How to influence a group's rules usage without alienating them?

[Theo R Cwithin]

???
Weren't you effectively talking about about doing this sort of thing in the op?
Why did you start this thread in the first place?

 

[Janx]

I've read the first page of comments

This sounds like the common problem of new guy joins a group and tries to make the group change for him, rather than him change for the group. The audacity of a junior and minority member to expect the senior and majority membership to change is outrageous. Seriously, you haven't earned a right to any request, and to expect otherwise is rude.

Nextly, just how literal are you guys being?

On their rule about "must own the book", it probably really means, must have your own copy of the rules, so you know how it works, can look it up, and prove it. I expect all players to have a copy of the rules and spells their PC uses. That's not unreasonable. if the DDI thing gives you that, then that should not be a deal breaker in practical terms.

On using Errata and 'the lastest version of the rules'. This is not computer software. I can't just download the latest update and run. I'm stuck with my PH and a stupid printout with page number references to changes. That's a total PITA. A majority of gamers do NOT get online and stay up to date on rules changes. They play with the book they have.

Until WoTC offers a rulebook trade-in, expecting players to use the latest rules revisions is unreasonable.

 

[Stumblewyk]

Then again, that's how I view everything. I don't believe in diplomacy. Just because someone says they hate you or you're an idiot in a nice way, doesn't change the message. In fact, this has often been a sticking point with me and many people. What other people either don't see or don't choose to see, I cut right through the BS and straight to the heart of things and see comments and behaviors for what they are rather than as what they're presented to be.

...Aaaaaand that's where you're completely off base. I never tried to snidely undermine the other DMs. In fact, more often than not, I really was interested in the rationale behind their decision. As someone who DM's their own regular game, I'm always interested in how and why other DMs do what they do.

And you know, sometimes people are just questioning politely with no intent to cut you down at the knees in front of everyone else. It is actually possible to disagree with someone's opinion without trying to insult them.

 

[Kzach]

And you know, sometimes people are just questioning politely with no intent to cut you down at the knees in front of everyone else. It is actually possible to disagree with someone's opinion without trying to insult them.

If that was the truth, then you wouldn't do it during the game, you'd wait until after the game and discuss it privately with the DM. But you don't. You grandstand and make a point of it during the game, interrupting the flow of the game and killing the DM's momentum, authority and everyone's immersion and trust in the DM's decisions and rules knowledge. It's disrespectful to not only the DM, but everyone at the table. And it's clear that you do it often enough the people refer to you for rules questions, which means you have no respect for the DM or the other people at the table. You just want to be the centre of attention and the authority at the table.

If you genuinely do not want these things, then make more of an effort not to undermine the game and the DM's authority.

 

[Janx]

I disagree with Danny, I don't think an honest inquiry and a politely presented argument would cause conflict. The new group wants you to like them as much as you want them to like you.

the last thing any team wants to hear when they hire a new guy is "that's not how we did it at my old job, we should do it this way..."

Step 1 as a new guy is keep yer damn mouth shut and LEARN their way. You get to bring in your ways when the team reaches a new problem, and you can say, "well, this is how we solved this problem at my old job." Because then, you are the subject matter expert. Until then, you are a guy with a deviant methodology, and teams do NOT want deviation from THEIR methodology.

When a new manager takes over a group or department, he does NOT change anything for several months. Only after observing for a few months, does the big re-org happen.

If this group is playing Core Rules only (as in, original PH, DMG, MM), then they are playing the game as WotC wrote and playtested it. Odds are good, they have ZERO problems. Every subsequent rulebook did not get the same level of integration testing. hence all the errata.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

First, kudos to Kzach for making a tough call. It's hard to just shut your trap and play the game wrong. (That last word was tongue in cheek, btw.)

If that was the truth, then you wouldn't do it during the game, you'd wait until after the game and discuss it privately with the DM. But you don't. You grandstand and make a point of it during the game, interrupting the flow of the game and killing the DM's momentum, authority and everyone's immersion and trust in the DM's decisions and rules knowledge. It's disrespectful to not only the DM, but everyone at the table. And it's clear that you do it often enough the people refer to you for rules questions, which means you have no respect for the DM or the other people at the table. You just want to be the centre of attention and the authority at the table.

That said, I seriously recommend that you unclench a bit, dude. There's a lot of space between being a dirty rotten grandstanding anti-authoritarian player and what you seem to expect of players. If you kick players out of your games for being anything in between, as you say you do, it's no wonder you're hard-up for a group. I wouldn't play with you.

 

[Stumblewyk]

You grandstand and make a point of it during the game, interrupting the flow of the game and killing the DM's momentum, authority and everyone's immersion and trust in the DM's decisions and rules knowledge. It's disrespectful to not only the DM, but everyone at the table. And it's clear that you do it often enough the people refer to you for rules questions, which means you have no respect for the DM or the other people at the table. You just want to be the centre of attention and the authority at the table.

And you couldn't be further from the truth. But whatever. You're an antisocial misanthrope, so you can't fathom a world in which people aren't horrible to each other.

Mod Note: Folks, Rule #1 is "Keep it civil". Stumblewyk has failed to do so, and will no longer be participating in this thread. If you don't like what the other guy is saying, name calling is not an appropriate option for this board. Learn to walk away. ~Umbran

It couldn't possibly be that I would let the ruling go by, and then ask one of the other players at the table why something got done the way it got done. And it couldn't possibly be that the player I asked was also one of the groups regular DMs, who consulted with me out of his own desire to try a different take on the game. Oh no. It must be because you can't tolerate anyone questioning your brilliant conceptualization on how the game should be played, so you're projecting it into my situation when I was trying to help you.

Whatever. I've read enough of you to know that you're either a miserable person or you play one on TV. Enjoy your lack of a game, while I play with people I like (and who like me) on a weekly basis.

 

[Oryan77]

I've read enough of you to know that you're either a miserable person or you play one on TV.

Some people think it makes them look edgy by acting like they just don't give a damn. It's his way of trying to impress people. Ya know, like a Fonzie wannabe; except he wears a Members Only jacket with stains on it.

Don't get sucked in.

 

[RedTonic]

stains on it.

Don't get sucked in.

Someone XP this man for me.

 

[Kzach]

And you couldn't be further from the truth. But whatever. You're an antisocial misanthrope, so you can't fathom a world in which people aren't horrible to each other.

Meanie.