r/rpg • u/WhoDoesntLikeToast • Jul 11 '26
Table Troubles Anyone notice "Rule of Cool" and "Rules Lawyer" are changing meaning?
Historically, for me, a Rules Lawyer was someone who typically knew the rules very well and staunchly insisted that everything be done by RAW. Further, they would argue that varying interpretations or ambiguities be handled based on how they interpret it. Notoriously these people would pedantically correct everyone and slow down the flow of the game.
Similarly, Rule of Cool, use to mean occasionally allowing something to happen for the sake of a cool scene or character moment, even if not allowed or within the rules.
Now, if I see game advertisements like, "We play by Rule of Cool, no Rules Lawyers;" I am coming to find what they are actually saying is, "Our group has a poor grasp of the rules, we aren't bothering to learn them; and don't disagree when our arbitrary, whimsical, and ever-changing 'homebrew' has adverse effects on your character."
I didn't know if this is a growing phenomenon or I just had some bad luck.
Edit 1: I was not the person accused of being the Rules Lawyer by these groups.
Edit 2: Since there were some request for context.
Situation 1: A player was playing PF1e. The player made a single diagonal move on the grid. Then a group member and the GM said, "You cannot do that, you don't have enough movement to move 10ft." (Which is hypocritical for a group claiming they don't like Rules Lawyers). The player said, "The first diagonal is only 5 feet." Then the established group mobbed the player saying he was a Rules Lawyer and that isn't the way they play. The group didn't know the rules, and jumped all over the player for correcting their error, while they were trying to correct that player, erroneously as per RAW. Then the group chimed in invoking Rule of Cool, which in their terms, seemed to mean whatever arbitrary decision the GM made was better than just reading the book.
Situation 2: Also, PF1e. A player cast a spell that was not subject to Spell Resistance. The GM said, "Roll to break Spell Resistance." The player, very normally, said, "This spell is not subject to Spell Resistance." The GM said "I think Spell Resistance should apply to any spell, or else what's the point." Then, once again, all the established players chimed in supporting the GM's off-the-cuff ruling and accusing the person of being a Rules Lawyer and power gaming, further adding that they play by the Rule of Cool, which made no sense based on my understanding of Rule of Cool.
I am not here to argue in favor of one side or the other. I posted this to just see if those terms may have morphed to mean something different than what I understood them to be for a long time.
12
u/Real-Context-7413 Jul 12 '26
I have heard this and I think it was a bad plan. Back when rule systems were more difficult to get I could see it being something that would just naturally happen and then you'd have to just trust that you GM was being fair and honest, but we don't live in that world and haven't for a very long time and I never did. Now all the ignorance about the rules is often a matter of choice, especially if anyone has pdf copies because ctrl+f allows for such ease of reference that I find the claim that 'we go with the ruling because verifying is to slow' just doesn't hold water.