So what are your informal expectations...or rules, for a RPG?

[bloodtide]

So from another thread. Not that I think GM Agency is even a thing. But the idea is that RPGs in general have "informal expectations and even rules" that everyone playing the RPG must follow.

Even more so is the idea that all gamers.....somehow.....have mostly the same "informal expectations and even rules".

Of course I stand seemingly as the Lone Gamer that thinks all the above is balderdash.

I agree that any social group of people needs to have some sort of organization...even rules. At least the should. Often though this is part of a bigger 'gate keeping' of people just picking and choosing people in a social group or even friends. After that it just falls to the 'host' of the group or at least the 'leader' or at least the most 'socially aware'.

As the DM is often the host, they make rules for everyone except themselves, things like "don't smoke or vape in my house" or "don't steal my stuff".

Beyond that, the DM nearly always has to be the "Adult" of the group. The DM often has to make rules for all the players, because the players will outright refuse to even act like adults no matter their age. Things like "show up for the game on time", "don't insult others" and "don't cheat".

And then we get to the DM. As the maker of the rules, the DM does not have to follow any of the rules. And many won't make sense for the DM, like when the DM as host says "don't steal form me".

And, sure, I lot of DMs will "fall on their D20" and say "the informal expectations and even rules" are for "everyone". But this is again silly as most DMs would never even consider doing all the bad things most players will try to get away with in any game. Few DMs would say "oks..game pause...I gotta text my wife for twenty minutes" or "lets stop playing and watch some You Tube videos!". And even for the few DMs that might do such things, the players will be right there next to them and approving.

And that just leaves the crazy ones like "the DM can't cheat", that sound good...but are meaningless.

So....what are your "informal expectations and even rules" ? What are your Table "informal expectations and even rules"? Do you happen to know any of the "informal expectations and even rules" that "everyone" knows and follows without question?

 

[Tony Vargas]

The thing about informal expectations/unwritten rules is you don't really notice them until they're violated, and then you're just like, WTF, why would you show up at the table naked?

 

[Yora]

Are we talking about things that are not about the actual playing of the game?

 

[Reynard]

I am trying to parse the meaning behind the OP and all I can come up with is that the theoretical GM in this scenario is running a game at the Home For Wayward Chimpanzees.

Everyone comes to the table for their own reasons, GM included. I think it is certainly possible that a limited pool of participants can create groups of people that don't really mesh, but more often than not groups end up being composed of folks that are "good enough" -- especially when you are talking about games that take place in peoples' homes, as opposed to public venues where the expectation is that you can't turn players away.

As for the GM being the "leader" -- wrangling players is part of the job. Not because the GM is the only adult in the room -- unless, of course, the GM is literally the only adult in the room -- but because one of the most important jobs the GM has is managing pacing. Managing pacing often means managing focus. That can be redirecting a player from their phones, but it can also mean redirecting a player from a self indulgent in-play shopping trip.

 

[Moonmover]

Don't commit any real-world crimes inside my house.

Don't be rude to each other.

If you're having company over and you have more rules for guests beyond that, you should talk to then about it.

Wait, does this thread actually have to do with games?

 

[aramis erak]

Keep your gender identity and/or gender hostility issues out of my game, please. I don't care what your preferences are, but exploring them in my game makes me uncomfortable.

Be reasonably on time; if you're going to be late or miss, call, text, or discord message.

Don't reek.

I've given up on "Bring a pencil" and instead spend about $4 per year on bic pencils.

At the Store's back room: don't touch the game library.
Don't set beverages or snacks on the card mats.

In terms of what I expect i n a ruleset is a framework for resolution, reducing my agency as GM, and my players' agency, but making the process of genre enforcement and story generation through play much easier, (Creation within a scaffold is much easier than totally open space. I trade my authority over every action - itself a form of limit upon player agency - for a system that helps with trust, genre, and tone.)

 

[aco175]

Similar to what @Tony Vargas mentioned upthread, I do not think I would play with the people that need rules for common decency told to them. "Hey, thanks for coming to my house as a guest. Please do not swear in front of my children, rummage through my pantry for something to eat, or steal my stuff." I can see a few things like not putting your fingers on my artwork or statue if I had something like that or please use a coaster on the coffee table, but generally I should not have to tell people baseline expectations.

If I'm at a convention or game store, then more things may pop up. I guess I can tolerate some things for a few hours- more so the rude or swearing guy over the stealing or smelly guy.

 

[Umbran]

The DM often has to make rules for all the players, because the players will outright refuse to even act like adults no matter their age.

I suppose if you are playing in public venues (game stores and conventions, for example), you have very little control over who shows up, and that can lead to folks with little social investment in the game who may be willing to act like less than mature adults.

But, lots of us don't run/play games in such situations frequently. We are playing in our homes, with people who were specifically invited, most frequently with friends. And then this sounds like hyperbole or sarcasm, and that may leave folks wondering where this is going, or how to engage with the post.

 

[payn]

When we use italics and/or quotations for emphasis in text, we do so rarely as we respect each others ability to read and comprehend.

 

[Bill Zebub]

My assumptions:

• The player decides what their character thinks and does. Exceptions need to be justified as mechanics appropriate to the genre (magic, psionics, horror).
• Outside of PC thoughts and action declarations, the GM has unlimited power. "Infinite Dragons" and all that.
• Anybody who doesn't trust others at the table to use these powers wisely, or doesn't like how they choose to use those powers, should probably find other people to play with.

 

[bloodtide]

Are we talking about things that are not about the actual playing of the game?

Both.

The "GM Agency" does mention, vagely, that there are lots of "rule that are not rules" that a Gm must follow in the game.

But more so was the mention of "secret not rules" that are informal that "everyone" (except for some people like myself) know and follow automatically....and that bind the GM too.

As for the GM being the "leader" -- wrangling players is part of the job. Not because the GM is the only adult in the room -- unless, of course, the GM is literally the only adult in the room -- but because one of the most important jobs the GM has is managing pacing. Managing pacing often means managing focus. That can be redirecting a player from their phones, but it can also mean redirecting a player from a self indulgent in-play shopping trip.

The DM being forced to act like the adult...or really the only sane person is just too common. And yes there are a couple of immature DMs, but mostly this is a huge player problem.

But, lots of us don't run/play games in such situations frequently. We are playing in our homes, with people who were specifically invited, most frequently with friends. And then this sounds like hyperbole or sarcasm, and that may leave folks wondering where this is going, or how to engage with the post.

It does seem like there has been a huge shift in Gamer culture to the Walled, GateKeeper type game. Guess it's part of the whole shift in society of people having few or no friends, people not being even slightly social, and people not having acquaintances at all.

I do run three GateKept games, each with a group of friends that I interact with most days, and we sure do not let any outsiders into the game. These games need no "informal rules" as I know each of these people very well and even trust them.

But then I also run games for other people: acquaintances and strangers. Though it does seem that not a single poster anywhere online does this, it's a normal part of gaming to me. I don't have a harsh gatekeeping requirement that we must be the best of best friends before we can game together. For example, almost a year ago now some gamers came to me and asked me to run a 5E spelljammer game. I only barley knew two of them as acquaintances, the other three were complete strangers.

My Thursday night game started as five strangers to me. I answered an add for a "DM needed", and we started to game together. Though my game style is unlike most others as I have a lot of house rules that the players must agree too. And I'm zero tolerance: for example, you show up late to the game and you don't get to play. Do it twice and your kicked out. After years of gaming, I feel this is the only way to stop the outright abuse done by most players. Without such a rule way too many players would show up three hours late with a "sorry...yuck yuck yuck".

So then to Circle Back,,,,the DM Agency made mention of "informal rules" the DM must follow. Rules set forth by the players and willing player DMs. In order for DM Agency to exist...it must be taken away somehow.....

And, I just wonder what ARE those rules?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I only play with friends.

And I expect my friends to stab me in the front.

 

[Reynard]

The DM being forced to act like the adult...or really the only sane person is just too common.

I don't know who you are running games for, but, like, stop, for your own sake. Someone is going to get hurt.

 

[aco175]

So then to Circle Back,,,,the DM Agency made mention of "informal rules" the DM must follow. Rules set forth by the players and willing player DMs. In order for DM Agency to exist...it must be taken away somehow.....

I guess the main thing players can expect from DMs is that they are fair. If a rule is made one time or one night, then it should stand the next. Sometimes a rule is made on the spot and the DM can always come back and say they thought about it or posted to ENWorld and received some feedback and now the rule is X, but generally fair in rulings.

Being open and honest is generally a way to build trust in that the players need to trust the DM to make things fun or entertaining or both. The DM now has the responsibility to not steal things from the house or even punish the PCs unless there is a reason. Same for things such as giving out inspiration and not just to the person you secretly like.

Having this trust also means that you can cheat or not cheat with things like dice rolls or monster HP and powers. There are several other threads on this without taking from this thread.

 

[delericho]

I pretty much only have two:

I expect players to actually want to be there. I've encountered both the reluctant partner dragged along because they wanted to spend time with a significant other who wanted to play, and the kid dragged along by a parent. Neither has ended well.

And I expect players to make the game more enjoyable for everyone else at the table, not less so. One jerk is too many, and I've met more than one.

(I do also want players to actually buy into the premises of the game being played, and to create characters who actually want to get involved in the game in question, but both of those are really corollaries of #2.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

(I do also want players to actually buy into the premises of the game being played, and to create characters who actually want to get involved in the game in question, but both of those are really corollaries of #2.)

IMO it's always nice when somebody really gets into portraying their character, whether in 1st person or 3rd person, but if somebody just wants to play a pawn that's really ok, too.

 

[TwoSix]

But then I also run games for other people: acquaintances and strangers. Though it does seem that not a single poster anywhere online does this, it's a normal part of gaming to me. I don't have a harsh gatekeeping requirement that we must be the best of best friends before we can game together. For example, almost a year ago now some gamers came to me and asked me to run a 5E spelljammer game. I only barley knew two of them as acquaintances, the other three were complete strangers.

I mean, it's been a while since I've had to go into a new group, but I remember than when you go into a new group, you simply be on your best gaming behavior. Be clean, be attentive to the DM, go along with the general vibe of the gaming table, be proactive but not overzealous. Basically just Etiquette 101 stuff. Isn't that what most people do?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I pretty much only have two:

I expect players to actually want to be there. I've encountered both the reluctant partner dragged along because they wanted to spend time with a significant other who wanted to play, and the kid dragged along by a parent. Neither has ended well.

And I expect players to make the game more enjoyable for everyone else at the table, not less so. One jerk is too many, and I've met more than one.

(I do also want players to actually buy into the premises of the game being played, and to create characters who actually want to get involved in the game in question, but both of those are really corollaries of #2.)

Like actively more enjoyable; ie, every player needs to be looking for ways to make the game more fun for others? Or just "don't be a jerk"?

 

[Umbran]

It does seem like there has been a huge shift in Gamer culture to the Walled, GateKeeper type game.

Somewhat loaded language there. And I think you are making some big assumptions about how folks have been gaming, historically. I don't know that there's been any "huge shift".

 

[Tony Vargas]

Like actively more enjoyable; ie, every player needs to be looking for ways to make the game more fun for others?

That'd be a nice thing to strive for. Also, maybe deriving enjoyment from the successes/triumphs of other players, could be a good attitude to cultivate - or at least, not completely zoning out when it's not your turn?

It's easy to approach a game like D&D as a cooperative in a sense, but still competitive in others. Like, rivals, each trying to get the most treasure/exp/best items/etc, but cooperating to beat the monsters and generally survive. Heck, that may even be how it was originally "meant" to be played.