Give unto me your table rules

[jmucchiello]

As for the 22 Int wizard... maybe. If you can't Take 10 in the heat of combat, I don't see why you should be able to whip your protractor, as it were.

The wizard doesn't need the protractor, the player does. Do you set the fighter's player on fire to see if he makes his ref save against the fireball? No, you use the number to adjudicate it. Likewise, the wizard has this number in Int that is not reflected in the player. So you should cut the player of the high Int wizard some slack if he isn't as quick as the wizard should be.

I'm all for having your action ready when it's your turn. But sometimes it does take time. A 22 Int wizards with 12 levels of experience adventuring should be able to adjust to any changing conditions in the battle instantly. That's what high Int and level 12 should represent. If the spell he planned to use is a bad idea now, giving the player extra time to look up a new spell is more fair than barrelling over him just because you get bored easily when things slow down.

As I said, your rules may be great for you, but will your players find them as fun? Check with them first is all I'm saying. You might find you have no players if none of them like the change.

 

[GlassJaw]

It's sad when expectations need to be codified in order to secure everyone's enjoyment of a game, but it's better than just being grumpy about it and not getting that enjoyment in the first place.

I would probably look for a new group before I felt a need to draw up some CoC for the group. Ideally, the group that's going to be the most fun is the one that doesn't require any rules.

I've played (too many) sessions where I go home anywhere from mildly annoyed to incredibly pissed off.

If you've had more lows than highs, or even more than a handful of lows, that's a red flag that's something might be wrong with the group. If that's the case, putting some behavioral rules in front of the players probably won't change things. In some cases, it might lead to more confrontations - especially if the creation of said rules was in response to a specific player or situation.

I don't agree with much of what he says ( ), but diaglo speaks truth when he says: "Life is too short to play crappy RPG's."

 

[Jeff Wilder]

It's very odd to me that the people who claim that codified table rules aren't needed by mature players seem to be the people that aren't mature enough to handle being presented with codified table rules.

Yes, my group needed codified table rules, despite the fact that we're very good friends in addition to gamer buddies, and all relatively mature and intelligent people. I wrote some up, I presented them, we discussed them, and life went on (and improved at the gaming table).

 

[buzz]

Do you set the fighter's player on fire to see if he makes his ref save against the fireball? No, you use the number to adjudicate it. Likewise, the wizard has this number in Int that is not reflected in the player. So you should cut the player of the high Int wizard some slack if he isn't as quick as the wizard should be.

Your fighter example isn't really applicable here.

I'm not talking about equating the capabilties of the player with those of the PC. I'm talking about minimizing the amount of time spent by players trying to place area effects "just right". I'm then justifying this by pointing out that the rules do limit what PCs can do in a combat round as a consequence of limited time. Just as I likely wouldn't give the rogue's player a thorough inventory of a 40' room filled with equipment if they just glance around within the space of their initiative (i.e., a thorough Search check would take way more than one round), I'm not going to let a spallcaster's player fiddle around for five minutes figuring out the exact precise placement of a spell when we're playing out something that's happening in a few seconds and the heat of battle.

I do understand what you're saying. A PC should be allowed to act within the competency described by their abilities, e.g., the PC with Diplomacy +37 should come off as eloquent no matter how shy its player may be.

But long, protracted strategizing and kibitzing that impedes the group's enjoyment of the game needs to be curtailed. It would be easy to agonize for hours over all the tactical options available to a character in a combat round with the justification that the PC would be able to come to all those conclusions instinctively in no time, but that doesn't make for a fun game IMO. It turns D&D into a boring miniatures wargame.

To turn to the larger discussion...

My main goal in developing some table rules is to make more effective use of game time. Outside of sessions, I spend way too much time, effort, and money to feel satisfied spending actual game time sitting idle while people dick around with spell templates, pour over rulebooks, argue with me about rules minutiae, futz with disorganized notes, and stare blankly every time their initiative comes up ("Okay, what's happening again?").

I realize that fun is the primarly goal, and I'm not trying to curtail that; there would be no point to gaming otherwise.

However, imagine we're talking about some other pastime. Take playing a team sport with friends, for instance (a pickup game of basketball or whatever). Would it really be fun if players constantly stopped mid-play to talk about a movie they saw? If every possible foul was argued to death for fifteen minutes? If every other pass you made whizzed by your teammate becasue they weren't paying attention? If, even after months or years of playing together, some of the players would still ask you, "So, why do I need to get the ball in the basket again?"

Even if socializing, not the sport, is the primary goal, at some point the play experience diminishes to such a degree that it's no longer enjoyable. To paraphrase the old saying, "If something is worth playing, it's worth palying well." Doing so enhances both the play itself and the associated socializing.

And, as far as this thread goes, I'm leaving aside the issue of whether table rules or a new gaming group are the answer. The players in my groups are all good people and I enjoy their company. We've had some great sessions together. We coudl use some focus, however, to make the good sessions appear more consistently.

 

[buzz]

Ideally, the group that's going to be the most fun is the one that doesn't require any rules.
...putting some behavioral rules in front of the players probably won't change things.

I think that these are two sides of the same argument, and I saw them come up qute a bit in the other thread Jeff Wilder pointed out.

I don't really buy it. I don't think that a group needs to be written off just because they aren't perfect, and I don't think that confronting issues that are hampering game play by means of some agreed-upon table rules is a fool's errand. By definition, a gaming group has already come to the table under an explicit contract, i.e., to abide by the rules of the RPG being played. I don't see how adding some meta-rules (if reasonable) is such a big stretch.

In my case, at least, I'm not dealing with anything egregious that points to the problem being with the people in the group. No one is abusive, socially maladjusted, acting in an offensive manner, hygenically challenged, or any of the other horror stories you hear. We've just got some bad habits, and habits can be broken.

I don't agree with much of what he says ( ), but diaglo speaks truth when he says: "Life is too short to play crappy RPG's."

Diaglo's Law: love it, live it.

 

[Aeson]

I know many have a rule about OOC comments but I don't. I beleive we are there to have fun and socializing is part of the fun. If someone says something about too much chatter we stop. I am the DM for the group and sometimes I start the OOC stuff.

I do have a rule about junk food at the table. I try to keep it away. We don't need to eat. I incourage healthy foods if you need something.

No DM books used by the players unless the DM allows it.

IF your not going to be at the next game leave instruction on what to do with your character. If you do not they are left behind. If we are in the middle of nowhere and the play is not around we act in the fashion we believe the character would.

 

[The_Universe]

Thank you. This is exactly what I'm getting at.

I've played sessions where I go home elated, and I've played (too many) sessions where I go home anywhere from mildly annoyed to incredibly pissed off. I'm really just trying to suss out the behaviors that make a session go one way or the other, and then emphasize the positive.

One option is to simply codify and enforce a set of table rules, but never formally present them to the group. That way I'm not overtly raining on anyone's parade ("Here's everything I think you guys are doing wrong"), but instead covertly guiding people towards what I consider to be a more enjoyable game.

I'll need to mull that over.

In my experience, it's better if they know what the rules are. If person X does something consistently that resulted in you writing (and wanting to enforce) a particular table rule, then it's going to seem to that person that you're constantly "coming down on" him or her, while ignoring things that they might find troublesome in the behavior of other people in the group.

By codifying and "releasing" them to the group, it seems less "targeted" and can help unify expectations on both sides of the GM screen. If you've got a guy in the group that's used to playing with people that don't care if he chats with other people on MSN on his laptop for the entire session, it's probably best to say, "no computers for anyone" than saying "Bill, shut off the damned computer!"

 

[DonTadow]

Feel free to steal what you wish from mine. These are my house rules in my game.
http://www.chrystaria.com/manual.htm

 

[jmucchiello]

But long, protracted strategizing and kibitzing that impedes the group's enjoyment of the game needs to be curtailed. It would be easy to agonize for hours over all the tactical options available to a character in a combat round with the justification that the PC would be able to come to all those conclusions instinctively in no time, but that doesn't make for a fun game IMO.

All of those things (kibitzing, agonizing over tactics, stratetgizing) increase my enjoyment not decrease it. This means you and I cannot play together. It means I would chaffe under your so-called "rules which better the game". Do you know for a fact that the other players agree that there needs to be less "distraction"? I'm not saying your rules aren't going to make the game better. I'm saying they would not make it better for me and for people like me. Do you play with players like me?

I also play weekly and don't see the players except at game so we tolerate OOG chitchat more than some gamers. Course, we also don't take 5 minutes to figure out what we're doing. Except when someone returns from the bathroom and needs an update, most of the time actions have been planned before the character's initiative comes up.

However, imagine we're talking about some other pastime.

You've never played in a softball game where if the batted ball hits someone's beer cup, the batter is out? I've seen picnic volleyball games delayed by one of the girls showing off a new piece of jewelry or something elsewhere making people laugh too hard to continue. Distractions can slow down any pasttime.

It turns D&D into a boring miniatures wargame.

People say stuff like this all the time. The irony (for me) is that D&D was created by moving a miniatures wargame into an enclosed "dungeon" environment. This isn't a value judgement, I'm just easily amused by the irony of the statement.

 

[jmucchiello]

It's very odd to me that the people who claim that codified table rules aren't needed by mature players seem to be the people that aren't mature enough to handle being presented with codified table rules.

I like a loose game. If nothing in game happens over the course of an evening of play and I've had a good time, I've had a good time. If for some reason game kept getting derailed by outside conversation, then perhaps tonight is not the night to game. That is my mature response to game being delayed by distractions. I don't usually have to sign my social contracts. Nor do I need them written down in order to follow them. Table rules tend to promote "The Game" as something more important than "The Gathering". I care more about the gathering. I know there are lots of people who don't see it that way, but don't say that chaffing under table rules is immature. It is merely a different view of "why we are here".