Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mhacdebhandia" data-source="post: 2735724" data-attributes="member: 18832">I would be fine with this. I've played in too many games with people I know to be disruptive or just plain irritating, included only because the DM didn't feel comfortable excluding them once they found out about the game, or because another player invited them in.Honestly, I think this depends upon the people involved. Some people are perfectly capable of watching quietly and enjoying it without being disruptive. I think this is a rule which only makes sense if someone at the table has a problem enjoying the game with spectators around.On the other hand, interpreted as an injunction against showing up when you're not in the mood to play the game, it makes sense to me.I'd be perfectly happy with this rule.I'm not clear what offences this rule refers to. Cheating? Disruptiveness?Excessive argument is a problem, or can be, but I think this goes too far.This depends entirely upon what "stupidly munchkin" means. I fancy I create capable and efficient characters (when they're supposed to be, anyway), but they also have a personality and a history and everything a Real Roleplayer could want. I couldn't agree to this if "stupidly munchkin" meant "well-built".Ridiculous and unacceptable.Depends on what "participate" means. I'm comfortable with penalising disinterested and detached players, but quiet or shy people aren't necessarily shying away from participation.I prefer a different approach to setting up groups - then again, I'd leave gracefully if people were sick of playing with me.Sensible.Expect meaning "they definitely will one way or another", or expect meaning "be prepared for the possibility"? If the latter, I'm strongly for it. Plot immunity is for jerks.</blockquote>

Verification