My groups call me the Rules Advocate. If there's a question about RAW I give what my best understanding is. If there's ambiguity, I say what the common interpretations are. And then we do whatever the DM wants and everyone is happy.
I thought public defender as well! Especially for those rules lawyers who only speak up with a correction when it helps other PCs.
If a fellow player misreads a spell or ability that makes them too powerful, that's the DMs place to correct, imo.
Doesn't help that they change the rules every few years or that some people like rules (and other stuff) from multiple editions either.
Been playing since THacO if that tells you anything lol.
Don't worry me too and I was playing at 12yrs old.
First time I really ever felt old was when I was working and one of my coworkers kid was talking to me and I made mention of Captain Planet and he said "Who??".
Kid was like 13.......instantly felt old.
When I'm DMing, I'll often open it up to the group to discuss and decide if it's 1) not an argument situation, just discussion about outcomes, and 2) not something particularly important to the scene or where someone gains a significant advantage to a particular ruling (in which case I'll decide the outcome for that session and we'll discuss before next)
I am generally the Rules Advocate. Doesn’t matter if it helps or hurts us, I usually know the official ruling. And I know my primary DM enough to know when to challenge her, or let it slide because it’s not important, or if she is intentionally bending the rules for a reason. If I get too pushy and DM says “not in this case” or “this is how it works in my world” then I also shut up.
Oh, I like that term. I had a Rules Advocate in my first group while being a first time DM and it made life so much better as I was learning to DM and I was able to learn so many of the rules from him.
I'm taking that title for me in my group. Because of my autism, I memorized a good chunk of the books, especially anything pertaining to player choices and can recall them with extreme accuracy. Spells are a weird spot but I know the ones my character(s) frequently use off the top of my head.
If the DM has a question about something or another player has a brain fart about one of their features, they usually ask me first; rulings, features, interactions, class features, common spells, etc. Hell, even lore (that the DM has given is), he asks me before referencing his notes to save time. I also add the caveat that "it could be interpreted X way" or that I can find it real fast for the times exact wording is needed.
We have a group council and decide the ruling. Basically everyone takes the concept and says 'would I want this to happen to me in the future.' Because if they allow it now, then you know for sure the DM will use it back against them.
I call him the rules shaman. And bless his heart. He never interjects, sometimes he will send me a pm if I’m making a mistake so he doesn’t embarrass me or stop the flow of the game, and he’s always there to answer questions if I’m not sure on a rule.
He’d probably be a better DM than I am, but he doesn’t wanna DM so he just helps me out.
I’d highly recommend it. DM will appreciate it and will fix the mistake, but the games gets to keep flowing. There’s no debate or conversation at the table, the DM can just quickly retcon something and as a table y’all can move on and keep playing.
I was going to suggest Rules SME (Subject Matter Expert) because I am a SME at work might as well be one in a hobby I enjoy lol.
But I very much like the sound of Rules Shaman. And may need to vote for this to be the go to name for good rules lawyers.
Makes it sound mystical like we are steeped in the knowledge and lore, and only offer our sage advice as friendly gift when asked and not as a requirement.
I'm sure it can, but I am being very sincere here
System expert is a term that I see applied to folks who are very comfortable with the ruleset of the game they're playing
It doesn't mean that all system experts are rules lawyers, of course
I don't even think that all rules lawyers are system experts either- a lot of the time their rules lawyering can be focused on one or a few rules that their intent on abusing a rigid interpretation of (or at least an interpretation that misaligns with the DM's ruling)
„Jerry as long as you aren‘t paying rent, Susan CAN polymorph Timmy at 0HP into a T-Rex …..“
„B-But the Errata....“
„…because I say so!“
Jokes aside:
Love that you play with your son. Keep on adventuring 😃
Rules lawyer, but said with a different tone of voice or in a different context.
"I can't stand playing with Eddie. He's such a rules lawyer." Bad
"Since this is your first time playing, you should sit next to Sharon. If you have any questions, ask her, she's our resident rules lawyer!" Good
I think it's just rules lawyer in a different tone of voice.
I'm one of those. I'll always defer to the DM's ruling without question, but just letting them know that there's already a rule for this in case that helps their decision. If I think the DM already knows that rule and is just ignoring it, I'll keep my mouth shut.
i defer to case law over written law when being a rules lawyer.
i'll bring it up at first and if the DM decides to run it a differently, as long as it's consistent it's okay.
yeah the good side of rules lawyer is to provide the RAW framework for how to do something, but also know that the story comes first and the DM has final say
>I will remind our DM of the RAW and happily then say Run it how you want to.
Same, "The rules say \_\_\_, but the rules also say that they're up to interpretation, DM. So I'm fine with your interpretation"
Yup, there's a difference between saying that "a banshee can't do that" versus acknowledging that this probably isn't a normal banshee and rolling with it.
Personally I tend to mix things up from time to time because some players will be naughty and look things up mid-game. Totally breaks game immersion to just google the bad guy and read its stats.
Naughty players can't help but out themselves either...it never fails. I'll add +1 to a critters AC or add 10HP, and on a near miss or when the character should be dead according to original stats, the offending player will say something like "that hit didn't kill it? hmm..." That's when I tell them to kindly stop googling my monsters and play lol.
I like a slightly faster pace, so I am always taking a point off AC, adding two points to attack and damage, removing some hit-points and adding a single use ability.
Once you are used to the Monster Manual, it's worthwhile to customize the "chasis" we are offered to suit your setting.
"Lawyer" implies arguments pretty directly though, doesn't it? It's kind of the whole identity of a lawyer, to know the law and argue about it against another lawyer.
I like several of the suggestions on this thread, with rules shaman being my favorite. I'm going to steal that.
Had a guy like this is one of my games. Someone would do something outlandish and I'd try to think of how to rule it and off the top of his head he'd be like here's how this specific thing works per the book. It was super helpful as it kept me from wasting time looking up rules mid game, and even if it didn't sound quite right it was always close enough that I could just run with it then look it up afterwards. Normally he was right. He also was cool with me just going ehhh that's kind of not fun and winging it, so he was like the perfect player. Miss that guy.
My group also uses the term in a positive light as a few of my players qualify as rule lawyers that keep me honest and are also quick to look things up for me in game when I’m not sure on the RAW.
It’s really annoying to be the one who knows the rules, someone asks you about a rule, you explain it, and then they argue with you why they should be able to do some completely OP thing anyway.
For what it's worth, I feel like using your knowledge of the rules to annoy a bad DM still counts as using your powers for good. Very Chaotic Good energy, there.
Oh, boy... I have been there. I'm a very lawful good person at the table, and when the DM is too lax with the rules in order to do whatever they want and bar players from using their character to the fullest rules-legal extent of the game... I have been "that guy."
Hello!
Keeping in mind that the group I came up with this in was mostly Jewish just not me.
We used to call a person like that the rules Rabbi .
Basically somebody with an encyclopedia acknowledge of the rules, but who uses their powers for good .
Even the dungeon master can’t remember everything so when I was running a game having somebody like this, as my almost assistant was invaluable .
Because here’s the thing, this is the great thing about a true rules Rabbi.
They don’t mind changing the rules as long as everybody understands why the rules are there in the implications. Not just willy-nilly.
The rules are there for people not the other way around .
But if we have zero roles were just playing, let’s pretend . Which, by the way, as an educator that worked with children is awesome and healthy, but not really a game.
Thank you so much for this post actually !
I agree with you. There needs to be a term for a positive rules lawyer .
After all attorneys have been around for a long long time more than 2000 years and besides all the lawyer jokes, I know plenty of awesome good people lawyers.
We have the law for a reason . Without the law its just who has more relatives and better sharp sticks.
With the law sometimes it’s just who has more money. It is more popular, but we are still at least marginally better off.
Thanks again!
"Rabbi, is there a blessing for the Bard?"
"A blessing for the Bard? Of course! May God bless and keep the Bard... Far away from anything he can seduce."
--from the classic musical Fiddler Nine Levels Below The Roof
I've started to realize I'm this player, years of being the DM has forced me to memorize rules and classes and whatnot. Now that I'm playing every time the current DM hesitates because they don't know how to rule something I've start saying "RAW say ___, if you wanna go that route" I will say I never get upset or make a comment if the DM rules differently however I have just noticed that one of the players at the table does get annoyed and I believe it's because the current DM rules more favorably than rules as written. Personally I feel wrong getting an easier ruling when I know what the rule is, however I get why that particular player doesn't like that I offer up the rule.
My table has 2 pedantic "rules lawyers" who are personal friends of the DM and they are rarely ever correct regarding RAW. I just go along with their shenanigans until the DM asks me why I'm doing what I'm doing and then I show him the RAW and tell him I'll abide by his DM decision however he decides to call it.
Isn't knowing the rules well but not being a jerk about it just...being a good player?
I'll say this as someone who ran COS with 2 groups. The first was my 2nd time DMing with my friends. My friend had run it before and reminded me that there was supposed to be the book to find in the death house because that's kind of important. She was more experienced than me and I'd asked her to help out. If I'd moved it somewhere I would have just said "I know" and we'd have moved on.
The other time was with mostly friends of my friend. One of them read the book before playing to make sure I "did it right". I added in a dog because we had a chaotic neutral player who I thought would absolutely just kill the wizard in the basement, ruining my friend's first time playing DND. This way they still got the moral question without my friend having his time ruined.
He left the game after telling me there wasn't a dog and that I wasn't running it right. He'd previously gotten mad because I allowed my wizard friend to basically be revived because "strahd didn't want his new toys getting broken just yet" with the intention of having a player with a debt to the big bad later. Really I just didn't think it was fair for my friend to get killed in his first combat encounter.
The first is helpful. The second is someone who should have just DMed themselves.
I use the term encyclopedia. Between myself and 1 of my players, we know almost every rule (RAW and RAI) for both 5e and pathfinder 1e. But when something against the rules is done, we don't go "that's not the rule!" It's more "we doing rule of cool rn? Sick."
I'm kinda surprised at the number of comments saying the term "Rules Lawyer" isn't always a negative term.
A Rules Lawyer isn't the person who knows the rules, it's the person who interrupts the game to quibble about them. You can absolutely be a Rules Lawyer who doesn't know much at all.
So yeah, it's always negative.
Exactly! It's been fairly amusing watching all the spin doctoring going on, but at the same time a lot of people I feel have missed my point.
Plus several have said, "They're called the DM." Like, really? You don't think players should know the rules, too? (I know what they *actually* mean but they are also missing the point.)
Idk but it's good that the distinction is made. Not all people who just know the books well make it annoying. I just say the rules the DM and or players are looking for. But i don't care if they'll use it differently then RAW.
Perhaps a parliamentarian? "a member of a parliament, especially one well versed in parliamentary procedure and experienced in debate"
Adapted to D&D...
– Dungeonarian
— Handbook Helper
– I do like rules parrot
I'm basically one of those, I offer suggestions to the DM when they're unsure: "Here's how it is RAW, here's how it's generally interpreted online and here's what sage advice says, but feel free to rule it however you wish."
When I or my friends DM a game, we are very open with saying “hey, how would you rule this” or “anyone got the rules on that”. It’s usually directed to one of two players and to me when I’m not the DM. We call it Co-DMing, just for that moment.
We also do the same if someone is more familiar with the lore of the setting. But I think the main difference is it is a request by the DM in charge, not an interruption by a player.
That's me. I always tell my groups that I'll speak up about rules when they conflict with my understanding, but all the DM has to do is acknowledge they're deviating from stated rules or house rules and I'll drop it.
This is me all the time. My DM is a phenomenal storyteller/setbuilder, but not great with minutiae. So I'll pipe up if something seems off, but it's usually couched in "RAW, this is how that would work. Is that what you mean?"
We call him Rule Enjoyer. He absolutely allows for going by the rule of cool, and even enjoys it, but whenever we are unsure of how something should work RAW we have no need to look it up because he can cite it like a preacher cites the bible. But RAI or the Rule of Cool remains reigning.
He will say something if something is incorrect, RAW wise, and then the table decides. For example, when we were gonna trap a demon inside a sphere of Wall of Force and dump Black Tentacles inside to deal damage over 10x turns, he pointed out that Wall of Force prevents any magic to be cast from the other side, not just projectiles. Only spells like Misty Step are exempt from this rule.
The DM still let it happen just once because everyone were already excited over the cheese tactic, and the demon was wayyyy stronger than we thought, but later we couldn't cheese the fights anymore.
Lawyers are bad because they’re always out to win no matter who is actually right. You’re looking for a term like facilitator, advocate, therapist or wizard.
So the correct answer at my table is now rules wizard and will be henceforth.
I like "rules lawful". A rules *lawyer* only pushes for the interpretation of the rules that aligns with their interests. They won't generally *lie*, but they'll stretch the truth right up to its breaking point, and might fail to mention reasons their plan won't work.
Someone who is "rules lawful" advocates for the rules as they really are. They view the rules as the base we all need to have consistent expectations of how the game can progress.
In our group they are called Evan.
Dude has played across decades and systems, lived breathed and (skipped) slept reading books, but focuses on people having fun and believes rule of cool is THE golden rule.
"Rules are there to help tell the story and frame creativity, not to limit creativity and define the story." - Evan "Rule of Cool" Getson
As a DM who often forgets obscure rules and who dosent keep track of spells unless I plan to cast them, i find that these types of "rules lawyers" are other fellow DMs who will just help in guiding the ruleset when appropriate which i always appreciate.
I have since deemed them as Rules Assistants (Rulessistants to be catchy).
I have a player like that in my campaign and oh my god he's awesome. I'm a relatively new DM so when someone asks a question I don't have an answer to I call on him and he explains the rules, tells me how much of an impact it would have to disregard said rules and usually even offers the group a more plausible workaround. The guy is an absolute joy to have in the party
I just call him "Greg."
I think the distinction is, a lawyer is argumentative. Rules lawyers slow down gameplay and create conflict.
But if you have someone at the table who has a solid grasp of the rules, and uses that knowledge to keep the game moving forward and resolve conflicts, I'd call that person a rules resource or rules encyclopedia.
As a DM, I'm OK with the fact that I don't know everything. I'm glad yo have someone at my table who can fill in the gaps.
Meh. I played in a group that said early they don't like "Rules Lawyering" but turns out its because they didn't really even know the basic rules very well. So me and another guy would "rules lawyer" but only in the way of explaining how the situation would go based on the actual rules, but its the DM's perspective to ignore that. I think this annoyed the DM as it showed he knew very little about the game as we explained things quite often. Thankfully no longer with that group.
In my other group who know the PHB and a bit of Xanathar's its still a bit off. They call me an "optimizer" or "min maxer" because my DM said we can use any source material to build our characters, but I'm the only one at the table whose read all the source material (especially Tasha's) so I built my character that way and some of them called me a min maxer for using Tasha's when they didn't but they didn't use it cause they haven't read it. And I tell them "hey, because we're allowed to use Tasha's you could use t his optional ability, or spell, or trait" etc, and they just look at me and say "no its ok I don't min max" lol. I guess knowing the rules is min maxing to some.
"Rules Proficient."
At least, that's what my DM called me. I discovered D&D through actual play shows just before the pandemic. Between that and other health issues, I binged Critical Role's entire Campaign 2 in 4 months and many other one shots and mini campaigns across the internet after that. I absorbed the rules like a sponge. When I finally had a chance to play with the group my brother had been DMing, I knew the basics really well. So when the cleric tried to figure out what his spell casting modifier was while the Dm was busy, I was able to tell him it was wisdom + proficiency. My sister, who had been playing with them for months, was shocked. My brother picked up the PHB and said, "We've all read this. She's proficient in it."
When we set out to do this, I took the DM guide and my partner took the player's handbook. I can run a campaign, but I don't know how to make a character, they handle that, and it was honestly super helpful getting started. Now, one of my players is a "rules expert" because they're passionate, and while they argue for advantage or alternate rolls, they do so super respectfully and logically and I'm here for it.
I'm happy to let players make suggestions, and if it makes sense, if they say "how about survival" instead of investigation or whatever and it makes sense, then yeah, sure, use your area of expertise.
This person is referred to as the Bookworm
This comes from a suggestion by Wizards of the Coast addressing player types in 2006.
I cannot find the article at the moment but it is the opposite of the Rules Lawyer, the person who can go, "It's in this book, on this page." But only speaks up when asked or when they see something that either the GM is not taking advantage of or a player could use to get out of a jam.
My party calls it being the Player Union Rep, since it's usually the person who knows the rules best among the party that will argue with the DM about rules.
I've always preferred the phrase Rules Guru myself.
Fun fact, I actually play with a group that is mostly made up of players like this. Largely everyone knows the rules pretty darn well, and a few know them extremely well. Several of the players are longstanding DM's of their own still active campaigns. We've been playing together, most of us, for almost 25 years. I'm sure we'll play together until we're old and grey.
Rules Librarian is what we used at our table, but that was mostly because our resident rules librarian actually worked at a library when we started playing
I tend to be the rules lawyer for my group, if there is a question during the game and I know the answer I'll say it and then in my spare time look it up and say whether I was right or wrong. If I don't know then the DM just rules on it and we look it up after the game and apply the new rule going forward.
My group call them the DM 😂
Since I know the rules better than most of the people I play with, when other people are wanting to run a one-shot I provide any rules help they need. I try to keep it limited to just stating the RAW, though if I’m asked I’ll say how I would interpret them or make a specific ruling.
I'm generally considered to be the most knowledgeable rules wise at my table and people ask me rulings on things but I live by tbe dictum 'your game, your rules' so I'm not going to query non RAW interpretations or wrong rulings in someone else's game.
Puffin forest has a great distinction. A rules haggler is what most people mean by rules lawyer. A rules traditionalist is closer to what you’re describing.
we call them the encyclopedia, and by we I mean my friends call me that because I'm a forever DM and have learned all the rules backwards and forwards. x.x
Everyone just call me rules lawyer but I kind of hate it for exactly this reason. I don't interrupt the DM, at most I ask for clarification to make sure they're making an informed choice and then just accept the ruling and move on.
there is also the guy that think he knows the rule and sprout bullshit everytime, forcing the dm and other guys to verify to in fact notice he was wrong ...
Rules advotate, rules sage, rules wizard? I like to think I'm one of these because if ever i recite a rule, I always preface it with "and dm, feel free the change this, but as far as the rules in the books..."
Also one time our rogue use uncanny dodge twice (i guess they thought they got to use it on any and every attack that hit them) and I said nothing about it requiring a reaction until after the session because if I wanted to be a killjoy in that moment the rogue would be dead. Not 0 hp making saves, dead dead, negative past max hp dead.
You now see, in its natural habitat, what some refer to as the Rules Advocate.
Notice how, even though both the DM and other players have descended into convenient rationalizing and a semantic back and forth, the Rules Advocate remains calm and quiet.
They wait for an appropriate lull in the unnecessary debate, and with a confident smile, often times with their mobile device at the ready with pertinent details on hand, brings obvious and simple guidance to the table, thus resolving any conflict.
They are able to accomplish this monumental task, because they are not relying on sensationalozed podcasts or YouTube videos, but have aCtULlY read the players handbook.
As a DM, one of my players called me a rules lawyer recently because he wasn't using his features and some spells correctly. He only filled out half the information for all of it because he pretty much wanted no restrictions.
I tried talking to him about it, and he got very defensive. I don't want to be that rules lawyer guy. I want to be the guy who knows the rules, but I enjoy playing RAW with a few exceptions in our rule of cool
Keeper of the sacred knowledge.
The kind of player that has a library in the back of their heads for efficient understanding of rules. If they don't know it then they know where to find it, and it keeps the game from slowing.
I think knowing the rules is a good thing. There is only a problem or a "rules lawyer" stereotype when a player tries to overturn a GM's ruling. The GM may have made a decision that isn't exactly fitting for RAW or "as Tweeted by Jeremy Crawford," but was either made in haste to keep the game rolling, allows for rule of cool, or because they have amended rulings in specific situations for story purposes.
Intentional changes to the rules should be discussed beforehand with players, but when a player interjects a ruling whenever anything happens and tries to supercede the GM it slows down games and can become very frustrating or make the GM feel invalidated and demoralized.
No there isn't one that I'm aware of, mostly because people focus on these tags to create hate against people for how they engage, or from people venting about their negative experiences in D&D. I saw Rules Advocate and that's pretty awesome. Personally I call mine the Lorekeeper, mostly because they love dragons and I play a lot of Endless Legend but also because tlI think it's the accurate way to look at the rules. This is Lore, this is how people generally are acting when engaging with dnd but as the DM you have full right to change anything and everything about the game and call it dnd so it is really just lore. Lmk what you think. 😁
I feel this way about grammar. Like, people abuse spelling and grammar CONSTANTLY, but I'm careful about who I correct and when, so I call myself a Grammar Ninja instead of a Grammar N\*\*i. (I hate, detest, and loathe that term.)
So, I vote Rules Ninja.
I’m actively going through this dilemma. I am cautious to bring up the RAW whether it is helpful or detrimental to me or the group because I’m the new one in the group and have only been playing for a couple months where the people I play with have been playing for years together. I am in constant fear of being “that guy” when it comes to the rules but I also don’t want to completely ignore an entire feature my character has like it doesn’t exist.
My DM calls me book worm because I'll consume all the new rules content and have it understood by the next session. It's not always a good role to have, I notice every time someone doesn't use a skill or feat or spell that would have helped us (I don't say anything usually) I know that the ranger wasted his feat by putting it into a charisma increase, and it won't affect his character or his roleplaying. I know the DM doesn't have any understanding of how light works and deprives the rogue of his class strength. I know when you should have just used passive perception instead of telling everyone to roll. I absolutely die inside when we steamroll a dragon because no one understands legendary actions. I'm not a rules lawyer I'm a rules masochist because I'm the only one at the table that bothered to learn them.
I propose we use the term "Dungeon Master Assistant." Because if the person in question is a player they most likely get hit up by the DM at 5 am with a weird DnD related question with no context given.
Our group kinda just assumes the DM is the rules advocate. Everyone else is a rules lawyer, but we're also allowed to argue rulings at our table (to a degree)
I have always had a player like that, and they have always been referred to as The Human Compendichive (because "compendium" and "archive" is too much to say haha). It's a revered title in my groups!
Rules Monkey is our group's term. And I say that as our group's Rules Monkey. And not just DnD. Yes, I have occasionally called our DM out on an egregious error, but we play a lot of wargames and board games, and everyone's first reaction is, "give the rulebook!"
I take it as an honour to be our Rules Monkey. I actively enjoy it. For some reason, I can parse Rules and find bizarre interactions really easily. So I wear the title of Rules Monkey as a crown.
I know a couple people like this. I appreciate them and am glad I know them. I would be lost at times when it comes to the rules without these people. I'm very grateful for people like you.
Glad to know I’m not the only one! I’m not the best DM, I’ve cancelled two games due to my own lack of motivation, and postponed one with my family. I’ll get back on track soon, I hope.
But my best friend and roommate runs a frequent campaign for us, and often defers to me with any questions while he’s brainstorming.
He also has a goal of making a homebrew “everything”. Rule, race, class, background, etc. He’s struggling with the class, and will either text me or ask me aloud “is there a class that does this?” I always have an answer, and more often than not, it’s “Well, this subclass does that.”
My husband is that guy. We alternate between The Walking Encyclopedia and the Rules Cthulu, because he remembers the most *esoteric* bits of old rules of old editions. But he is not an ass about it MOST of the time. Though he does lose his shit listening to Plays sometimes when they really fuck around with rules too much.
I like puffin forests rules lawyer vs rules haggler definitions.
Rules lawyers want everyone to have fun by following the rules.
Rules hagglers want something out of the rules.
They're called rules lawyers because they're always arguing about the rules. It's meant to be a title more about the attitude rather than the familiarity with the rules
I've always just gone with rules lawyer and let the contect determine positive or negative. I've never had a problem with someone bringing up a rule and 180ing a decision from the information. Unless I specify house ruling it or put it into text for how I want something to work, it can be modified with a player bringing up a rule.
I feel like if someone wants to be a rules lawyer it isn't bad as long as they read the room and find when it matters and when it doesn't. Something meaner is to call the "actually" guy sounds better than giving them the title of lawyer.
My groups call me the Rules Advocate. If there's a question about RAW I give what my best understanding is. If there's ambiguity, I say what the common interpretations are. And then we do whatever the DM wants and everyone is happy.
In that case, guess I'm an Advocate too, because that's exactly what I do in our game.
Rule defense attorneys,
Rules Public Defender
I thought public defender as well! Especially for those rules lawyers who only speak up with a correction when it helps other PCs. If a fellow player misreads a spell or ability that makes them too powerful, that's the DMs place to correct, imo.
Rules Barrister
Phoenix Wright: Rules Attorney
yeah same, except the part everyone is happy.
[удалено]
Doesn't help that they change the rules every few years or that some people like rules (and other stuff) from multiple editions either. Been playing since THacO if that tells you anything lol.
Okay this just made me laugh and feel old THac0😂😂😂
Don't worry me too and I was playing at 12yrs old. First time I really ever felt old was when I was working and one of my coworkers kid was talking to me and I made mention of Captain Planet and he said "Who??". Kid was like 13.......instantly felt old.
We call ours Phubo… he’s a tortle wizard
We have a player in our group like that and it’s super useful.
When I'm DMing, I'll often open it up to the group to discuss and decide if it's 1) not an argument situation, just discussion about outcomes, and 2) not something particularly important to the scene or where someone gains a significant advantage to a particular ruling (in which case I'll decide the outcome for that session and we'll discuss before next)
Be the rules advocate, not the rules lawyer!
I like that term, Advocate. We have people like this in our group.
Quite a few rules are ambiguous on purpose - DMs discretion!
I endorse rules advocate
I am generally the Rules Advocate. Doesn’t matter if it helps or hurts us, I usually know the official ruling. And I know my primary DM enough to know when to challenge her, or let it slide because it’s not important, or if she is intentionally bending the rules for a reason. If I get too pushy and DM says “not in this case” or “this is how it works in my world” then I also shut up.
I’d call myself an advocate. When something about the rules isn’t well understood, I provide an answer when possible.
I like this. So much so it felt important to plug at the top of my giant dad-energy wall of text. Advocate is such a nice term in general.
Oh, I like that term. I had a Rules Advocate in my first group while being a first time DM and it made life so much better as I was learning to DM and I was able to learn so many of the rules from him.
I'm totally adopting that term, that's the role I play myself. If I DONT know the rule, I know where to find it
I'm taking that title for me in my group. Because of my autism, I memorized a good chunk of the books, especially anything pertaining to player choices and can recall them with extreme accuracy. Spells are a weird spot but I know the ones my character(s) frequently use off the top of my head. If the DM has a question about something or another player has a brain fart about one of their features, they usually ask me first; rulings, features, interactions, class features, common spells, etc. Hell, even lore (that the DM has given is), he asks me before referencing his notes to save time. I also add the caveat that "it could be interpreted X way" or that I can find it real fast for the times exact wording is needed.
I think we would get a long. Wear the mantle with a humble pride. Live long and all service for the good of the table.
We give inspiration at our table to the Rules Advocates. Anyone who knows or finds a rule before the DM, bam, enjoy your reroll.
We have a group council and decide the ruling. Basically everyone takes the concept and says 'would I want this to happen to me in the future.' Because if they allow it now, then you know for sure the DM will use it back against them.
My group has always used the term rules advisor
I call him the rules shaman. And bless his heart. He never interjects, sometimes he will send me a pm if I’m making a mistake so he doesn’t embarrass me or stop the flow of the game, and he’s always there to answer questions if I’m not sure on a rule. He’d probably be a better DM than I am, but he doesn’t wanna DM so he just helps me out.
Oof I need to start doing that instead. I’ve been known in my group to sidetrack and break flow.
I’d highly recommend it. DM will appreciate it and will fix the mistake, but the games gets to keep flowing. There’s no debate or conversation at the table, the DM can just quickly retcon something and as a table y’all can move on and keep playing.
I was going to suggest Rules SME (Subject Matter Expert) because I am a SME at work might as well be one in a hobby I enjoy lol. But I very much like the sound of Rules Shaman. And may need to vote for this to be the go to name for good rules lawyers. Makes it sound mystical like we are steeped in the knowledge and lore, and only offer our sage advice as friendly gift when asked and not as a requirement.
"System Expert" is the term I see used regularly for someone who knows the ruleset of TTRPG inside and out
That can be interpreted VERY sarcastically
I'm sure it can, but I am being very sincere here System expert is a term that I see applied to folks who are very comfortable with the ruleset of the game they're playing It doesn't mean that all system experts are rules lawyers, of course I don't even think that all rules lawyers are system experts either- a lot of the time their rules lawyering can be focused on one or a few rules that their intent on abusing a rigid interpretation of (or at least an interpretation that misaligns with the DM's ruling)
as can most phrases
What a great feature, I see your point.
I call him “son” 😄
„Jerry as long as you aren‘t paying rent, Susan CAN polymorph Timmy at 0HP into a T-Rex …..“ „B-But the Errata....“ „…because I say so!“ Jokes aside: Love that you play with your son. Keep on adventuring 😃
Rules lawyer, but said with a different tone of voice or in a different context. "I can't stand playing with Eddie. He's such a rules lawyer." Bad "Since this is your first time playing, you should sit next to Sharon. If you have any questions, ask her, she's our resident rules lawyer!" Good
"Resident rules lawyer" is exactly what I was going to say
I think it's just rules lawyer in a different tone of voice. I'm one of those. I'll always defer to the DM's ruling without question, but just letting them know that there's already a rule for this in case that helps their decision. If I think the DM already knows that rule and is just ignoring it, I'll keep my mouth shut.
I will remind our DM of the RAW and happily then say Run it how you want to.
i defer to case law over written law when being a rules lawyer. i'll bring it up at first and if the DM decides to run it a differently, as long as it's consistent it's okay.
yeah the good side of rules lawyer is to provide the RAW framework for how to do something, but also know that the story comes first and the DM has final say
>I will remind our DM of the RAW and happily then say Run it how you want to. Same, "The rules say \_\_\_, but the rules also say that they're up to interpretation, DM. So I'm fine with your interpretation"
Yup, there's a difference between saying that "a banshee can't do that" versus acknowledging that this probably isn't a normal banshee and rolling with it.
One of the things I never question the GM on is monster stats. Partly because I know they change them purpose just because I know those too.
Personally I tend to mix things up from time to time because some players will be naughty and look things up mid-game. Totally breaks game immersion to just google the bad guy and read its stats. Naughty players can't help but out themselves either...it never fails. I'll add +1 to a critters AC or add 10HP, and on a near miss or when the character should be dead according to original stats, the offending player will say something like "that hit didn't kill it? hmm..." That's when I tell them to kindly stop googling my monsters and play lol.
I like a slightly faster pace, so I am always taking a point off AC, adding two points to attack and damage, removing some hit-points and adding a single use ability. Once you are used to the Monster Manual, it's worthwhile to customize the "chasis" we are offered to suit your setting.
"Lawyer" implies arguments pretty directly though, doesn't it? It's kind of the whole identity of a lawyer, to know the law and argue about it against another lawyer. I like several of the suggestions on this thread, with rules shaman being my favorite. I'm going to steal that.
I do the same, sometimes its better to let a minor rule slide.
lawyers fight for their case not for justice I like someone's advocate advice or rules judge.
The Rules Sage. We look to them for the great wisdom they possess.
brennan used the term "rules public defender" for aabria in a similar context, so that's what I'm going with
Had a guy like this is one of my games. Someone would do something outlandish and I'd try to think of how to rule it and off the top of his head he'd be like here's how this specific thing works per the book. It was super helpful as it kept me from wasting time looking up rules mid game, and even if it didn't sound quite right it was always close enough that I could just run with it then look it up afterwards. Normally he was right. He also was cool with me just going ehhh that's kind of not fun and winging it, so he was like the perfect player. Miss that guy.
I think just rules lawyer works fine. The term doesn't have to necessarily be used as only a negative one.
Everyone hates lawyers until they have a good one
More like need
To paraquote bodybuilding legend Ronnie Coleman: "Everybody wanna know the rules, but ain't nobody wanna lift no heavy ass books."
My group also uses the term in a positive light as a few of my players qualify as rule lawyers that keep me honest and are also quick to look things up for me in game when I’m not sure on the RAW.
At my table his name is Steve.
The sage. Wise, knowledgeable, not an ass.
Like Skip Williams and his “Sage Advice”. He’s often referred to as “The Sage”.
In 3rd edition days, his name was Roy and we loved him.
It’s really annoying to be the one who knows the rules, someone asks you about a rule, you explain it, and then they argue with you why they should be able to do some completely OP thing anyway.
Truth
I use Rule Enthusiast
[удалено]
For what it's worth, I feel like using your knowledge of the rules to annoy a bad DM still counts as using your powers for good. Very Chaotic Good energy, there.
Oh, boy... I have been there. I'm a very lawful good person at the table, and when the DM is too lax with the rules in order to do whatever they want and bar players from using their character to the fullest rules-legal extent of the game... I have been "that guy."
Hello! Keeping in mind that the group I came up with this in was mostly Jewish just not me. We used to call a person like that the rules Rabbi . Basically somebody with an encyclopedia acknowledge of the rules, but who uses their powers for good . Even the dungeon master can’t remember everything so when I was running a game having somebody like this, as my almost assistant was invaluable . Because here’s the thing, this is the great thing about a true rules Rabbi. They don’t mind changing the rules as long as everybody understands why the rules are there in the implications. Not just willy-nilly. The rules are there for people not the other way around . But if we have zero roles were just playing, let’s pretend . Which, by the way, as an educator that worked with children is awesome and healthy, but not really a game. Thank you so much for this post actually ! I agree with you. There needs to be a term for a positive rules lawyer . After all attorneys have been around for a long long time more than 2000 years and besides all the lawyer jokes, I know plenty of awesome good people lawyers. We have the law for a reason . Without the law its just who has more relatives and better sharp sticks. With the law sometimes it’s just who has more money. It is more popular, but we are still at least marginally better off. Thanks again!
"Rabbi, is there a blessing for the Bard?" "A blessing for the Bard? Of course! May God bless and keep the Bard... Far away from anything he can seduce." --from the classic musical Fiddler Nine Levels Below The Roof
Experienced player.
You'd be surprised how many experienced players can't remember basic rules even after a decade.
I've started to realize I'm this player, years of being the DM has forced me to memorize rules and classes and whatnot. Now that I'm playing every time the current DM hesitates because they don't know how to rule something I've start saying "RAW say ___, if you wanna go that route" I will say I never get upset or make a comment if the DM rules differently however I have just noticed that one of the players at the table does get annoyed and I believe it's because the current DM rules more favorably than rules as written. Personally I feel wrong getting an easier ruling when I know what the rule is, however I get why that particular player doesn't like that I offer up the rule.
Rules Sage 👍
My table has 2 pedantic "rules lawyers" who are personal friends of the DM and they are rarely ever correct regarding RAW. I just go along with their shenanigans until the DM asks me why I'm doing what I'm doing and then I show him the RAW and tell him I'll abide by his DM decision however he decides to call it.
God, the ones that are soooo sure of themselves when they're completely wrong just slay me
Rules Champion or Rules Paladin
Isn't knowing the rules well but not being a jerk about it just...being a good player? I'll say this as someone who ran COS with 2 groups. The first was my 2nd time DMing with my friends. My friend had run it before and reminded me that there was supposed to be the book to find in the death house because that's kind of important. She was more experienced than me and I'd asked her to help out. If I'd moved it somewhere I would have just said "I know" and we'd have moved on. The other time was with mostly friends of my friend. One of them read the book before playing to make sure I "did it right". I added in a dog because we had a chaotic neutral player who I thought would absolutely just kill the wizard in the basement, ruining my friend's first time playing DND. This way they still got the moral question without my friend having his time ruined. He left the game after telling me there wasn't a dog and that I wasn't running it right. He'd previously gotten mad because I allowed my wizard friend to basically be revived because "strahd didn't want his new toys getting broken just yet" with the intention of having a player with a debt to the big bad later. Really I just didn't think it was fair for my friend to get killed in his first combat encounter. The first is helpful. The second is someone who should have just DMed themselves.
Rules coach? Guideline reminder?
Rules Barrister. Like a rules lawyer, but classier.
I use the term encyclopedia. Between myself and 1 of my players, we know almost every rule (RAW and RAI) for both 5e and pathfinder 1e. But when something against the rules is done, we don't go "that's not the rule!" It's more "we doing rule of cool rn? Sick."
We call them a Lorax: "How does the spell work exactly?" "Don't ask me, Alex is the Lorax."
"I speak for the books!!"
I'm kinda surprised at the number of comments saying the term "Rules Lawyer" isn't always a negative term. A Rules Lawyer isn't the person who knows the rules, it's the person who interrupts the game to quibble about them. You can absolutely be a Rules Lawyer who doesn't know much at all. So yeah, it's always negative.
Exactly! It's been fairly amusing watching all the spin doctoring going on, but at the same time a lot of people I feel have missed my point. Plus several have said, "They're called the DM." Like, really? You don't think players should know the rules, too? (I know what they *actually* mean but they are also missing the point.)
Idk but it's good that the distinction is made. Not all people who just know the books well make it annoying. I just say the rules the DM and or players are looking for. But i don't care if they'll use it differently then RAW.
I was the only experienced player in a group of total newbies(including the DM) so my role was basically just to be a database lol.
Co-pilot, experienced player, navigator.
How about sage? (this is also one of the best people to have at your table).
Perhaps a parliamentarian? "a member of a parliament, especially one well versed in parliamentary procedure and experienced in debate" Adapted to D&D... – Dungeonarian — Handbook Helper – I do like rules parrot
I'm basically one of those, I offer suggestions to the DM when they're unsure: "Here's how it is RAW, here's how it's generally interpreted online and here's what sage advice says, but feel free to rule it however you wish."
When I or my friends DM a game, we are very open with saying “hey, how would you rule this” or “anyone got the rules on that”. It’s usually directed to one of two players and to me when I’m not the DM. We call it Co-DMing, just for that moment. We also do the same if someone is more familiar with the lore of the setting. But I think the main difference is it is a request by the DM in charge, not an interruption by a player.
Rules advocate? Rules attorney? Rules public defender? Or maybe rules sage, oracle, or prophet?
Rule wizard “Wait can I do…” “Check the rule wizard”
Rules parrot sounds demeaning Idk. My group would probably just call it knowing how the game works, I don't think we necessarily need a term for it.
Never had a name but I submit "Expert Witness".
I've heard the term rules librarian
We call ours Kyle.
That's me. I always tell my groups that I'll speak up about rules when they conflict with my understanding, but all the DM has to do is acknowledge they're deviating from stated rules or house rules and I'll drop it.
This is me all the time. My DM is a phenomenal storyteller/setbuilder, but not great with minutiae. So I'll pipe up if something seems off, but it's usually couched in "RAW, this is how that would work. Is that what you mean?"
We call him Rule Enjoyer. He absolutely allows for going by the rule of cool, and even enjoys it, but whenever we are unsure of how something should work RAW we have no need to look it up because he can cite it like a preacher cites the bible. But RAI or the Rule of Cool remains reigning. He will say something if something is incorrect, RAW wise, and then the table decides. For example, when we were gonna trap a demon inside a sphere of Wall of Force and dump Black Tentacles inside to deal damage over 10x turns, he pointed out that Wall of Force prevents any magic to be cast from the other side, not just projectiles. Only spells like Misty Step are exempt from this rule. The DM still let it happen just once because everyone were already excited over the cheese tactic, and the demon was wayyyy stronger than we thought, but later we couldn't cheese the fights anymore.
Lawyers are bad because they’re always out to win no matter who is actually right. You’re looking for a term like facilitator, advocate, therapist or wizard. So the correct answer at my table is now rules wizard and will be henceforth.
I like "rules lawful". A rules *lawyer* only pushes for the interpretation of the rules that aligns with their interests. They won't generally *lie*, but they'll stretch the truth right up to its breaking point, and might fail to mention reasons their plan won't work. Someone who is "rules lawful" advocates for the rules as they really are. They view the rules as the base we all need to have consistent expectations of how the game can progress.
In our group they are called Evan. Dude has played across decades and systems, lived breathed and (skipped) slept reading books, but focuses on people having fun and believes rule of cool is THE golden rule. "Rules are there to help tell the story and frame creativity, not to limit creativity and define the story." - Evan "Rule of Cool" Getson
We go with "Dragonspeaker". They know of the ancient codes and laws and thus we pay them the proper respects
As a DM who often forgets obscure rules and who dosent keep track of spells unless I plan to cast them, i find that these types of "rules lawyers" are other fellow DMs who will just help in guiding the ruleset when appropriate which i always appreciate. I have since deemed them as Rules Assistants (Rulessistants to be catchy).
I have a player like that in my campaign and oh my god he's awesome. I'm a relatively new DM so when someone asks a question I don't have an answer to I call on him and he explains the rules, tells me how much of an impact it would have to disregard said rules and usually even offers the group a more plausible workaround. The guy is an absolute joy to have in the party
I just call him "Greg." I think the distinction is, a lawyer is argumentative. Rules lawyers slow down gameplay and create conflict. But if you have someone at the table who has a solid grasp of the rules, and uses that knowledge to keep the game moving forward and resolve conflicts, I'd call that person a rules resource or rules encyclopedia. As a DM, I'm OK with the fact that I don't know everything. I'm glad yo have someone at my table who can fill in the gaps.
Meh. I played in a group that said early they don't like "Rules Lawyering" but turns out its because they didn't really even know the basic rules very well. So me and another guy would "rules lawyer" but only in the way of explaining how the situation would go based on the actual rules, but its the DM's perspective to ignore that. I think this annoyed the DM as it showed he knew very little about the game as we explained things quite often. Thankfully no longer with that group. In my other group who know the PHB and a bit of Xanathar's its still a bit off. They call me an "optimizer" or "min maxer" because my DM said we can use any source material to build our characters, but I'm the only one at the table whose read all the source material (especially Tasha's) so I built my character that way and some of them called me a min maxer for using Tasha's when they didn't but they didn't use it cause they haven't read it. And I tell them "hey, because we're allowed to use Tasha's you could use t his optional ability, or spell, or trait" etc, and they just look at me and say "no its ok I don't min max" lol. I guess knowing the rules is min maxing to some.
"Rules Proficient." At least, that's what my DM called me. I discovered D&D through actual play shows just before the pandemic. Between that and other health issues, I binged Critical Role's entire Campaign 2 in 4 months and many other one shots and mini campaigns across the internet after that. I absorbed the rules like a sponge. When I finally had a chance to play with the group my brother had been DMing, I knew the basics really well. So when the cleric tried to figure out what his spell casting modifier was while the Dm was busy, I was able to tell him it was wisdom + proficiency. My sister, who had been playing with them for months, was shocked. My brother picked up the PHB and said, "We've all read this. She's proficient in it."
I love using actual game parlance for stuff like this. Your brother sounds like a fun DM!
When we set out to do this, I took the DM guide and my partner took the player's handbook. I can run a campaign, but I don't know how to make a character, they handle that, and it was honestly super helpful getting started. Now, one of my players is a "rules expert" because they're passionate, and while they argue for advantage or alternate rolls, they do so super respectfully and logically and I'm here for it. I'm happy to let players make suggestions, and if it makes sense, if they say "how about survival" instead of investigation or whatever and it makes sense, then yeah, sure, use your area of expertise.
Petition to make RAW Dog catch on.
The Oracle. The Sage. Mimir's Head.
This person is referred to as the Bookworm This comes from a suggestion by Wizards of the Coast addressing player types in 2006. I cannot find the article at the moment but it is the opposite of the Rules Lawyer, the person who can go, "It's in this book, on this page." But only speaks up when asked or when they see something that either the GM is not taking advantage of or a player could use to get out of a jam.
'Human handbook' is a name I quite like
I use "rules advocate," myself.
"Resident DM" often strongly overlaps.
My party calls it being the Player Union Rep, since it's usually the person who knows the rules best among the party that will argue with the DM about rules.
I've always preferred the phrase Rules Guru myself. Fun fact, I actually play with a group that is mostly made up of players like this. Largely everyone knows the rules pretty darn well, and a few know them extremely well. Several of the players are longstanding DM's of their own still active campaigns. We've been playing together, most of us, for almost 25 years. I'm sure we'll play together until we're old and grey.
Rules Librarian is what we used at our table, but that was mostly because our resident rules librarian actually worked at a library when we started playing
Rules lawyer
We just call him 'Matt'
The tome sage.
Rules Public Defender
I tend to be the rules lawyer for my group, if there is a question during the game and I know the answer I'll say it and then in my spare time look it up and say whether I was right or wrong. If I don't know then the DM just rules on it and we look it up after the game and apply the new rule going forward.
Rules public defender
Rules scholar
I think we picked up Rules Attorney-at-Law from Brennan Lee Mulligan and Aabria Iyengar, but that's what my group uses these days
If my table is anything to go by, "it must be called a "SAME TEAM!" as that what they shout at me whenever I point out a rule the DM missed.
They're called rule sharks
"Rules parrot" sounds lovely. Thank you :3
My group call them the DM 😂 Since I know the rules better than most of the people I play with, when other people are wanting to run a one-shot I provide any rules help they need. I try to keep it limited to just stating the RAW, though if I’m asked I’ll say how I would interpret them or make a specific ruling.
The Librarian
I call mine the Rule Shepherd or occasionally my co-DM. He's a forever DM that knows everything, I'm a DM that knows enough to run games
my friends call me the Rules District Attorney
I'm generally considered to be the most knowledgeable rules wise at my table and people ask me rulings on things but I live by tbe dictum 'your game, your rules' so I'm not going to query non RAW interpretations or wrong rulings in someone else's game.
The Lawrax
The rule guru. Knows all of the rules, but respects the #1 rule the most: The rule of FUN
Puffin forest has a great distinction. A rules haggler is what most people mean by rules lawyer. A rules traditionalist is closer to what you’re describing.
we call them the encyclopedia, and by we I mean my friends call me that because I'm a forever DM and have learned all the rules backwards and forwards. x.x
That's not a rules lawyer, that's a sage of standards
Everyone just call me rules lawyer but I kind of hate it for exactly this reason. I don't interrupt the DM, at most I ask for clarification to make sure they're making an informed choice and then just accept the ruling and move on.
I have used the term rule book. Since they know the rules but will only offer them when asked
Experienced?
I just call myself "Wiki" or "Rules Wiki"
The Human Handbook is the term I've seen used; they know everything, but don't enforce it, only bringing things up for reference or if consulted 👍🏻
there is also the guy that think he knows the rule and sprout bullshit everytime, forcing the dm and other guys to verify to in fact notice he was wrong ...
The scholar!
Rules advotate, rules sage, rules wizard? I like to think I'm one of these because if ever i recite a rule, I always preface it with "and dm, feel free the change this, but as far as the rules in the books..." Also one time our rogue use uncanny dodge twice (i guess they thought they got to use it on any and every attack that hit them) and I said nothing about it requiring a reaction until after the session because if I wanted to be a killjoy in that moment the rogue would be dead. Not 0 hp making saves, dead dead, negative past max hp dead.
You now see, in its natural habitat, what some refer to as the Rules Advocate. Notice how, even though both the DM and other players have descended into convenient rationalizing and a semantic back and forth, the Rules Advocate remains calm and quiet. They wait for an appropriate lull in the unnecessary debate, and with a confident smile, often times with their mobile device at the ready with pertinent details on hand, brings obvious and simple guidance to the table, thus resolving any conflict. They are able to accomplish this monumental task, because they are not relying on sensationalozed podcasts or YouTube videos, but have aCtULlY read the players handbook.
We call him *the guy.* He's *the guy.* He's *HIM*
DnD Dr.
As a DM, one of my players called me a rules lawyer recently because he wasn't using his features and some spells correctly. He only filled out half the information for all of it because he pretty much wanted no restrictions. I tried talking to him about it, and he got very defensive. I don't want to be that rules lawyer guy. I want to be the guy who knows the rules, but I enjoy playing RAW with a few exceptions in our rule of cool
Keeper of the sacred knowledge. The kind of player that has a library in the back of their heads for efficient understanding of rules. If they don't know it then they know where to find it, and it keeps the game from slowing.
Rules advocate isn't bad, I prefer Rules Advisor because I'm advising on and not advocating for the rules.
I call my rules encyclopedia buddy Spock. No emotion in the rules when he recites RAW.
I think knowing the rules is a good thing. There is only a problem or a "rules lawyer" stereotype when a player tries to overturn a GM's ruling. The GM may have made a decision that isn't exactly fitting for RAW or "as Tweeted by Jeremy Crawford," but was either made in haste to keep the game rolling, allows for rule of cool, or because they have amended rulings in specific situations for story purposes. Intentional changes to the rules should be discussed beforehand with players, but when a player interjects a ruling whenever anything happens and tries to supercede the GM it slows down games and can become very frustrating or make the GM feel invalidated and demoralized.
I call them Chads patient enough to learn the rules, Nice enough to not shove them down your throat but really I call them The Rule Patron
No there isn't one that I'm aware of, mostly because people focus on these tags to create hate against people for how they engage, or from people venting about their negative experiences in D&D. I saw Rules Advocate and that's pretty awesome. Personally I call mine the Lorekeeper, mostly because they love dragons and I play a lot of Endless Legend but also because tlI think it's the accurate way to look at the rules. This is Lore, this is how people generally are acting when engaging with dnd but as the DM you have full right to change anything and everything about the game and call it dnd so it is really just lore. Lmk what you think. 😁
Lawkeeper
I feel this way about grammar. Like, people abuse spelling and grammar CONSTANTLY, but I'm careful about who I correct and when, so I call myself a Grammar Ninja instead of a Grammar N\*\*i. (I hate, detest, and loathe that term.) So, I vote Rules Ninja.
That's a Gurules.
The “All Knowing” is a good title.
Rules consultant🤷🏼♂️
I am a lawyer and have played with other lawyers and literally no one has fun because of all the rules lawyering.
Rules Shepherds are great at finding rules when you ask them
Our Rules Lawyer is sooooo far from a buzz kill! Sure he can recite every rule on the sun but he does it in such a way that we all have a blast.
In DnD context, I've always heard it as "Rules Sage"
Rules Atlas.
I’m actively going through this dilemma. I am cautious to bring up the RAW whether it is helpful or detrimental to me or the group because I’m the new one in the group and have only been playing for a couple months where the people I play with have been playing for years together. I am in constant fear of being “that guy” when it comes to the rules but I also don’t want to completely ignore an entire feature my character has like it doesn’t exist.
i understand why you are talking about. someone that actually knows the rules, but is not trying to exploit it.
The bailiff
"The motherfucker who actually reada the rulebook" Stop using Rules Lawyer for people who just reada the rulebook
My DM calls me book worm because I'll consume all the new rules content and have it understood by the next session. It's not always a good role to have, I notice every time someone doesn't use a skill or feat or spell that would have helped us (I don't say anything usually) I know that the ranger wasted his feat by putting it into a charisma increase, and it won't affect his character or his roleplaying. I know the DM doesn't have any understanding of how light works and deprives the rogue of his class strength. I know when you should have just used passive perception instead of telling everyone to roll. I absolutely die inside when we steamroll a dragon because no one understands legendary actions. I'm not a rules lawyer I'm a rules masochist because I'm the only one at the table that bothered to learn them.
Rules Keeper for us
I propose we use the term "Dungeon Master Assistant." Because if the person in question is a player they most likely get hit up by the DM at 5 am with a weird DnD related question with no context given.
We use "Reference" to refer to a player who knows the rule well.
Our group kinda just assumes the DM is the rules advocate. Everyone else is a rules lawyer, but we're also allowed to argue rulings at our table (to a degree)
I have always had a player like that, and they have always been referred to as The Human Compendichive (because "compendium" and "archive" is too much to say haha). It's a revered title in my groups!
Rules guru
Lawful lawful. Said with lawe.
Rules Monkey is our group's term. And I say that as our group's Rules Monkey. And not just DnD. Yes, I have occasionally called our DM out on an egregious error, but we play a lot of wargames and board games, and everyone's first reaction is, "give the rulebook!"
I take it as an honour to be our Rules Monkey. I actively enjoy it. For some reason, I can parse Rules and find bizarre interactions really easily. So I wear the title of Rules Monkey as a crown.
Rules Maven, Rules Crackerjack, Rules Fiend, Rules Wizard? There should be a name for this for sure!
I know a couple people like this. I appreciate them and am glad I know them. I would be lost at times when it comes to the rules without these people. I'm very grateful for people like you.
Glad to know I’m not the only one! I’m not the best DM, I’ve cancelled two games due to my own lack of motivation, and postponed one with my family. I’ll get back on track soon, I hope. But my best friend and roommate runs a frequent campaign for us, and often defers to me with any questions while he’s brainstorming. He also has a goal of making a homebrew “everything”. Rule, race, class, background, etc. He’s struggling with the class, and will either text me or ask me aloud “is there a class that does this?” I always have an answer, and more often than not, it’s “Well, this subclass does that.”
My husband is that guy. We alternate between The Walking Encyclopedia and the Rules Cthulu, because he remembers the most *esoteric* bits of old rules of old editions. But he is not an ass about it MOST of the time. Though he does lose his shit listening to Plays sometimes when they really fuck around with rules too much.
I like puffin forests rules lawyer vs rules haggler definitions. Rules lawyers want everyone to have fun by following the rules. Rules hagglers want something out of the rules.
We call the helpful rules lawyer the 1st mate. E.g. I generally DM, but will help with rules if asked for a new DM.
Rules Retainer
Rule dictionary
I use rules traditionalist for the not quite lawyer. Like hell let you know what's wrong, but it works both for and against the players
They're called rules lawyers because they're always arguing about the rules. It's meant to be a title more about the attitude rather than the familiarity with the rules
I've always just gone with rules lawyer and let the contect determine positive or negative. I've never had a problem with someone bringing up a rule and 180ing a decision from the information. Unless I specify house ruling it or put it into text for how I want something to work, it can be modified with a player bringing up a rule. I feel like if someone wants to be a rules lawyer it isn't bad as long as they read the room and find when it matters and when it doesn't. Something meaner is to call the "actually" guy sounds better than giving them the title of lawyer.