Rules Lawyers

[malvok]

I just finished running my weekly game and I'm not sure I want to run another.

My normally pretty easy to run players had a fit of rules lawyering that made me want to puke. It seemed like every 5 minutes they fought. In almost every case I was 100% right but much time was spent shooting down their arguments and looking up rules. I know I could have just put my foot down and said this is the way it is but I'm generally pretty laid back and like to let the players use whatever abilities or advantages they have, so I fact checked everything in case I was somehow wrong. Give an inch and they take a mile would be a good way to describe my campaign.

I'm about an inch from removing two of my four players, if I even run again. Just venting, I didn't kill anyone off, rage quit, or anything but damn I'm drained.

How do you guys deal with rules lawyers and argumentative players?

[LordEntrails]

Vent with the other folks who see things the way I do?

Understandable. Give it a day or two and then reach out to all of your players together. Tell them you did not enjoy the last session and how you felt. Tell them you want it to change and ask them how you all together can get to a place you all enjoy.

In general I run my games where when things start to degenerate into rules look-ups etc, I state that hey, I'm not sure I'm right, but this is how I'm going to rule it for now. We can discuss after the session and figure out how things might change for future sessions. I try to make sure everyone knows that the focus is on moving forward and keeping the game, and fun, moving forward.

[Mytherus]

Vent with the other folks who see things the way I do?

Understandable. Give it a day or two and then reach out to all of your players together. Tell them you did not enjoy the last session and how you felt. Tell them you want it to change and ask them how you all together can get to a place you all enjoy.

In general I run my games where when things start to degenerate into rules look-ups etc, I state that hey, I'm not sure I'm right, but this is how I'm going to rule it for now. We can discuss after the session and figure out how things might change for future sessions. I try to make sure everyone knows that the focus is on moving forward and keeping the game, and fun, moving forward.

I agree this is also my approach. In addition i also talk about this in my session zero for any new game i run. I call myself a "non technical " dm which is just my self deprecating humor for' "hey i play for fun this isn't my job and i forget things...often.".

Im very open to my players ive found the vast majority of folks appreciate that and will be less of a problem with issues like rules lawyering. Mostly anyway. Lol

[GavinRuneblade]

I just finished running my weekly game and I'm not sure I want to run another.

I'm about an inch from removing two of my four players, if I even run again. Just venting, I didn't kill anyone off, rage quit, or anything but damn I'm drained.

How do you guys deal with rules lawyers and argumentative players?

This gets to Rule Zero. Pretty much every edition of DND as well as most other games, have had a version of it either vaguely or specifically.

D&D 5e DMG page 263 says "If the rule or game element isn't functioning as intended or isn't adding much to your game, you can refine it or ditch it. No matter what a rule's source, a rule serves you, not the other way around."

The most explicit was back in Basic D&D:
"Anything in this booklet (and other D&D booklets) should be thought of as changeable -- anything, that is, that the DM thinks should be changed... The purpose of these 'rules' is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them."
D&D 3.5 DMG on page 6: "Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

Many other games have something similar. Rolemaster, GURPS, Vampire, hell even Teenagers from Outer Space says a variation of it. That is the GM's role.

My response to rule lawyers is two tiered: First, I point out this is what happens in game this time. If I forgot something significant I'll either handwave it or retcon it quickly and keep moving. If it wasn't significant, I'll ad lib it into a plot point "you're right, that seems weird to <character name> do you want to do anything to figure out why?" This usually resolves things in character, which is easy and doesn't disrupt the game much. Also it can turn a rule mistake into a cool new thing in the world.

If they really want to step out of character and push an issue, we can discuss a rule for a few minutes. If it drags on or the other players voice frustration with the argument it is hurting the game, it is wasting the time of everyone else at the table, and therefore we are dropping it. I'm making a decision and we move on. If the player cannot drop it and move on, then they are free to drop the game right then and there.

I also make it very clear in my session zero that I use a LOT of houserules. Not many creatures in my games work the way they expect, regardless of what system we're playing. I think warhammer fantasy roleplay was the only system I didn't extensively houserule. So no one should be surprised if they bump into something and it works a little differently. This prevents most of those situations.

I have players that have bent a lot of their schedule to be able to play. I don't need trouble and grief at the table. I have more players than I have time to run games for. As far as I'm concerned, rules lawyers who argue at the table during the game are "that guy" and no one wants to play with "that guy". Rules lawyers who come up to me after a session and say "hey remember when this happened... the rules actually say this" are people I very much appreciate.

[Ardem]

Rules are best to be sorted out offline.
\
I play Rolemaster with my group and that more rules then any DnD, but it about having the right players more so then anything else. I would sit the two players down and say guys I really did not think last game worked very well, and would appreciate that if we run with a rule stumbling block I rule on it for now and later we can sort it out. Otherwise we are not roleplaying we just playing a strategy game.

[lostsanityreturned]

Hard to tell without knowing what the complaints/conflicts were about.

I tend to be pretty straight with rules, I adjust for sensibility but find it important to be consistent so that players know what to expect and there is a solid baseline in my games.

I refuse to discuss rules during games unless someone has a quick and clear ruling to something that I am not confident in.

A rule of thumb for me is to make rulings that lean towards players when possible, make it clear it is a ruling for now and that I will look into it after the session and then send out a post with my findings later when I am happy, calm and knocked it out. The players know I will rule in their favour or fairly when I can and people don't complain even when I have messed things up in the past (heck last session I messed up a couple of rules in PF2e).

Another option is to ask the players directly "hey guys, last session's rules talk really brought down the game for me and I wasn't able to focus on running it as I wanted. Could we bring things up outside of the game from now on, I will try my best to stick to the rules when possible but I don't feel comfortable analysing them mid game".

[tahl_liadon]

How do you guys deal with rules lawyers and argumentative players?


.
you sound really frustrated. i've been there (still am sometimes).

here's a tough-love approach. (keep in mind that you are running a table that you as well as those you invite can have fun; don't let anyone hijack and dictate the flow and your enjoyment).

1) this is your game. always remember that you are in control; be flexible, but never relinquish that control. find others who have same game style attitude as you. weed out those who don't. take nothing personal at the beginning. attrition happens as people try to find a good match. it's an opportunity to put together a table that works for everyone. it takes time, but will be worth it. the process will feel frustrating -- even disruptive to game flow. it's not ever perfect: gathering a bunch of strangers at a table, you should expect disagreements and head-butting. but only up a tolerable degree.

2) tell each player as you enlist that the gm has final words. period. make a rule that rule discussions has to be done off-line. if something comes up during session, call the shot and rule based on your best interpretation. announce in next session if you found a better interpretation. most importantly, whatever you rule needs to be consistent: what's good for the goose is good for the gander (i.e. applies to pcs as well as npcs; do your best to not be partial).

3) spend literally a couple of minutes to hear players' thinking / interpretation, make your ruling, then move along. not up for debate. not up for long discussion. if any player insists and prolongs in lawyering, shut it down right then and there (as firm and as nice as you can). be assertive and be in control. if player continues, the player is not respecting the gm and others at the table. if player continues to escalate, pause the game. have a brief private side conversation: ask player to a) bow out now, b) rejoin in next session and don't do it again, or c) ideally, let it go, respect your current ruling, and rejoin game.

4) during vetting, ask candidates straight up this question: "how do you deal with rules inconsistencies at table." hold them to it if they say "gm has final words." any answer referencing to rules lawyering, don't invite such players.

5) it helps to know the rules well. this is hard because it requires time and experience. having the confidence in knowing the rule will help when you put your foot down. even if you rule something wrong due to misinterpretation, it's not final. have the courage to say you were wrong and correct your ruling. we can't know / remember all the rules all the time.

finally, rules lawyers and argumentative players have a chip on their shoulder to prove something to themselves and others who are similar. they get a kick out of having the final word. fine... just not at your table. if these folks cannot learn to chill out, respect your ruling, and other players' time at the table, you have to do your part as gm to nip it in the bud. let them go and find more agreeable players.

depending on your personality, this gm'ing style can be uncomfortable for you, but it really cuts down on the bs and helps prolong the life of table, especially a long-term campaign. also you will cultivate a bunch of cool people who play well with you.

good luck and game on!

[JohnD]

I play almost exclusively with people who began back in the early 1980s, or are in the age bracket of say 40s+.

We actually get excited and interested whenever a situation comes up that requires the DM (usually me) and/or players to open up a PDF or even better, go to the physical book shelf and pull the hard cover CKG, PHB or DMG out and do some searching.

In general though, I am happy to listen to an interpretation in game, and have a discussion as needed outside of game time. I have a personal rule that if we've spent more than 3-5 minutes and can't find an answer, we just go with what seems reasonable and if someone finds something in between sessions we table it for next time.

Personally I'd reach out to the offending player(s) and have a talk. You're the DM meaning you put a lot more effort and time into the game by definition. You need to enjoy yourself too or the games stop.

[spoofer]

I can relate so well with others have said. There is some great advice here. I find that the D&D 5E rule set sets up situations for players to argue with the DM. Here is a classic example:

Danger Sense: "you gain an uncanny sense of when things nearby aren't as they should be..."I see this as flavor text only. Others see it as the main feature of the ability, and ask things like, "What does my danger sense ability tell me?"

There are lots more examples like this, but I always go over this one with a new player in order to let the player know how I will most likely rule these sort of "is this flavor text or my awesome ability?" situations when they come up.

[similarly]

"Rules lawyers are crunchy and good with ketchup"
That used to be on my DM screen.

[esmdev]

I generally make a determination and then say we can deep dive the rules after the session for future games but my determination will stand until then.

I also provide my methodology at the start of campaigns so everyone knows.

I've not had a problem with this solution and I am always careful to log my decisions so everyone is aware in the future and the rule always applies to myself as well as players, advantageous or disadvantageous. People seem generally okay with it.

[srbongo]

I've noticed too that, occasionally, people just have bad days and are in an argumentative mood. If you've never dealt with the problem in the group before, perhaps this time was just a "mood" that went over the table. I too think mentioning it to the group afterward is important, especially if it was bad enough to impact you. In-game, if I notice one player being short or "rules-lawyery" I'll often whisper them to make sure they're all right. Sometimes a simple "Hey, noticed you were tense, everything good?" can correct it quickly.

[malvok]

Thanks guys, there are a lot of great suggestions and ideas here. I'm feeling much better about things now that some time has passed. We had a good session on Sunday.

[lostsanityreturned]

Thanks guys, there are a lot of great suggestions and ideas here. I'm feeling much better about things now that some time has passed. We had a good session on Sunday.

Sometimes that is all that is needed, of course make sure to bring it up some time even if the issue seems to be passed.
Lots of people have been bitten in the *** by unsolved problems that were "no longer problems" ;)

[Ryuson]

I'm monitoring this thread too since I'm going to run 5e D&D, and recall some horror stories back in the 80's - back then, it was kind of fun to argue but I don't have the time or patience for that now.

There's great advice so far (which I'll also be using) but wanted to add a technique I've used in past games. This dealt with situations where there isn't a clear ruling.

Before I make a ruling, I do consider the consequences of a ruling going forward. For example, if I rule that a particular spell works this way now (and I'm fine with ruling favorably for a player), will the player then expect the spell to work that way all the time?
Also, how important is this ruling to the PC? Meaning, is it likely to come up again? Is it central to a character concept (not something I would know - I ask the player instead)?

One way to deal with that is to think it is a fluke, a one-off. Don't expect this to work this way going forward.

Another way is to distinguish this situation from future ones i.e., this is why the spell worked this way in this particular circumstance. But what if it is the "same" situation? What if the player wants to do something to make sure it is?

A third way is what I call "power stunting". I learned this from years of running superhero games, and I brought that play style when I ran 4e, which was cinematic, fast and loose. In this case, I might give some quick explanation of why it possibly could work this way now, and ask for a roll of some sort. For 4e, I might use a Skill Challenge. I found this to be an engaging way for players to think creatively but not necessarily do that special use "all the time".

My GM style tends to use the second and third way above. I do encourage players to think creatively (again, par for the course in superhero games).

[spoofer]

If I feel that things are getting a bit tense during a discussion, then I tried hard to never use the word "you". Instead, I tried how to explain what I think, what I want to happen, what I am trying to accomplish, etc. As soon as I use "you", I tend to get emotional and accuse the players of things, and then resolution is really difficult. So I avoid the y word.

[ddavison]

I sometimes will ask for a rules discussion if I'm playing a new system so that I can fully understand the rule and how it is applied in a game. If it's the first time a specific type of rule has come up (i.e. how do you grapple) then getting everyone on the same page at the first occurrence seems helpful to me as a player or DM. I've been a DM and a player and I've been in games where a DM specifically chose to run a specific rule in a way that was not how it was written up. That is normally okay with me as long as it is applied consistently. I'm not sure if that counts as rules-lawyering or not.

Other times, if I'm running a new system, I will ask the most rules-lawyer-ish player to look things up for us while we continue playing. Assigning them a research role helps me keep the game running smoothly and we can make a quick DM call at the moment and still find the correct ruling for future cases. When I reach a break, I'll ask them what they found on the ruling. It keeps them busy instead of argumentative and they seem happy that the rule is found and applied properly.

[malvok]

In the end, every session we'd have players either uninformed of how their character's abilities worked arguing their incorrect beliefs or we'd have some being actively deceptive to abuse the system. Additionally, people were not keeping track of their resources or cast spells and they wouldn't put forth any effort to set up their character effects etc. I could no longer stomach the arguments, the ignorance, the laziness, or the cheating so I just killed the whole campaign.

[LordEntrails]

In the end, every session we'd have players either uninformed of how their character's abilities worked arguing their incorrect beliefs or we'd have some being actively deceptive to abuse the system. Additionally, people were not keeping track of their resources or cast spells and they wouldn't put forth any effort to set up their character effects etc. I could no longer stomach the arguments, the ignorance, the laziness, or the cheating so I just killed the whole campaign.
That's unfortunate, but understandable.

Don't let it discourage you from starting a new campaign. My strong suggestion is to not to just start a new campaign with random people (or the same people!). Rather, run a half doze or so one shots. You can do this through a few of the discord communities, online cons, and the forums here. Take notes on the players themselves. Then, when you have about 10 that you think would make a good campaign and fit your style, reach out to them about starting a long term campaign. Have a few set game times and see what fits in their schedules, also layout a little bit of the campaign concept and the type of party you are expecting (good heroes, self-interested survivors, murder hobos, etc) and see who's interested.

I did that with my current group and we've been running almost every week now for a few years.

[A Social Yeti]

Just my 2 cents on rules lawyers.

My style works for me because i can act. To the player I am allowing a roll they asked for, they do not understand that there is honestly no point in rolling the die, if i find that their desired outcome is beyond their character to achieve.

So all players that plead any case to make any roll of any kind, are almost never denied at my table.
When someone puts themselves into the position of, "hold my beer and watch this." That is their freedom of choice to do. Just because a player feels or even finds a printed rule that says they get a roll. That is 100% unrelated to if they have a chance to succeed or not.

If i perceive it is, by the narrative, irrational for a character to have a reasonable chance of success then they do not have that chance. Whihc is not the same as, their own understanding of their limitations.
Plenty of people, IRL, try, with confidence, things they are the hell not going to succeed at, all the time. I find no reason the characters in the party are any different.
When a player asks to make a seemingly unreasonable roll, i obligingly hold their beer for them, and tell them the results of their roll.

As the target number is, at least at my table always secret from the players. Then as long as i do not make it obvious to the players that number is in fact relative to the checker's skill set, and not a single fixed DC that many might arbitrarily luck into.
Then, they are always glad they got to claim a roll without argument, even if it fails every time they get it.

The only down sides this has ever produced is at the table where all the players were the, i get roll too players. And now among such a group it will tend to be that every single skill check is either passed by who probably ought to be doing it, or we will have to take the time for all the players to get to roll dice on everything.
But when that happens, and it's just what the players seem to be into. Well they look to who will rightly skill check roll, and then just all get their dice in hand and wait their turn. No one has to keep making the rules argument about why they get a roll, if they want they get it, and that happens way faster than debate and justification.

The key is the players can't be let to know when there is no point in them rolling. If they felt they won the "i get a roll" argument, when they did anticipated a debate over it, they are happy and done debating and take their roll.
But if you don't play it well, to be consulting the DC and letting them know they didn't meet it. If they imagine you are just not giving them any sucess odds in the first place on purpose, then the debate will not be about if they get a roll or not, but what their odds ought to be and that you are not "fair" with them.



In more of a nut shell:
real world is people acting irrationally all the time, so to me that just makes the RP world have that much more plausibility, when some of the characters make some less than rational choices.

So if what a player just asked to try with their character, sounds more reasonable when we put,
Hold my beer and watch this,
in front of it.

Then this is a perfectly reasonable unreasonable thing to see go on sometimes. It's normal IRL so it's normal in the RP lore too i feel.
As GM I deliver the expected "hold my beer and watch this" outcomes. And the verisimilitude is maintained, by not arguing with the players that they should not do something that sounds irrational.
But by letting them and delivering the most rationally plausible outcomes from their course of action. ; )

[CMoon]

I tend to either:

>Speak with the players directly and say that they're making it difficult for you to enjoy DMing
>Ask for someone else to run a one-off session to 1) Give you a break and 2) Let them feel the pressure of the DM role
>At the start of a session say something along the lines of "If you have an issue with/question about the rules that's okay but let us talk it out after the session so that we don't waste so much time"

First tends to work a lot, second I've only done once but worked well, third I've had to do for a group I knew had a few rules lawyers and idk if it was because I said that or just a good few sessions but I didn't have a problem

[MasterJena]

Probably not the asnwer you're looking for, but...

Know the rules. By the 146th time you get the rules right they'll stop arguing. I haven't dealt with rules lawyers for a while... Players tend to cling to rules because it's their minimal protection from your arbitrary power over their characters. You need to give them at least the RAW and anything beyond that will be seen as generosity.

You'll eventually fail, there's no shame in that... But if my GM is right 90%+ of the time, why the hell would I argue? Dude knows his ****.

If even then this behavior continues, it's not about the rules, they just want to show off. In this case, you have every right to tell them to **** off IMO.

[malvok]

But if my GM is right 90%+ of the time, why the hell would I argue? Dude knows his ****.

That's what was happening. Glad I ended the campaign.

[MasterJena]

That's what was happening. Glad I ended the campaign.

In that case, I'm glad you did. Cheers!

"Make cool games, take no sh*t."

[Xydonus]

Shame you had to end the campaign.

I don't mind a bit of rule lawyering (sometimes I'll ask for it if I'm playing a new system) but what you had to deal with sounds like toxic attitudes. Hopefully you can start a new campaign up minus that toxic element.

[OghmaSF]

I usually have a session zero/pre-game meeting before starting a new game, and rules lawyering is one of the (many) topics I like to discuss. :)

Having said that, sometimes not even the best prep can prevent arguments at the table, so one ironclad guideline I have is that any extensive discussion of disagreements over rules are quickly nipped in the bud and saved for AFTER the session. Our gaming time is limited to once a week and haggling over rules adjudication can cut into that.