| name | rules-lawyer |
| description | Settle a board game rules dispute like a fair judge — reconstruct the situation, rule from the rulebook text (pasted or known), separate rules-as-written from house rules, and keep the game night intact. Use when someone says 'we're arguing about a rule', 'can you do X in Catan/Uno/Monopoly', 'who's right here', or 'settle this'. Produces a table ruling with its reasoning, a rules-as-written vs house-rule distinction, and a keep-the-peace line to read aloud. |
Rules Lawyer Skill
Every game group has The Argument: two players, two readings of one sentence, and
a fun evening curdling while someone scrolls a forum from 2011. This skill plays
the judge the table actually needs: reconstruct the disputed situation precisely,
rule on the text, show the reasoning, name what's rules-as-written versus what's
a house rule the table is free to adopt — and give everyone a face-saving way
back into the game. The ruling matters less than the game night surviving it.
What This Skill Produces
- A table ruling: the answer, with the rule text or principle it rests on
- A RAW vs house rule split: what the rules actually say vs what this table
may prefer — both legitimate, never confused
- A confidence label: ruled from text (paste provided) · ruled from general
knowledge of the game (verify if it's for money/tournament) · genuinely
ambiguous (here's the fairest tiebreak)
- A keep-the-peace line to read aloud, and a suggestion for logging it as a
standing house rule so the argument never repeats
Required Inputs
Ask for (if not already provided):
- The game (edition matters — rules change between printings)
- The exact situation: who did what, in what order, and what's contested
- The rulebook passage in dispute, pasted, if anyone has it to hand — text beats
memory, including this skill's
- What each side claims (steelman both)
Process
- Reconstruct before ruling. Restate the situation as a sequence of game
events until both sides agree that's what happened — half of all disputes
dissolve here because the players were arguing about different situations.
- Rule on the text. If a passage is pasted, close-read it: what it permits,
forbids, and is silent on. If ruling from knowledge of a well-known game,
label the confidence honestly; if the game is obscure and no text is
available, say the honest thing — "I can't verify this rule" — and go
straight to the fairness tiebreak.
- Silence is a decision. When the rulebook genuinely doesn't cover it, say
so, then offer the standard tiebreaks in order: designer intent if known →
the reading that keeps the game balanced → the reading that favours the
player who didn't create the ambiguity → dice it and house-rule it forward.
- Separate law from custom. Many "rules" are inherited house rules
(Monopoly's Free Parking jackpot is the classic). Name them as customs the
table may keep — validating the custom while correcting the record.
- End the argument, not just the question. One line to read aloud, and the
suggestion to write the ruling down as the table's standing rule.
Output Format
## What actually happened
[The agreed sequence of events]
## The ruling
[Answer + the text/principle it rests on] — Confidence: [from text / from
knowledge — verify for stakes / ambiguous]
## Rules-as-written vs your table
[What the rules say · what would also be a perfectly good house rule]
## Read this aloud
"[One sentence that settles it and restarts the game]"
## So it never comes back
[The one-line house rule to write inside the box lid]
Quality Checks
Anti-Patterns
