D&D 5E What are Your Table Rules?

[Li Shenron]

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

I think they are OK if the whole tone of the game matches, but it can be terrible when the game is dead serious and one player breaks the tone with a silly PC.

At least that's my own view... I prefer consistency.

In addition, being funny is a tough job you need to be good at it. A stupid PC name can make you laugh 5 minutes and hate it for the rest of the game.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

The last person to show up has to sit on the floor. It's because there's simply not enough seats for everyone in the small apartment we play in, but it does have the bonus effect of motivating players to arrive on time.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

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

It can work in some games but, in my experience (YMMV), once you let silly names and real world names in, the players are far more likely to treat the world as a joke. That breaks verisimilitude making it harder to really enjoy the game and even to commit to the game.

If I was running Gamma World, however, I would actively encourage silly and/or real world names.

 

[Maestrino]

... if you're running something based on the Acquisitions Incorporated sourcebook, goofy names are highly encouraged.

 

[iserith]

It can work in some games but, in my experience (YMMV), once you let silly names and real world names in, the players are far more likely to treat the world as a joke. That breaks verisimilitude making it harder to really enjoy the game and even to commit to the game.

If I was running Gamma World, however, I would actively encourage silly and/or real world names.

Sure. My general position is that D&D is inherently silly (see also flumphs) so I am happy to lean into that. I think it's also a nice contrast to the difficulty of the challenges I typically present in my game. Hard, but funny.

 

[BookBarbarian]

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.

I'm pretty excited to try out my Half-Orc Ranger: Ker of the Tek'sas tribe. In battle he held his ground when others fled and earned the name "Wall"

I wonder how many sessions it will take before the rest of the table realizes I made "Wall" Ker Tek'sas Ranger. Especially if I start saying stuff like "The eyes of the Ranger are upon you" and "Look behind you, cause that's where the Ranger's gonna be."

 

[Oofta]

I'm pretty excited to try out my Half-Orc Ranger: Ker of the Tek'sas tribe. In battle he held his ground when others fled and earned the name "Wall"

I wonder how many sessions it will take before the rest of the table realizes I made "Wall" Ker Tek'sas Ranger. Especially if I start saying stuff like "The eyes of the ranger are upon you" and "Look behind you, cause that's where the Rangers gonna be."

Sadly, it may take forever depending on your group. I had a PC named Gordon Freeman back when the Half Life games were current. Relied primarily on ranged attacks, my DM let me use a crowbar as a club.

Nobody ever picked up on it.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Sadly, it may take forever depending on your group. I had a PC named Gordon Freeman back when the Half Life games were current. Relied primarily on ranged attacks, my DM let me use a crowbar as a club.

Nobody ever picked up on it.

I do fear that I am being too subtle.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, I’ve never really formally written up a set of table rules, although after reading this thread I kind of want to for my next campaign. Still, I do have some informal table etiquette, which I will probably try to translate into my table rules.

1. Play an effective adventurer. Characters who are unwilling to undergo dangerous quests, characters who refuse to work as part of a team or betray their allies are not effective adventurers.

2. When I ask, “what do you do,” state an action in terms of your goal and the approach your character takes to try and achieve it. This will insure that I have the information I need to adjudicate your action to the best of my ability.

3. When a check is required to resolve your action, I will ask for a check with an ability, a DC, and the potential cost of the action or consequences for failure. If you think one of your Proficiencies would help you to accomplish your goal, this is the time to ask if you can apply your proficiency bonus for it.

4. It is your responsibility to keep track of your own features and resources. Make sure you know what your own spells and maneuvers do and how to use them. If you take an action that you think aligns with one of your personality traits, ideals, bonds, or flaws, don’t wait for me to award inspiration, claim it for yourself.

I should probably add one about attentiveness during the game.

 

[aco175]

I like and agree with most everything here. My core group has been playing for a long time and most of these ideas are just things we do and have grown over the last 20 years. There are some table rules and general DM rules I design by for 5e, but I'll stick to table rules.

Feats- These are optional and need to be run past me before you can choose them.

Flanking- It just carried over from 4e and we kept it. There are several threads here to debate that if it is good or not.

Race- everyone just picks PHB races, so the 'no monsters' rule never comes up.

Rogues- For some reason they can backstab if they go first in combat, before the target. Not sure how this carried over, but it seems to stick.

Clerics- spells are regained in the morning, but never comes up.