D&D 5E What are Your Table Rules?

[iserith]

I am sadly (or happily) far from servant DM, and "no" retains its virtue at my table.

While my Table Rules are generally directed at the players and, in with respect to Rule #2 in particular players interacting with other players, a DM can also follow the tenets of "Yes, and..." under the standard adjudication process. The player describes what he or she wants to do. The DM then narrates the results. The results don't have to mean success - failure isn't the same as saying "No" to what the player attempts. It's just saying that the attempt failed.

Now, I do still engage in some "Yes, and..." with the players if in the course of their action declarations they make reference to something that has not yet been established. I play by the general idea that if it hasn't been said aloud yet, then it doesn't really exist. So at times I'll latch onto something they said and build on it, adding it to the world as if it's straight out of my prep. This is particularly true when it relates to the character's backstory.

 

[Rhenny]

I love the ideas about making sure all players find reasons for their characters to adventure together (no PvP). With this guideline I have even allowed evil PCs in my campaigns.

I often model neutral and lawful evil npcs and how they generally work with others to achieve their goals so that players see how a common goal/cause can make interesting bedfellows.

During games, I also remind players to be aware of their own spot light time. I want them to actively try to balance and pass off the spot light to others.

I also remind players that they don’t need to make the perfect choice for their PCs turn. They should make choices that are fun and interesting, adding to the cooperative shared story...and do it quickly so the game continues ever forward.

 

[clearstream]

While my Table Rules are generally directed at the players and, in with respect to Rule #2 in particular players interacting with other players, a DM can also follow the tenets of "Yes, and..." under the standard adjudication process. The player describes what he or she wants to do. The DM then narrates the results. The results don't have to mean success - failure isn't the same as saying "No" to what the player attempts. It's just saying that the attempt failed.

I agree with you that failure isn't the same as "no". My concern was more toward when something cannot be applied in the manner proposed or is otherwise not possible.

I think players should be comfortable saying "no" to each other, although I would agree that the default should incline toward "yes, and..."

 

[Li Shenron]

6. If, for some reason, you choose to attack or otherwise hinder another player character, the target of the attack or hindrance will get to decide whether it hits, misses, or dice are involved.

I like this one.

In my case, I mostly enforce just a couple of table rules:

1) No attacking, stealing from, or betraying the party on your own initiative. If you want to incorporate something like that in the PCs story, everyone will have to agree with it otherwise it just doesn't happen.

2) Extremely sensitive topics such as rape, torture and violence against children are not in the game, period. I can make an exception for torture to be mentioned, but it won't be described.

3) Not necessarily in every game but in most cases, if a PC dies I ask the player if (s)he is OK with letting it happen and roll a new character, otherwise we figure out together some significant penalty that fits the story but carry on with the same PC.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

No stupid, "funny", or real world names.

 

[Imaculata]

1) No attacking, stealing from, or betraying the party on your own initiative. If you want to incorporate something like that in the PCs story, everyone will have to agree with it otherwise it just doesn't happen.

2) Extremely sensitive topics such as rape, torture and violence against children are not in the game, period. I can make an exception for torture to be mentioned, but it won't be described.

3) Not necessarily in every game but in most cases, if a PC dies I ask the player if (s)he is OK with letting it happen and roll a new character, otherwise we figure out together some significant penalty that fits the story but carry on with the same PC.

I agree with all three of these, that is how I handle them as well. Whether torture happens in my game depends on the setting and tone of the campaign. I am however not a fan of subjecting the player-characters to torture.

As for sexual violence, that always gets a big "no" from me. No fun game of D&D is improved by including a topic like that, which makes everyone at the table uncomfortable.

And yeah, no pvp. No attacking, no stealing, no betraying of the party unless agreed upon by the DM as part of the plot.

 

[Li Shenron]

I love the ideas about making sure all players find reasons for their characters to adventure together (no PvP). With this guideline I have even allowed evil PCs in my campaigns.

I often model neutral and lawful evil npcs and how they generally work with others to achieve their goals so that players see how a common goal/cause can make interesting bedfellows.

During games, I also remind players to be aware of their own spot light time. I want them to actively try to balance and pass off the spot light to others.

I also remind players that they don’t need to make the perfect choice for their PCs turn. They should make choices that are fun and interesting, adding to the cooperative shared story...and do it quickly so the game continues ever forward.

Absolutely!

I enforce my own "no PvP" table rule even if running an "evil PCs campaign". Note that this doesn't mean that those evil PCs need to be nice to each other... from a narrative point of view they can hurt each other all the time if they want to. But I won't let them start rolling dice to stab or pickpocket each other.

 

[Imaculata]

I enforce my own "no PvP" table rule even if running an "evil PCs campaign". Note that this doesn't mean that those evil PCs need to be nice to each other... from a narrative point of view they can hurt each other all the time if they want to. But I won't let them start rolling dice to stab or pickpocket each other.

This is a rule that I pushed very clearly when I started my ongoing pirate campaign. The players are all pirates, and so to many people in the world they will be seen as the bad guys. But in the end, I expect them to work as one crew, and they are the heroes of the story. They may be criminals, but they are still the "good guys" in some shade. I asked my players to create their characters in a manner where they have reasons to all be together, and STAY together.

I don't usually run evil campaigns, but when I do, I still expect the players to abide by the same rules of trying to work together and find a common goal.

 

[iserith]

No stupid, "funny", or real world names.

Oh no! I love punny names! But I definitely get that my game can be sillier in that regard than most people's games.

 

[Rhenny]

Oh no! I love punny names! But I definitely get that my game can be sillier in that regard than most people's games.

This variation from table to table, game to game is one of the most fabulous aspects of the D&D experience.

When I was a teen/young man, I loved going to The Rocky Horror Picture Show midnight movies in different cities because the audiences in each place created different lies/reactions to different parts of the movie. The movie was the same, but the feeling/experience was different.

DMs and players (table rules and campaign setting/vibe) add that spice/variety that I find refreshing.