What are the no-goes for you?

[Bumbles]

The idea of banning couples from a game is ludicrous.

Try not to be so derogatory, please. You can disagree without making characterizations like this. Me, my experiences has been that that kind of rule, while strict, is far more effective than me asking someone to not bring their personal problems into a game. That, I've found, is highly resented and leads to people being angry. Putting up with that, is not something I choose to do.

I don't play in every game with my wife - in fact, currently I don't play in any games with her - but she is definitely the first person I invite to play in every game I run, even though I know sometimes I'll be running something she doesn't care to play. I don't currently have any couples in my games apart from us, but I have no problem with the idea. The one major time when having a couple in the same game was a problem, it was their problem.

Well, as I clarified, I'm more talking about non-committed romantic relationships rather than marriage as it were. Marriage, while potentially a concern isn't as much of a red button. And if it remained the couple's problem, that'd be one thing, but in my experiences, it doesn't stay that way. And since, as I mentioned above, they resent being told to stop, it's better to just make it clear from the start.

Why do you think that choice is a ludicrous one? I can understand disagreement, but ludicrous is rather beyond disagreement, and into the "That's a dumb idea, nobody should ever do that" category. In fact, that sort of reaction is why I have that rule, because I just don't see the argument as worth having with people. I imagine little hope of resolution. Pessimistic? Perhaps, but you know what they say...once burned, twice shy. Twice burned, eight times shy, thrice burned, 81 times shy.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Why do you think that choice is a ludicrous one? I can understand disagreement, but ludicrous is rather beyond disagreement, and into the "That's a dumb idea, nobody should ever do that" category.

It's ludicrous because it wholly mischaracterises the problem as "romantic relationships", rather than the much more correct "people who can't keep their personal problems from interfering with the game".

The smoker player I mentioned no longer plays in my game because he broke up with his girlfriend, who also plays in the game, and they decided between them that she should be the one to stay in. Not awkward. Not a problem. Yes, had they not been dating then neither one would have had to leave the game, but who gives a damn? There will be other games (especially for him, which is why he decided to be the one to leave); especially as my friends and I get older, there are going to be more and more reasons why people have to quit games.

Six years ago, when I was in the game that was negatively affected by the behaviour of a player and her DM boyfriend? That player was a problem in every game, regardless of whether or not her boyfriend was running it. She was just a needy, selfish player who wanted attention paid to her character's story, and got bored and angry whenever she felt like she wasn't kicking arse or otherwise succeeding without much challenge. She didn't have to be living with the GM to be a problem in his game; likewise, his indulgence of her would have happened much the same way if they'd never dated, because he was the kind of DM who responded much too readily to whining about boredom or being "useless".

They were the problem, not their romantic relationship.

These days, I don't play with people immature enough to bring their personal problems to the table. They can obviously affect the game on one level - my friend deciding to quit is an obvious example - but adults know how to minimise otherwise unavoidable disruptions like that.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Mine - and yeah, I can get picky (for the last 20 years we have hosted the game group, so that helps).

No smokers... and I don't mean no smoking - my wife (and she and I game together) has asthma bad enough that being in a room with a smoker who hasn't lit up in the last two hours (but has not showered or changed closed since then) can trigger an attack. Health first.

No alcohol or drugs. During or playing with anyone under the influence. Both the wife and I are teetotalers, and every game where any kind of mind altering substance was involved ended up a complete disaster, so we just won't game with a group that does this - and we ban it at our house.

"R" rated gaming - explicit descriptions of Violence, gore, or sex. I'm outa there.

Games where the PCs are not "true blue heroes" saving the day. I get enough shades of grey in the real world, I game to escape that kind of stuff (genre wise we tend to play 4-color supers and save-the-world high fantasy). Evil games are right out.

Players that don't know the rules well enough to keep the game flowing. Big pet peeve - a new player, hey that's okay, but they can learn to get better. We primarily play the HERO system, and aside from the new guy who is learning the rules, we all have over 17 years experience with the system. That is the way we like it - knowing the rules means we can use our time at the game roleplaying and combat, not looking up rules.

No inter-party conflict. I have no interest in a game where the PCs are not working together for a common goal.

As a GM, there are no evil characters. And back in the days of 3.x no neutral ones either. Good or nothing. I also do not do the note thing - anything that the player wants to communicate with the GM can be done in front of the other players - they are adult enough not to act on the info, but it pretty much gets rid of interparty conflict.

 

[Bumbles]

It's ludicrous because it wholly mischaracterises the problem as "romantic relationships", rather than the much more correct "people who can't keep their personal problems from interfering with the game".

Ah, I see. Well then, I will say that I do not consider the problem to be, at its root, anything other than "people who can't keep their personal problems from interfering with the game" but I have found I am unable to deal with the root of the problem, so my response is at another level.

I said this already, but perhaps you missed it? So while I can accept that you may fairly consider that the interpretation you have represented to be something ludicrous, it's not an accurate understanding of my position.

These days, I don't play with people immature enough to bring their personal problems to the table.

I wish the people I play with were as mature as yours are then.

 

[Mircoles]

Unrelated music?? What does that mean?

I like having music in the background, though I've found Gregorian chant to be a little too relaxing for background music.

As far as the thread topic goes, any illigal activity will make it a no go.

Smoking at the table, drunkeness or any lewd sexual behavior are also dealbreakers.

A Dm that routinely exibits bad Dming habits or simply just doesn't seem to know what he's doing is also a good reason to leave.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Unrelated music?? What does that mean?

"Related music" would be like a soundtrack for the game. That definitely has its place.

By "unrelated music", I mean like if someone's just playing an album they like, which is just as distracting as if the TV were on.

Ah, I see. Well then, I will say that I do not consider the problem to be, at its root, anything other than "people who can't keep their personal problems from interfering with the game" but I have found I am unable to deal with the root of the problem, so my response is at another level.

It's a wildly disproportionate response, if you ask me. I believe you that you can't see another solution, but I think the solution is obvious - don't play with idiots who can't keep personal crap out of the game.

I also, personally, can't really understand wanting to cut yourself off from opportunities like playing with your partner. I know some gamers are happy to be with nongamers, in the sense that they don't feel they're missing out on something by having a partner who's not into their hobby; what I don't get, though, is the idea that gaming without your partner would automatically be better than gaming with them could be.

 

[Bumbles]

It's a wildly disproportionate response, if you ask me.

I wouldn't disagree that it can be disproportionate at times, it is a sledgehammer of a solution, no argument here.

I believe you that you can't see another solution, but I think the solution is obvious - don't play with idiots who can't keep personal crap out of the game.

Well, so far I haven't been able to achieve better results that way. Obviously, you may have achieved such on your own, but I can only commend you for your fortune. Well, I suppose I could ask you for advice, but maybe that'd be another thread topic instead.

I also, personally, can't really understand wanting to cut yourself off from opportunities like playing with your partner.

Again, as I said before, wanting that is not part of it. The best analogy I can think of is like having a pet put down. Do most people want their pet to die? I don't think so, but they do want their pet to not suffer. Now I would never choose to put my pet down, but I do understand why people would do it.

I know some gamers are happy to be with nongamers, in the sense that they don't feel they're missing out on something by having a partner who's not into their hobby; what I don't get, though, is the idea that gaming without your partner would automatically be better than gaming with them could be.

Well, if you're getting that from my words, then you have me wrong, as I'm saying no such thing. Anyway, it seems to me your interepretation of my beliefs was in error, and that was what was contributing to your believing my position was ludicrous. Since I can now be assured you weren't on track with my meaning, I won't worry about it. And I've made enough of an attempt to explain that I feel no shame about stopping here. Much like with regards to relationships, I realize I can do no more.

 

[Lanefan]

Why all the PvP hate?

Others have said upthread that they play to have fun; that laughter is a prime requisite, and with this I wholeheartedly agree.

But at the same time they won't play in a game with, or allow, PvP action.

Yet in my experience some of the funniest sessions *evar* have come when the players have decided to have their characters throw down against each other...not necessarily in a lethal way (though it happens), but certainly trying to get each others' goat. That, and characters are going to have their own goals that may very well involve making sure at least one other party member doesn't make it back to town...

It also goes against another tenet that someone mentioned: letting the players play the characters they want. Not all those characters are going to be lawful team-first types, and nor should they be.

As for writing notes to the DM (or to other players), again it just makes sense. In a best-case scenario, player knowledge exactly equals character knowledge; thus some players will logically end up knowing things others won't, and can then share that information as they see fit. Failing that, the occasional blank note can certainly ratchet up the tension...

Lan-"some of us play vastly different games than others"-efan

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Why all the PvP hate?
Lan-"some of us play vastly different games than others"-efan

In my case, every time it has ever happened, it caused the campaign to implode. Every Single Time.

Others have different experiences. For me, I'll go with what I know, so I won't play in a game that has it.

 

[Mort]

Why all the PvP hate?

Others have said upthread that they play to have fun; that laughter is a prime requisite, and with this I wholeheartedly agree.

But at the same time they won't play in a game with, or allow, PvP action.

Because in 22 years of gaming I can think of maybe only 1 or 2 people who didn't take PvP way too personally. It has never, as far as I recall, actually contributed to a game. PvP has however led to hurt feelings and broken groups. A caveat, of course, comes with games with PCs actively competing, but those tend to be 1 shots or very short campaigns.

Yet in my experience some of the funniest sessions *evar* have come when the players have decided to have their characters throw down against each other...not necessarily in a lethal way (though it happens), but certainly trying to get each others' goat.

Competition, ribbing, trying to one-up each other can be great fun, and is not really PvP in the sense that you're not trying to get anyone killed.

That, and characters are going to have their own goals that may very well involve making sure at least one other party member doesn't make it back to town...

If your agenda involves getting one of the other PCs killed then (in all likelihood) you are having fun at the expense of one of the other players and to me that's a firm no-go.

It also goes against another tenet that someone mentioned: letting the players play the characters they want. Not all those characters are going to be lawful team-first types, and nor should they be.

There should be a balance between letting a player play the character they want and letting them disrupt the fun of others. If the character someone wants is disruptive to the other players, to me that's bad and a no-go.

As for writing notes to the DM (or to other players), again it just makes sense. In a best-case scenario, player knowledge exactly equals character knowledge; thus some players will logically end up knowing things others won't, and can then share that information as they see fit. Failing that, the occasional blank note can certainly ratchet up the tension... .

Note passing is a different issue for me. The problem is that it usually just slows down the game too much for my taste.