Jon Freitag recently did one of his famous data dives and looked into people's least favourite things about wargaming.
Rules lawyers were top of the list. That's right, not expensive, errata-riddled rulebooks; not cheats; not figures that break at the ankles; not stubborn mould lines; not kickstarter addictions; it is rules lawyers that get under our wargaming skin.
I have a bit of difficulty around this. Not because I have been traumatised by any lawyers, but because I have a sneaking suspicion I might be one.
I am going, therefore, to do the most rules-lawyerish thing possible, and mount an inquiry.
1) What is a rules lawyer?
What do people mean when they use the term rules lawyer? Wikipedia has one answer:
A rules lawyer is a participant in a rules-based environment who attempts to use the letter of the law without reference to the spirit, usually in order to gain an advantage within that environment.[1] The term is commonly used in wargaming and tabletop role-playing game communities,[2] often pejoratively, as the "rules lawyer" is seen as an impediment to moving the game forward.[3]
Carlos Caro on Quora has another:
A rules lawyer is a person who insists on rules in an RPG, wargame, or other sport/game being followed to the letter. This applies to games besides Dungeons and Dragons. A rules lawyer is a person who insists on Rules As Written (RAW) and scorns Rules As Intended (RAI)
A Steven Dashiell starts short and sweet before elaborating exhaustively in an article through Analog Game Studies:
A rules lawyer is a player who argues and interprets the rules of the game during play
A thread on the Boardgamegeek site solicits plenty of responses on rules-lawyering, but one by a Dave Weiss is pithy:
It's the manipulation of the rules to favor the lawyer
Going by these definitions rules lawyers seem to share three main characteristics. The first is rules pedantry, the second is arguing over rules, and the third is the tendency to make this all work in the rules-lawyer's favour.
So we have pickiness in applying the rules, but with a tendancy for this pickiness to be somewhat selective, with the sense that there is strict application of the rules when it suits. We have a willingness to argue over the interpretation of rules, with these interpretations again tending to advantage oneself over others. Finally, we have one's table-side manner used in a kind of metagame to bring advantage.
2) How is a rules lawyer different from an ordinary player?
Knowing the rules and applying them in the pursuit of tabletop victory is not a bad thing. In fact, it is the essence of wargaming. The rules that define the arena we operate in regulate play and allow us to formulate plans, make decisions, and take action towards specific goals. Rules are necessary, and knowing the rules is essential for the game to work.
It is also not a sin to want to win. Some people are happy win lose or draw. Others, for their own reasons, want to get a W.
The things that make a rules lawyer's behaviour different from that of an ordinary player are, I would suggest, a) motivation and b) degree. Ordinary players can question rules interpretations, point out rules forgotten or misapplied, consult rules books and argue points. When it becomes rules-lawyerish is when the motivation is to gain an undue competitive advantage for oneself (interpretations become selective, or rules are applied less scrupulously if to apply them would benefit an opponent) or to throw someone off their game.
The other point of difference is degree. The rules lawyer will do these things as a matter of course. An ordinary player might become picky and/or argumentative about the rules in a tense situation when there is something riding on the result, if they are playing someone they have taken a dislike to, or if they feel they are being taken advantage of. The rules lawyer will exhibit these traits regularly: he is serially picky, argumentative and self-interested.
3) Am I a rules lawyer?
Now we come to the heart of the matter.
The answer for me is, I think, both yes and no. I could come across as a rules lawyer in some situations. I like to get rules correct, and if there are times that rules may need some discussion, or a point argued, I will usually have the discussion or argue the point. But I also like to be fair, and I like to be consistent, so I would hope that it would not seem as if my motivation for being careful / picky / pedantic was to gain an unfair advantage. That said, in the heat of the action, my idea of fair and my opponent's may not quite line up, so I can imagine a person could question whether the motives behind my penchant for pedantry were always pure.
I grew up in a large family with competitive instincts. In our house you never got to take a move back in chess. You touched a piece, you moved it. There were no 'gifted victories' to ease you in. I still carry some of that mentality with me and I have to fight against it a little.
So yes, I do tick the 'matter of degree' box as well, unfortunately.
As with all things, I try to pick my audience. I love a hard battle against an opponent similarly experienced and with something on the line, but do try to temper my approach to the environment. Still, there are one or two times I have been a little ashamed of my rules-pedantry. One occasion was at the end of a game of Machiavelli, when I pointed out an error in how victory points had been calculated. The recalculation then gave the win to me. The problem was that the initial reading of the score would have given the win to a high school lass in her first game with the group.
Given my time again I would keep my trap shut.
4) Is being a rules lawyer such a bad thing?
The results of the survey Jon analyses leaves little doubt - it is a bad thing. The worst thing! It is the thing that drives people away from particular opponents, from gaming groups, from particular games, and even from games at all.
The best that I can hope for is to be a rules lawyer that is 'lawful neutral' but I suppose I am not the one who gets to judge!
5) What can I do about being a rules lawyer?
Aside from ringing or emailing every person I've played with to apologise for any negative experiences they may have had, I think the thing to do is to be aware of the tendency and try to catch myself.
Is it worth telling people before I play that I have a tendency to be a bit picky with rules and if you think I'm being a dick, tell me so? This may smooth things with an ordinary player, but if you are up against a fellow rules lawyer - especially one who is lawful evil - they will school you like a rookie!
6) What do people think?
Do you have rules lawyer tendencies? If so, when?
Do you not? Not even a little bit?
Have you had particular experiences either as a rules lawyer or as the victim of one?
How would you suggest a rules lawyer go about making themselves more acceptable as a gaming opponent?
Finally, a wildcard: why do people exhibit rules-lawyerish behaviour? Is it performative hyper-masculinity? Is it to establish uber-nerd cred? It it to mask deep-seated personal inadequacites? Is it just a bad habit?
I would value your thoughts!
You mention the effect of 'nurture' in your own case, but shouldn't ignore 'nature'. All our brains both process information and react to it in different ways. It's inevitably more upsetting to some people than others when things aren't done in a way that they regard as correct.
ReplyDeleteI was playing at a Too Fat Lardies event over the weekend. Richard Clark apparently prefers to leave his rules loose, relying on wargamers common sense to smooth things over. I know that one of the chaps who proof-reads them keeps telling him that approach drives some gamers mad to such an extent that they won't play (or buy) them.
Yes, good points. I guess we all have different tolerance levels when it comes to 'loose'!
DeleteI long ago came to the conclusion it's not about the game you play, or the rules you use, it's about WHO you play.......
ReplyDeleteTo explain further; when two or more players play a wargame, they bring certain (often unsaid) expectations. There are also those subtle human interactions that we pick up on, that determine whether we "like / dislike" that person and the extent to which that manifests.
Many years ago, I belonged to a club. WRG ancients were the main period played. There were some highly competitive players, one of whom was "challenging" to play against , a real rules lawyer, but not too offensive usually, but also the games gave little "pleasure".
As a whole, the club was a competitive environment to varying degrees. Games for fun were "a knockabout".
After losing a lot of games, I upped my game, studied the rules and learned "game" tactics that would ensure a win - not necessarily historical - but beneficial in the rules.
I played against my first childhood opponent with whom we had stumbled our way through wargaming (we lived in a remote area) and hammered him in three moves. After some soul searching, I was somewhat ashamed of what I'd become. The only objective was winning, enjoyment only came from that.
Not long afterwards, classics student at the local university came up with a campaign, based on the SPI Conquerors game. It was set circa 200BC. He also played as the Seleucids (back then one of the killer armies). By lot, I ended up as the Ptolemaic player. I studied the rules and realised he had set them up in such a way that he was the most powerful player and almost certain to "win". I had no troops in Coele Syria, while he had a mighty army on the border. To reach the province I had to march through Sinai, which he ruled would produce attrition similar to the Sahara. Despite there being a coastal route and a Ptolemaic fleet, no I could not supply my army through that thoroughfare known to history. I noted you could activate rebels. I had lots of money. So to distract him, I raised a rebellion in Asia Minor. Move 1 expecting certain victory, he was thrown when I interrupted him - apparently, he didn't expect anyone to do this so soon....
Fast forward to him sending an army to deal with Acheus. I retreated across a river (didn't want a battle wanted to keep him in play as long as possible). He intercepted me and we fought a game with a river dividing the table.
Laying out terrain, he announced "where a road meets a river, there is automatically a bridge". I pointed out that as I had retreated across the river, I would have destroyed those bridges....." no, the rules say... "
ReplyDeleteSo we fought a strange battle where pike phalanxes guarded bridge exits. He moved a unit of Thracians across the river; I countered with a unit of peltasts on the river bank. "Your Thracians will be disordered" " No, as per page....LMI crossing water obstacles are assumed to be swimming...' So charging out of the water, they were able to use 2HCW + Jls and received a plus for "charging" . My peltasts would have been better diving into the river and despite swimming, able to use spear, javelins and shield.....
Whatever argument to common sense, no, the rules said....
I think we may have played another game, but my heart was no longer in it. I gave away my ancient armies and switched off for any ancient games. Did not pick up the period until DBA close on 10 years later....
I have since met such power gamers and other such people. Depending on my mood, I either refuse to play them or try to beat them by outrageous rules exploitation (such as the person who brought Mongols to a friendly DBA chariot competition - I had Ancient British and covered the board in terrain. Sniped at him until he conceded).
Nowadays, I'd rather not play someone if I get the sense all they want to do is win.....
I've played cerebral wargames (like Command Decision) but prefer less demanding escapes these days.
For the record, my "rules lawyer" was an intelligent and amiable person. Outside the game I got on with him fine. For whatever reason, he wanted or needed to win. Whether that was due to competitive childhood - he was an only child IIRC - or deep sense of inadequacy which this compensated, I cannot say. He was, for sure a definition of "rules lawyer".....
Neil
Thanks Neil, your rules lawyer clearly left a very strong impression! I think you are right about the 'who' aspect of it. Sometimes there are people you just don't get along with across the table. Thankfully, I have not met too many of them, but there was a chap I once played in an online Commands & Colors: Ancients tournament many years ago who really got on my goat. Swearing or woe is me comments whenever the dice or cards were unfavourable, 'you get all the luck' type comments when things went my way, and then excessive triumphalism when things went well for him. I was glad when those games were over and avoided playing him again in 'friendlies'. This was a sportsmanship issue not a rules lawyer one though.
DeleteThanks for your comments, I enjoyed reading them!
Cheers,
Aaron
And you're right, your chap had all the hallmarks of an A grade rules lawyer!
DeleteExcellent post, Aaron, and thanks for plugging my original post.
ReplyDeleteFor me, you sum up the tendencies of a Rules Lawyer perfectly in,
[i]So we have pickiness in applying the rules, but with a tendency for this pickiness to be somewhat selective, with the sense that there is strict application of the rules when it suits. We have a willingness to argue over the interpretation of rules, with these interpretations again tending to advantage oneself over others. Finally, we have one's table-side manner used in a kind of metagame to bring advantage. [/i]
I am not sure about your table-side manner attribute but selective application of the rules in order to benefit oneself is key. Rarely is the application evenhanded and always situational. I do not see rules lawyering as a case of insisting on playing RAW vs RAI.
Thanks Jon, fair point - I didn't lead into the part about table-side manner very well, nor properly explain it.
DeleteThanks again for your original analysis. It's been floating around in my head for a while now, but took some time to get a post together :)
Cheers,
Aaron
My experience is that everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) is a Rules Lawyer. We just don't like it much when it's done to us. One person's pickiness is another person's precision. As to what RAI is as opposed to RAW, if a rule writer intended something, they'd say it. Often I've found the best games with a rules system are the first few after the initial game. Bereft of deep knowledge allowing players to use rules based tactics, we are left to resort to our historical knowledge, using the rules to arbitrate when units come into contact. That's when the rules are enabling the game, rather than the game being an opportunity to exploit the rules.
ReplyDeleteInteresting take, Trebian. You might be right. I prefer to know the rules though and tend to stick to a few systems, so I don't have the same experience as you do with putting on games with new sets of rules. That said, I do enjoy that early process of figuring out what good play is in boardgames.
DeleteThanks for your thoughts!
Cheers
I used to be a rules lawyer when I was younger. I had somehow emotionally more riding on it for various reasons. I invested more in it, reading the rules over and over, as well as playing many games (and also painting/preparing my armies). Add to that that I had some flair for tactics and won the majority of my games, to the point that I was THE top player in my (very large) group - and the pressure was on. Victory meant a lot more. I was prepared to argue and even cheat a bit on the angles and distances (now one of my most hated aspects of the rules).
ReplyDeleteThings have changed now though and I have mellowed out a lot. Firstly, I encountered players who were more stressed about winning than I was. I even attracted them disproportionately, as winning against me was their biggest possible achievement in our circle. And unexpectedly I also ended up playing in the world tournament circle. Though the vast majority of the people were exceedingly nice, there were some to whom winning was everything and they displayed a variety of behaviours I found unpalatable. Encountering these opponents convinced me that I didn’t want to be like them at all.
The other thing is that with passage of time I now have other things in life (my family for starters) that are much more important and correspondingly less time to invest in games - these are now a sideshow, more just for fun. I still like to win and appreciate games where knowledge about rules gives a player an advantage - I think that is a good thing and it is more rewarding than just lining up and rolling dice. I also think that one little detail is usually not enough to win a game and am ready to let it go, which helps!
Now, when it comes to any situations that are somewhere on the edge, my approach is probably one familiar to most people: 1) play in the spirit of what may be plausible, even if not completely in line with the rules 2) read the rules if necessary or requested by opponent - I'm happy to skip this and go to next step, but if it matters to the opponent... 3) let a dice roll decide and read the rules more thoroughly later. All this is resolved quickly and prevents too much rules lawyering. If someone persists in pushing it beyond this then I don't play them again and that’s it. I have precious little gaming time to let my fun be spoiled. This effectively means that I only play with like-minded people – DOH!
As for other things that attract rules lawyers – the foremost is the games themselves. Some are definitely more prone to rule lawyers - the ones where things are defined to a high level, but not with complete clarity (that's most of the miniatures wargames then) and ones set up for competitive games, for example by point values (again most of them). In addition, if there is a very big community playing that game, with tournament circuits, etc., this may also contribute. On the other hand, there are games where being a rules lawyer is not too helpful in the long run - for example DBA. There is just too much randomness in the results and the game turnaround is so fast that arguing about one instance is simply lost in a sea of other factors. I also like boardgames – these tend to be defined better, with hexes/squares for movement/distances and there is simply less need (opportunity) to argue over rules. The bottom line is that with so much choice in games and rules nowdays you can place yourself into the games that suit your style and your tendency for rules lawyering, be it ones that promote it or ones that are not so susceptible.
Hi Iv, thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences. A reformed rules lawyer! That all makes sense to me, and I can see elements of myself in that too.
DeleteGood points about maturity and life circumstances changing what people want out of the games they play, and a very good point about games that reward rules-lawyery behavior as opposed to games that don't. I think the Commands & Colors series of games is a great example - you get reward from careful consideration of strategy, but the rules are black and white, and you can't argue with card draws and dice rolls.
I hope you are able to continue to strike the balance between enjoyment and challenge in the games you play.
And thank you again for your thoughtful comment. Please drop back in any time!
Cheers,
Aaron
I found your analysis of what constitutes a RL interesting, especially when then compared to the comments made - which all backs up that a RL could be down to perspective and everyone could be interpreted as one at some point, by someone with a different perspective on the game, the rules or even wargaming in general.
ReplyDeleteI also found your self reflection interesting. For me me (my perspective) the RL debate on myself would center around why I was playing that particular game. If it was a competition game, then I would expect some RL type behavior from all involved, as you say, taking advantage of the rules as well as your skill as a wargamer is almost the point. If I was however, say, playing to explore the tactical decisions made in some historical battle and using a set of rules as the vehicle to run the game, then I would expect very little RL behavior, as bending the rules to make the scenario feel more realistic would be better. So I guess its all a spectrum. Sometimes you need a little RL to make it fair and sometimes not all as the rules are not the point.
Hi Rhys, thanks for your thoughts. You're quite right - games (and rules) serve different purposes at different times and how 'RL' someone might act is likely to depend on the circumstances of the game as well.
DeleteCheers,
Aaron