Table rules and conventions

[Crothian]

Well, I'm in Crothian's group - so nothing formal for us.... Though I think we have an unwritten rule that Frater is not allowed to wear his dwarf costume to gaming sessions...

Of course its unwritten...I'm not convinced the guy can read!!

 

[MPA]

I suspect his real question was, "how are you supposed to play a druid in a game with that rule?". (Or a ranger, or a mage with Polymorph, or...). Wanting to know how your own character's effing abilities work is not metagaming, at least not in any objectionable sense.

IR got it right. The situations you mention are exceptions to the rule, of course.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Thanks for all the replies guys. They have all been very helpful. I'll post the list that I'm probably going to go with in a couple of days.

Olaf the Stout

 

[The_Universe]

Well then maybe its been agood decade of gaming becasue I just haven't had those problems. I think that propblem players are going to be problem players no matter what rules one wants to write down.

I don't disagree - but it can be hard to identify potential problem players if you/they haven't pointed out behaviors you consider "problematic."

 

[Xath]

I had a DM who made an extensive list of rules. I had adhered to the theory that as adults, I didn't need a sheet of rules to tell me how to behave. But the rules themselves didn't really bother me. What did bother me was that the DM wanted us to sign our rules sheet, and then he collected them as a sort of contract. I don't need a legal contract to play D&D.

I dunno, I've always been under the assumption that if you had problems with someone, you could talk about them. But that turned out not to be a viable option in our group, and so the rules developed. They didn't really help out. The issues were still there, and I was left to stew in them because I was under the impression that talking wasn't an option, lest feelings be hurt.

So I left the group. I tried to maintain the friendship at the same time, but despite the efforts on my part, the former group members seem to have little desire to associate anymore. It's a shame; I thought our group had always prided itself on the fact that we were friends outside of gaming. But that no longer seems to be the case. Oh well.

I'm now part of a group that doesn't need written rules. As issues have arisen, we've talked about them right away, and it seems to be doing us well. I'd say the written rules aren't really for me.

 

[Crothian]

I don't disagree - but it can be hard to identify potential problem players if you/they haven't pointed out behaviors you consider "problematic."

I trust my instincts when talking to people. Most problems are easy to spot and uncover just by talking to and observing the person.

 

[The_Universe]

I trust my instincts when talking to people. Most problems are easy to spot and uncover just by talking to and observing the person.

I trust my instincts, as well. In my case, major issues didn't begin to arise until the game had progressed for nearly 2 years. Table rules may not be for everyone, but at the very least I've come to believe that being up front with everyone's expectations for the game is helpful. Most of the problems I encountered had to do with some players expecting one thing from the game, and others expecting something else. They both went along, expecting different things for the entire time, because there was no agreed-upon expectations for what was what in how the game would be played.

That's not the kind of thing that's always immediately apparent, but it is the kind of thing that a set of table rules can "head off at the pass." It certainly seems to have helped in my case, as going without only resulted in bruised feelings and lost gamers.

Besides, there aren't necessarily universal social mores, even among gamers. It might be perfectly acceptable to play videogames any time its not your turn in some groups, while in others, that's a deep and abiding annoyance. Even if you, as a player, don't care one way or the other, that's the kind of thing that table rules can lay out for someone who doesn't know.

It's certainly better put it on paper than have the DM (or another player) bitch them out for what they thought was perfectly acceptable.

 

[The_Universe]

I trust my instincts, as well. In my case, major issues didn't begin to arise until the game had progressed for nearly 2 years. Table rules may not be for everyone, but at the very least I've come to believe that being up front with everyone's expectations for the game is helpful. Most of the problems I encountered had to do with some players expecting one thing from the game, and others expecting something else. They both went along, expecting different things for the entire time, because there was no agreed-upon expectations for what was what in how the game would be played.

That's not the kind of thing that's always immediately apparent, but it is the kind of thing that a set of table rules can "head off at the pass." It certainly seems to have helped in my case, as going without only resulted in bruised feelings and lost gamers.

Besides, there aren't necessarily universal social mores, even among gamers. It might be perfectly acceptable to play videogames any time its not your turn in some groups, while in others, that's a deep and abiding annoyance. Even if you, as a player, don't care one way or the other, that's the kind of thing that table rules can lay out for someone who doesn't know.

It's certainly better put it on paper than have the DM (or another player) bitch them out for what they thought was perfectly acceptable.

As a quick corollary:

None of this is meant to suggest that table rules can make devils into angels. Instead, I have found them to be a way to prevent problems that seem minor at first from blossoming into serious difficulties. Really, it's not a matter of *how* one chooses to set unified expectations for the game and the group. It's just a matter of making sure that one does so. If you don't, there's eventually a price to be paid. I've paid it.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

I've experienced gamers that need rules and gamers that don't need rules... for the most part, the need for rules arose from inherent differences in play-style that at one time seemed fun, but quickly became tiring, over-dramatic, and insanely exhaustive. The players simply became obsessed with the drama to the point of completely ignoring the rules and the DM. As such, the DM reacted by attempting to dictate appropriate and inappropriate activity/action at the game table to avoid in-game conflicts that were spilling over into real life... *sighs* Alas, it didn't work out and many of the players in that game opted to leave the game.

My current group is full of friends that enjoy playing the game for the sake of playing the game. We respect each other and just have fun while we roll the dice. We've got some general table rules, but for the most part, we're all old friends that have an understanding of the inner workings of each other and of the game. Our play-styles, while different, compliment each other quite nicely and - as such - sort of negates the previous need for a solid rule-set.

 

[Crothian]

I trust my instincts, as well. In my case, major issues didn't begin to arise until the game had progressed for nearly 2 years. Table rules may not be for everyone, but at the very least I've come to believe that being up front with everyone's expectations for the game is helpful. Most of the problems I encountered had to do with some players expecting one thing from the game, and others expecting something else. They both went along, expecting different things for the entire time, because there was no agreed-upon expectations for what was what in how the game would be played.

I see. Instead of ding the rules things, before a campaign I sit and talk to the players and ask them what they expect, what play style they want, and other things of this nature. I find it works well to have a discussion on this stuff.