@@sleepinggiant4062 they are referring to pathfinder 2e, it don't have advantage or disadvantage, it does have something like it but not the same rules
@@RenegadeSpider2 - trying to be funny and act like a rules lawyer. :)
I haven't heard about the sage or the devotee. I have a rule sage in my group. It actually took me a while to realize his potential, as I generally tend to not really care all that much about the rules and leans heavy towards rules as fun. But to have this guy who not only knows all the general rules, but often knows other peoples classes better than the players playing them knows them was a huuuge benefit when we got in 2 new dnd-players in my high-lvl campaign (lvl 17 when they joined). He took care of them so I could focus ob running the game. Awesone
That opening sketch is really nice to clarify the type of rules lawyer you're talking about. Thanks
It's not a "type of"; that's what constitutes a Lawyer
@littlegiantj8761 this is the funniest moment, and I'm not going to explain why.
@IronicCliche omg! The sprinkles on top is your username "ironic cliche" lol
Ohhh, rules sage is a great way to put it. I have an obsession with learning systems that gives me a pretty tight understanding of the rules, but not for personal gain I'm just autistic and want to know it all.
I had played with a Rules lawyer once, they had kept all their pestering focused on a new player since myself and another player had a better understanding of the rules, and we sorta used our combined knowledge to overrule their attempts to control the newbie.
I never had one of those in my group. The closest we came was when the chaotic-neutral fighter with 18/00 strength, facing a horde of kobolds, asked for a ruling -- "How much damage does a kobold do?" I looked it up and told him 1-6 damage. So he grabbed a kobold, popped its head off, held it by the ankles, and proceeded to do 1-6 damage with each swing (plus his strength bonus).
That's based
Defining terms from the outset was an excellent way to tackle this, especially since there often isn't a clear or commonly held definition of a "rules lawyer" in most such discussions. Well done!
As soon as a rules lawyer enters the game, my game switches to Paranoia.
SERVE THE DM THE DM IS YOUR FRIEND!
The DM wants you to be happy. If you are not happy, you may kill the Rules Lawyer.
The DM is crazy. The DM is happy. The DM will help you to become happy. This will drive you crazy until you kill the Rules Lawyer so we can back to playing D&D.
In my first game group, I learned from a DM how to deal with challenging players in a funny way. Out of the group, there were 3 engineering majors, one data science major, and me the lowly political science guy. It was wild watching how they would handle issues though. We had a guy who was both a min-maxer and kind of lawyer adjacent. He wasn't a jerk about it, but there were frequent "actually" moments. There was a session where we were at a tavern and the DM mentioned that we heard a noise outside. My buddy was like "I go outside to check it out" and the DM had him roll vs damage. He noted that the player's INT was high enough to know that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line but his wisdom was low enough for him to not realize what a bad idea that would be to do. The rest of us were dying laughing at the whole thing.
A new character was rolled up and there was more humility.
I recently left a game where there was a "Rules Lawyer" DM. Every questionable / unclear action had to be looked up. Rulings were almost always skewed against us. They frequently spent 10-15 mins or more looking up examples of similar rulings on reddit or other sites during game sessions. They couldn't be bothered with player feedback or just making a ruling to keep the game going... And that wasn't the only issue that DM had, but yeah, glad I left.
The worst part is probably "can't be bothered with player feedback" that likely contaminated everything else
@sggames4787 That sounds more like a Rules devotee positioned against the players for some reason. Perhaps because of another devotee or lawyer and no sage.
The DM has no personal stake in the game in terms of winning or losing, it's not a game of us vs them.
The DM also has nothing to prove to anyone, their rulings are the law. Sure, a DM should try to be consistent about it and signal what might happen. They can also make a quick ruling to maintain the pace and later look it up and let the players know that going forward they'll use the real rule.
Or not, occasionally shit just happens and the players got to deal.
That's also why there's a screen. The DM can make up anything behind there, as long it helps with the drama of the story being told together and the overall enjoyment of everyone at the table (including themselves).
So maybe he was not that experienced, or got called out on a few rulings and got insecure about it. Sticking to the rules to deal with those darn players.
Ofc some groups just don't work well together and it sounds like that was the case.
@@CitizenMio You do realize that a DM can see the game as themselves against the players, right? It absolutely should be the DM facilitating an adventure for the players, but it doesn't always work that way. This particular DM had a story they wanted to tell, and did what they could to keep us on the railroad, which usually meant making sure rulings went against us whenever possible, which led to the obsessing over questionable rulings and looking up rulings on the internet, because they could establish "precedent" then for how they wanted it to go. There were no "rules lawyers" or "devotees" among the players.
Most annoying is when the rules lawyer wants to drag the game to a halt just because they missed an attack or took some damage.
My general rule is if a character's fate doesn't hang in the balance and we can't resolve it in a few seconds, I make a call and we move on. We can discuss it in detail after the game. If I'm wrong, then we know for the next time.
That’s the problem right there. Monday morning, quarterback, all you want, but the game keeps moving.
Thank you and well put
DM here, gotta say I love the rules lawyer at my table. After multiple hours dming my grasp on the rules starts to slip and he always corrects me when I mess up 😂
i have a fledgling rules lawyer/power gamer in my group, sometimes you have to put your foot down and just say "no" and move on to the next player. Usually this is when the other players start rolling their eyes or sighing.
I have a massive rule's lawyer in my dnd group. So sometimes in my dnd group the dm can't run the session so he asks a player to run a "combat dungeon" a.k.a bunch of rooms that just have combat encounters, any items found will be listed and given to the dm next session for him to see if it is ok, also it gives a free long rest after the session. NOW, one of the players who becomes this temporary dm is a rule's lawyer who will use the fact that he is the dm to push his shitty rulings. Some rulings include, if you are invisible you cannot be damaged (because you need to be targeted to get damage even aoe attacks), if you levitate or fly away from an enemy they cannot have attack of opportunity (attack of opportunity only work on one plane of battlefield combat), persuasion checks are mind control and can be used on players (no, just no both in a ruling and player agency). It gets to a point where every time he brings up a rule, I as a player rush to the rule book and call out his bullshit. Funny enough doing that has started to make me a rule sage like.
I admit that I fit your category of Rules Devotee. I always make sure that I keep myself in check and certainly never want to succeed by virtue of a rules mistake.
As a DM I happen to run a party with a Rules Sage, our former DM, and a Rules Lawyer. Fortunately I am a RAW DM, but the Rules Lawyer almost always argues HIS interpretation of a rules versus mine. It has caused problems. However, I basically have a rule that I will make a ruling at the time and recheck everything in between sessions... amending any permanent game situations that may have arisen because of a mistake I made. In most cases this will not necessarily be a true retcon; rather something happens in game that causes the result of the incorrect ruling to be effectively rectified accordingly. I/E. if something causes the party to be captured because I made a mistake, the next session, they might be rescued. or an even happens that allows them to escape.
Thank you for telling the actual definition of rule lawyer. So many people use it as a buzzword like "metagaming" anytime something happens that they don't like. I'm not sure if I'm a rule sage or devotee, but i don't feel like a rule lawyer.
The only thing I would disagree is when you said that only rule lawyer say "technically". For example, in a curse of strahd campaign I ended up later quitting because of the actions of the dm (I could make an entire list), we were in Death house with a rogue/thief. He looted a jewelry box and didn't share the loot (even said "I'm just playing my character"). He told us that the box was empty. My cleric rolled a insight vs his deception. I rolled a 24 insight, but he rolled a 23. Because he rolled a nat20, the dm made him win. So yes I ended up saying "technically a nat20 is not an automatic success" (especially for a insight vs deception). For me it's a way to tell the dm "Here's how that's supposed to work, but the final call is yours". There were other basic rules, like when he denied the doubling the dices of the paladin on a crit smite or denied the rogue of advantage on an attack when he was hidden. I just wished in those cases to hear from the dm "we will check it after the game, we need to move on" or "You're right, but I'm using homebrew" rather than just "Trust me, I'm the dm".
To be a good player, a good way is usually to experience both playing and dming.
I generally convince my rules lawyers to become rules sages/experts. It's not hard to do as it makes them feel important (which they are in the new role) as long as they understand the DM has the ultimate say in what happens.
I always tell new players: "I welcome reminders about rules. There is a lot I will forget about during the game, and getting some help remembering is a big plus. What I don't welcome are 15 minute pauses to the game to discuss a Reddit thread on how Detect Magic should ACTUALLY work. If a discussion about how the rules work lasts longer than 60 seconds, I will give my ruling, or if I feel uncertain, roll a d6 and if it's +4, I run it how the player suggests. Otherwise, I go with what my gut instinct was."
Works pretty well at dissuading that kind of behavior at my tables.
I had believed myself to be a rules' lawyer, but apparently I am the sage. I have had many times when I brought up any time I noticed a rule was being broken/misunderstood, but it has not always been to my benefit (has been detrimental a few times and killed my char once). I also try to make it clear to the DM that I am fine if they want to home rule, making it work differently in their campaign.
I think the table I'm at is somewhere between Sage and Devotee. We'll have mild arguments about the rules, but we're pretty good at just agreeing with wondering and moving on. (or plainly just moving on if we disagree with the DM) and our DM is also a fan of "the rule if cool" because it's usually more fun than being committed to following the rules
I probably used to be a bit of a rules lawyer. Over the course of time, I've tried to move towards using my powers for good and just being a resource for rules knowledge.
I think another thing that might help in your confrontation with the rules lawyer is to let them know that having someone at the table who knows the rules so well is a great resource to have at the table, but that's really being offset by all of the arguing. You'd love for them to stay in the game and be that resource, but you need to be able to make decisions and move things forward. Those rules discussions can always happen between sessions if they think it's important.
This has a better chance of making them feel less attacked and make them feel valued for all the work they put in to learning the rules while still addressing the issue and setting boundaries. After that, make a point of asking them rules questions when you aren't sure about something. Being given those opportunities will help them build on that role as well as vent their their inner rules lawyer.
This is Brian VanHoose from Knights of the Dinner table to a tee. For anyone who has not read this and wants a good laugh at all the shenanigans that go on in RPGs you could do worse than to check it out.
I haven't run a game in years, but my idea for 'beating' rules lawyers is to simply customize things (not homebrew)
If they're facing a group of goblins, have them use nonbasic stats and a hodgepodge of armor/weapons
W advertisement. I actually buy firelight fables a bunch and every bundle is top tier, and each order I've purchased has come with three tester candles and a whole bunch of goodies alongside of it free of charge. I sound like such a product placement but firelight fables is a small company and has really good customer support I feel like I need to speak up in favour of the good ones.
I can count myself among the lucky ones. I never had a rules lawyer in groups I GMed and only ever met one in a group I played in.
Back then I was playing with a group of fairly new players, all of whom were fellow soldiers. However, this one player was "very experienced" and started a discussion with the GM in the first session. Or better, he tried to. After listening to him for about a minute the GM simply told him: "End of discussion, accept my ruling or leave." He stayed.
Thus the problem was solved and it came never up again. All of us had great fun. The experienced player later said that this game was the best he ever had because the rules were treated as "suggestions".
Fun but too true video! It’s amazing that whenever “challenged” the Rules Lawyers always roll a natural 20.
that's karma smacking you for allowing the roll in the first place 🤣😉
NEVER negotiate with a hostage taker.👨🏫
Just have them roll in public 😂
"The door is over there, feel free to use it." Raising a concern is one thing, arguing endlessly earns a disinvite from the game.
I am the Rules Sage of my various tables. I won't being up anything unless it's asked of me. "Hey, when it's a Grapple, it's Athletics vs... what again?" "Fortitude DC." "Thanks! (Other player) Roll your Athletics check."
I'm definitely a Rules Sage. The key for a Sage or Devotee to not devolve into a Lawyer is to pick your battles. Not every rule break needs to be fixed, especially if it's the fifth time it happens and you mentioned it the first two times. The DM/Players either don't remember or don't care because the rule is interfering with the fun. This happens a lot in 5E where a player casts a bonus action spell and then a non-Cantrip spell. The player is not doing Fireball/Quickened Fireball because that's obviously wrong, but I have witnessed a DM overlooking/not realizing when a player does Misty Step/Fireball or Healing Word/Spirit Guardians. It internally irks me, but players got annoyed way too many times of this correction I stopped doing it.
This is a great video!
I recently joined a group where the GM and the players were new to Pathfinder 2e. I was the only one with experience with playing PF2e. I let the GM borrow my books and the starter kit.
During play, he would ask me for rule advice/ clarification and if I knew, I would tell him. Other times, I would quickly try to help find the rule.
Soo I might be a Rules Sage? Lol
I'm fortunate in that I have not dealt with a rules lawyer, but I have dealt with a problem player that was playing a barbarian whose subclass allows his character to have extra attack, but causes him to suffer from a level of exhaustion after he comes out of rage because of it. He wanted me to rule of cool it so that he didn't suffer from a level of exhaustion after coming out of rage because if he rages three times before a long rest, he does from exhaustion. I told him I would allow him to choose a different subclass, but refused to change the subclass.
Generally speaking, I tend to have a better grasp of RAW than my DMs. I do not tend to question what the DM's side does when it comes to monsters - as they have their own set of rules - with the exception of clarifying things such as "does X get to repeat the save? / that condition does Y, can I really do Z?" and things of that nature.
If I am more strict, it's often against myself, or in benefit of the DM/another player. An example being when doing group initiative, one of them has not yet done their thing as there's a lot to keep track of - or if the fighter should have rolled with advantage due to an unusual condition.
This has generally fostered good will, and tends to make the combat more engaging (I like challenges, and making sure the fighter can do their thing). I do like the rule of cool and waving off weird rulesets (see 14'5e mounted combat), but I aim to use it sparingly as a player for those occasions when a neat narrative moment can happen.
That's why I prefer Savage Worlds. More cinematic narrative ability.
Just watching the opening sketch has me pulling my hair out, and I don't have a lot of that on my head.
Proud to be my group's Rules Sage!
I was a rules lawyer when I first started (i read all the source books of 5e before starting) then realized i was holding the game all the time with technicalities and that also frustrated me, and i stopped doing that. Now I just leave it at DMs ruling most of the time after a small explanation. There is still hope for other rules lawyers 😂
4:01 oh, there's actually a video, I thought it was going to be just a long sketch. 😂
My ego is too big to not have a talking head segment where I lecture folks. ;)
NGL, that player would be stepping outside with me to see if he could avoid line-of-sight from these hands.
Player. "I get a reaction because he is flying"
G.M. "Ok, so does he because you are also flying, straight down.
I have a strict table rule for every game that I run and I make sure all players have read and agreed to them: If we disagree about how a rule should be applied and we can't come to an agreement within moments, shelve it, write it down and we'll talk about it after the session. If I was wrong, we can retcon my decision.
Thank god for the cut scene to Luke, my blood pressure was rising in frustration. 😂
Okay, but I do agree with the "grab their leg when they drop you" bit, tho. If they've got you grappled, it should totally be an option to grab them back instead of them just dropping you like a turtle on Aeschylus's head.
I've got a DM that likes grappling and dropping low-level player characters with flying beasts way too much.
I regularly use the word technically to say how it works RAW. As in "technically it wouldn't work this way, but it's your call". I also think the "it's not fair" refrain isn't entirely unreasonable. It can feel incredibly unfun when someone else gets a privilege you don't get.
Rules lawyers can be born of poor DM'ing (though it often isn't). It's good to establish early that players may respectfully challenge a ruling occasionally, but your word is final and you will not allow them to argue with you. This allows people to challenge when you forgot something or really screwed up a ruling. I try to be gracious and if a player can quickly articulate a plausible reason why they should have got advantage or whatever, I usually allow it unless I have a good reason not to. When I let them bend the rules, I try to be very clear where Rules as Written actually would not allow what they are doing even though I'm allowing it this time. This cuts off a lot of future haggling. If they keep questioning me, I tell them the ruling is final and we're moving on. If I very much disagree with the player and they are really spun up about a ruling, I tell them to write down their thoughts and I'll review it for next time (unless it's something we can quickly look up). I will not entertain constant questioning. If they keep doing it, I tell them that if they don't like it, they are free to find another table and that they are slowing down the game for everyone else. On letting someone have advantage when they shouldn't, but they had a well articulated story reason: You can always adjust things on the backend to not let the advantages be overpowering. The whole point of D&D is to get people to roleplay and be creative. I like rewarding players that are so invested in the world that they want to think about how mental state, and situational things might affect their abilities.
I have a rules sage in my game and, man, is he helpful. I didn’t know there was a term for it.
I've personally never had a problem with rule lawyers and like having someone in the campaign that knows the rules deeply as an advisor if even I have questions. Granted I'm also the kinda person who will happily tell someone to piss off I'm Dming and make a call.
I think there's a fourth category: Rules Masochists.
Basically devotees that are hell bent on not being seen as lawyers so much that they usually or always point out why their (or the rest of the party's) stuff doesn't work and how they should suffer for it.
I feel that following the rules fall between two extremes from Pirates of the Carbbean:
1. Captain Teague Keeper of the Code - The Code is the law.
2. Captain Barbosa - The Code is more like guidelines than actual rules.
I lean more towards the second.
We used to have a combined rules lawyer/devotee/powergamer in our group. He caused so much trouble because he felt that the rules were set in stone regardless and that that if he had purchased a rulebook then not using the rules as written meant he had wasted his money. However, I knew that if I needed a rule I didn't know or couldn't remember, I knew his expertise would help me out.
I feel like Dm's should be like "yo this things are not going to be used instead we use this"
When I dm, I try not to spend a lot of time looking up rules. If something comes up that does not have a clear ruling, I just do what makes the most sense at the time and look it up later.
I consider myself a devotee. I would rather fail fairly than cheat to win. One of my pet peeves is when a player casts a spell that has no effect and decides to retcon their spell choice and insist on casting something else instead.
I guess I’m not a rules lawyer based off this definition. I guess I’m more a rules public defender?
I don’t argue the rules to benefit my character, I argue on behalf of everyone at the table including the GM. I also understand that rule 0 (rule of cool) applies to all rules and that the GMs ruling is theirs to make.
Thankfully, despite being a lawyer, I apply “Lore > Law” in-game 😂
I'm very glad I learned I am in fact not a rule lawyer but a rule sage
This makes sense I always called myself a rules lawyer but hated the assholes that ruined the title I'm more of a rules sage. Often send private messages when players break rules so the dm can fix it if they want or ignore it if they choose without be calling anyone out mid game.
And am always happy to recite rules or spells to avoid lengthy stops to look it up. So I guess I'll embrace rules sage from now on
In my campaign we don't have lawyers. The rogue, cleric, and possibly his son are sages, I'd consider myself a devotee. I'm not super familiar with the rules, but dangit, I want to follow rules, even if I come close to death. Which has happened on occasion.
I'd say I'm somewhwere between a purist and a sage. I know the rules and will point them out, even if it cost me or my party to do so. However, I ususally don't get mad if the rules are bent/broken for a specific moment or for someone to have a 'rule of cool' action.
I say usually, cause I do get mad if the rules are bent/broken specifically to stop/frustrate/ruin the party's course of action at the last possible minute when it's too late to change or adapt what we did (As we already did it). This is normally done to 'protect the plot', or because the dm's plans would have otherwise been ruined by the players unaccounted for actions.
Otherwise known as the "DM screw job."
Yes it is possible to make a rules lawyer to a rule sage. It’s not easy or quick, but it can be done
I occasionally have one of those. My take is, if you don't like some of my rulings you can talk to me after the game. If most of my rulings aren't to your liking, I am not the right GM for you. I don't allow constant arguments during the session.
Ok real talk here.
If you have cat smell issues.
Get yourself some Milton fluid (the stuff you used for sterilising baby bottles) in a spray bottle.
Stuff works a charm for that kind of thing.
Helpful announcement done for the day 😅
Man I love your skits
One of my groups has all three.
A rules lawyer.
A rules devotee.
&
A rules sage.
It's always funny to watch the rules lawyer get picked apart by the rules sage & rules devotee.
The rules lawyer is slowly losing their will to debate.
I love ALL the DM Lair videos!!!! ❤
thank you!!! :D :D :D
I wish I had a Rules Sage at my table. I play that roll at the table I play on but for the game I DM it's more like "If Grant forgets the rule and I don't remind him then uhh I forgot the rule too 🙂"
They usually don't mind or make an argument when I remember halfway through the next turn and have to run stuff back though lol. Probably because of how often I remind them about rules that help them. I just wish they would help me out instead of trying to get one over lol. Which means I'm usually locked in for the whole session lol
Ah rules lawyers, one of the greatest enemies to anything and everything homebrew
I saw the thumbnail and thought “that guy from One Tree Hill?”
Problem players such as described here get polymorphed into a jelly doughnut and get eaten by a troll.
You mean I could have grabbed for the guy that knocked me out of the air mid-strike as I was jumping from one roof to another? (Yeah, no. I missed my dex saving throw. I even had to ask the DM if I took damage.)
Jera. My favorite Rune. I once had a private label essential oil line by that name and still use it on ebay. Harvest. You get out what you put in. What more can anyone ask from the Gods?
I’m sending this video to a player and apologizing for calling them a rules lawyer. They’re a rule safe and don’t deserve the slander.
I have a player who tries to insist he's not a min-maxer... He's a min-maxer. I have to check him a lot... he's very excited to exploit the rules, but when i come back next session and tell him every other DM and player plays that rule differently, he gets severely butthurt.
I really enjoy when he leverages that knowledge to benefit the other players, but it doesn't happen often.
I'm almoat to conversation 2 with the guy to explain that he's letting his tiberius stormwind show. Given that his roommate (the rules sage) plays a party favorite, it's gonna be an awkward conversation . I'm desperately hoping that he'll continue to improve and wont fall back into old habits.
Did Lake of Urine play Ozzfest? 5:02
I'm a rules sage who usually knows the rules better than the rules lawyer does and yes I 'well actually' them all the time. That usually shuts them down. The best instance of this I actually asked "You want to argue rules with me?" and the other 3 people at the table quickly and emphatically told that person "No you do not."
One of he fastest ways to have me leave a game is to state we’re using “the rule of cool”. I’ve very icy a rules devotee & I find the “rule of cool” to be one of the worst concepts instituted by modern role players.
I’ve actually packed my belongings & walked out of a game when the gm used the rule of cool to resolve one of my actions, It was an incredible turn-off. This isn’t a story telling session, its a game, game possess rules & they are there to adjudicate outcomes of players actions, ignoring them for “story” purposes loses the point of the game; somewhere gamers started to believe that failing at something or having your character die became illegal, and that’s what the rule of drool removes from the game. If your players miss the vital clue to continue your story then they’ve failed, it’s ok. you may be suprised b the players ability to problem solve in that situation, but you’ll never know because of the dreaded “rule of drool” where you spoon feed your adult players.
If you don’t want to have them fail to break down a door, then don’t have them roll; tell them after x amount of time they eventually get through the door, its that simple, however, once you have them roll dice the players should live with the results, it’s your fault if they fail the vital roll, you required the roll in the first place.
The “rule of cool” diminishes players agency, regardless of what gm’s say, and lead to a less then satisfactory game in my opinion. I feel like I earned nothing when the “rule of cool” is used to forward the “story” instead of the game’s rules. I’d rather earn my rewards, and live with my failures honestly rather than use that ruinous rule.
Folks wouldn’t ignore the rules of monopoly or risk for the “rule of cool” so why the hell do we ruin our games with its destructive nature?
“…there is something I hate even more - the smell of cat pee permeating my basement.”
😂😂😂😂
I have six cats and plug-in scent thingies in every room of the house. Might need to check out those candles.
But the cats are totally worth it, am I right?
Anyway, back to this week’s video.
Cats are always worth it! :D
I have the plug in thingies too. :D
Could you lay out at session zero that if that kind of behavior is shown that character wil receive a permanent level of exhaustion that cannot be cured. If they purposely let thier character die to get around it to play another character then that new one will also start with 1 level of exhaustion. Each and every time they exhibit that behavior they receive another level of exhaustion. If they don't like those rules then don't play.
just have to keep reminding myself, "It's a fictional character. It's a fictional character."
Great video!, thx for the advices!
Session 0: No arguing with me unless I contradict the rules. Be respectful and keep the game moving forward.
Rules lawyers have always been those that know the rules well and can say how they work. Bad rules lawyers will argue only in their favor. Good rules lawyers will let he DM decide how things work and only chime in when asked. Never heard the other terms used.
I dont think that was a Rules Lawyer. Im a relatibly new DM, and its always useful to me to recieve help from veteran players about some rules i am not aware of. The guy you interpreted its more like a player who just cant take an L. I had one once, i just stood firm, he kicked himself quite soon he saw he was unable to control me or the other players, that campaign lasted 2 beautiful years.
The worst type is the min-maxing power gamer rules lawyer. And yes, I have experienced such people at AD&D and D&D games.
Right around 7:45 you say that Rules Lawyers will "forget" the rules when a rule is at their disadvantage.
This isn't a rules lawyer, this is a cheater... and while i absolutely admit that Rules Lawyers can be problematic, its not ok to say that every rules lawyer is a cheater.
Curse the rules lawyer with the infestation cantrip after unlawful delay of game at the five minute mark
A bolt of lightning from the gods strikes you dead
Oh. This video is interesting. I can imagine Luke doing a video for every type of problematic player. There are certain behaviors that are seen as rude and problematic in TTRPGS, but I don't fully understand why. The most confusing for me is the power gamer. I was into video games long before DND. In that video gamer subculture, powergaming is normal. It is vital for competitive play. Rules lawyers are confusing for me too. Knowing the rules is vital to playing a game at all. This video has the best explanation of rules lawyers I have seen. Now I finally get it.
Knowing the rules wasn't a bad thing after all. Rules sages know the rules, and they benefit the game. They can help other players and even the DM understand the rules for a smoother game. Rules devotees can be a nooying, but at least they are fair. Rules lawyers are a whole other thing. They are not bad because they know the rules. They are bad because they argue with the DM and exploit the rules for themselves. I can see why this can be toxic. Even the skit at the beggining makes it clear. It is interesting that the rules lawyer has a Pathfinder book. That is hardcore. That book is so crunchy and chonky. I recently started reading this book. So it is a neat coicidence. Ultimately the worst thing about the rules lawyer is insubordination. This is a bad thing for any player to do, regardless of how much or how little they understand the rules. The DM is the ultimate authority of a game group. They have the final say when players disagree on something. Also rulings are a thing. Never mind having an encyclopdedic knowliage of the rulebook. Any player and DM worth thier salt should understand the basic concept of rulings. TTRPGs are different from other kind of games, because they give the DM a lot of leeway. Understanding and using the rules is one of the several roles a DM does. There is even a whole section about it in the 2014 DND DM Guide. It is at the back of the book with a picture of fancy dice. So the DM should be the final authority of the rules. They can delegate the task to the rules sage, but it is thier choice. Rules lawyers mess with this.
Good video. If Luke is interested, this could turn into a whole series on etiquette and problematic players. I encourage that, but no pressure. I wonder what is Luke's take on power gamers. The only problem I can see is that mixing power gamers with other players will make them too OP. That makes the difficult task of balancing encounters even worse.
PS There is a certain way a ruling works. The DM makes a decision in that moment. Then the whole group accepts it and moves on. They let it go. The group will likely forget the incident by the time the next game session starts. The rules lawyers in the skit uses rulings as precedence. Who does that. Let it go dude. I wonder whether this skit is an exaggeration or some rules lawyers out there are really that extreme.
Basically you are playing a game of working together so you shouldnt do behaviors that hinder, block or reduce the fun of others.
Powergamers do that by picking a strong build that destorys the balance of the group, pushs weaker players out and by attaching themselves to the party, they cant be handled properly as they hide in the party.
The rules lawyer only fights rules to get power and annoy people. "Well techinally i can make a vortex grenade because my character knows interplaner workings" or "i charmed the boss to tell me how to kill him, how is that "hurtful to the target and their views"
Also the only time you should interject if something is truly wrong like "yo i got a flaming sword, so i burn the foe"
Oh yeah, a new series. I love it!!!
That little skit is why I hate running 5e more & more every year. It's designed around "rulings not rules" with a slanted exception based design that incentivizes stonewalling any efforts at actually making a ruling. WRT the cat pee, check out breeze litterboxes, they suspend the litter above a drain tray with a pee pad that you can easily swap out regularly.
That how i feel about other games, in 5e it is "This is what it is, i can listen to X but dont try to shame me or boot"
Meanwhile other games expectyou to be a robot.
You forget that some DM's do this as well. They bend the rules to benefit their own campaign and "win", which is utterly pathetic. I hate DM's who are inconsistent in their rulings for this reason.
That's a different skit. :D
4:36 don't boot your dog!
Rules Lawyers are the exact definition of Lawful Evil. 😂
I'm fine with a rules sage or rules devotee. It's the lawyer who grinds my gear and people get rules lawyer confused with the rules sage way too much.
I only "rules lawyer" when the DM is using rules from another game because I showed up to play this game, not that one.
If the DM wanted to run that game he should have said let's play that game, because I love that game, too.
For instance, DM said let's play 3rd edition, then starts using rules from AD&D. My guy, we should have just played AD&D, it's so much better. At the time it was really hard to get the books, though.
"Uhm Acshuley about your opening skit. Grabbing an edge is a reaction and therefore the rules lawyer (if that is his real name) would not have had a reaction to make his reactive strike!"
and me letting myself watch a little longer and it's addressed ;-) sorry, was a fun joke on my end though.
That skit brought back memories in the worst possible way.
Okay so I'm not a rules lawyer but a rules devotee
This is why we gatekeep our tables.
i confront that crup immediately in game, my games are about collaborative story telling, and the rules take a backseat. Zero tolerance for arguments
Why do I always feel bad for his players in the skits like the over increased DC or nonsensical disadvantage like I feel sorry for his poor players they deserve better even when the whinner is trying to portray them as the problem he ends up the 1 looking terrible like DC 25 to simply grab ahold jeez
Oh and some nonsense prone in water too... poor guy
Also he missed a type that was what was mostly in the skit "the rules tester" the player that often enjoys finding cool or funny official moves and trying them to see if they work well in actual games and usually are the noncaster player or are trying to come to the DM with an official base to avoid nonsensical imposanle DCed on the fly calls
yeah, my players hate me. it's a real problem. but I'm a jerk, what can I say?
@theDMLair what can you say? We'll let's start with just this skit. Uh, the impossible DC could have set to something that made a lick of sense (could easily have been the AC of the creature he was trying to grab) which with a 21 would have eliminated all the other problems in the skit, but if not we can move to the impossibility of prone in a 0 gravity environment let's identify where the arbitrary line is for prone is it relative to gravity(all fish attack at disadvantage), the fight(any changes in elevation and everyone suddenly has disadvantage), or simply realize there is no up in zero gravity and not give debuffs for no reason...and with just those 2 the player wouldn't have tried to rules lawyer the couple of times (a lot of rules lawyers are just normal players that are tired of bad homebrew calls and the DM's gf getting preferential treatment)
"If I had known it would be that difficult I would not have attmpted it."
Does that counts as metagaming?