Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7950736" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Wow, this is quite a document, and it’s clear there must have been a great deal of friction at your table! I am sorry if the experience has caused you distress. If it’s alright with you, I would like to provide some feedback on these table rules. Though, I get the impression that you are somewhat sensitive to critique (no shame in that - your feelings are valid and deserving of respect), so I’m going to go ahead and put my comments in spoiler blocks so that you can read them (or not read them) at whatever pace works for you. I will attempt to keep all criticism constructive. [spoiler] Ok, so I see where you’re coming from here. You’re the DM, and your word is final over your own game. That’s perfectly reasonable. However, I think some of the language here comes off a little confrontational. I assume that’s because you’ve experienced a great deal of confrontation regarding this matter, so it is understandable, but I feel I should caution that this may end up escalating said confrontation rather than de-escalating it. If I were a player in your game and you showed me this rule, I would be inclined to find a different game. When the DM starts out by explicitly stating that they have the right to fudge rolls, change monster stats and/or rules on a whim, retcon events of the story, and even alter details of my character, it creates the impression that the DM intends to exercise those rights frequently, which doesn’t sound like a very enjoyable environment to play in. If I’m going in expecting fudged rolls and fluctuating monster stats, I won’t be able to trust that my own actions actually matter, and if I’m going in expecting the rules themselves to be in flux, I won’t have confidence that the world will respond to my actions in a predictable fashion. And if I go in expecting the DM to change my character details, my character won’t feel like my own. Furthermore, comments like “this is how it’s bee since 1974” and “if you don’t like it, find another DM” don’t really add anything constructive, instead contribute to the confrontational tone I mentioned, and would make me feel like I should indeed find another DM.[/spoiler] [spoiler] This reads more like an addendum to rule 0 than its own rule. I think simply incorporating the clarification that you are invested in facilitating an enjoyable experience for all and intend to respect the social contract into your commentary on rule 0, it would help soften that message, and streamline your document.[/spoiler] [spoiler]This is a good table rule. Clear, concise, respectful, and a perfectly reasonable expectation to set.[/spoiler] [spoiler]Likewise, this is quite reasonable, if a bit less concise. Personally, I would struggle with using language like “slay” and “defeat” in place of kill, “volley” and “release” in place of “shoot”, etc. but since you express it as a preference rather than a mandate, and say that you will redirect a player whose language you find to explicit, I would be comfortable giving it a try in respect for your preferences.[/spoiler] [spoiler]This is another quite reasonable table rule, and a very common one at that - plenty of DMs, myself included, disallow “evil” PCs and/or allow them under certain conditions such as not betraying the party. I do wonder, however, why you don’t just ban evil alignments on PCs entirely, since these restrictions to me seem like any character who followed them couldn’t reasonably be described as “evil.” If it were me, I would disallow evil PCs, with the caveat that PCs who were evil in their backgrounds but are seeking redemption are allowed. The restrictions around things like party betrayal would serve to insure players of Chaotic and/or Neutral aligned characters know not to fall into in such behaviors.[/spoiler] [spoiler]I don’t think I would be able to agree to this as a player. It’s natural for people to have emotional reactions to fictional events (some might say that it is an explicit goal of fiction to illicit an emotional reaction from its audience), and forbidding players from expressing such reactions when they are negative seems very restrictive. It’s one thing to ask that players try to keep their cool and take a break if they need to. But having a table rule against any expressions of dismay over setbacks that happen to the characters seems a bit extreme. I assume I’m missing context that lead you to feel such a rule was necessary. Do one or more players in your group have a history of extreme emotional overreaction to such things?[/spoiler] [spoiler]This likewise seems quite extreme to me and makes me think there must be a history of inappropriate reactions to the results of dice rolls in your games.[/spoiler] [spoiler]A good rule. Not much else to say about it.[/spoiler] [spoiler]Goes hand in hand with the previous rule, and is another good one to have.[/spoiler] [spoiler]Yet another one I have nothing to say about beyond that it seems good and reasonable.[/spoiler] [spoiler]Seems fair, if a bit formal. You’ve invited players to point out when they think you’ve made a mistake, but you don’t want to open the door to endless derailments over rules interpretations, so putting a time limit on such discussions makes sense.[/spoiler] [spoiler]Clearly there’s some baggage here. This is another instance where I don’t think this is adding anything to your document but a confrontational tone. The actual content of the rule is well-covered by the above rule, so what’s left amounts to little more than a passive-aggressive jab. I don’t know, maybe your group will find it funny, but if the situation is as volatile as you make it sound, I wouldn’t want to risk putting this in the doc.[/spoiler] [spoiler]This I think is a fair thing to ask of your players, but putting it into your document of table rules makes it seem more restrictive than it is. Like, “please give me a day to decompress after the game before giving me feedback about it” is a perfectly reasonable request. But “No one is allowed to express any critique of my game within 24 hours of the session” comes across as hypersensitive and authoritarian. This is completely an optics thing, the actual content of the rule is solid, but the presentation makes it chafe.[/spoiler] [spoiler]Same as above, I don’t think this is an unfair request, but I do think it comes across the wrong way here.[/spoiler] [spoiler]This is cool of you, and a nice expectation to set.[/spoiler] [spoiler]Another solid one here.[/spoiler] [spoiler]Wow. That’s really a bummer that this is something you’ve experienced enough that it became necessary to write a rule about. I guess if your group is regularly so hyper-critical of the art in handouts and such this is a decent rule to have, but it’s really unfortunate that such a rule would be needed in the first place.[/spoiler] [spoiler]This is another case where the content of the rule is solid, but the way it’s written comes across as confrontational and a bit overbearing. I think many groups have some version of a “come prepared” rule, but some of the mandates around “must have read every word in sections X, Y, and Z of the Player’s Handbook” seem unduly restrictive- if you know what your own spells and race/class/background features do well enough to play your character without holding up play, then I don’t see it really mattering whether or not you skimmed over spells you can’t cast, or didn’t read the “Gods, Gold and Clan” bit of the Dwarf race entry or what have you. And I think the whole segment could do with a bit of revision for tone.[/spoiler] [spoiler]This one is just like the art one. I suppose a good rule to have if it’s a consistent problem that your players are being unkind about other players’ creative work and/or struggling with the rules. Just sad that such a thing would be necessary.[/spoiler]     [spoiler]Makes sense.[/spoiler] [spoiler]Seems like a nice closing note. As an aside, I notice the language “our D&D club.” Is this a school club? That would certainly explain some things.[/spoiler] [spoiler]I like the invitation to ask if you need clarification about any of the rules. Making the players sign it seems overly formal to me.[/spoiler]</blockquote>

Verification