It takes two to rules lawyer.

[Talakeal]

Because I'm not saying it to attack or insult you. I'm being honest about how you're coming across, sometimes we behave in ways that project an attitude different from our best intentions. A little introspection can go a long way. I know that from personal experience, it's tempting to blame others for our setbacks, but the better road is to look at yourself and ask what you could do differently. I'm not saying it's all your fault, but if you resolve to be conscious of when a bad situation is developing, and of your own tendency towards certain exacerbating behaviors, you could avoid a lot of the situations you find yourself in getting as extreme as they do.

Again, I am sorry if I read too much into your statement, but "must be the problem," does not read to me as "contributes to their own problems," or "sometimes causes problems of their own." Now, I recognize that you put it in quotes, but I certainly felt the inference was that my previous statement was causing you to agree with that sentiment.

I just couldn't follow your logic that my opinions had been "warped" by really terrible DMs when I hadn't even met said terrible DMs when my opinions were formed, which as I explained was primarily over many years of watching how players reacted to my own behavior, or how my inability to follow someone's argument on the internet meant that I was probably the source of the problems in gaming groups.

Like I have said, my gaming horror stories are almost entirely about a few people who, for whatever reason, I continued to game with rather than just finding someone else. I get along with the vast majority of people fine, while I see these same people getting into fights with other players and hear about all sorts of gaming horror stories about situations where I wasn't even present, so the thought that I am somehow the primary source of my problems with these people is simply ludicrous. Now, do I sometimes contribute to the problems or react in the wrong way, of course, as I have said up thread many times I am a flawed human and I make mistakes.

[kyoryu]

Nobody can rules-lawyer without the DM's complicity.

This.

The answer is the GM says "make your case, I'll make a judgement, and you can review with me after the game."

That's not a matter of authoritarianism. It's a matter of *keeping the game going*, while still allowing a forum for disagreements with bringing the game to a screeching halt.

[goto124]

while still allowing a forum for disagreements with bringing the game to a screeching halt.

Hey...

Has anyone ever failed to resolve a rules dispute in the out-of-the-actual-game argument?

[Talakeal]

Hey...

Has anyone ever failed to resolve a rules dispute in the out-of-the-actual-game argument?

Yes. I certainly never resolved a lot of the big arguments that came up in my 3.5 game like whether non detection blocked true seeing, whether caustic blast could damage an acid immune creature, or whether or not shapechanging into a form of a creature with sorcerer casting abilities could allow you to cast the spells immediately or if you needed an eight hour rest first.

Even the internet disagrees on a lot of the rules of 3.x.

[Keltest]

Yes. I certainly never resolved a lot of the big arguments that came up in my 3.5 game like whether non detection blocked true seeing, whether caustic blast could damage an acid immune creature, or whether or not shapechanging into a form of a creature with sorcerer casting abilities could allow you to cast the spells immediately or if you needed an eight hour rest first.

Even the internet disagrees on a lot of the rules of 3.x.

Was the GM involved in any of those? Because "The Gm says non-detection blocks true seeing" is a resolution even if you disagree with it.

[Talakeal]

Was the GM involved in any of those? Because "The Gm says non-detection blocks true seeing" is a resolution even if you disagree with it.

And what if we are both DMs of our respective games? Or what if we are just two people who arent even playing a game at the time and are merely trying to figure out the best resolution to an a bigously worded rule?

[JAL_1138]

And what if we are both DMs of our respective games? Or what if we are just two people who arent even playing a game at the time and are merely trying to figure out the best resolution to an a bigously worded rule?

I think "the actual out-of-game argument" referred to a situation in which there had been a rules dispute between a player and a DM during a game that was passed off 'till after the game for discussion, not any situation where any rule was in dispute between two people who weren't necessarily in the same game.

[AMFV]

And what if we are both DMs of our respective games? Or what if we are just two people who arent even playing a game at the time and are merely trying to figure out the best resolution to an a bigously worded rule?

Well then any rules debate you guys have is a moot point, since each of you are the authority in your own games, and will likely go with your interpretation in your own games, as is what you should do. Now there's no real reason to have this kind of argument unless you enjoy it. Which is just fine.

[goto124]

I think "the actual out-of-game argument" referred to a situation in which there had been a rules dispute between a player and a DM during a game that was passed off 'till after the game for discussion, not any situation where any rule was in dispute between two people who weren't necessarily in the same game.

Correct. Sorry for not clarifying.

[Talakeal]

I think "the actual out-of-game argument" referred to a situation in which there had been a rules dispute between a player and a DM during a game that was passed off 'till after the game for discussion, not any situation where any rule was in dispute between two people who weren't necessarily in the same game.

In all of those situations I mentioned I was the DM and was not able to find a concrete RAW answer to the problem and had to fall back on rule zero, I was just trying to present some alternate scenarios to avoid the inevitable semantic argument that results in trying to discuss playing a game by RAI rather than DM fiat.

[kyoryu]

Hey...

Has anyone ever failed to resolve a rules dispute in the out-of-the-actual-game argument?

Not I. Sometimes it comes down to GM judgement, if the rule is missing or unclear, but I've never failed to come to an agreement.

[Amphetryon]

I was just trying to present some alternate scenarios to avoid the inevitable semantic argument that results in trying to discuss playing a game by RAI rather than DM fiat.

I am unable to come up with a scenario where RAI and GM Fiat are substantially different, barring direct clarification from the game's writers. Any group I know will have their own ideas for how certain game rules are intended to function; the more niche the interaction, the less likely the game has a specific ruling in place. How you separating the two?

[Koo Rehtorb]

I am unable to come up with a scenario where RAI and GM Fiat are substantially different, barring direct clarification from the game's writers. Any group I know will have their own ideas for how certain game rules are intended to function; the more niche the interaction, the less likely the game has a specific ruling in place. How you separating the two?

In D&D 3.5, by the rules, when you begin to drown you go to 0 hp. So if someone is already below 0 hp, by the rules, you can stick a dying person's head in a bucket of water and when they begin to drown they will get healed by it.

This is a situation where you can clearly make a judgement on what the rules actually intended.

[Talakeal]

I am unable to come up with a scenario where RAI and GM Fiat are substantially different, barring direct clarification from the game's writers. Any group I know will have their own ideas for how certain game rules are intended to function; the more niche the interaction, the less likely the game has a specific ruling in place. How you separating the two?

Really?

Do you not see the difference between, say, a DM deciding that sword sages receiving 6x skill points is a typo and they get 4x like everyone else, vs. deciding that long spears should do d12 base damage because they think that spears are under represented in fantasy compared to RL historical combat.

In my mind the line between coming up with a working solution to an ambiguous or "dysfunctional" rule and changing a clear and explicit rule is usually a fairly obvious one, although like always I am sure there are some corner cases.

[Jay R]

The reason so many arguments seem to you to be "merely" semantic arguments is that we do not agree on the meaning of certain phrases, and our biggest differences are about meaning (and are therefore semantic arguments) rather than about the game. For instance:

Really?

Do you not see the difference between, say, a DM deciding that sword sages receiving 6x skill points is a typo and they get 4x like everyone else, vs. deciding that long spears should do d12 base damage because they think that spears are under represented in fantasy compared to RL historical combat.

Yes, of course. The biggest difference is that the first one, ruling on sword sages, really happens regularly. It's called both RAI and DM fiat.

The second one is the kind of thing I've rarely seen. And when I do, it's called "houserules".

In my mind the line between coming up with a working solution to an ambiguous or "dysfunctional" rule and changing a clear and explicit rule is usually a fairly obvious one, although like always I am sure there are some corner cases.

It is a fairly obvious line. The first one is pretty common and is called either RAI or DM fiat. There's a big difference between that and the house rule you describe as "changing a clear and explicit rule".

[AMFV]

Really?

Do you not see the difference between, say, a DM deciding that sword sages receiving 6x skill points is a typo and they get 4x like everyone else, vs. deciding that long spears should do d12 base damage because they think that spears are under represented in fantasy compared to RL historical combat.

In my mind the line between coming up with a working solution to an ambiguous or "dysfunctional" rule and changing a clear and explicit rule is usually a fairly obvious one, although like always I am sure there are some corner cases.

I don't see a logical difference between those two examples. One of them you are assuming that there is a typo, the other one you are assuming that the intended effect is different than the actual effect. Also unless you have clarification there is NO way to make the assumption that Swordsages aren't intended to have 6x skill points. It certainly makes sense for the class to have that many, so your assumption that it's a typo is as much you making a judgement call as somebody else altering a rule.

[Talakeal]

The reason so many arguments seem to you to be "merely" semantic arguments is that we do not agree on the meaning of certain phrases, and our biggest differences are about meaning (and are therefore semantic arguments) rather than about the game. For instance:



Yes, of course. The biggest difference is that the first one, ruling on sword sages, really happens regularly. It's called both RAI and DM fiat.

The second one is the kind of thing I've rarely seen. And when I do, it's called "houserules".



It is a fairly obvious line. The first one is pretty common and is called either RAI or DM fiat. There's a big difference between that and the house rule you describe as "changing a clear and explicit rule".

So we are just disagreeing on the term FIAT then? I am fine tossing out that term as I agree it doesn't really have any good specific meaning.

But still, afaict AMFV and Amphetyron both seem to be of the opinion that there is no difference between a GM making a ruling in the case of ambiguous or dysfunctional rules and changing a perfectly clear rule that they don't like for whatever reason, and that was the opinion I was disagreeing with in the quoted passage.

[Keltest]

So we are just disagreeing on the term FIAT then? I am fine tossing out that term as I agree it doesn't really have any good specific meaning.

But still, afaict AMFV and Amphetyron both seem to be of the opinion that there is no difference between a GM making a ruling in the case of ambiguous or dysfunctional rules and changing a perfectly clear rule that they don't like for whatever reason, and that was the opinion I was disagreeing with in the quoted passage.

if that was your intent, you picked a poor example. Swordsage skill points, while quite possibly (I might even say probably) a typo, are not at all ambiguous.

[Talakeal]

if that was your intent, you picked a poor example. Swordsage skill points, while quite possibly (I might even say probably) a typo, are not at all ambiguous.

Hence the "dysfunctional" which I was using as a catch all category for rules that, for whatever reason, do not appear to work the way that the designers intended them to.

[Jay R]

So we are just disagreeing on the term FIAT then? I am fine tossing out that term as I agree it doesn't really have any good specific meaning.

No, not at all. We are disagreeing on your idea that the DM having the final say means bad decisions, and the DM not having the final say means good decisions.

I don't care what phrase you use to refer to the fact that in D&D and many games, the DM is the referee and makes final rulings so the game can proceed without further argument. Using any phrase or any word to describe it, the fact is that good DMs make good rulings and poor DMs make poor ruling. We disagree anytime you use some phrase to imply that DMs who make rulings, as the rules allow, inherently make poor rulings.

[Talakeal]

No, not at all. We are disagreeing on your idea that the DM having the final say means bad decisions, and the DM not having the final say means good decisions.

I don't care what phrase you use to refer to the fact that in D&D and many games, the DM is the referee and makes final rulings so the game can proceed without further argument. Using any phrase or any word to describe it, the fact is that good DMs make good rulings and poor DMs make poor ruling. We disagree anytime you use some phrase to imply that DMs who make rulings, as the rules allow, inherently make poor rulings.

So then we don't disagree on anything then, because I don't think there is any real correlation between quality of rulings and whether they are made by one individual or by committee.

I do think that if the DM is dismissive of the player's opinions you are more likely to have upset players which, in the long run, will probably be more disruptive to the game than simply pausing the game to talk an issue out now and again, and that, in my experience, DMs who are prone to make bad decisions are more likely to take offense at criticism and hide behind rule 0, but that is in no way saying that the DM having the final say means bad decisions and the DM not having the final say means good decisions.


Edit: Although, I would theorize that a GM who takes the time to listen to the player's side of every issue and then consider what they have to say will probably tend to make better decisions than a DM who always goes it alone simply because two heads are often better than one. Whether or not this is worth the added time or the change to the social dynamic, though, I am reluctant to say.

[Talakeal]

So, I actually got to run a game this last weekend, and overall it went pretty well, but it reminded me of why my definition of Rules Lawyer is probably pretty different from most other people.

See, I don't mind if the players question a ruling or even argue over vague rules, what gets my goat is when someone (and it could be the player or a DM) is simply a stickler for the rules.

I get this most often when I build NPCs and don't follow the same rules as the players. The players then demand an accounting, and then won't let it go if I simply say "that's how it is, please drop it."

For example:

Rather than working out a build for an NPC I simply give them the abilities I want them to have.

Instead of memorizing a spell list before the game I simply let the enemy wizard cast whatever spell is appropriate at the time. Sometimes I don't even keep track of spell slots.

Rather than specifying the exact size of an enemy force I will simply say something like "d3 enemies enter the battle every turn and will continue to do so until their leader is killed."

Or I will decline to list out an NPCs magic items and instead give them an inherent bonus to their dice rolls that is roughly equivalent to what magic items should give an NPC of their level.



All of this is just DMing shorthand that saves me a ton of time and prep work, but when my players catch me doing it they will not let it go until I "spill the beans" and tell them how it is possible, and then make sarcastic comments for the rest of the night about how the NPCs are playing by different rules than they are and how it would be nice if they could be NPCs.

[Guizonde]

All of this is just DMing shorthand that saves me a ton of time and prep work, but when my players catch me doing it they will not let it go until I "spill the beans" and tell them how it is possible, and then make sarcastic comments for the rest of the night about how the NPCs are playing by different rules than they are and how it would be nice if they could be NPCs.

so, they want characters created in 5 minutes who've got a 3 turn life expectancy?

damn, they'd really hate playing with my homebrew, that's actually too complex for mook building. we've got a "power level" for victims npc's and a standard load-out. it's up to the dm to mod the values and gear. the best gear does not guarantee the best mook, either. i remember throwing a curve ball to my power-gaming b team by getting a team of 9 under-powered mooks and giving them a cannibal trapper mentality. that cured that team of underestimating tripwires and weighted nets... then again, they kept torching every hallway first before heanding into them just in case there was another team of stealthy psycho-savages. they were almost relieved when next session the medic got gutshot by a plasma gun. doomguy clones, they can deal with. cunning sentinel island natives, they have trouble with.

tiny difference, i was playing by the rules, and during the breakdown of the fight (of course, they thought i was cheating) i broke down why i rolled so many bloody dice: stealth, silent move, aiming, team cohesion, silent speaking, getting into cover, and of course attacks of opportunity. they got frustrated, but learned the lesson that i'd been saying since session 1: talk to your team, and get your butt into cover. they did that for every combat from basically session 6 or seven to the endgame around session 17.

... no i've never read tucker's kobolds. why do you ask?

[Vitruviansquid]

So, I actually got to run a game this last weekend, and overall it went pretty well, but it reminded me of why my definition of Rules Lawyer is probably pretty different from most other people.

See, I don't mind if the players question a ruling or even argue over vague rules, what gets my goat is when someone (and it could be the player or a DM) is simply a stickler for the rules.

I get this most often when I build NPCs and don't follow the same rules as the players. The players then demand an accounting, and then won't let it go if I simply say "that's how it is, please drop it."

For example:

Rather than working out a build for an NPC I simply give them the abilities I want them to have.

Instead of memorizing a spell list before the game I simply let the enemy wizard cast whatever spell is appropriate at the time. Sometimes I don't even keep track of spell slots.

Rather than specifying the exact size of an enemy force I will simply say something like "d3 enemies enter the battle every turn and will continue to do so until their leader is killed."

Or I will decline to list out an NPCs magic items and instead give them an inherent bonus to their dice rolls that is roughly equivalent to what magic items should give an NPC of their level.



All of this is just DMing shorthand that saves me a ton of time and prep work, but when my players catch me doing it they will not let it go until I "spill the beans" and tell them how it is possible, and then make sarcastic comments for the rest of the night about how the NPCs are playing by different rules than they are and how it would be nice if they could be NPCs.

I think most people would call that rules lawyering.

These players are slowing the game down and being onerous to other players in order to argue about what they think should be allowed or not allowed in the game. That's the textbook definition of rules lawyering to me.

edit: And yeah, I agree your players are being entitled and foolish, but I think that's beside the point of the example.

[Amphetryon]

In D&D 3.5, by the rules, when you begin to drown you go to 0 hp. So if someone is already below 0 hp, by the rules, you can stick a dying person's head in a bucket of water and when they begin to drown they will get healed by it.

This is a situation where you can clearly make a judgement on what the rules actually intended.

And 2 Rounds later, the drowning Character is dead, barring Fiat. That level of 'healing' will, of course, function differently depending on which group is playing.

[Koo Rehtorb]

And 2 Rounds later, the drowning Character is dead, barring Fiat. That level of 'healing' will, of course, function differently depending on which group is playing.

I mean, that's the competing rules lawyer interpretation. Both are still examples of rules lawyering.

[daniel_ream]

All of this is just DMing shorthand that saves me a ton of time and prep work

Personally I think that's entirely reasonable, but then I'm the guy who advocated chucking all the complicated build mechanics for M&M in favour of It Just Works Like This +2.

I will say this, "rules lawyer" **** well does has a well-understood definition that's been consistent for forty years.

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.

People arguing what "rules lawyer" means by using literal definitions of the words "rules" and "lawyer" are rules-lawyering the definition of "rules lawyer".

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Xuc Xac]

Another important point is that rules lawyers are not just sticklers for following the rules exactly. If the GM makes a rules error in the player's favor, a rules stickler would point it out: "actually, I should take 8 points of damage not 4 because his guisarme-voulge-fauchard-ranseur-staff-club gets a X2 bonus against brown armor and I'm wearing tanned but undyed leather". A rules lawyer would let it slide and only argues when a bit of ambiguity can be exploited for personal advantage: "I get a +2 when the sun is visible in the sky. I know it's night right now, but the rules don't say 'visible to me'. I'm sure it's visible to someone on the other side of the world right now..."

[Quertus]

As a rule, when we authorize someone to create content for a game (be GM), we usually expect them, because of their superior knowledge of the content of the world, to act as umpire / rules referee. This allows the players to experience the magic and wonder of the unknown, rather than forcing them to act with perfect knowledge to make rulings. But you'd bloody well better expect that we expect and demand that the referee actually follow the rules of the game, else we'll call him on it. And, in my neck of the woods, beating up a bad referee after the game has been known to happen. GMs should expect similar levels of "respect".

Now, fortunately for GMs, many players are more than willing to help out, citing rules to help the game run well, and to prevent the necessity of retcon, let alone the threat of physical violence against the GM (which I'm only aware of happening twice).

Does this mean that more immature players would play better with a more heavy-handed DM?

I don't know about that, but more immature GMs seem better handled by more heavy-handed players, IME.

You're really not helping armor yourself against the accusations of the "Talakeal must be the problem" faction.

For the record, Talakeal, if I say something like this, I'm not attacking you, either. Just pointing out where you may be creating the wrong impression, and may wish to rephrase or explain.

Thankfully I don't have to deal with back seat DMing, but if I did see it, I'd clamp down on it right away. because arguments over rules and rulings aren't fun, take up time, and create bad feelings all around. If I'm at someone else's table, and they make a ruling that I know is wrong, I used to point it out. But I've stopped being that guy, because calling the DM out is only going to cause friction.

Under a good chill GM, it doesn't cause friction - it is appreciated. Be that GM.

So, I actually got to run a game this last weekend, and overall it went pretty well, but it reminded me of why my definition of Rules Lawyer is probably pretty different from most other people.

See, I don't mind if the players question a ruling or even argue over vague rules, what gets my goat is when someone (and it could be the player or a DM) is simply a stickler for the rules.

I get this most often when I build NPCs and don't follow the same rules as the players. The players then demand an accounting, and then won't let it go if I simply say "that's how it is, please drop it."

For example:

Rather than working out a build for an NPC I simply give them the abilities I want them to have.

Instead of memorizing a spell list before the game I simply let the enemy wizard cast whatever spell is appropriate at the time. Sometimes I don't even keep track of spell slots.

Rather than specifying the exact size of an enemy force I will simply say something like "d3 enemies enter the battle every turn and will continue to do so until their leader is killed."

Or I will decline to list out an NPCs magic items and instead give them an inherent bonus to their dice rolls that is roughly equivalent to what magic items should give an NPC of their level.

All of this is just DMing shorthand that saves me a ton of time and prep work, but when my players catch me doing it they will not let it go until I "spill the beans" and tell them how it is possible, and then make sarcastic comments for the rest of the night about how the NPCs are playing by different rules than they are and how it would be nice if they could be NPCs.

Well, as a self-proclaimed rules lawyer, I'm glad you are chill enough to accept people questioning the rules.

But as to your specific issue... Hmmm... This is complex.

Let me start here: there are those who believe that one of the best things to come out of D&D (3e) is that PCs and NPCs are built off the same rules. I am not one of them, but it seems clear that your style is detrimental to that group's fun.

See, I'm more than just a rules lawyer, I'm a guardian of fun. So, the question is, what does it benefit the game for you to make this change, and is it worth it?

It sounds like you are saying that it makes the game easier for you to run. But your players are clearly saying, no, it's not worth it. If you cannot get their buy-in, I suggest you either design encounters that are easier to run by the books, or man up and run things "right". Because, from what I hear, I don't think fun will be had otherwise.

That having been said, in a different group, plenty of your tactics would have gone over just fine. I've seen both groups which accept, and groups which reject, each of your individual shortcuts.

Myself, I only use descriptive shortcuts. For example, once (in an older edition of D&D), a pc sent their familiar to scout. I told a player that familiar reported 1,000 enemy troops. The player balked, asking how their familiar had such a concept as a thousand. I smiled, and explained that they didn't: it was "one, none, none, none". This left them even more baffled how it could not only have a concept it doesn't have, but be able to translate it to a concept it did have. A bit of prompting, and they discovered that their familiar had run into an old ally, who (by being able to speak with it) was helping the familiar provide a better scouting report. EDIT: they hadn't told their familiar to report on allies, only on enemies. Thus did they discover the flaw in their simple instruction.

Personally, I prefer that, if someone breaks the rules, it's the PCs. There are two reasons for this.

Number one, coolness points. This cool, interesting, awesome, unique thing? It should be a PC. NPCs shouldn't have that level of cool, even ignoring the correlation between overly cool NPCs and Mary SUE Files stuff.

Second, if less than 0.01% of the world is subject to breaking the rules, well, it's cool that I'm adventuring with such a statistical anomaly. But, when over 99.99% of the world can no longer be trusted to run by the rules, that's not a consistent world to base decisions on. Tactics? what's that? Worse, we're apparently the 0.01% of the world that's lousy enough to be bound by the rules. It's like running a party of paraplegic mortals in WoD. Who does that?

So, talk with your players, understand the source of their objections, and work together to determine what can be done to produce a game that will be fun for all involved.

EDIT:

Another important point is that rules lawyers are not just sticklers for following the rules exactly. If the GM makes a rules error in the player's favor, a rules stickler would point it out: "actually, I should take 8 points of damage not 4 because his guisarme-voulge-fauchard-ranseur-staff-club gets a X2 bonus against brown armor and I'm wearing tanned but undyed leather". A rules lawyer would let it slide and only argues when a bit of ambiguity can be exploited for personal advantage: "I get a +2 when the sun is visible in the sky. I know it's night right now, but the rules don't say 'visible to me'. I'm sure it's visible to someone on the other side of the world right now..."

I would point out when rules errors were wrong in my favor. By your definitions, I'm not a rules lawyer. By your definitions, what am I?

[Talakeal]

Well, as a self-proclaimed rules lawyer, I'm glad you are chill enough to accept people questioning the rules.

But as to your specific issue... Hmmm... This is complex.

Let me start here: there are those who believe that one of the best things to come out of D&D (3e) is that PCs and NPCs are built off the same rules. I am not one of them, but it seems clear that your style is detrimental to that group's fun.

See, I'm more than just a rules lawyer, I'm a guardian of fun. So, the question is, what does it benefit the game for you to make this change, and is it worth it?

It sounds like you are saying that it makes the game easier for you to run. But your players are clearly saying, no, it's not worth it. If you cannot get their buy-in, I suggest you either design encounters that are easier to run by the books, or man up and run things "right". Because, from what I hear, I don't think fun will be had otherwise.

That having been said, in a different group, plenty of your tactics would have gone over just fine. I've seen both groups which accept, and groups which reject, each of your individual shortcuts.

Myself, I only use descriptive shortcuts. For example, once (in an older edition of D&D), a pc sent their familiar to scout. I told a player that familiar reported 1,000 enemy troops. The player balked, asking how their familiar had such a concept as a thousand. I smiled, and explained that they didn't: it was "one, none, none, none". This left them even more baffled how it could not only have a concept it doesn't have, but be able to translate it to a concept it did have. A bit of prompting, and they discovered that their familiar had run into an old ally, who (by being able to speak with it) was helping the familiar provide a better scouting report. EDIT: they hadn't told their familiar to report on allies, only on enemies. Thus did they discover the flaw in their simple instruction.

Personally, I prefer that, if someone breaks the rules, it's the PCs. There are two reasons for this.

Number one, coolness points. This cool, interesting, awesome, unique thing? It should be a PC. NPCs shouldn't have that level of cool, even ignoring the correlation between overly cool NPCs and Mary SUE Files stuff.

Second, if less than 0.01% of the world is subject to breaking the rules, well, it's cool that I'm adventuring with such a statistical anomaly. But, when over 99.99% of the world can no longer be trusted to run by the rules, that's not a consistent world to base decisions on. Tactics? what's that? Worse, we're apparently the 0.01% of the world that's lousy enough to be bound by the rules. It's like running a party of paraplegic mortals in WoD. Who does that?

So, talk with your players, understand the source of their objections, and work together to determine what can be done to produce a game that will be fun for all involved.

EDIT:

I would point out when rules errors were wrong in my favor. By your definitions, I'm not a rules lawyer. By your definitions, what am I?

Mostly it is "quantum ogre" stuff, I just use a lot behind the screen shortcuts to cut down on prep time, but the players want to "peak behind the screen".

Personally I think that's entirely reasonable, but then I'm the guy who advocated chucking all the complicated build mechanics for M&M in favour of It Just Works Like This +2.

I will say this, "rules lawyer" **** well does has a well-understood definition that's been consistent for forty years.



People arguing what "rules lawyer" means by using literal definitions of the words "rules" and "lawyer" are rules-lawyering the definition of "rules lawyer".

This is why we can't have nice things.

Another important point is that rules lawyers are not just sticklers for following the rules exactly. If the GM makes a rules error in the player's favor, a rules stickler would point it out: "actually, I should take 8 points of damage not 4 because his guisarme-voulge-fauchard-ranseur-staff-club gets a X2 bonus against brown armor and I'm wearing tanned but undyed leather". A rules lawyer would let it slide and only argues when a bit of ambiguity can be exploited for personal advantage: "I get a +2 when the sun is visible in the sky. I know it's night right now, but the rules don't say 'visible to me'. I'm sure it's visible to someone on the other side of the world right now..."

Over time the term Rules Lawyer has come to mean a lot of different things to different people, basically it has become so broad it simply means "using the rules in a way I don't like."

Common examples seem to include:

Following the letter of the rules but ignoring the spirit
Being a stickler for the rules
Twisting the wording to gain something clearly not intended
Players who question or argue with the DM
Etc.

Some people also require that the above are done to excess, maliciously, or to gain an advantage.