Players: Guiding Morals in Playing

[Baron Opal II]

1) Don't be a jerk.

- If it screws over another player, "It's what my character would do" is the wrong answer.​

2) We play to have fun.

- Fun is a worthwhile time spent with friends. It doesn't mean "win". Challenge and catharsis can be "fun" if you enjoyed experiencing it with your friends.​

3) Read the room when you want to be silly.

- I can bend with the dwarven warrior named Paratestekles Longhammer, but that's the limit for me. The Church of the Holy Electric Pickle is right out. If that's the kind of game you want, we can go there, but not in my "serious / dramatic" world.​

4) D&D is a team sport. If you don't work together the monsters will eat you.

- No PvP; unless that is expressly on the table from the get go, don't do it. You will become an exemplar of the parable of the bear, and by the player's hand, not mine.​

 

[aco175]

As a player, you keep the dice results and not fudge. This may be most true in 5e since one hardly misses anyways. You should build a character that has a reason to adventure and one that finds a way to be in the group. You can play a lazy, loner, but he needs to be able to go and contribute. This leads to helping the DM with design in terms of offering ideas your PC would like and come up with reasons to go on what the DM plans.

 

[pemerton]

• No absolutists
  • For example, guy who hates all undead and kills them on sight. Once had a ghost that was stuck on the material plane because of how they were wronged. The ghost was intended to be a helpful NPC in the adventure. Absolutists refuses to even talk with ghost and tries to kill it immediately because their god doesnt like undead...
  • Example 2, ranger has Gnoll as favored enemy in 3E era. Walks into an encampment of a 100 or more gnolls and decides all of them must be fought because... No nuance and ridiculous role play by absolutists is an instant fun killer. YMMV
  • Example 3, the lawful good Pally detecting evil everywhere and fighting anything they find.

As a player:

<snip>

Go with it. When the group makes a decision, or the DM drops an obvious plot hook, lean into it and run with it.

You should build a character that has a reason to adventure and one that finds a way to be in the group. You can play a lazy, loner, but he needs to be able to go and contribute. This leads to helping the DM with design in terms of offering ideas your PC would like and come up with reasons to go on what the DM plans.

The flipside of these seems to be the GM needs to be upfront about what they want the players to do.

 

[Campbell]

This is going to vary from game to game, but the biggest thing is come to play and actively contribute. That means know the rules, steel man them (the rules) even when it would be to your advantage not to, get other players involved and engage what's in front of you. Always seek to add value to the play experience. Don't be passive. Expect the same from everyone else and hold them accountable for it.

Regardless of where I'm sitting the most important thing is that everyone works for it to be awesome and plays to the spirit of whatever game we're playing. Also, if the game isn't fun for you say so. Let's try to make it work, but if not let's all find our own bliss.

Finally, regardless of the game being played, be mindful of the pace of play. Play somewhat aggressively to keep things moving and be willing to move on if a scene or conflict is taking up a lot of table time.

 

[kenada]

In no particular order:

• Do what my character would do.
• Know what the stuff on my character sheet does.
• Be on time.
• Play to win.
• Be ready when it’s my turn to do something.

 

[Lanefan]

This is going to vary from game to game, but the biggest thing is come to play and actively contribute. That means know the rules, steel man them (the rules) even when it would be to your advantage not to, get other players involved and engage what's in front of you. Always seek to add value to the play experience. Don't be passive. Expect the same from everyone else and hold them accountable for it.

To the bolded: oh, if only.

 

[Darth Solo]

I'm creating this thread as a mirror of one for GMs started by Professor Murder. It is in no way intended to denigrate, but rather to raise the parallel questions on the player side having discussed doing so with the OP of that other thread.

So many arguments come down to clashes of what might be called "guiding morals." Your key principles of how a game should be participated in, your priorities for play, that you are willing to bend other considerations to serve.

Those might include such things as "never get into conflict with other player characters" or "follow the rules" or perhaps "don't make anyone uncomfortable." They could give rise to expectations, such as that others will also follow the rules, or avoid making me uncomfortable.

What sorts of guiding moral principles govern how you play in your games?

Define "guiding moral principles" as related to TTRPGs and how are they different from "preferences"?

 

[clearstream]

Define "guiding moral principles" as related to TTRPGs and how are they different from "preferences"?

I chose those words in order to mirror the thread that I forked this one from. Were I choosing my own words, I would drop "morals" and go with "guiding principles".

So how are principles different from preferences? I think preferences are non-deontic. Principles are deontic.

 

[payn]

The flipside of these seems to be the GM needs to be upfront about what they want the players to do.

For my piece on absolutists, I don't think the GM has to say a single thing for you to not want to do it. YMMV.

 

[Committed Hero]

I think 'Morals' is the wrong term. Etiquette would serve better.

Mores perhaps?