Last sessions my players started questioning the things I did.
Two examples. 1. I had a undead (Wraith) take a five foot step so the other undead could flank. They first asked me why it took that step. So I told them. They opposed, saying that an undead would never do that because they're not intelligent. So I told them it had a higher int then most of them. (They went along with that.)
The other example, a human enemy walked 40 foot. He was a monk, but they didn't know. They said i did it wrong and recounted the squares for me, afther they counted I just said "yes" and went on to attack them. That player didn't want to take the damage and explained again. In the end I angrily told them to take the damage and move on. They all presumed that I didn't want to admit my "mistake". But I didn't want to tell me it was a monk they were fighting.
I dislike that they question me, I hardly ever make mistakes and know the rules better than any of them. I'm not sure if I want to confront them directly because the tend to take it very personaly. Should I confront them anyway or should I just put up with they're questions?
Ps. Just to be clear, apart from this they are a lot of fun to play with.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Last sessions my players started questioning the things I did.
Two examples. 1. I had a undead (Wraith) take a five foot step so the other undead could flank. They first asked me why it took that step. So I told them. They opposed, saying that an undead would never do that because they're not intelligent. So I told them it had a higher int then most of them. (They went along with that.)
The other example, a human enemy walked 40 foot. He was a monk, but they didn't know. They said i did it wrong and recounted the squares for me, afther they counted I just said "yes" and went on to attack them. That player didn't want to take the damage and explained again. In the end I angrily told them to take the damage and move on. They all presumed that I didn't want to admit my "mistake". But I didn't want to tell me it was a monk they were fighting.I dislike that they question me, I hardly ever make mistakes and know the rules better than any of them. I'm not sure if I want to confront them directly because the tend to take it very personaly. Should I confront them anyway or should I just put up with they're questions?
Ps. Just to be clear, apart from this they are a lot of fun to play with.
Maybe when they query something (and you've actually got it right for reasons they dont know) you could present it to them as in-character knowledge or ask them how they plan to answer the question in character. "Yes, he moved 40 feet - much faster than a normal human." or something like that. When they query the wraith's tactics, ask them to make a Knowledge:Religion roll to see if they know the reason.
Perhaps that way they'll accept you havent screwed up, but you wont have to basically tell them what you want to keep hidden just to get them to move on. (I must admit that I'm reasonably easygoing as a DM but a player almost refusing to take damage is a bit much in my book).
It might be worth talking to them about it, but if it's led to arguments before maybe it's not worth the effort. I'm afraid that "correcting" the DM is an easy trap to fall into (especially if you think you know the game rules well).
Your players sound new. The situations that you're describing don't sound outlandish or anything that a more seasoned player would blink an eye at.
I don't want to throw out any accusations, but what about the other side of the story? How descriptive are you being with the encounters? In the instance of the monk. Did you just say he runs up and hits you? Or did you mention the fact that he wasn't wearing any armor and/or striking with his fists? Some strong narrative can keep players focused on what's happening as opposed to why it's happening.
And just some general advice. Don't get angry with your players. It's hard for people on the other side of the table to not see you as the 'enemy' so they tend to be argumentative. You don't have to give anything away that you don't want to, but a lot of a times a simple explanation can defuse a situation. Just tell them that a lot things can cause the effect they're seeing. Whether it's a spell, potion, magic item, or class ability, something they don't know about yet is in effect.
Oh, and one last thing. Don't be afraid to spin things on them and drop some knowledge. In the case of the undead and how they would never use such tactics because undead aren't intelligent. Bring up something familiar like a vampire. I doubt they would argue vampires are unintelligent. Stupid maybe, but not mindless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last sessions my players started questioning the things I did.
Two examples. 1. I had a undead (Wraith) take a five foot step so the other undead could flank. They first asked me why it took that step. So I told them. They opposed, saying that an undead would never do that because they're not intelligent. So I told them it had a higher int then most of them. (They went along with that.)
Actually wraiths have standard Intelligence score of 14. Higher than average fighter, barbarian or ranger. Also, flanking is a basic combat technique that is successfully used by pack creatures with intelligence score of 1-2. Ask them, how they went to mistakenly believe that undeads are unintelligent - ask them to point you undeads in bestiary that are unintelligent beyond skeleton and zombies...
The other example, a human enemy walked 40 foot. He was a monk, but they didn't know. They said i did it wrong and recounted the squares for me, afther they counted I just said "yes" and went on to attack them. That player didn't want to take the damage and explained again. In the end I angrily told them to take the damage and move on. They all presumed that I didn't want to admit my "mistake". But I didn't want to tell me it was a monk they were fighting.
Show them the rulebook. Show them the multiple possibilities for an opponent to have higher than standard speed: barbarian class, monk class, cleric Travel domain, Fleet feat, various magic items, creature with speed higher than 30 feet using disguise self to look like human.
I dislike that they question me, I hardly ever make mistakes and know the rules better than any of them. I'm not sure if I want to confront them directly because the tend to take it very personaly. Should I confront them anyway or should I just put up with they're questions?
As was already suggested, speak with them - but don't make it a confrontation between you and them, however, just explain to them that they are making baseless assumptions about their enemies they known nothing about.
Maybe they thought you were having an off day :)
I like what Steve Geddes and the others are saying. Rather than taking offense (which I understand), keep it in-game. Instead of moving the monk 40 and arguing, move him 40 feet and describe how every step is perfectly placed, how he strides forward with practised economy of motion.
As a player, I'd then be paying more attention to what you're telling me about this guy than counting the steps he's taking.
Personally, I would keep it simple. I would tell them they're getting a little too caught up in the mechanics of the encounter. If something moves further than they expect it to, they should be using that as a point of dramatic interest. Their characters are caught unawares by a mysteriously rushing opponent. They should ask first, what is this vile beast that has surprised them? If they call foul, and demand a second opinion, they are robbing themselves of a dramatic opportunity.
|
Int the first example, I think both the players and you handled it well. For the second example, one of the things about GMing is to never let players assume you are wrong. If I had been faced with a similar experience, I would have looked over the screen, and said 'Huh, I guess he did move 40 feet. Your turn." If they complain more, you can drop hints.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Yes, he moved 40 feet and still managed to attack, your characters think he seems faster than most members of his race. He must have a special ability or magic item of some sort to allow this. I'll let you know after the fight if you defeat him."
I don't think it's worth getting upset over if they're otherwise fun to game with. Just let them know it's a special ability and move on. Getting upset and defensive will just convince them that you're acting out of spite.
Thank you all for your advice!
I'm gonna try to work it out in game, if that doesn't work I'll take your pointers to talk to them :)
Last sessions my players started questioning the things I did.
Two examples. 1. I had a undead (Wraith) take a five foot step so the other undead could flank. They first asked me why it took that step. So I told them. They opposed, saying that an undead would never do that because they're not intelligent. So I told them it had a higher int then most of them. (They went along with that.)
The other example, a human enemy walked 40 foot. He was a monk, but they didn't know. They said i did it wrong and recounted the squares for me, afther they counted I just said "yes" and went on to attack them. That player didn't want to take the damage and explained again. In the end I angrily told them to take the damage and move on. They all presumed that I didn't want to admit my "mistake". But I didn't want to tell me it was a monk they were fighting.I dislike that they question me, I hardly ever make mistakes and know the rules better than any of them. I'm not sure if I want to confront them directly because the tend to take it very personaly. Should I confront them anyway or should I just put up with they're questions?
Ps. Just to be clear, apart from this they are a lot of fun to play with.
I don't think anyone is above being question. Even the best of us make mistakes. As for your players they are trying to find ways not to die, so they are trying to find any wiggle room they can. That would be annoying to me. I would tell them after the fight it was monk. As for the combat, I would only say "there is a reason it can move that far" or something similar.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMs make mistakes too sometimes, so questioning isn't all that strange. But the way the questions were asked should be slightly different.
Not: "You're moving him 40ft, he can't do that."
But: "Is he really moving 40ft? Is he doing it in some special ability way (that we might try to recognize)?"
Not: "Undead can't flank, they're stupid"
But: "Why's he flanking? Does he appear sentient, or did someone command him? Guys? Can you spot a necromancer hiding in the background?"
In both cases you're implicitly questioning if the GM isn't making some mistake, but also allowing for the possibility that he knows more than you do. It's more polite that way and the GM can always say "oops".
Also, because you "caught" an enemy doing something weird, might also mean that you've found a clue. A GM might intentionally "violate" some "well-known rule" as a hint that an enemy is more than he seems. Like some undead using advanced tactics as a hint that they're not ordinary undead, or that there's a necromancer lurking nearby. Or a monk moving super-fast to hint that these aren't normal commoners but in fact highly-trained martial artists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, because you "caught" an enemy doing something weird, might also mean that you've found a clue. A GM might intentionally "violate" some "well-known rule" as a hint that an enemy is more than he seems. Like some undead using advanced tactics as a hint that they're not ordinary undead, or that there's a necromancer lurking nearby. Or a monk moving super-fast to hint that these aren't normal commoners but in fact highly-trained martial artists.
Yes, I push at that direction as well. If someone were to point out the NPC moved 40 feet and still made an attack (and clearly wasn't charging), I'd return "Yes, he did. Now why might that be?"
(...) Maybe when they query something (and you've actually got it right for reasons they dont know) you could present it to them as in-character knowledge or ask them how they plan to answer the question in character. "Yes, he moved 40 feet - much faster than a normal human." or something like that. When they query the wraith's tactics, ask them to make a Knowledge:Religion roll to see if they know the reason.(...)
I actually also ask for perception or sense motive rolls if they don't have the proper knowledge.
I also add a option to roll for "tactical sense" in replacement to perception or knowledges to figure out combat capacity: d20 + base att.+ wis.mod. It gives approximate info. (after hitting or being hit) about AC (Natural, Armor, Dex or Other), attack bonuses and damage.
When they have a low roll they remain curious and figure "it's not normal".
|
Jiggy said it, but it is also just something that happens until you either earn your players trust or have a table full of people who have played on both sides of the screen.
I used to be a player who did that a lot, until I GMed, then I realized the following
1. All decent GMs are rooting for the players. They aren't trying to screw you, because if you die the game is over and that sucks.
2. GMs know lots of things you don't.
3. Mistakes happen, and they are better discussed after the battle.
Don't be confrontational with your players about it, if it really bothers you mention it off table casually as something you would like a little less of, in the "You have to trust me, some things are custom"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a similar thing happen yesterday. Black Skeletons (Tome of Horrors).
One player got a 23 init and almost immediately started describing his first action. They were a little shocked when I told them that the skellies won the initiative and were going first on a 25 (these bad boys have a +8 init modifier and I rolled a 17). The skeletons ran up 40' and attacked while the PCs were still flatfooted (not surprised, but no actions yet).
They asked if the skeletons charged and I said "No, but they covered a whole lot of ground and seem to be moving faster than you guys could normally move in the same amount of time" (these monsters have a normal movement rate of 40').
Nobody questioned that.
It helps to put some kind of RP descriptor on the monsters' actions so that the players themselves can visualize what the monster is doing and also so that they know you didn't just screw up and then refuse to fix your mistake.
Of course, right after that the wizard and cleric both threw down some pretty high Knowledge checks and got all the details about this particular kind of undead, so there were no more secrets.
I question my gamemaster all the time. Its a coin flip as to which of us turns out to be right, though my obsession with the game rules and the forum are turning the odds more in my favor of late.
If something's in dispute and we can't reach anything definitive within about a minute, we go with the ruling that seems fair to him and I try to find RAW/RAI/entertaining forum dogfights and report the results later in the week.
I hope I don't come across as obnoxiously as your players seem to be, though.
This sounds to me like player adolescence. (Note: not that the players are adolescents.) They have some grasp of the rules, but not their depth and breadth, yet.
This can be very trying, because they actually think they know enough. They will apply their limited knowledge to every situation, and when they cannot reconcile it, they will assume it must be a mistake. Then they will try to make you prove that you are doing it correctly.
The best thing you can do, is to use the situation from your last game. Even if you still do not wish to reveal the nature of the enemy they were/are facing, compile a list of all the ways a character can have a greater than average base speed. Then explain to them that very frequently, the rules are designed to be "bent or broken" in this way. If they have a question, it should be asked outside of the game session. If there is a mistake, it will be rectified as well as possible. But, merely not understanding something doesn't make it wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if this was already mentioned as I didn't read through the whole thread, but the biggest problem here is they are meta-gaming and they need to stop. I'd just tell them up front to stop because they don't know everything about all the opponents you throw out at them and their PC's certainly don't know better. They need to relax and worry about their own actions in combat, not what they think they know about strengths/weaknesses/limitations of monsters in the bestiaries.
I'd purposely start throwing things at them with other templates and scare the crap out of them if they didn't stop with their meta-game BS as well. It will keep them on their toes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like what Steve Geddes and the others are saying. Rather than taking offense (which I understand), keep it in-game. Instead of moving the monk 40 and arguing, move him 40 feet and describe how every step is perfectly placed, how he strides forward with practised economy of motion.
As a player, I'd then be paying more attention to what you're telling me about this guy than counting the steps he's taking.
I agree: I think there's a gap between what you're describing and what the players are seeing. If you describe a guy moving forward in "a blur of speed", for instance, then the players won't be surprised if the guy is moving faster than a regular human. And if you describe a wraith's "eyes glimmering with malevolent intelligence", then they'll realise that some undead are smart. Etc., etc.
It's bad behavior to frame it as "No, you're wrong," that's for sure. It's rude, and it can hurt the feelings of new GMs.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's bad behavior to frame it as "No, you're wrong," that's for sure. It's rude, and it can hurt the feelings of new GMs.
You know, it is possible to be objectively wrong about something in Pathfinder. (Like, say, thinking that TWF penalties extend into AoO's, or that Spell Combat and Spellstrike can't be used in concert with each other, or a host of other common misconceptions.)
In such a case, how would you suggest "framing it" that isn't "bad behavior"? Is it "rude" to say that no, my half-elf is not affected by the sleep spell that I centered on myself because I was surrounded? What kind of a GM has their feelings hurt by being informed that they're wrong about how many times per round I can get sneak attack damage?
They're metagaming. I think that's a normal stage to go thru when new players reach a certain level of rules understanding.
You just have to make clear that they aren't the GMs, and they don't really have reason to ask why such and such is happening.
Certainly, asking for motivation of NPC actions is totally absurd.
"Oh yeah, the BBEG is doing this because his plans involve BLAHBLAHBLAH..."
It doesn't matter if X creature normally does Y, you the GM can decide that THIS creature is doing Z, and that's that.
It almost reminds me of my mother's habit of asking "why is this happening!?" during movies,
you just have to accept the immersion in the story which happens as it happens, undertanding or no.
Really, anything can happen for any number of reasons which they and their characters have no reason to know about.
If you announce a specific action "Cleave" and then break the rules, it's normal enough to say "is that following the rules?"
but there is no real reason for them to get deeper, and if they don't understand exactly why it works, that's the game.
It doesn't sound like there ARE any cases where they are catching legitimate screw ups,
but it's also good to remind them that the conscientious way to deal with that is POSSIBLY make a brief remark in-game,
but don't try to pursue it further even if they think it's still being ruled wrong,
the time to do that is out of game, and let them know that you as a GM appreciate players who can behave conscientiously
AND help correct your misunderstandings IN THE APPROPRIATE MOMENT.
Certainly explaining to them some examples of how many cases where they were simply ignorant of why it was working like it was because they were making poor assumptions can show them why they SHOULD put trust in you as a GM and not view the game as if they have omniscient view of the game world.
HELL, just these examples show that they are BAD metagamers, not understanding the rules and not making the proper inferences from events (like: this NPC probably is a monk, barbarian, some other fast species, or otherwise have a move speed buff from class, feat, or spell). Honestly, I might even give some advice about how to metagame WELL... I mean, the most likely conclusions can easily backfire on you :-) so the first rule is really to be humble about your own rules-understanding and limits of knowledge, but those also correspond to a reasonable in-character inference in some ways. At minimum, recognizing something out of the norm probably indicates that something is out of the norm, whatever that means. It is a game of exceptions, and there is not really any ultimate limit on what can have an exception. You as GM can introduce your own custom races, templates, feats, etc.
You know, it is possible to be objectively wrong about something in Pathfinder. (Like, say, thinking that TWF penalties extend into AoO's, or that Spell Combat and Spellstrike can't be used in concert with each other, or a host of other common misconceptions.)In such a case, how would you suggest "framing it" that isn't "bad behavior"? Is it "rude" to say that no, my half-elf is not affected by the sleep spell that I centered on myself because I was surrounded? What kind of a GM has their feelings hurt by being informed that they're wrong about how many times per round I can get sneak attack damage?
Well, theoretically, you should then just state it. Though I still think you should be polite, especially to new GMs--"No, you're wrong," is a bit unnecessarily brisk. When I'm reviewing another author's story, I don't say, "This is stupid and boring," even if I think it is. But there are many schools of thought on the merits of "polite reviews".
All that is theoretical, though. In practice, people are way too prone to assume there's no room for their being wrong when there is, so I think it's best for all involved if they not state things as clear facts. If something's obviously fact, feel free to just state it, but you're gonna look mighty silly if you're misunderstanding something. :P
Perhaps instead of saying "Hah, you're wrong and my guy doesn't fall asleep, because he is half-elf", which is including that dangerous "you're wrong" phrase, you instead say "Because I am a half-elf, I am immune to your puny sleep effects" or something like that.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, theoretically, you should then just state it.
"You're wrong" is just that: a simple statement.
Though I still think you should be polite, especially to new GMs--"No, you're wrong," is a bit unnecessarily brisk. When I'm reviewing another author's story, I don't say, "This is stupid and boring," even if I think it is.
Ah, here's the issue: equating "wrong" with "stupid". Yeah, to a listener (GM or otherwise) who takes being informed of incorrectness as equivalent to being called stupid or otherwise insulted, there will be no way to correct them without also offending them.
I've suspected this for quite a while (some folks have accused me of attacking/insulting them when all I did was quote a rule verbatim, without a single word written by me), so it's nice to see a little confirmation there.
I wonder how it is that so many gamers came to equate factual correction with condemnation of their personal worth. Or maybe it's common to a broader population, and I just see it more in gamers because that's the only population within which I see rules debates? Time for more observation and data-gathering...
I think it's best for all involved if they not state things as clear facts. If something's obviously fact, feel free to just state it, but you're gonna look mighty silly if you're misunderstanding something. :P
I deliberately chose sample topics whose answers are explicitly stated in either rules or FAQs. ;) Yet interestingly enough, there are people who not only are wrong about those topics, but get offended if you cite said rules, even if you don't extrapolate anything from there.
I'm all for being polite, but there's a difference between "the speaker is being unnecessarily harsh" and "the listener takes any disagreement as an attack".
Well, theoretically, you should then just state it."You're wrong" is just that: a simple statement.
That was my point, yes. :P
Though I still think you should be polite, especially to new GMs--"No, you're wrong," is a bit unnecessarily brisk. When I'm reviewing another author's story, I don't say, "This is stupid and boring," even if I think it is.Ah, here's the issue: equating "wrong" with "stupid". Yeah, to a listener (GM or otherwise) who takes being informed of incorrectness as equivalent to being called stupid or otherwise insulted, there will be no way to correct them without also offending them.
That wasn't really what I was saying. I was saying the tone was brisk. I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with calling someone out as wrong--I was saying you should try not to state it so "This is wrong, this is right," just so you don't look dumb in the event that you're wrong.
I wonder how it is that so many gamers came to equate factual correction with condemnation of their personal worth. Or maybe it's common to a broader population, and I just see it more in gamers because that's the only population within which I see rules debates? Time for more observation and data-gathering...
Did you just want to go on this tangent? ;P
I'm all for being polite, but there's a difference between "the speaker is being unnecessarily harsh" and "the listener takes any disagreement as an attack".
Yes, there is. Like I said, there are different schools of thought on how to "review" someone. I think "No, you're wrong," can come across as arrogant.
"The prone ghoul takes a five-foot step away."
"No, you are wrong."
There are better ways to state it--not just for politeness, but in case you're actually mistaken. What if the ghoul has rogue levels, and took the rogue talent that lets him five-foot step while prone? What if the new GM is sensitive about his knowledge of the rules? Like it or not, being wrong does cause embarrassment, and it's good to try to cushion that for those who're new to the job.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That wasn't really what I was saying. I was saying the tone was brisk. I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with calling someone out as wrong--I was saying you should try not to state it so "This is wrong, this is right," just so you don't look dumb in the event that you're wrong.Though I still think you should be polite, especially to new GMs--"No, you're wrong," is a bit unnecessarily brisk. When I'm reviewing another author's story, I don't say, "This is stupid and boring," even if I think it is.Ah, here's the issue: equating "wrong" with "stupid". Yeah, to a listener (GM or otherwise) who takes being informed of incorrectness as equivalent to being called stupid or otherwise insulted, there will be no way to correct them without also offending them.
First you said that telling someone they're wrong is "unnecessarily brisk". You also compared it to reviewing a story by saying "this is stupid". I'm just saying that no, a matter-of-fact statement of someone being wrong about something is not equivalent to calling their idea "stupid". One is a claim about the nature of something, while the other is name-calling. You equated the two (it's right there in the quote history). I'm saying that although lots of people react as though that equivalency were true, it's not.
And none of that has anything to do with your entirely separate point of the possibility of the critic's correction itself being wrong.
I think "No, you're wrong," can come across as arrogant.
How is it any more arrogant than the original claim? If I say "flanking gives +3 to hit" and you say "you're wrong, it's +2", then we're BOTH claiming to know the flanking rules. How is one of us more arrogant than the other?
What if the ghoul has rogue levels, and took the rogue talent that lets him five-foot step while prone?
Then I would be wrong, and it would be appropriate for the GM to tell me so, and I would not be offended in the slightest. I can be wrong about someone being wrong, just as easily as they can be wrong in the first place. Or maybe we're both wrong and flanking is +one-and-three-quarters. If so, neither of us should be offended.
What if the new GM is sensitive about his knowledge of the rules? Like it or not, being wrong does cause embarrassment, and it's good to try to cushion that for those who're new to the job.
Which is more embarassing: finding out you're wrong now, or finding out later that you've been wrong for all these years (or however long)? Me pointing out a fact doesn't make a person wrong; they already were. Going out of my way to keep them from having to face that fact isn't doing them any favors. If someone can't handle a simple factual correction in regards to a game, then that's a dysfunction I'd really rather not be responsible for having helped perpetuate.
First you said that telling someone they're wrong is "unnecessarily brisk". You also compared it to reviewing a story by saying "this is stupid".
My point was that you can be honest without being blunt.
I'm just saying that no, a matter-of-fact statement of someone being wrong about something is not equivalent to calling their idea "stupid".
Neither am I. I only used "this is stupid" to make the comparison work better for my argument, I'm afraid. Lazy, but not indicative of my position.
And none of that has anything to do with your entirely separate point of the possibility of the critic's correction itself being wrong.
Well, it relates in that they are both good reasons supporting my point.
How is it any more arrogant than the original claim? If I say "flanking gives +3 to hit" and you say "you're wrong, it's +2", then we're BOTH claiming to know the flanking rules. How is one of us more arrogant than the other?
Accusing someone of being wrong is an inherently aggressive act--nothing wrong with it, but you are directly contradicting someone. As such, while the first person is only asserting that he is right, the second person is also asserting that he is more right. :P
Then I would be wrong, and it would be appropriate for the GM to tell me so, and I would not be offended in the slightest. I can be wrong about someone being wrong, just as easily as they can be wrong in the first place. Or maybe we're both wrong and flanking is +one-and-three-quarters. If so, neither of us should be offended.
It's not a matter of being offended, it's a matter of being embarrassed. You wouldn't be, but most would--and there's nothing wrong with being embarrassed. It's not a flaw of the times, it's something that will always be around. If one insists they're right when they aren't, learning their conviction was in vain will almost always make them at least a little sheepish. Especially if they were "bluntly honest" about it.
Which is more embarassing: finding out you're wrong now, or finding out later that you've been wrong for all these years (or however long)? Me pointing out a fact doesn't make a person wrong; they already were. Going out of my way to keep them from having to face that fact isn't doing them any favors. If someone can't handle a simple factual correction in regards to a game, then that's a dysfunction I'd really rather not be responsible for having helped perpetuate.
When did I say not to tell them they were wrong? You're going on a tangent again. I said to be polite about it, and, if they're sensitive, not to be too blunt. I don't get why you object to that, and nothing in your posts has made it clearer to me. All I can figure is there's been a misunderstanding of some nature.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I keep trying to formulate a response, but I get interrupted by the voice of my wife in my head cautioning me about presuming that the way I process data is the norm/standard. I haven't actually shown her this thread, but it's becoming increasingly easier to imagine her responses to me, and it seems she agrees with you. And I've learned that she's usually right on this kind of thing, even when I can't see it.
So I recant my previous assertions. Guess I was wrong, even though I don't fully understand how/why.
|
|
Compare these two phrasings:
"No, you're wrong."
"I'm not sure that's right."
Tact is best learned via practice, but when in doubt, soften your own position. Right?
I for one pine for the days of tyranny. "Oh so your elf is immune, is he? Well then I guess something about that spell made him temporarily human! Any other questions? "
:-)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But if I can cite the rule verbatim, or have my finger on it in the book, then "I'm not sure that's right" becomes dishonest.
And just to be crystal clear, I do try very hard to mentally segregate that which is a conclusion (and whose reasoning could therefore be erroneous) from that which is demonstrable fact before telling someone they're wrong. I.e., "flanking is +3" is wrong. "Light and darkness effects interact in this way" is more of a "I'm not sure that's right/I disagree" type of thing. Similarly, if I'm going by memory and could therefore be mis-remembering, I frame it in an appropriately tentative way.
So when I — and I can't speak for anyone else — when I talk about correcting someone, I'm talking about when there is no doubt. I'm talking about when I looked up my spell before my turn came so I could reference how it works and someone is contradicting text that I am physically touching. I'm talking about when someone makes a claim in the Rules forum and I copy-paste a rule to the contrary.
It is in those situations when "I'm not sure that's right" feels like I'm lying. And I personally don't get why I would need to do anything other than accurately match my words to my true level of certainty on the topic.
"Wait, I thought it worked this other way, right?"
"Hm, I interpret that differently, but sure."
"I'm pretty sure it actually means X, but I could be missing something."
"No, that's wrong; here's what the rule actually says: (insert verbatim quote here)."
Those all mean different things, and using one to mean another (in either direction!) seems like a bad practice to me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Jiggy, you will need to work on your own toolset. Find what works for you. Just understand that some of your success is controlled by the message's recipient as well.
Frankly, I find small lies for good cause acceptable. Nobody is saying you have to, but consider your approach and you may be more successful.
Maybe work your way up to the direct approach once you have built a relationship and some trust.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMs, here's your line:
"You presume much."
Then smile, arch an eyebrow and move on.
GMs, here's your line:
"You presume much."
Then smile, arch an eyebrow and move on.
My favorite is to go, "Yeah, I know, it's weird. <Evil Laugh>"
I always punctuate an evil laugh with throwing a handful a dice between the screen whenever possible. (Handful of D6s = Thunder and Lightning in this case.)