Solving Player Behaviors: Rules Lawyering 

📜 dScryb: dscryb.com/?aff=267 💥 Save 10% on dScryb with promo code: BOB ❤️ Subscribe on RU-vid: ru-vid.com

I was a group's "rules lawyer" for a while, because I spent a lot of time on Reddit and various forums and the group (even the DM) would turn to me when there was a conflict or question with a ruling. I'd make my recommendation, usually stating what seemed to be the prevailing opinions online, then the DM would rule, and we'd move on. In that context, a "rules advocate" can be a great asset to a group.

I pointed out the warlocks eldritch blast had 2 beams to use at her level and it was appreciated.

I think the real problem that causes a lot of rules lawyers (including myself) is the fact that if rules aren’t followed generally it becomes a disadvantage to know them in a way. For context, I’ve played with 6 DMs, 5 of which I would say had very little grasp on the rules or at least consistently forgot common stuff. But honestly if the DM does something I generally don’t say much (unless it’s the only reason I took an action in the first place). I respect the DMs domain in creating homebrew stuff and making things that do not conform to the rules. But when players break the rules and the DM just doesn’t know any better to say it’s incorrect, it’s harder for me to stay quiet, because if you follow the rules, there’s a lot of limitations you put on your plans, and the moment someone tries to cast a second leveled spell in a turn, it become a conundrum. You could just let it pass but then it comes to your turn. Do you then use guiding bolt and healing word because the other person did it? Do you call it out and interrupt the flow? I’ve found that telling people things afterwards rarely works due to people being forgetful In the midst of a tense combat. Idk it sounds kind of selfish when I say it, but it feels wrong sometimes that I just can’t use that plan I made up cause there’s a rule I know stopping me, and then another player who simply doesn’t know the rules breaks it later anyways. Would be interested to hear other people’s thoughts on it.

I have a bit of a method that works pretty well with my group. During character creation, I am a rules lawyer. Let's check everything. Ask questions. Set expectations. Document anything that I say I will allow. Then during play, we've already covered enough bases that we rarely have something come up that doesn't already have an agreed ruling and when we do, the party is happy to let me make a ruling.

My version of rules lawyering is noticing that someone took a bonus action, an action and then another bonus action (like when they make an offhand attack, and forget that it takes a bonus action). And then I just say “I hate being that guy, but…”. Like as long as the rule being broken isn’t essential, it ain’t worth rules lawyering over.

Love how you mentioned that enforcing rules is part of the how players can have fun! Just always need to make sure everyone keeps in mind: "have fun, but not at the expense of others' fun."

Personally as a player I get frustrated if I know my ability is meant to work a certain way but the DM suddenly decides that's not how it's going to work because they don't know the rules. If I don't know what my abilities do how can I ever make an informed decision about which one to use? I know it's the DM's game but it really rubs me up the wrong way and takes away from my fun. I do however try not to correct when other players are concerned.

I had to keep myself from lawyering in games and now I'm very passive. It really keeps the flow of the game moving in combat: when a player at our table needs clarification on an ability or spell, they discretly ask me (remote play with private messaging makes it even easier), so the DM can concentrate on narrating and keeping track of the action. And remember kids, the best rule to lawyer for is the Rule of Cool!

I sometimes have a player who tends to go inndepth on rules. Usually I say ok I will rule this at the moment how I think it should be and ask the player to find the exact rule later so we can discuss after the game

Can’t have a rules lawyer if your “rules” are a messy stew of 5e, OSR, Call of Cthulhu, ICRPG and Dungeon Craft! (Tapping the side of my head like the meme guy)

1) My version of your first section boils down to this: Don't give advice unless advice is specifically ask for. It has helped me with players of all ages. Also applies to many social conflicts in general. 2) The way you address your advice directly to the Rules Lawyers in the audience here is simply brilliant. If you're intending to to more problem-behavior-advice content, keep this! Meaningful change is only meaningful if the "problem" person understands and acts authentically.

A lot of modern day players seem to have an issue with rules lawyers, and I can agree that sweating the small stuff is unfun and unimportant, but the rules are there because being bounded in what you're allowed to do drives creativity, if every problem could be solved with one tool then they would be no need for the variety that makes games interesting, so instead we place limitations (rules) on ourselves that require us to find multiple avenues around problem sets in occasionally novel ways. Rules also exist to help make sure that all players get to feel like they're equally important, because no one can be too powerful; you all have to follow the same set of rules. For my part any slowdown in combat from making sure an important rule is being followed is well outweighed by the benefits of having the rule existing and enforced. The ultimate goal is fun, but gratification Isn't so simple that the most fun choice in every instance will lead to the most fun overall experience. It might not always be fun to stop combat to ensure the rules are being followed, but the joy and accomplishment somebody will feel after having completed a task in spite of the restrictions placed upon them may very well more than make up for that. It's also worth noting for a group that plays together consistently a lot of rules lawyers interactions are front loaded so long as the people at the table are actually paying attention and taking the rules to heart when they're presented, after the first couple of times a rule needs to be presented everybody at the table will have learned it and that interruption won't happen anymore. I think to some degree how much you care about the rules is personal preference based on your personality and whether you derive more pleasure from instant or delayed gratification but a lot of times in our fandom the conversation is centered around why rules lawyering is bad or harmful with no mention of the downsides of being loose with the rules.

Thanks so much! I play with a group that has this "I'll help you play more efficiently" mentality in some of the players. We sometimes trade DMs, and this helped me prepare a strategy for handling it. Awesome video

Dude, totally randomly found your channel! You're amazing! Defo sharing it with all my crews!

i had a player who tried to correct the DM on how they were running the module. he literally said "i've read this adventure, and these doors aren't hidden". and he was wrong about it! what a lovely experience

Edit out all the dice rolling and descriptions? Reminds me of DnD Speedrun Tavern! Bandit! Kill! Guard!

The opening makes me chuckle because almost every DM I’ve played under makes the ruling that unless your component is consumed, which every spell specifies, it stays intact. So funnily enough the DM in that skit is following the rules better than the Rules Lawyer.

I’ve never encountered a rule lawyer that interrupts the game. On the other hand, I have met DMs that ruins characters by not knowing the rules, either making someone else’s character super strong, making certain ability useless, or nerfing spells.

At my table I assigned a rules lawyer to help me when I am not sure, need a second opinion, or need to focus on something else. Makes it much easier

"My IMMERSION depends on it!" LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. I had so many flashbacks of being lawyered by a DM and a player in the same campaign/session simultaneously.

Thank you for reminding us that the "my way or no way" style of DMing leads to a dark lonely place, where no dice are rolled, and no chips are shared.

That guy at the bottom on his phone the whole time, LOL! Been guilty of that myself before!

I usually like to follow up any of my rules knowledge with "assuming that's how it works in [DM]'s world", giving them an easy way to keep their authority over the game intact.

Nobody patreons like Gaston!

In defense of RAW: - Knowing what to expect from the game helps keep engaged and more importantly decisive players. Rulings not rules has its place, but there is nothing as painful as having a GM's houserules causing uncertainty. - Homerules can't be predicted, if a GM doesn't outline what the houserules are before character creation it can often lead to a bad experience. - GMs who houserule a lot tend to over complicate things with rules that not only slow the game down, but often cascade into fixes for their fixes. I am saying this as a GM myself and big fan of GM designed content or houserules built for theme, but I see way too many GMs going overboard.

I’m a DM and thankfully I have nobody at my table like this. There is one player who falls into the role you describe here as a “good rules lawyer”. He’s awesome. He’s the one that got me into D&D in the first place and is way more experienced. He just likes being a player instead of a DM. He’ll notice when I’m pondering something or chime in when appropriate but will quickly drop it if I say “let’s go with ___ instead” and happily adjust the rules to what fits the current game we are playing.

My problem is that I'm still learning the game, so whenever something happens that doesn't jive with what I remember, I ask, in case I forgot or misunderstood it. As I learn more I can shut up more often. In the one case where I was certain (and where the rule break potentially nerfed our druid: "Can you ready a bear's Multiattack (NOT Extra Attack)?" I said yes, our DM said no) I deferred and we talked it out afterwards.

Ay, comment for the algorithm. Another wonderful, calming video, thank you. Your channel is almost dnd asmr lol

Thank you for this! I was a PC in a one-shot with my friends yesterday. Today I looked up “how to stop being a rules lawyer” because I felt embarrassed to realize I had been ‘that guy’. I like this framing- getting excited about the rules isn’t necessarily bad, but it’s not my job unless the DM specifically asks!

Great video! I'm going to try and bring some of this advice to my table. Is Bardy McFly going to be in every video from now on? haha

I love that this opens with a wrong ruling, I'm not dumping on you, as a lot of people houserule the fear of fire on trolls, but it can only halt their regenerative properties, but there's no mechanical fear effect resulting from viewing fire. Further, it specifically states in the 3.5e monster manual(which is admittedly my first, and most familiar system), that while they aren't fond of fire, they would still charge through it if a meal(see: player) were on the other side. I just thought it was fitting the first one was an attempt at know-it-all-ism. I love the content, and respect what you do, keep it up you wholesome so-and-so!

10 sessions into the current campaign im in our DM let our paladin ritual cast a spell, without the Rutial caster feat, instead of interupting the game to inform the dm about the rule I brought it up at the end of the session. Turned out he had no idea that paladins couldnt ritually cast spells. so I consider that to be on the good side of rules lawyering.

Yes, Bob, I shall reform myself

I am the rules lawyer in my group. I try very hard not to be rude about it but I have still annoyed my players a couple times. Thank you for the video I will try to be chill.

As a long time DM, I have a lot of experience with rules. When in another player's campaign, if I notice a DM or player violating a rule, Unless it is game breaking, I make note of it and bring it up after the session. Sometimes the DM is aware of the rule and just didn't want to use it, other times they may not be aware of the ruling. In either case, waiting until after the session prevents breaking up the flow of the story.

Nearly there, Bob! ALMOST playable. ;-) (As a recovering Rules Lawyer I, and those like me, need to hear this. But will we....???)

Thanks for the reminder

As a rules lawyer myself, I just want to say to the others out there, think of yourself as a legal counsel for the players and DM rather than a trial lawyer ardently defending the rules against the crime of people not following them perfectly 😂 I know how good it feels to know the way something is actually supposed to work, but trust me it feels way better to have earned the trust of your fellows around the table such that they come to you for rules questions because they know you won’t judge them for not knowing

"My immersion..." Great video, great advice and hilarious skit. keep up the great work Bob.

I constantly have to remind my self as the DM that I'm not supposed to kill the party. It's not me against them. Great video.

Rules lawyers can be useful if you use them to your advantage

When you're stuck as Always DM and the only way to play a character is dming yourself xD I discovered you a week or two ago and i really like the tips and the calm way of talking. I'll probably check out more videos soon. Since i'm about to create a world and story from scratch and it's even the first time my friends and me playing this game :D

TBH "Tending to the fire" is thought as a thing happening, same as going #1/#2, small interactions over fast travel/skipping travel, etc etc etc.

Ah, so timely Bob. Had a player wreck the game last weekend over critical hits/fails not being in the PHB. Even though we've been using them for over six months the same way. Oh, well. I'll share the video. Maybe they will get it.

This video is well thought out and well reasoned. I would say there are circumstances, however, when laying down the "because I'm the DM" card is necessary. Dungeoncraft has a great video on this. Like most DM's, I have a way I want my world to work, and I like it grounded in a certain realism. This leads to me having to make certain calls on the fly, and definitely takes my game away from being RAW. I am very upfront about this. Yet, I had a player who argued with me at every turn, inferring my way of running the game wasn't D&D at all. After one final back and forth I decided to, in private, inform the player that he was welcome to leave. It was clear he wanted a RAW game, which I will never run (again, I was completely upfront about this before even starting the campaign). I wasn't going to suddenly change my entire DMing style of 10+ years for this player. I also made many compromises, all clearly went unrecognized by this person. Sometimes certain people can't mesh, and that's ok. I think it's important to recognize when it's the right time to leave a game.

last rules lawyers in my session got forcefully removed by me the dm it started out light in the first sessions but he got worse and worse and people was telling me they was going to stop playing so i gave him one last chance with everything in mind and he kept at it so i killed his character by a freak accident and told him to leave and he refused so i got up picked him up and tossed him out lol we've been having a blast ever since.

Rules lawyer is the one that always interjected and drags the game. Rules attorney on the other hand is that helpful player everyone turns to that knows how most everything works and helps when needed and assists in subtle ways. An absolute boon to any group especially with new players

good info for nes and old players alike

"my immersion" had my diying

I've said it before but Rule Zero to me is always Rule of Cool: Best example of this for me once upon a time was when I played as a Warforged Scout Scout in 3.5 who had a Gnomish Buckler - effectively a multitool that possessed a variety of different configurations - and I used it to latch onto a high point during nearly every combat encounter to swingline through fights pinging foes with crossbow bolts. Was it legal under the rules of the game? Hell no: The rules for the rope use alone were nightmarish in 3.5. But it was cool, and didn't break the game, so the DM let me do it and we all had a blast.

I find it crazy that someone would insist on managing material component when raw the component pouch and spell casting focus literally just solve that.

I balance my rules lawyering by working both sides. If my dm forgets a monsters extra attack i will remind them just like ill remind my ranger he has advantage on initiatives. I call it being fair. Idk

Thank you, kind DND Jesus. Agree with every statement.

I'm my group's "rules guru" rather than "lawyer." I don't get in the DM's way, but I'm a trusted lexicon/arbiter for everyone at the table, him included.

I'm a DM. I encourage my players to bring up rules because I know I don't know them all. But we follow debate rules. Argument with citation, counterargument with citation, ruling.

I am the antithesis of the rules lawyer. I cut my teeth on first and second editions where "wing it" (or the rule if cool in 21st century lingo) was the rule. Just be fair, and hedge a bit on the side of the players.

There's a great article about rules experts and rules lawyers in Kobol Press' dungeon Master guide. Let me see where I can find it...

BUT MY IMMERSION!

I sort of agree with your point at 4:30 about calling another player, out, and I never have, but I have wanted to a lot but just for one player. We were playing a star wars ttrpg and we rolled all of our dice online since the physical dice are rare and expensive and you end up rolling a ton of different ones at a time pretty early on so we didn't mind. But the issue was that this player would 1: always roll his dice before the DM said to and before he gave the difficulty of the roll (because in this system you roll against negative die everytime you roll) =and then they would have to redo it and slow everyhting down, the DM did point this one out but he never stopped. 2: He would always give himself advantages and extra dice without asking the DM because he thought it made sense in that context, but he did it for every role and the DM never said anything about this but I wanted to because he wasn't even bending the rules he was just ignoring them. And 3: As egregious as it was to add boost die to your rolls without the DM's permission he would constantly just add a success die which just meant he got an auto success on his role. And he did this shit every session and somehow the DM never said anything, but It's ridiculous, what's the point of playing the game if you're just going to say everthing you do succeeds with no effort and the DM does nothing to stop that. I was about to bring it up but the guy ended up getting mad at us and leaving the party abrubtly. Literally mid game stood up and walked out because apparently we weren't paying enough attention to him and not letting him do what he wanted. Which was buy drugs and hookers and completely ignore the pod race we were currently and ignore our kid who got kidnapped in the middle of the race. So yes it's up to the DM but things like thay ruin the game for everyone because how is it fun to just have one person do anything they want wehenever, even if it got us killed, caught, or otherwise fucked over. Which he did all the time

i am somewhat of a rules lawyer so thats why im the dm!

In my group we are all new to DnD and I must say that I'm a bit of a Rules Lawyer. For now I haven't received any negative feedback, and when we have a doubt about a basic or medium rule or something I'm usually the first one in remembering the rule. Do you guys think that rules lawyers are useful in a table with new people?

As a recovering rules lawyer, I concur.

oooOOOooo... For me it tends to come out "I think I know this thing..." LOL because I usually don't.

I grew up playing with a couple of rules lawyers. It made me sort of lazy as I never felt the need to totally learn most rules as they were happy to "help" at every turn anyway. Lol I'm going to start my first 5e campaign with a new group soon. I hope there's a rules lawyer in there somewhere. Lol

Tl;dr: There's nothing wrong with expecting to play dnd5e after the dm says you're playing dnd5e. Communicate better as a group to avoid misunderstandings. As a rules lawyer in the denial phase, I feel like the only actual problems in your skits and examples were communication issues, not rules lawyering issues. Sure maybe that caster was out of line for interrupting, but maybe it's fair to point out the effects the environment has on the encounter. The presented problem of humans-dont-have-darkvision can have some really interesting and collaborative solutions! Maybe other players pick up faerie fire or moonbeam, or the archer needs to quickly light the campfire! Hand waiving the rules on lighting conditions can turn an interesting situation into a bland "I shoot it". Sure it would have been more respectful to wait until after the session to point that out, but sometimes it makes the session more fun for everyone when a player can point out that there's an interesting problem to solve! The rules can make the game more fun, and the dm will ignore them at the risk of loosing their players' investment. Because when the players are told by the dm to just summon the eagles to make the game easier, they miss out on the hardship of the journey to the volcano that actually made the game interesting. I loved the rules as a player because they gave me consistent options and opportunities to interact with the game world that weren't subject to the whims of the dm. I love the rules as a dm because they give my players challenges to overcome and tools to overcome them with. In my book, fairness to my players will always be more important than the "rule of cool". And part of that fairness is agreeing about what kind of game we want to play as a group. (Besides, there's plenty of room for cool outcomes without ignoring the implications of lighting conditions and spell descriptions) Bob I don't think you have described a rules lawyer problem. I think you have described a communication problem. The group should have sat down and discussed which rules are important to them (you're playing dnd, yes there will be some rules that make the game more fun for you), otherwise the player with the most interest in the game's mechanics will be labeled the "rules lawyer" and be subsequently be ranted about in videos like these. Sorry this is kind of long winded. I see a lot of myself in the caster in your skits, and it hurt a little to see them get boxed out because these basic rules were too inconvenient for some reason. I've had dms who have ignored rules in order to get the upper hand so this situation hit pretty close to home if the roles were reversed in your skits. ......Oh and btw, the component pouch and arcane focus both cover any components that don't have a gold piece value. But if the player really wants to count ammo for their fireball, why would you pass up this chance to make a fun side quest fraught with batty complications?

Am I to let the inexperienced DM let multiple (potentially game breaking) rules fly by because of flow and fun? Seems to defeat the purpose of playing a game with rule books a bit.

I guess I'm the odd one out that's lucky(?) Enough to not have a Rules Lawyer. We kinda all just go with the understanding that this is the DMs world and thus always defer to their judgment. However, our DM is very open to feedback so players never feel unheard either. It's just all about communication.

7:15 This is what I read to my rules lawyers if they get on my nerves and explain to them that I am clearly following the rules as written.

In reaction the troll pisses on you all and puts out all the fires.

"It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, IF it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters give in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Volumes, YOU are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a WHOLE first, your CAMPAIGN next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do." - G.Gygax

We don't really have a rules lawyer at my table, but I wonder if we need one. All of the players in the group seem to suffer from what I call 'fishing for the right answer' mentality, because they are all afraid of not making the 'perfect' choice for their action. So, even in combat, they will constantly ask me, can i do this or can i do that? They know what their character can or cannot do, they want to know if they will succeed at that prior to rolling for it. For example, I had a player that was trying to get across a broken bridge. Player: 'can i jump over it?'. Me: 'its 15 ft across, roll the dice to see if you are successful' Player: 'but can i jump across it safely?' Me: 'roll. the. dice.' Player: 'well then can i climb down the ravine?' Me: 'Make a climb check.' Player: "But can I do that and make it down there safely?" Me: 'roll. the. dice." Player: 'Hm. well, can I tie a rope and slide down it?' Me: 'Is that what you are doing?' Player: 'No no wait....hmmmm....Can I go around it?" Me: 'Is that what you want to do? which way do you go?" Player: "I don't know'. Its exhausting. Kinda like analysis paralysis, too many actions to choose from and they want that 'perfect' choice each and every time. And its constantly happening, even me having to tell them, guys....do what your characters would do, then roll to see if you succeed, please stop asking mother may I until you get the answer you want. I don't know if having a rules lawyer will help or hurt this group.

A game is just a set of arbitrary rules that everyone playing agrees to follow. And only one rule should ever be set in stone, communication is key for everyone's enjoyment.

As a DM I rely often on well read players. I appreciate them. But if I make a ruling and you challenge the rule mid game? That's a no-no. Talk to me afterwards and we can discuss it. My wife challenged me mid game the other day about how Stirges work. I was a bit rude in cutting her off and that lead to a fight afterwards and I regret that. But. She then read up on the rules further and challenged me again after the fact. Not trying to discuss the rules. Just dictate to me what was supposed to happen with regard to their stat drain effect. Honestly. If it hadn't been my wife I'd probably have been even more stubborn about the "my game, my rules" stance.

The rules are a language with which I am fluent. I don't adjudicate rules decisions, I interpret meaning and intent.

Hands up all those who have been so immersed in homebrew videos that they struggle to understand what RAW is anymore.

so there's acctualy no rules other than character creation? except for the DICE?

In my experience rules lawyers make broken builds and use rules knowledge to say "no" to other players, instead of DM. And book more important than DM ruling and other players fun.

The rule lawyer's name is Rick. It is so real... because it's my nickname 😂

As a GM, I provide an infinite supply of tiny balls of bat guano. Problem solved...about 1% of the time. For the other 99%, I am going to recommend this video as a solution to the problem.

The only thing i disagree from your example skit is that rules lawyer (as my experience and how i understand the term) usually don't speak up about rules when RAW disfavor him/her. That's why it's called a rules lawyer and not a rules expert =P A good lawyer is the one you never met xD

This was a really good video. I used to consider myself a rule lawyer, during that time my mindset was if we do not follow the rules the game will not be balanced and then this person is going to be better than me. However the game im currently in on the weekend is pathfinder (and that has a whole load of rules and books) so myself and another player are quite a bit more experienced with the system, i think the important part is not interrupting the game. For example if a player wants to go and buy a tiger or another animal but does not know how that works for combat and the GM/DM also does not know they will ask myself or the other person so we can explain since it is not an animal companion it would take an action to command the animal. Rule lawyers can also be helpful informing players hey you are LV5 now so your firebolt actually does an extra d10, or reminding the warlock they can move hex. If you are a rule lawyer like i was just make sure you are being helpful with the advice, it feels real good if someone tells you actually your spell does more damage this level or you levelled up so that skill is actually 1 higher, instead of well actually that should not hit them as they should have cover or the you can not do that due to X, normally the GM/DM would say if they can not do something.

Just please don't disrespect or belittle the rules lawyer. They bought the book for a reason and it can be very frustrating to see others ignore it. Establish houserules in advance and provide a reasonable explanation when an on-the-spot decision is made.

This kind of thing is what keeps people out of any Fandom. Trolls like rule lawyers and gatekeepers that decide that the Hobbie or art is this one thing and if you don't conform then you don't belong. Like when a girl cosplays and some nerd tells them they're not real gamers because..... Or when someone says I like such and such band and a snob says "name 10 songs." We just need to remember there are levels to this and that there are beginners (or newbies like myself and D and D) and there are die hards, but we can all get along. Bottom line is that the more people that get into our hobbies and arts, the more they flourish and the more we all benefit. Thank you for this channel Bob!

rule lawyer here: in the darkvision situation it would actually be an atack with disadvantage =P

To be fair, tracking component make spellcasting so much more fun imo. You should still play fast regardless though.

I think you are missing the most annoying rules lawyer, which is the player that tries to badger the DM with rules in order to get their way in any situation. And they might not even have the rules correct in a biased way, but sound like they know, in order to get their way. Its a form of bad metagaming.

I'm a rules lawyer.... Good thing I'm also the DM

I’ve had a lot of luck as a DM being clear from session 0 that I’m not a rules lawyer since I’d rather spend my time designing encounters than committing every rule to memory. I make a ruling and move on - usually it has basically zero impact on the outcome, rules lawyering just comes down to players wanting a pat on the head for spending their time reading the rules. Set expectations early and you’ll find that you end up with fewer rules lawyers in your parties. I’ve done this for years now and never had any major issues 🤷‍♂️

Rules lawyers, or as I like to call them: "RAWdogs". I might need to rethink that...

As an actual lawyer, I would give anything to get the chance to shut down a rules lawyer in the wild.

I don't really care for the strawman you've setup in the opening video. I get that it is intended to setup what you perceive as a "worst case scenario", but the strawman player did nothing wrong. He questioned a situation, the DM explained his ruling, and the player accepted. He wanted to maintain a semblance of immersion with how material components work. How is that a bad thing, exactly? He wasn't stopping someone else from playing to their style. I am absolutely fed up with the notion that knowing the rules of the game somehow means you are "ruining the fun". This boils down to player expectations and group dynamics. Different groups value different aspects of the game. Some players just like telling stories. Some players just like playing interesting characters. And some of us like those things as well and *also* actually *like* playing according to the rules, and some of us actually *like* using material components for spells. It's perfectly fine if your group doesn't want to play RAW, but I am getting sick and tired of half the Internet acting like I'm some mutant because I actually like the actual rules of the actual game we've all actually agreed to actually play. This kind of stuff needs to be discussed before the game ever even starts. If the DM just states outright that they like to play loose with the rules, fine. That's a perfectly valid way to run your game, and people like me are perfectly within our rights to decide to find a game elsewhere. And stop conflating "knowing the rules" with "being an obnoxious rules lawyer". Rules lawyers are people who use the rules to break the system, break the game, break the fun. They are the people who abuse loopholes in the rules to gain advantages for themselves. Those are problematic players because they only care about their own success, not because they know the rules of the game. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone knowing all the rules and pointing them out when an unusual situation arises. We are not your enemies. We're the ones that remind you that you get that neat Bonus Action that you forgot about. We're the ones that remind you that your class feature gives you Advantage in that one situation. It's fine to not know all of the rules to D&D. It's even fine to ignore rules that everyone agrees aren't fun. But acting like people who know the rules and enjoy the rules are somehow a problem is, quite frankly, getting tiresome to hear regurgitated endlessly. Everyone talks about how it's fine to ignore the rules. And it is. But it's also fine to know the rules, enjoy the rules, and point out the actual rules when there is a question. That isn't being a "rules lawyer". That's just knowing the rules. A "rules lawyer" tries to manipulate the system by exploiting loopholes in the rules.

Sacrificing the rules lawyer to the sun is more fun

Ähmmmm...actually... (-; If you strictly play "rules as written", a rule lawyer, be it player or DM, can NEVER be right because they completly ignore these rules: Quote DMG P235 "The rules serve you, not vice versa." Quote DMG P263 "As the dungeon master, you aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook , the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual. You can let your imagination run wild." Quote PHB P6 "Ultimately, the Dun­geon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world." Quote DMG P34 "Feel free to change or ignore rules to fit the players' roleplaying needs, using the advice presented in part 3 of this book." "Role PLAYING Game", not "Realistic Medieval Fantasy Simulator" But, you are right, rule lawyers just want to be happy, and their happiness may be based on knowing all the rules. An adult approach, talking to each other openly and honestly, is most likely the best course of action.

You just can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world where games have RULES, and those rules have to be defended by those who have read the books. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Bob World Builder? Rules lawyers have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for your combat's flow, and you curse the Rules Lawyers. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that the Rules as Written, while annoying, give structure to the game that makes it worth playing; and rules' existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, gives structure to the game. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about with your parties, you want me to explain how your character's abilities work -- you need me to explain how your character's abilities work. We use words like "object interaction," "area of effect," "cover rules." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very stable, predictable gameplay that the Rules Lawyers provide and then questions the manner in which they provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a PHB and learn the rules. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you can "Rule of Cool" away!

Keep in mind a lawyer does not serve justice, it serves its client. A lawyer's goal is to win.

Only be a rules lawyer if it helps the party, otherwise shut up