Rules Style: How do you Determine the Rules

[Hypersmurf]

Similarly, I don't like it when there is a rules question on the table, I know the rule, provide the rule, and offer to look it up while gameplay continues, and am resented for it.

The approach I took with this one was the 'eyebrow thing'.

I'm a little stronger on Rules than my DM, and a lot stronger than some of the players we have (or have had).

But rather than interrupt the game with 'That's wrong' when someone flubs a rule, I just draw down my eyebrows in disapproval.

The DM's learned to pick up on it, and if he's concerned at the time about correcting it, he'll interrupt, with "Are you sure?" or "Let's just check that." (Sometimes it's him I'm frowning at, and again, he gets the chance to make the call.)

Once the question's out in the open, I've got no qualms about providing an answer... but it leaves the authority of actually putting the question on the table in the hands of the DM, so it minimises resentment.

-Hyp.

 

[Liquidsabre]

I love the method Hyper uses and have taken to doing the same in the games I play in, though I ended up using a single raised eyebrow instead. Lately I've started to illicit grins and the occasional giggle... *sigh* I'm still breaking my relatively new game group in.

 

[S'mon]

I voted subjective, but really it depends:

Combat & spellcasting, these are highly detailed in the RAW & players expect a degree of adherence, so usually mechanistically determine then tweak to suit.

Skill use, definitely subjective. The skill rules are mostly too underdeveloped for a mechanistic approach to work.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

But rather than interrupt the game with 'That's wrong' when someone flubs a rule, I just draw down my eyebrows in disapproval.

I just don't say anything unless it's really bad. Usually, I don't mention the rules at all (allowing the DM to run his game), until I reach the "that's bull****" mark and refuse to play anymore.

A lot of the problem is, the people in question expect subjective rulings to go in their favor, and then when they DM, they nerf the hell out of a lot of my RAW abilities. What's particularly disgusting is, I've never tried a smackdown build or any optimization that wasn't based on the image I had of the character. I've never done anything illogical or even particularly questionable to make my characters more powerful.

I've just come to accept that the only way I'll enjoy gaming with many of the people I game with is if I am the DM, and if I make some grudging concessions to their idea of how things should work.

 

[Nail]

I tyr to stick with the Rules As Written......OTOH, mistakes are made...and I like to let it pass, if possible. Perhaps next session we'll get it right. Lately my groups have taken to arguing about the rules too much.....it's a hard line to follow.

 

[moritheil]

The approach I took with this one was the 'eyebrow thing'.

I'm a little stronger on Rules than my DM, and a lot stronger than some of the players we have (or have had).

But rather than interrupt the game with 'That's wrong' when someone flubs a rule, I just draw down my eyebrows in disapproval.

The DM's learned to pick up on it, and if he's concerned at the time about correcting it, he'll interrupt, with "Are you sure?" or "Let's just check that." (Sometimes it's him I'm frowning at, and again, he gets the chance to make the call.)

Once the question's out in the open, I've got no qualms about providing an answer... but it leaves the authority of actually putting the question on the table in the hands of the DM, so it minimises resentment.

-Hyp.

Hyp gets a +10 Competence Bonus to Intimidate checks against DMs, and a -5 Penalty to Diplomacy checks against other players?