Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So last night I had a bit of drama that may have blown up my gaming group. The prior night, we got together and my friend was showing his wife and another friend of ours a small demo game of 8th edition 40k (he and his wife had previously played 7th, but our one friend hasn't. We all play Age of Sigmar). He was explaining overwatch and charging, and I can't 100% remember what it was, but said something wrong. So I spoke up and corrected him by saying you can, in fact, deny Overwatch by having more than one unit charge an enemy unit, since if the first unit survives and gets within 1", the unit cannot fire overwatch at the second unit. He vehemently started arguing that isn't what the rulebook said, re-reading the passage a few times for emphasis. My speaking up apparently really angered him as last night his wife had a talk with me about how I came off as abrasive by immediately correcting him when he was trying to "teach" them, and later he left our private group chat citing that he can't deal with someone "doubting [him] when [he] is reading directly from the source".

My question is, is it really that wrong to expect people to play a game by the rules, and play the rules correctly? This is not the first such argument I've had with this person; we nearly got into it on Sunday because I was telling him that the AOS Chaos Lord's thing for turning into a Spawn or Daemon Prince requires reinforcement points (he was arguing tooth and nail that it didn't). Our group is VERY laid back. We almost never use scenarios in our AOS games (only kill games) because 99% of the time people forget about the scenario and go for kill anyways, never use special terrain rules because nobody can remember them, and in general play the game very poorly. I often say, and am totally serious, that my group could play someone who outright cheats and makes up rules (and this has, in fact, happened) and be none the wiser and just roll with it until they find out later they were swindled (at which point it is the other person is a dirty cheater).

He was probably upset you corrected him in front of his wife. You were right to speak up and correct him. Better to catch those mistakes early on when learning a new edition then later down the road.

No, it was pretty much a jerk move. You injected an edge case rules argument into an intro teaching game.

It is one thing to call out cheating our blatant rules exploitation, another to inject yourself into the situation you described. Additionally, your group is admittedly lax and you seem to be more stringent in your rules applications, so maybe it's not a good fit. As long as they enjoy the experience, they can follow the rules as loosely as they wish and your attitude will come across as abrasive and haughty. If you don't like they playstyle, you probably need to find a more likeminded group.

 jmurph wrote:
No, it was pretty much a jerk move. You injected an edge case rules argument into an intro teaching game.

It is one thing to call out cheating our blatant rules exploitation, another to inject yourself into the situation you described. Additionally, your group is admittedly lax and you seem to be more stringent in your rules applications, so maybe it's not a good fit. As long as they enjoy the experience, they can follow the rules as loosely as they wish and your attitude will come across as abrasive and haughty. If you don't like they playstyle, you probably need to find a more likeminded group.

I kind of agree with this. You should probably have raised the rules question after the fact and not during a game. You should never really derail a teaching game with nitpicky rules. Teaching games are for getting someone interested. If I was learning a game and it devolved into an argument, I'd never play again.

I ageee with the above poster but the guy lost his gak and is wrong about the rules as well. I'm thinking both people are wrong and rage quiting doesn't help the other guys case.

Generally, no, its not a jerk move to correct people and expect the rules to be followed.

However, every social situation has its nuances, and how you approach the issue and the relevance/importance and type of game/commitment will determine how its dealt with in the end. RPGs will generally be dealt with by the GM, and players can grieve their issue after the game. A fairly involved game like 40k between experienced players, I'll have no issue correcting people and expect them to do the same with me. A training demo game will generally be pretty relaxed and I wouldn't get into many of the details and exceptions until they understand a rough flow and most of the common mechanics. If I'm playing a random board game with friends over a dozen drinks, then we'll let the most sober person decide the rules (or, for entertainment, the drunkest).

But broadly speaking, in most situations for most wargaming, I show up to play by the rules and will be upfront about any house rules I'd like to use or pre-clarify any known issues. To that end, I expect my opponent to know the rules and play by them, and I will not hesitate to point out errors, in a polite manner of course. Not playing by the rules and getting bothered when someone corrects you is the jerk move.

To the question itself, no, correcting people on rules and wanting to play by the rules is not, in and of itself, being a jerk. It's how you do it that determines whether or not you're being a jerk.

if you're in the middle of a game with someone and they get a rule wrong then yes.

outside of that scenario then probably not.

i find its a good rule of thumb to mind your own business nowadays.

A game is not the same game if we do not play by the rules as written unless we can agree to changes or house rules together.

I usually feel it is ok to correct someone by turning to the page and showing it to them, pointing to the relevant rule wording and discuss if it is unclear.
It is very hard for someone to argue or get angry when you do not need to speak.
I also have had many a person edit what they say when appearing to read from a rule-book, it is a strange affliction some players have.

I get "warning bells" when people get angry when their facts are questioned.
Being affronted by us "doubting them" is not a very mature thing to get excited about.
I doubt myself most times, why do they get a free pass?
A loud confident/angry voice does not make the rule they want valid.

Don't we have some kind of grace period anyway when new rules come out?
The guy is getting upset over being corrected on something that has not been released longer than a month? Really?

Anyway, I have made up my mind that the guy was a blowhard BUT OP you may have been less than gentle in your correction method and offended his delicate emotions.
I would also say that being made to look wrong in front of the wife should be of little import: the couple should be pretty accustomed to each other at this point and little needed to prove.

ANYWAY I tend to like competitive play so I need that to be clear since I would naturally be a rules-lawyer more than most.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with the OP's approach unless he was a dick whilst doing it.

If someone can't bother to follow the rules of a game, or worse, get vehemently angry/upset when corrected? They're the ones who don't need to be playing the game. In any stretch, I'd avoid playing with that person in the future.

It's a fething game at the end of the day...and a communal one at that. If you're goin to play in a gaming group, learn the damn rules and listen to someone if you've got stuff wrong.

Frankly, yeah, you were a bit of a jerk. As others have said, this is a matter of minding your business and not injecting yourself into a conversation that isn't your own. There is little more annoying than someone hovering over a game that isn't their own, rulebook in hand, and quibbling over things. I've had people like that, and they are not fun to be around.

Just talk about it later. Don't quibble and go for 'well I'm technically right, therefore, I'm in the right' lines.

I've had a situation like that, where a guy was teaching someone how to play Magic. The newbie had an Ascendant Evincar in play, the vet plays a Raging Goblin, attacks with it... and then I ask "Wait, doesn't the goblin just die when it enters play? The Evincar turns it into a 0/0, doesn't he?"

They actually thanked me for pointing that out, since it helped with teaching the game.

I guess it depends on who you're talking with?

Eh, he was having a rare Alpha Male moment and you trod all over it.

 jmurph wrote:
No, it was pretty much a jerk move. You injected an edge case rules argument into an intro teaching game.

It is one thing to call out cheating our blatant rules exploitation, another to inject yourself into the situation you described. Additionally, your group is admittedly lax and you seem to be more stringent in your rules applications, so maybe it's not a good fit. As long as they enjoy the experience, they can follow the rules as loosely as they wish and your attitude will come across as abrasive and haughty. If you don't like they playstyle, you probably need to find a more likeminded group.

Agreed.

Well its all hearsay, as we are reading just your view on it.

But as a general rule, teach it right or don't teach it.

str00dles1 wrote:
Well its all hearsay, as we are reading just your view on it.
But as a general rule, teach it right or don't teach it.

I would say that if you decide to teach: be humble.
At the very least, trying to get things right is the #1 priority, being (rightly) corrected I would thank that person.
Perpetuating my error through another person bothers me.

 Talizvar wrote:

str00dles1 wrote:
Well its all hearsay, as we are reading just your view on it.
But as a general rule, teach it right or don't teach it.

I would say that if you decide to teach: be humble.
At the very least, trying to get things right is the #1 priority, being (rightly) corrected I would thank that person.
Perpetuating my error through another person bothers me.

Yeah, I agree with this. I mean, maybe it wasn't the best time to do it, but a gentle reminder isn't bad when someone is telling a new person something wrong. The guy doing the demo should have handled it much better, but then again we don't really know what was said or how. Asking questions rather than insisting is usually better, too. In response to his "Yuh-huh that's what it says here let me read it out loud" a calm "Can I show you what I'm talking about?" is usually good.

You may have been abrasive as the wife says, and if that's how most people involved view it, then I would recommend apologizing. It may be best to simply apologize for getting involved in the first place, as it seems many posters in this thread already believe you to be in the wrong for even speaking up during the demo.

Just a humble "Hey man, I'm sorry for interrupting you in the demo the other day," and then use an "I" statement, such as "I just remembered *this part of the overwatch rules* and kind of blurted it out, and everything went downhill from there."

If you care anymore, that is. If someone reacted the way you're describing with me, I probably wouldn't worry about being involved anymore.

Jacksmiles wrote:
Just a humble "Hey man, I'm sorry for interrupting you in the demo the other day," and then use an "I" statement, such as "I just remembered *this part of the overwatch rules* and kind of blurted it out, and everything went downhill from there."

There are other "feelings" to consider here as well:
The poor shmucks being fed false information.
Nothing to apologize there.
"Hey man, I was enjoying being fed false information from this guy, stop interrupting!"

I do, and I need to work on this, take it as an insult when I'm corrected when I know I'm right. In this case, I do not 100% remember it (I had forgotten it until it came up as being a big deal last night), but if I recall it was factually wrong despite reading the source. So, me being me and wanting things to be played properly, spoke up to say that it actually didn't work the way he said (actually if I recall, I didn't even correct him at first, I said after he read the rule how you could "trick" your opponent into spending overwatch by having a throwaway unit charge and try to soak the overwatch, so you then are within 1". Going from memory here, HE then said no that's not right, and that's what triggered the "argument" with him citing "the source" and me arguing that no, I was actually correct)

Like with many things vis a vis social activity, it depends on how you do it.

All in the approach,

As a profession, I more or less tell people what the rules actually are.

The key is not to pick what I define as 'fightin' words'.

I would agree that you appear to be correct. However, the scenario you put forward strikes me as one unlikely to come up (or be addressed) in an intro game, so the intervention was probably unnecessary.

As described, I'm afraid you both come across as jerks. As others have said, HOW matters as much as WHAT in this instance.

As mentioned by Mad Doc Grotsnik, it's all in the delivery.

However if you both agreed to play 8th ed 40k then its 8th ed 40k not 'what I think 8th ed 40k should be'.

With new editions comes a slew of issues over people misinterpreting or wilfully misunderstanding rules that need to be clarified. Thankfully GW are quite good at getting FAQs out there.

I can see both points of view here. On the one hand, it seems the person running the demo may have over-reacted to what was an accurate correction. However, I would also say the correction in question was enough of an edge case to not really be relevant to a teaching scenario. Let the new players see how the basics work before introducing more advanced concepts.

I will say I think it's slightly concerning that the OP is asking the question here. The very nature of social interaction means there are nuances in play that it's difficult, or sometimes impossible, to understand without being present at the time so asking for a blanket opinion kind of sets alarm bells ringing. Like pretty much everyone else has said, it's how you say something rather than what you say that often matters.

It IS a pleasure to see the responses here.
"It all depends on the approach."
New players do not need to be frightened away from a game due to rules lawyering from the more competitive end of gaming (that can come later! )
We could look at the learning exercise as an overview of play and it would still be the responsibility of the player to read the rules and know them so correcting slight errors may not be a priority.

I know in the past, it was a form of attention seeking behavior OR at least an area of pride to be a geek and know your obscure facts better than anyone (I am including myself here).
So it was a bit of a habit to get into to correct incorrect information both to be identified as knowing your stuff and to inform a fellow geek his kung-fu is not as good as it should be.

So, being a jerk?
I would say ONLY if it contained some element of derision in the tone when the correction was stated.
I hate that.
Anything else is acceptable to me.

For me, speaking in broad, general terms here, it depends on the parties involved, who is involved, and the "stakes" (as it were).

In the exact situation you describe, I may have waited, and taught the new player correctly later on.

However, if I'm in my local shop, and there's a late-20s "veteran" playing some 14 or 15 year old new kid, you're damn right I'm gonna shut the vet down for trying to exploit a new player that way. That said, it seems that in my local shop, the young-uns are quick to ask a couple of us older players when something seems fishy, or they are unsure of wording, so we tend to avoid the kind of rules exploitation described in the OP.

In the context of the title? No. Of course it isn't.

With regards to the actual post? No. Of course it isn't.

If your friend can't handle being told he's wrong then he's got to have one of the most disappointing lives ever, because that's how gak is. As far as the game is concerned, you'd think a 'friend' would love the extra input and help when teaching someone the game. Then again, maybe you're dealing with someone who has low self-esteem and you hurt his 'feelings'.

If it's someone else's game and especially if it's an intro game, I think it is being a bit of a jerk to correct people on rules.

Understanding the concept of a game is more important than understanding the nuanced differences when you're learning and starting detailed rules discussions isn't really helpful.

Granted it sounds like he was a bit of a dick in the way he responded, but also I think it's better to just not interject when someone else is leading a game.

Save the rules argument for later on when you're sitting around the painting table or when you yourself are playing against them.

I tend to get pretty annoyed when people butt into a game to tell us rules. Recently I've had a few games where not only were people doing it, but butting in to tell us incorrect rules when we had it right. Like, an Infinity game where someone kept telling us second edition rules in a third edition game.

We tend to go with whatever we agree on if there's a conflict, and if we got it wrong, we get it right the next game.

Of course, we're only hearing one side of the story, but it sounds to me like the guy has an issue with being corrected. I see this guy in a lot of gaming groups. He studies the rulebook and all of the Codices and, usually, has a fairly solid rules knowledge. Whether it is because he wants to find poorly worded rules that he can exploit, or because he truly wants to be sure he knows every line of the rules; whatever it is, this guy has trouble hearing that he is not correct, in any setting, but hearing it during a game is even worse. Not only does it make him look like he doesn't know what he's talking about, but it makes him look that way in front of other people. So not only does it embarrass him, but it also makes the people who are learning wonder if he has gotten other rules right.

Also, knowing the context matters. Do you know him well? Did you have a good relationship prior to this incident? Could you have just as easily sat down with them afterwards and said, "Hey I noticed what you were saying about Overwatch and I thought I'd look it up. . ?" You could still correct him, but it sounds like it was done poorly. It doesn't sound like you were being a "rules lawyer" or anything. I think the expectation for people to know how to play is perfectly normal. Even more so in more competitive environments (wait until you get to a tournament and try to correct the "guy" mentioned above).

That said, personally, I hate when people stroll by and interject. If you want to watch the game, watch. If you want to look at the models and compliment them (or not), do so. But do not interrupt two people playing a game to tell them they're doing something wrong. Generally, one of the two will figure it out or, if they don't, they'll wonder why they're getting obliterated by Overwatch and they'll research for themselves. Now, after a game? I'd love to sit around and chat rules. Have a beer or a soda and hash out a rules quandary - sounds fun to me. During a game? Silence is golden.