Player Commandments

[lukelightning]

DM commandments:

Thou shalt not metagame. Sure, you know all our characters' abilities, but the monsters don't.

Thou shalt not abuse "rule zero." Do not arbitrarily change the rules or outcomes of dice rolls just to get the outcome you want (e.g. BBEG escaping just because you want it that way no matter what).

Thou shalt not bring your own PC into the game. You control everyone else in the universe, that should be enough. A "DM PC" is an NPC and should be treated as such, and not be the focus of the game.

Thou shalt not be to stingy with magic. Yeah, we've all heard the complaints that there is too much reliance on magic items in D&D. But if you are too stingy the game is no fun; the caster shine, the fighters get hosed, and monsters are twice as deadly.

Thou shalt not spring a genre-change on us. Do not suddenly inform us that our fantasy world is really sci-fi, that the characters are all really in The Matrix, spells are "hacking" and the Gods are just powerful AI programs.

Thou shalt not turn the game into your private novel. D&D is a game with story elements, not a story that you are writing with the players as actors.

Thou shalt realize that some monsters are broken. War trolls should be giants, not monstrous humanoids. Elementals and dragons may be under CRed, etc.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I disagree with this one. There's lots of times where you can flex for one person and not cause notable issues for anyone else. "All for one and one for all" really calls for the individual bvending for the group, and the group occasionally bending for the individual. It's that thing we call cooperation

Good counter point.

But what if it's something that the other players actively don't want? Should everyone give for one player? For a player whose not hosting? For a player whose not GMing? I can see bending some for a host of a game or group compromising with the GM but rarely holding a group hostage for one person's pet tricks.

 

[Umbran]

But what if it's something that the other players actively don't want? Should everyone give for one player? For a player whose not hosting? For a player whose not GMing? I can see bending some for a host of a game or group compromising with the GM but rarely holding a group hostage for one person's pet tricks.

Certainly, there's a balance to be struck. And how to strike cannot easily be generalized, given the variance between individual campaigns and gaming groups. Perhaps it boils down to, "Thou shalt make reasonable attempts to cooperate to help everyone have fun." And/or, "Thou shalt recognize that thee are not the only person who matters."

I generally don't give in-game preferences to the guy who hosts the game. Where I come from, the Host is exempt from the Munchie-Tax. The host provides the location, everyone else provides refreshments (or $$ for the host to acquire them).

 

[buzz]

Thou shalt not metagame. Use only knowledge that thy character has, and do thy best to 'forget' that which thy character dost not know.

I would absolutely, positively, not include this one in any hypothetical commandments I gave to players.

There is metagame in every RPG. The amount of metagame the group finds acceptable depends on their tastes, and on the system being used. D&D, e.g., demnads a certain amount of metagame. At most, I would say something like, "Thou shalt not metagame to a degree deemed by the group to be unreasonable or damaging to the play experience."

 

[Hussar]

There is metagame in every RPG. The amount of metagame the group finds acceptable depends on their tastes, and on the system being used. D&D, e.g., demnads a certain amount of metagame. At most, I would say something like, "Thou shalt not metagame to a degree deemed by the group to be unreasonable or damaging to the play experience."

Potatoes, tubers.

I do agree though. A bit of metagaming is probably groovy, depending on the group, but, when the player starts calling out the DR's of creatures when the rest of the party hasn't figured out what it is yet, then I get testy. ((Granted, I just turned the party rogue to stone because he didn't think that gaze attacks worked all the time. He was somewhat unhappy when I called for his saving throw.))

 

[Herobizkit]

Thou shalt not spring a genre-change on us. Do not suddenly inform us that our fantasy world is really sci-fi, that the characters are all really in The Matrix, spells are "hacking" and the Gods are just powerful AI programs.

Gotta disagree with ya on this one. With the right group, it's a great way to change up an otherwise dry campaign/series of adventures.

Thou shalt not turn the game into your private novel. D&D is a game with story elements, not a story that you are writing with the players as actors.

Again, gotta disagree. To my group and I, D&D is a story with gaming elements. The players, while not actors, are expected to create life-like characters and portray their personalities above and beyond any sort of game mechanics. YMMV.

 

[Tsillanabor]

I think it would be wise to surreptitiously find out whether the players would enjoy a genre change, then give them enough time so they won't expect it. If they would like it, that is. If not don't do it.

 

[Kastil]

hou shalt accept the consequences of thy character's actions.

I actually did make a Code of Conduct for my players. Seeing this thread, I think I'll add a few more.

 

[Particle_Man]

I actually did make a Code of Conduct for my players.

Maybe post the CoC here?

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Maybe post the CoC here?

Wouldn't Chaosium get cheesed off if thier whole game is posted.



Sorry couldn't resist.