PDA

View Full Version : my tabletop rules. Reasonable?



Mystic Muse
2009-08-31, 11:53 PM
1.No discussion or use of rape in any context whatsoever.
2.No evil characters unless you won't play stupid evil.
3.No PVP unless clearly provoked..
4.Cellphones are allowed. Texting is not unless it's important. you can take a 5 minute break every half an hour to text if need be.
5.Ask me before bringing your girlfriend/boyfriend to the game and don't expect preferential treatment for them.
6. preferably very few sexual double entendres. (I'll remember not to bring this up until it becomes a problem)



do these seem reasonable?

Elfin
2009-08-31, 11:54 PM
Quite reasonable.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-08-31, 11:57 PM
Why don't you just ban Monty Python quoting too, you FACIST!!!1!

But seriously, while some of them strike me as overzelous(no double entendres) and others I'm unsure about the purpose of(are you banning characters dating, players dating, or players bringing their SOs to the game), they don't seem unreasonable.

pingcode20
2009-08-31, 11:58 PM
The Double Entendre one seems a little odd, but it seems reasonable enough if you're having problems with people actually using them all the time.

If not, putting that rule in is just shoving beans up your nose.

Zovc
2009-08-31, 11:58 PM
I don't see any problem with it.

Mongoose87
2009-09-01, 12:00 AM
You be hard pressed to enforce that no couples rule with my group. Between the past campaign, ongoing campaign and the one to come, we have two couples who live together participating, the DM and his wife, and myself and my girlfriend.

Also, sexual double entendres are mandatory.

Woodsman
2009-09-01, 12:02 AM
This is reasonable.

I assume "no couples" mans players shouldn't date/bring dates, which makes sense if they break up. That could end poorly.

No double entendres is a bit odd, though. But, hey, your rules.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 12:04 AM
This is only for campaigns I run. not for ones I'm actually a player in.


the couples thing is because it'd be kind of awkward for two players to break up and then continue to meet with each other on a weekly basis. Especially if it's a rather brutal break up.

and double entrendres are fine. Just no sexual ones.

Roland St. Jude
2009-09-01, 12:05 AM
Seems fine to me though I wouldn't last a full session in your game. Just saying "no double entendres" means I'd hear them everywhere and/or try to sneak them in everywhere.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-01, 12:05 AM
I see no problem with it, but I personally wouldn't play with your group. (Due to the first and to a less extent the sixth, and second)

Still, if you don't have fun if those things are allowed then just make sure your players understand in advance they can't do that there so they have the choice of whether to play.

Kylarra
2009-09-01, 12:06 AM
Seems fine to me though I wouldn't last a full session in your game. Just saying "no double entendres" means I'd hear them everywhere and/or try to sneak them in everywhere.
Same here. Nothing provokes the imagination like a censorship!

Lycan 01
2009-09-01, 12:06 AM
1.No discussion or use of rape, torture or anything like that in any context whatsoever.
2.No evil characters unless you can show me good reason to allow you one.
3.No PVP.
4.Cellphones are allowed. Texting is not.
5.No couples
6. no sexual double entendres.


do these seem reasonable?

1: Understandable, and ditto at my table.
2: Same, for the most part. My parties tend to be split evenly between Good, Neutral, and Evil, and it always balances out RP-wise.
3: Um... Actually, I've run Call of Cthulhu games where team-killing was actually required to unlock the next part of the story. On more than one occassion... :smallamused:
4: Texting is okay, until it gets annoying. Once every 5-10 minutes, fine. Twice a minute - red flag.
5: My GF is a member of almost every RPG group I run. Making such a rule would be a bad idea for me. :smalltongue:
6: Only if they're very witty and help to lighten the mood.



So, overall, I'd say that your rules are quite reasonable. Mine are just a bit different... :smalltongue:

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-09-01, 12:08 AM
I feel 1-4 are reasonable, but 5 and 6... unless you have specifically had problems with these topics in previous games which were disruptive to the game, I have a hard time seeing them as reasonable.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 12:10 AM
1:
3: Um... Actually, I've run Call of Cthulhu games where team-killing was actually required to unlock the next part of the story. On more than one occassion... :smallamused:


see I'm not running call of Cthulhu. Yet.:smallamused:

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 12:12 AM
I feel 1-4 are reasonable, but 5 and 6... unless you have specifically had problems with these topics in previous games which were disruptive to the game, I have a hard time seeing them as reasonable.

like I said before I want to avoid the possible awkwardness of two members of the couple meeting week after week when they probably don't want to see each other.

six is mainly because they disgust me. I don't find them funny and you should be able to go for two to three hours without making a crass joke.

Wizzardman
2009-09-01, 12:13 AM
1.No discussion or use of rape in any context whatsoever.
2.No evil characters unless you can show me good reason to allow you one.
3.No PVP.
4.Cellphones are allowed. Texting is not.
5.No couples
6. preferably very few sexual double entendres.


do these seem reasonable?

Define "good reason" in terms of creating evil characters.

Is "desire to rule through manipulation and deceit" acceptable? How about "loyal but ruthless"? Or "worldly to the point of being cruel and/or callous"?

If so, you're good. Such characters can be fun if done right.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 12:16 AM
it means you don't violate rule one or three. You don't torture enemies (when you know the other PCs are looking) you aren't stupid evil and I'm not running a campaign geared towards only evil and neutral characters. That's what it means. If you can convince me you can play in harmony with the rest of the group fine.

pingcode20
2009-09-01, 12:21 AM
Seriously? If you don't already have a real problem with double entendres happening all the time at the table, putting in a rule to ban them means you'll have to throw out all your players within seconds.

Just don't bring it up until it becomes an actual problem, and your players won't have to resist the urge to do it every five seconds.

ZeroNumerous
2009-09-01, 12:21 AM
2.No evil characters unless you can show me good reason to allow you one.
...
5.No couples
6. preferably very few sexual double entendres.

I see no purpose behind these.

1) You're the DM, but you're not there to dictate a story to the players. If they want play an evil character, then you should not restrict them from doing so. If they play stupid evil then realistic consequences kills them off.

2) ..I don't even understand the rule. No couple of what? Of people? Shoes? Bunnies? Melons? Oooh. Double entendre.

3) I'll double your entendre, if you know what I mean.

Kylarra
2009-09-01, 12:27 AM
1) You're the DM, but you're not there to dictate a story to the players. If they want play an evil character, then you should not restrict them from doing so. If they play stupid evil then realistic consequences kills them off.
I disagree. It is perfectly reasonable to request that people not play evil characters if that's not the sort of game you want to play. He's more lenient than I am, as he allows for the possibility for a well rationalized evil character, I simply disallow it for non-evil campaigns.

Mongoose87
2009-09-01, 12:31 AM
So, what would you do if two people who met through your campaign started going out? Eg. My girlfriend and I met through her brother-in-law, our DM, and her sister. Would you tell us "Break up or be banzored?"

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 12:35 AM
So, what would you do if two people who met through your campaign started going out? Eg. My girlfriend and I met through her brother-in-law, our DM, and her sister. Would you tell us "Break up or be banzored?"

here's what I'd do. I'd ask you if you both thought you could avoid the awkwardness when it comes to a break up. If not I'd ask you kindly to both leave. If you both think you can and it turns out you can't in the end I'll only ban whoever I like less. I won't force you to break up with each other if you want to keep playing my game but I also won't allow you to both join my campaign If you're already a couple.

sound more fair?

Yahzi
2009-09-01, 12:40 AM
1.No discussion or use of rape in any context whatsoever.
Not even to mention killing the bad guys for doing it?


2.No evil characters unless you can show me good reason to allow you one.
3.No PVP.
I solve both of these by having a world so freaking dangerous that the PCs have to depend on each other or die.

On the other hand, if you run a world where adventurers can hang out in taverns until they feel like killing something, that might not work for you.


4.Cellphones are allowed. Texting is not.
This is silly. You only need one rule to replace all this:

If you don't say what your character is doing when it's your turn, you do nothing.


5.No couples(since nobody seems capable of getting this No boyfriend/girlfriend or any other combo couples)
You have so many players you can rule out couples? Lucky you...


6. preferably very few sexual double entendres. (I'll remember not to bring this up until it becomes a problem)
You'd prefer single entendres?

Seriously, it sounds like you want to run a world which contains no sex. If you're playing tactical minis, that's fine; but for role-playing, it's just plain hard to imagine.

PLUN
2009-09-01, 12:43 AM
No couples is flat out impossible to enforce. Expressing something along the lines of not wanting any personal stuff to get into the game is easier to execute. You can't enforce this as a 'rule' either, but it's a social contract - you asking them, as a person, to respect how you have fun with your friends.

tl;dr Entirely reasonable. Reply end.

Still here? Okay, preachy version:

Cellphones, PVP, evil characters are very much your GM style. When the players enter the game, then yes, they should abide by these rules as you have specified. Perfectly reasonable.

No rape seems to be one that carries into when you play games as a PC too. If you're not comfortable with it, it's a personal thing people in a polite society need to respect. It may well go beyond the gaming table, in what conversations are had over snacks, etc. Forgive your group for forgetting this from time to time; people mess up or get engrossed, but never be afraid to remind you are not comfortable with this subject matter, and if they're not respecting you and not taking then its time to evaluate if you want to be in this situation. Some people are just stupid, won't get the hint. I had one guy who when I objected to a character being raped and how I did not like the idea of it one bit retorted with 'there are lots of them, its what they'd do' repeatedly - people lack empathy by mood, event or nature. Ending the game/Walking away is always a strong measure of dissaproval, and reasonable people should pick up on it without judgement.

Never bow down to peer pressure on that one. Do not embrace groupthink. You are not being a drag, you are not failing to think it through, you are not being unreasonable. One of the great sins of the social event is peer pressure - you will regret considering it. If you have moral lines, they are yours and not subject to open user editing.

Double entendres. I'm not sure if these make you uncomfortable. If they do, see the above two paragraphs. It's just something you do not like to deal with in a setting you call 'fun', people will need to be grown up and deal.

If not, it's a DM rule - im guessing in this case they are frequent offenders of breaking up the games tone and pacing. In this case I humbly suggest, as they're being social make the penalties friendly, a small GP fine or a three strike loss of an action point/hit point - make it fun but noticable. Marvel Super Heroes did this for swearing - it was an XP loss as you were damaging the tone the game wanted. People get very upset over XP though, and it WAS to enforce a Marvel tone of language for the characters. Something they'll miss, but not a lot. Or you know, if you think it's SERIOUSLY damaging the game, treat it as a DM rule, just as valid as the other DM rules, to be followed.

I hope my fanatical, dogmatic ranting help you make up your mind on what a 'rule' really means to you, how much you hold it sacred. I speak from the ehart about serious matters, but in all conversations with those emotional water pockets called humans i'd advise a generous pinch of salt and what works for you. Painful groupthink ftl, remember!

/soapbox

Kylarra
2009-09-01, 12:46 AM
here's what I'd do. I'd ask you if you both thought you could avoid the awkwardness when it comes to a break up. If not I'd ask you kindly to both leave. If you both think you can and it turns out you can't in the end I'll only ban whoever I like less. I won't force you to break up with each other if you want to keep playing my game but I also won't allow you to both join my campaign If you're already a couple.

sound more fair?
If my DM made the ultimatum of my SO or the game in that fashion, I'd be leaving, fast. :smallsigh:

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 12:48 AM
Not even to mention killing the bad guys for doing it?

there are other ways to say you want to kill the badguy for doing something by generalizing and not actually mentioning the deed.

I solve both of these by having a world so freaking dangerous that the PCs have to depend on each other or die.

On the other hand, if you run a world where adventurers can hang out in taverns until they feel like killing something, that might not work for you.

well right now they're just starting playing. we've been through maybe five sessions.


This is silly. You only need one rule to replace all this:

If you don't say what your character is doing when it's your turn, you do nothing.

hehehehehehehe. sounds good.
You have so many players you can rule out couples? Lucky you...

I'm sorry I don't quite get this comment
You'd prefer single entendres?

Seriously, it sounds like you want to run a world which contains no sex. If you're playing tactical minis, that's fine; but for role-playing, it's just plain hard to imagine.

quite honestly that is what I'd like to do. Is that honestly too much to expect?

Wings of Peace
2009-09-01, 12:49 AM
This is only for campaigns I run. not for ones I'm actually a player in.


the couples thing is because it'd be kind of awkward for two players to break up and then continue to meet with each other on a weekly basis. Especially if it's a rather brutal break up.

and double entrendres are fine. Just no sexual ones.

Wait wait... they make non-sexual ones? What the hell? When did this happen?!

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 12:50 AM
Double entendre is just a word or phrase with two meanings. the other meaning is GENERALLY sexual. not always. the non sexual one are more commonly referred to as puns. although there are some sexual puns as well. here I'll show you an example.

"things are unraveling boy!"

Jafar casts some sort of magic on the magic carpet and forces it to unravel. there.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-09-01, 12:56 AM
Now that you've clarified your no couples rule, I can say that, no, you're not being reasonable. Quite a few players I know either met their SOs at games or introduced their SOs to gaming, and in either case, would be very offended if asked to exclude them.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 12:58 AM
Like I said. If you honestly think it won't be awkward if you break up and you'll still be capable of seeing each other on a weekly/biweekly/monthly/ whatever basis then I don't care. If you don't then I don't want you bringing problems like that to the tabletop. I'll allow it for a campaign or two but if It turns out I'm right I'm definitely enforcing the rule.

PLUN
2009-09-01, 01:01 AM
This sounds like something that is up to the recently split up couple to decide, if they are ready to see eachother in a social occasion or not. They may be wrong, they may be right, but it's their dispute and they'll work on it. What you can request is that any personal spats aren't played out through people in or brought into the game. That's something that affects you (no social mixer is enhanced by a domestic, romantic or otherwise), and it can poison a game. There's no neat rule for this one, it's just something to be discussed in a private and dignified manner based entirely on the context of the situation and using a heap of personal judgement.

Mongoose87
2009-09-01, 01:06 AM
A question about the rape topic, and I'd like everyone's input on this:
Does this actually come up often enough that you need rules for dealing with it? I've never even come close in one of my games.

Kaun
2009-09-01, 01:09 AM
1.No discussion or use of rape in any context whatsoever.
2.No evil characters unless you can show me good reason to allow you one.
3.No PVP.
4.Cellphones are allowed. Texting is not. I will skip your turn.
5.No couples(since nobody seems capable of getting this No boyfriend/girlfriend or any other combo couples) [needs verification]
6. preferably very few sexual double entendres. (I'll remember not to bring this up until it becomes a problem)


do these seem reasonable?


1. I prefer my words to mirror reality to a certain extent. I just see this as ignoring things you dont like rather then dealing with them.
2.meh cross alignment party's can be a pain in the ass but they can also seem to spawn a lot of interesting story's. I would narrow this down to no chaotic stupid.
3.Sounds a bit hello kitty to me, i have had players do things both when im playing or DMing that the only justifiable response to was a good killin'.
4. My players have families and kids they generally respect the game enough not to get involved in un-necessary phone calls during it but asking them to leave there phones at home or in the car is a bit far fetched IMHO.
5 Yeah couples can be a risk but so can friends or even complete strangers playing together.
6. Like most things when im playing or DMing, if it makes people laugh its a good thing if it doesn't then it was probably dumb.

PLUN
2009-09-01, 01:11 AM
A question about the rape topic, and I'd like everyone's input on this:
Does this actually come up often enough that you need rules for dealing with it? I've never even come close in one of my games.

This rape topic, or the other half dozen we've had descend into academic high ground scrabbling and justifyably lockable nonsense?[/bitter]

No, it has never came up enough for it to actually be a rule. Example, starting a DH game, I asked my players what they'd like to taboo, what I could write into the Ruinous Powers. This is ironically a great time to say no rape. They didn't. It was agreed if they saw a line about to be crossed, they'd pipe up.

It was argued to me by a particularly astute player a good 'mature' game is never going to cover all content in the primer. I see the logic behind that. An environment where the game can be interrupted, retconned and discussed without judgement or fuss is the desirable one. I am inclined these days towards that way of thinking.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-09-01, 01:11 AM
A question about the rape topic, and I'd like everyone's input on this:
Does this actually come up often enough that you need rules for dealing with it? I've never even come close in one of my games.Depends on the game and the players. In some games it's an acknowledged possibility, especially darker ones or ones that play up morality and mortality. Basically, if you're running a gritty game with mature players who are playing it seriously, it can come up and be handled well, as an opportunity for character development for all involved. It can also be used for cheap laughs by an immature group or one that's not used to the seriousness of the issue.

In fact, @OP: How old is your group? That may explain some of these rules.

Kaun
2009-09-01, 01:11 AM
A question about the rape topic, and I'd like everyone's input on this:
Does this actually come up often enough that you need rules for dealing with it? I've never even come close in one of my games.

I wouldn't have thought so, i have mentioned it once or twice in games when packs of bandits or marauders are wandering about the landscape but never in much detail.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-01, 01:14 AM
A question about the rape topic, and I'd like everyone's input on this:
Does this actually come up often enough that you need rules for dealing with it? I've never even come close in one of my games.

Honestly? I think it depends on the type of game you're running. The more RP heavy the game is, the more likely it is to come up. Although personally I don't consider it a problem at all, in fact I think it's a great tone setter.

It does come up pretty often though in games I play in, there's usually at least an instance of it in someones backstory or as something an NPC did or just as flavor for a war scene. It's just kinda... there, when it belongs. Sex is part of the world, the only ways to avoid this are to either focus away from roleplaying so it never comes up, or to decide in advance to edit it out (which in my experience tends to produce a fake feeling in the setting).

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 01:15 AM
1. I prefer my words to mirror reality to a certain extent. I just see this as ignoring things you dont like rather then dealing with them.
2.meh cross alignment party's can be a pain in the ass but they can also seem to spawn a lot of interesting story's. I would narrow this down to no chaotic stupid.
3.Sounds a bit hello kitty to me, i have had players do things both when im playing or DMing that the only justifiable response to was a good killin'.
4. My players have families and kids they generally respect the game enough not to get involved in un-necessary phone calls during it but asking them to leave there phones at home or in the car is a bit far fetched IMHO.
5 Yeah couples can be a risk but so can friends or even complete strangers playing together.
6. Like most things when im playing or DMing, if it makes people laugh its a good thing if it doesn't then it was probably dumb.

1.I'll be frankly honest here. This happened to people I know. I will not find it funny and used in any context I will find it offensive because you're making light of a horrible crime that happened to somebody I know. even if it didn't happen to somebody I know there's no reason to discuss this or use it in any context anyway.
2. I've given my reasons behind this.
3. oh there are exceptions. I just don't see PVP ending well in most groups.
4. um what? All I'm forbidding is texting. I know it's unreasonable to expect somebody to leave their cellphone. there could be an emergency or something which is why I think signs that say "silence" or "turn off your cell phone." are bad.
5. true. which is why I'll allow this for a campaign or two and look at the end result.
6. There are other ways to make people laugh without being rude.

Kylarra
2009-09-01, 01:17 AM
Like I said. If you honestly think it won't be awkward if you break up and you'll still be capable of seeing each other on a weekly/biweekly/monthly/ whatever basis then I don't care. If you don't then I don't want you bringing problems like that to the tabletop. I'll allow it for a campaign or two but if It turns out I'm right I'm definitely enforcing the rule.Do you also forbid your friends from playing with you? Seems like it'd be trouble if you suddenly stopped being friends. :smallconfused:

Wings of Peace
2009-09-01, 01:23 AM
I think relationships is a debatable one at least to me . If it's friend Jim and his one month Mary then I'd say no till they dated a bit more. If it's friend Craig and his three year spark I'd say go.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 01:23 AM
Depends on the game and the players. In some games it's an acknowledged possibility, especially darker ones or ones that play up morality and mortality. Basically, if you're running a gritty game with mature players who are playing it seriously, it can come up and be handled well, as an opportunity for character development for all involved. It can also be used for cheap laughs by an immature group or one that's not used to the seriousness of the issue.

In fact, @OP: How old is your group? That may explain some of these rules.

I have two groups. They both have people from 12-18 and both have people that are incredibly immature.

rule 1 is because I hate the very thought of this crime and it is in no way justified so I don't want it discussed at my table. that's it end of discussion. If it's in your character's backstory fine. However I don't want my players saying "oh we got raped." or "I would totally rape that girl." or anything like that. I also don't want them to contemplate doing it in game. It takes the game in a direction I'd simply rather not go.

rule 2 is because I hang out with these people on a regular basis and I know that most of them would play a stupid evil character and nothing else.

rule 3. like I said there are exceptions. the PC defects to the enemy's side or their hogging all the loot? they asked for it.
4. turns take too long and we hardly ever play for more than two and a half hours.
5. I've made my reasons for this.
6. like I said. I hang out with these guys on a regular basis and they consistently say sexual double entendres. they can hold off saying them for two and a half hours once a week. sometimes we don't even meet once a week.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 01:25 AM
Do you also forbid your friends from playing with you? Seems like it'd be trouble if you suddenly stopped being friends. :smallconfused:

:smallsigh: I've said this three times. I'll try this out. If it turns out the times it happens the players get by I'll allow it. If not it doesn't matter who it is yes I will ban them. After I've made clear I'm using this rule and that it's because it hasn't worked out in the past I don't see why You'd try to get past this rule.

Kaun
2009-09-01, 01:26 AM
1.I'll be frankly honest here. This happened to people I know. I will not find it funny and used in any context I will find it offensive because you're making light of a horrible crime that happened to somebody I know. even if it didn't happen to somebody I know there's no reason to discuss this or use it in any context anyway.

4. um what? All I'm forbidding is texting. I know it's unreasonable to expect somebody to leave their cellphone. there could be an emergency or something which is why I think signs that say "silence" or "turn off your cell phone." are bad.


1. I by no means mean glorify it or allow your players to play through it, and yes its a horrible thing but when it comes down to it so is murder, assault, theft, intimidation and arson all of which seem to be corner stones of DnD games.

4. Sorry miss read this one. thought it said cellphones aren't allowed.

Kylarra
2009-09-01, 01:27 AM
:smallsigh: I've said this three times. I'll try this out. If it turns out the times it happens the players get by I'll allow it. If not it doesn't matter who it is yes I will ban them.If it's happening often enough for you to be making rules about it, I would suggest the problem isn't the base issue of dating, but one or more of your player's dating habits.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 01:29 AM
[QUOTE=Kyuubi;6838988]1.I'll be frankly honest here. This happened to people I know. I will not find it funny and used in any context I will find it offensive because you're making light of a horrible crime that happened to somebody I know. even if it didn't happen to somebody I know there's no reason to discuss this or use it in any context anyway.

4. um what? All I'm forbidding is texting. I know it's unreasonable to expect somebody to leave their cellphone. there could be an emergency or something which is why I think signs that say "silence" or "turn off your cell phone." are bad.
[QUOTE]

1. I by no means mean glorify it or allow your players to play through it, and yes its a horrible thing but when it comes down to it so is murder, assault, theft, intimidation and arson all of which seem to be corner stones of DnD games.



there are justifiable reasons for murder. Assault is generally because the person is a threat to life. Theft is also justifiable and in some cases good and through Intimidation you can make your foe surrender and allow them to get away with their life.

There are ways to justify all of these. Even torture is justifiable. I see no way to Justify rape and so it is not allowed.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-09-01, 01:29 AM
1.I'll be frankly honest here. This happened to people I know. I will not find it funny and used in any context I will find it offensive because you're making light of a horrible crime that happened to somebody I know. even if it didn't happen to somebody I know there's no reason to discuss this or use it in any context anyway.My ealier post:
Depends on the game and the players. In some games it's an acknowledged possibility, especially darker ones or ones that play up morality and mortality. Basically, if you're running a gritty game with mature players who are playing it seriously, it can come up and be handled well, as an opportunity for character development for all involved. It can also be used for cheap laughs by an immature group or one that's not used to the seriousness of the issue.

In fact, @OP: How old is your group? That may explain some of these rules.Bolded the important part.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 01:30 AM
sure it CAN come up and be handled well but that doesn't mean it will. This also requires me to have an NPC willing to do that and I have a feeling most if not all of my table would say "dude not cool at all." in response to it happening. however I don't know that all of my table wouldn't have anything against this and so I'm banning it in this and all campaigns of mine.

Pika...
2009-09-01, 01:33 AM
1.No discussion or use of rape in any context whatsoever.
2.No evil characters unless you can show me good reason to allow you one.
3.No PVP.
4.Cellphones are allowed. Texting is not. I will skip your turn.
5.No couples(since nobody seems capable of getting this No boyfriend/girlfriend or any other combo couples) [needs verification]
6. preferably very few sexual double entendres. (I'll remember not to bring this up until it becomes a problem)


do these seem reasonable?


Personally I think so.

The no couples thing depends highly on the group you want to form in my opinion (aka "guy's night out" vs. "old time friends, and two got married"), but other than that.


In fact, whenever I meet a new DM I have a talk about the rape thing. I always say that I feel roleplaying is escapism to everyone in one way or another, and there are three things I refuse to escape to:

Rape. (Don't even want to go there.)
Child abuse. (Studying to be an elementary school teacher, so I will be seeing enough of this sadly. :smallfrown:)
I will not play an evil character. The rest of the party of course can play whatever they like, but not me.



Don't get me wrong, if savage orcs manage to raid a town the PCs failed to protect of course they'd kill women and children, but that is not necessary in my opinion.

Wings of Peace
2009-09-01, 01:33 AM
[QUOTE=Kaun;6839019][QUOTE=Kyuubi;6838988]1.I'll be frankly honest here. This happened to people I know. I will not find it funny and used in any context I will find it offensive because you're making light of a horrible crime that happened to somebody I know. even if it didn't happen to somebody I know there's no reason to discuss this or use it in any context anyway.

4. um what? All I'm forbidding is texting. I know it's unreasonable to expect somebody to leave their cellphone. there could be an emergency or something which is why I think signs that say "silence" or "turn off your cell phone." are bad.


there are justifiable reasons for murder. Assault is generally because the person is a threat to life. Theft is also justifiable and in some cases good and through Intimidation you can make your foe surrender and allow them to get away with their life.

There are ways to justify all of these. Even torture is justifiable. I see no way to Justify rape and so it is not allowed.

I'd not allow rape for making rp uncomfortable or morally offending people but not justifiable? More than half a million women in America alone get raped and much of the time it is largely for feelings of power rather than pure sexual tension. I would argue the point that in a world where power is a reality altering nigh tangible thing there would be those of the frame of mind that rape is one way of expressing their powers ability to allow them to dominate lesser entities.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-09-01, 01:33 AM
I have two groups. They both have people from 12-18 and both have people that are incredibly immature.

rule 1 is because I hate the very thought of this crime and it is in no way justified so I don't want it discussed at my table. that's it end of discussion. If it's in your character's backstory fine. However I don't want my players saying "oh we got raped." or "I would totally rape that girl." or anything like that. I also don't want them to contemplate doing it in game. It takes the game in a direction I'd simply rather not go.

rule 2 is because I hang out with these people on a regular basis and I know that most of them would play a stupid evil character and nothing else.

rule 3. like I said there are exceptions. the PC defects to the enemy's side or their hogging all the loot? they asked for it.
4. turns take too long and we hardly ever play for more than two and a half hours.
5. I've made my reasons for this.
6. like I said. I hang out with these guys on a regular basis and they consistently say sexual double entendres. they can hold off saying them for two and a half hours once a week. sometimes we don't even meet once a week.

This makes more sense. Due to immaturity on the part of the players, screws have to be tightened. Although, if they were as bad as you claim, I'd just find a different crew to game with.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 01:40 AM
This makes more sense. Due to immaturity on the part of the players, screws have to be tightened. Although, if they were as bad as you claim, I'd just find a different crew to game with.

you see I would but they're pretty much all I have. I can't do a session at my FLGS because I have school and I have to get some of the power gamer out of me before I start handing out weapons that deal 4d12 on a normal hit and can be used as ranged weapons. In 4th edition. before you ask yes I actually did that once. I've learned since then.

Kaun
2009-09-01, 01:44 AM
there are justifiable reasons for murder. Assault is generally because the person is a threat to life. Theft is also justifiable and in some cases good and through Intimidation you can make your foe surrender and allow them to get away with their life.

There are ways to justify all of these. Even torture is justifiable. I see no way to Justify rape and so it is not allowed.

True enough i guess and its your game so if you don't think it should be mentioned then that is more then reason enough for it not to be.

Just adding some fuel for thought on the justification theory tho... after spending a fair bit of time working around the legal system and in prison systems i have found that the prisons are full of people who did some truly horrible things and are more then completely convinced that what they did was justified.

More often then not justification is all in the eye of the beholder.

in closing its your game so you have every right to set the rules, as long as your players know them before they sit down to play then they are perfectly reasonable.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-09-01, 02:07 AM
OK I had all kinds of things I was going to say about the no couples rule until you said this

I have two groups. They both have people from 12-18 and both have people that are incredibly immature.

That is the one thing you could have possibly said that (in my mind anyway) would justify a rule like that.

Personally I met my husband in a game. key difference being that we were adults. Adults handle relationships very differently than teenagers. I can understand wanting to ban relationships in your game when some of your players are probably at an stage in their lives where they are rather melodramaticaly going through relationships.

(teenagers please dont yell at me about that, you're young enjoy yourselves,{but not too much:smallwink:})

Draz74
2009-09-01, 02:13 AM
Yeah, if I were in your group, the no-couples rule is probably the only one I would have a problem with. And even that wouldn't have been a problem when I was a teenager.

And it still wouldn't be, unless there was actually a girl in the group I was attracted to ... which, sadly, has not yet happened in any of my gaming groups.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 02:17 AM
oh and of course I'd make exceptions for long running relationships and marriages. neither are by any means permanent but they're more likely to last than becky and steve or cindy and susie who've only been going out for a week.


so sue me for getting both possibilities in.

ericgrau
2009-09-01, 02:44 AM
They all seem fine but as said you might have trouble with people sticking to the "pg rated" rules. I don't tend to mind such things myself so I can't say exactly what to do.

Mad Wizard
2009-09-01, 02:48 AM
These answers are based on reading the OP and a quick scan of the topic, so take them with a grain of salt.


1.No discussion or use of rape in any context whatsoever.
2.No evil characters unless you can show me good reason to allow you one.
3.No PVP.
4.Cellphones are allowed. Texting is not. I will skip your turn.
5.No couples(since nobody seems capable of getting this No boyfriend/girlfriend or any other combo couples) [needs verification]
6. preferably very few sexual double entendres. (I'll remember not to bring this up until it becomes a problem)

1. Perfectly reasonable. You should be able to set some boundaries on topics as DM, and those kinds of things tend to make people uncomfortable.
2. Also reasonable, but I think it could be worded better. Perhaps "no evil characters unless you can prove it won't cause unnecessary inter-party conflict," since that seems to be why you're banning them in the first place.
3. This is something I generally put in my games. Unless it's specifically included and everyone knows it, it's generally just annoying and messes with the game.
4. Reasonable.
5. I can see the reasoning behind this, but I'm curious how you intend to enforce something like it. You've said you'd make exceptions for long-running relationships, but what if two people happen to meet through your game? How do you expect to dictate whether or not they become a couple? Will you kick them out if they do? You said you want this rule because of what happens if they break up, so why not just deal with it if/when that happens?
6. I'm not sure this is really something you need to spell out at the beginning of the game, but it looks like you realize that. Just ask them to cut it out if there's too much of it.

In general, these are actually very similar to the rules I have, so I like them. Five and six are the only ones that seem a bit odd.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 03:13 AM
These answers are based on reading the OP and a quick scan of the topic, so take them with a grain of salt.



1. Perfectly reasonable. You should be able to set some boundaries on topics as DM, and those kinds of things tend to make people uncomfortable.
2. Also reasonable, but I think it could be worded better. Perhaps "no evil characters unless you can prove it won't cause unnecessary inter-party conflict," since that seems to be why you're banning them in the first place.
3. This is something I generally put in my games. Unless it's specifically included and everyone knows it, it's generally just annoying and messes with the game.
4. Reasonable.
5. I can see the reasoning behind this, but I'm curious how you intend to enforce something like it. You've said you'd make exceptions for long-running relationships, but what if two people happen to meet through your game? How do you expect to dictate whether or not they become a couple? Will you kick them out if they do? You said you want this rule because of what happens if they break up, so why not just deal with it if/when that happens?
6. I'm not sure this is really something you need to spell out at the beginning of the game, but it looks like you realize that. Just ask them to cut it out if there's too much of it.

In general, these are actually very similar to the rules I have, so I like them. Five and six are the only ones that seem a bit odd.

for 5. yeah I'll cross that bridge when I come to it but currently there's very little chance that anybody in my group would get together. A because none of them are gay or bisexual and B they're all related. they're cousins and for pretty much all of my family excluding me cousins going out with cousins is a big no no. In fact for a lot of my family I think being gay is also taboo. However like with cousins I am an exception. As long as they love each toehr I don't care. to me they're the same as heterosexual couples.

6. yeah not yet since most of them have been behaving although there are a few disruptios unrelated to anything in my list. I'd also add "no asking stupid or inane questions." to get rid of those but stupidity and inanity are in the eye of the beholder.

Random832
2009-09-01, 06:52 AM
I don't use SMS personally, but I do have to ask how it could possibly be more disruptive than taking a phone call. If you're worried about taking turns too long (do you also skip people's turns if they go to the restroom / are taking a long time to look up something in a rulebook / etc?), just establish a timer - everyone gets exactly one minute to decide their action, and it doesn't matter what the REASON for the delay is - if they were in the restroom, skip their turn. If they just can't decide which is better between two possible actions they might take, skip their turn. Otherwise the "it makes turns take too long" thing is just an after-the-fact excuse rather than an actual legitimate reason.

The rule against PVP (remember though, in D&D this stands for "PC vs PC", not "Player vs Player") is simplistic, but it makes sense as a starting point unless you can make sure your group can handle it maturely.


1.I'll be frankly honest here. This happened to people I know. I will not find it funny and used in any context I will find it offensive because you're making light of a horrible crime that happened to somebody I know. even if it didn't happen to somebody I know there's no reason to discuss this or use it in any context anyway.

Not every use of a topic has to be "funny" or making light of the subject matter. But if your group can't be trusted to take things seriously, or it's going to make someone uncomfortable, it certainly makes sense to be the first thing to ban mention of.

I am a bit confused here:

rule 1 is because I hate the very thought of this crime and it is in no way justified so I don't want it discussed at my table. that's it end of discussion. If it's in your character's backstory fine.

:smallconfused: So you can have a backstory you're not allowed to discuss? Generally a statement like "I don't want it discussed at my table" means it's banned in any context, not just the immature crap you listed as examples.


but not justifiable?

I think what Kyuubi meant to say was that it's not a justifiable act (and by implication that all those other things, including torture, are justifiable acts :smallmad:, in every context in which they would typically be mentioned in a D&D world :smallfurious:), which is a different sense than you're interpreting it as.


oh and of course I'd make exceptions for long running relationships and marriages. neither are by any means permanent but they're more likely to last than becky and steve or cindy and susie who've only been going out for a week.

Every long-running relationship had a first week. Why can't you just kick them out the first time it actually causes problems, if it causes problems, rather than going to all this effort to police people's personal lives?

Thajocoth
2009-09-01, 07:18 AM
I certainly agree with no PvP and no texting.

For evil characters, I ask for a reason their character wouldn't kill the party and if it's not an evil campaign, why they'd join a good group.

Instead of a rule regarding texting specifically, I don't want player's attention elsewhere at all. If somebody gets an important phone call or something, fine, but everyone pretty much waits for them to finish. This is in part because a lot of people have abilities that effect one another's turns, so if somebody is on the phone or something, we usually have to halt the game anyway to wait for them to give a response to something.

As for in-game content, I'll only ban something if a player asks me to. I personally have no problem with any type of content.

Ecalsneerg
2009-09-01, 07:29 AM
If Rule 6 was instituted by my DM he'd be sitting at an empty table within 30 seconds. And were it applied retroactively, one BBEG wouldn't have been defeated.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-01, 07:32 AM
Instead of a rule regarding texting specifically, I don't want player's attention elsewhere at all.

Indeed. Specifically citing "no texting", unless texting has specifically been a problem (and since sex jokes haven't specifically been a problem yet, texting certainly hasn't), seems unnecessar(il)y (specific). Just make sure that people aren't distracted when their turn comes - and if they are, that their turn will be skipped. If each player's turn involves giving the allies actions of some sort, then no distraction ever.

Katana_Geldar
2009-09-01, 08:14 AM
The phones can be distracting, particuarly since I'm behind the screen and it's your turn. And I have had the annoyance of someone recieving a phone call mid-game, and it was the GM!

A compromise for "no texting" could be having "phone breaks" and may they coincide with the bathroom breaks, pizza ordering breaks, get the DM more drinks breaks and cigarette breaks.

The other ones you need to play them by ear. Your group is bad at double entendres? Mine is for Monty Python, Star Trek and Spaceballs to the point where we quote them BEFORE the game starts to get them out of our system.

As for rape, that's completely up to the DM, as it's what you feel comfortable with.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-01, 08:16 AM
If Rule 6 was instituted by my DM he'd be sitting at an empty table within 30 seconds. And were it applied retroactively, one BBEG wouldn't have been defeated.

You defeated someone with the power of innuendo?

Keshay
2009-09-01, 09:37 AM
I was looking through the rules and could only think "Is any of this ever an issue?" Then we got to this part:


I have two groups. They both have people from 12-18 and both have people that are incredibly immature.

And it all made since. Honestly, sometimes I really do forget children still play D&D. When there was talk of "couples" I'd assumed actual couples were being discussed. Married folks or adults who have financial and social responsibilities to each other, not teenagers who spend weekend evenings together.

By all means for this type of "couple" your prohibition is entirely appropriate.

vampire2948
2009-09-01, 10:02 AM
1.No discussion or use of rape in any context whatsoever.
2.No evil characters unless you can show me good reason to allow you one.
3.No PVP.
4.Cellphones are allowed. Texting is not. I will skip your turn.
5.No couples(since nobody seems capable of getting this No boyfriend/girlfriend or any other combo couples) [needs verification]
6. preferably very few sexual double entendres. (I'll remember not to bring this up until it becomes a problem)

Given the age group you stated, all the above seem reasonable.

You might also wish to add one regarding proper roleplay of characters.. I play with a rather immature person who seems to feel that it is appropriate to talk over everyone else, and generally attempt to steal the spotlight and basically wreck any plans we have.

I suggest wording it thusly :
7) All in-character actions must be justifiable with your backstory, or against previous character behavior.

I'd also suggest asking all your players, if you don't already, to supply a short backstory for every one of their characters.
I wish my group... or just that player, did that. Perhaps you lack this problem, I hope that is the case.

Evil characters are okay, since most people in most worlds aren't evil. They just have to be played properly. Evil characters do care what happens to themselves. If your players run around killing everything they meet, then perhaps summoning the town guard / similar is in order. Unfortunately, my group would likely think I was a total jerk if I did that.. /sigh.

Anyway, some of the above might be irrelevant. But it is there incase you wished to read it.

Random832
2009-09-01, 10:25 AM
And it all made since. Honestly, sometimes I really do forget children still play D&D. When there was talk of "couples" I'd assumed actual couples were being discussed. Married folks or adults who have financial and social responsibilities to each other, not teenagers who spend weekend evenings together.

By all means for this type of "couple" your prohibition is entirely appropriate.

No, it's not. If it interferes with the game, kick them out when it does, but even if it's more likely to do so than it would be for adults, that still does not give the DM the right to intrude on the players' personal lives.

Keshay
2009-09-01, 10:42 AM
No, it's not. If it interferes with the game, kick them out when it does, but even if it's more likely to do so than it would be for adults, that still does not give the DM the right to intrude on the players' personal lives.

Ok, when it becomes a problem who has to go if both want to keep playing? Which friend do you choose to kick to the curb? Both? Congrats, you've crippled your gaming group. If only there had been some way to avoid this situation... Oh wait there is.

Of course, among mature individuals the situation is far less problematic. Unfortuantely teens are not well-known for thier level-headed decision making. Espically not girls who have just broken up with "the love of thier life".

The OP has decided that in order to avoid this potential headache, she's willing to limit the types of people she's willing to DM for. Her game, her call.

woodenbandman
2009-09-01, 10:45 AM
I think numbers 5 and 6 are not very reasonable. I understand that you don't want the awkwardness of a broken up couple having to hang together, but

A: That's very negativist and rude of you to assume that the couple will break up, and
B: If I broke up with a person, I sure as heck wouldn't want to see them, which may mean I wouldn't go to the game anymore. Same may go for the other person. So that problem will probably solve itself. If it doesn't then it goes to you, but it seems like you're prepared to make that choice anyway, so I think that you should just deal with that problem when it arises rather than outright say "no couples."

And double entendres are awesome. What if they're being said in-character? I can understand if you don't want them happening because they're disruptive to the game if made OoC, but honestly, I think you should just deal. If you're worried about the game being sidetracked by jokes (it totally happens), say that the OoC conversation should be limited. Don't ban dirty jokes, though. If they're pulled off IC they're hilarious.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 11:03 AM
double entendres are awesome. What if they're being said in-character? I can understand if you don't want them happening because they're disruptive to the game if made OoC, but honestly, I think you should just deal. If you're worried about the game being sidetracked by jokes (it totally happens), say that the OoC conversation should be limited. Don't ban dirty jokes, though. If they're pulled off IC they're hilarious.

believe me. If I allow sexual double entendres ANYWHERE the players will flood the game with them. I don't mind puns though and I never said anything about movie quotes. THOSE I find amusing.

Random832
2009-09-01, 11:19 AM
Ok, when it becomes a problem who has to go if both want to keep playing? Which friend do you choose to kick to the curb? Both? Congrats, you've crippled your gaming group.

:smallconfused: Wasn't that what you were going to do when you found out they're dating?

Or did you actually think that the DM telling them not to means they actually won't? It doesn't. It just tells them that the DM thinks s/he has the right to interfere in their personal lives, which is going to generate resentment directed at the DM and make it more likely to cause a problem because they'll be less inclined to show restraint out of respect [which they won't have] for the DM.

It's purely a question of when you kick them out, and the obvious answer is to do so when it actually becomes a problem to minimize the number of potential times you kick out people who won't actually become a problem.

kc0bbq
2009-09-01, 11:23 AM
Like others have said, it's your game, but I wouldn't agree to those heavy handed rules. Then again, I'm not a teenager.

I would see those rules and assume that the plot will be just as rigid, and that the DM's idea of fun isn't anything like mine. And, neither of us would be wrong.

kamikasei
2009-09-01, 11:32 AM
Surely some of these (5 and 6 in particular) can, and perhaps should, be replaced with a simple "don't be jackasses at the game table" rule? Without that basic understanding, I don't think any number of specific prohibitions will avail much.

Keshay
2009-09-01, 11:39 AM
:smallconfused: Wasn't that what you were going to do when you found out they're dating?

I wasn't going to do anything, it'll be a cold day in hell when I play D&D with teens.


Or did you actually think that the DM telling them not to means they actually won't? (hint: it doesn't. It just tells them that the DM thinks s/he has the right to interfere in their personal lives, which is going to generate resentment directed at the DM and make it more likely to cause a problem because they'll be less inclined to show restraint out of respect for the DM)

Right, we're talking about children, I keep forgetting. They are wont to interpret everything as an affront to thier "rights" aren't they. God forbid they agree to and abide by a simple request made by a friend, crazy stuff there.


It's purely a question of when you kick them out, and the obvious answer is to do so when it actually becomes a problem to minimize the number of potential times you kick out people who won't actually become a problem.

Crazy idea here: If you don't like the rules, or feel that you won't be able to resist banging a fellow player: don't play under the rules set by this one, particular DM. All your personal freedoms and rights have been fully restored! Huzzah! Who'd have thought it would be so simple as a personal choice! Want to play D&D with your girlfriend? Hey look over there ANOTHER DM WITHOUT THE "NO COUPLES" RULE! FRACKING AMAZING!

It is a reasonable rule to make. Will it result in more players than one might have without it? Certainly not, any time a restriction is placed the potential numbers are decreased. The DM has every right to set limitations in order to sculpt the type of game they want to run.

Delwugor
2009-09-01, 11:45 AM
Like others have said, it's your game, but I wouldn't agree to those heavy handed rules. Then again, I'm not a teenager.

I would see those rules and assume that the plot will be just as rigid, and that the DM's idea of fun isn't anything like mine. And, neither of us would be wrong.

Same here.

But I could see some justification if GMing for a bunch of teenagers who hadn't quite figured out that maturity stuff.

kamikasei
2009-09-01, 11:49 AM
Er, Keshay, asserting that the DM has the right to set whatever rules he wants and the players can then take them or leave them (true) does nothing to demonstrate that the rules in question are reasonable. Since the OP is asking "are these reasonable?", a response that boils down to "if they're not who cares because the players can just leave" (heavily garnished with unwarranted snark) doesn't really contribute much.

Diamondeye
2009-09-01, 11:51 AM
If all the players are related and unlikely to have a relationship in the first place, why do you need a rule about breakups?

Person_Man
2009-09-01, 12:02 PM
I've never had to spell out explicit rules of conduct for any of my gaming groups. If someone's texting, I just ask them to put it away. If someone is being a jerk, I ask them to stop. The couples thing really wouldn't fly, since 90% of my friends are married. Does your group really act out that much?

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 12:09 PM
. Does your group really act out that much?

yes.

5 is in case one of my players thinks it's okay to bring their girlfriend that they've only been going out with for a week and they're expecting me to allow it. And while I HOPE none of my players are like this some people expect preferential treatment for girlfriends/ boyfirends/ friends with benefits.

Random832
2009-09-01, 12:20 PM
I wasn't going to do anything, it'll be a cold day in hell when I play D&D with teens.

My point remains - given a rule against it, the person who made the rule is clearly going to kick out people who break the rule at some point. So why not only when it actually becomes a problem?


Right, we're talking about children, I keep forgetting. They are wont to interpret everything as an affront to thier "rights" aren't they. God forbid they agree to and abide by a simple request made by a friend, crazy stuff there.

Um, forbidding someone to date someone else, unless you are one of their parents, falls squarely into the category of "not any of your damn business"; no matter how old you are.


5 is in case one of my players thinks it's okay to bring their girlfriend that they've only been going out with for a week and they're expecting me to allow it.

Well, the scenario I'd thought this topic was about was if it's two people who are already players.

Question: Does the girlfriend want to actually play D&D, or does the player want to bring her to just hang out / generally be a distraction from the game? Those are two very different situations, and should probably be treated differently.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-09-01, 12:23 PM
Yanno, one of the ways I handle PvP...

Standing rule at my table: I do not discourage PvP, merely take advantage of it.

In other words, unless you are being both subtle and quiet about it, generating a lot of noise tends to attract attention. So if you start clanging swords off of armor and stuff, or start blasting large parts of the local real estate in some kind of duel, it is likely to generate... attention. Specifically, I start rolling on my special random encounter charts...

The other side to this coin is no less pleasant. You see, D&D has things like Ressurect and Speak With Dead. Finding out who shanked a PC is stupidly easy. So don't expect to get away with it. Of course, if the rest of the party went along with it, then it was probably a case of "His character was being an ass, we removed the problem so we can go on with the game".

Umael
2009-09-01, 12:28 PM
I'm sure you're getting your fill here, so feel free to ignore if you wish.


1.No discussion or use of rape in any context whatsoever.
2.No evil characters unless you can show me good reason to allow you one.
3.No PVP.
4.Cellphones are allowed. Texting is not. I will skip your turn.
5.No couples(since nobody seems capable of getting this No boyfriend/girlfriend or any other combo couples) [needs verification]
6. preferably very few sexual double entendres. (I'll remember not to bring this up until it becomes a problem)
7. Justify your character's actions according to their backstory or previous gameplay.

do these seem reasonable?

After reading this and the following discussion, I think that your rules boil down to you having to deal with a lot of immaturity and so you put in some hard and fast rules to deal with it.

If this is the case, your rules are appropriate for the situation, but you should take care if you change players, especially if you change entire groups, how well you know your players, and how quickly they change. Some of your rules I think are very reasonable for handling immature players, but other rules would come across as being insulting for more mature players.

1) Rape - Playing a game that involves people breaking into homes, killing the inhabitants, and stealing their possessions isn't exactly playing Twindly-winks and Candyland. And if you aren't playing D&D, the same holds true for a lot of RPGs. Part of the fun of RPGs is playing people on the outskirts of society, or at least, polite, mundane society.

That said, the unspoken rule in my group is that we treat certain mature subjects as they should be treated - maturally. If your group cannot handle this, the subject should be taboo - and this includes you in the group, by the by.

Personally, I would not like playing with someone who was either inappropriately callous or hyper-sensitive about the subject.

2) Evil PCs - I don't like the alignment system and generally play without them. However, when I do, I play characters, not alignments. If a DM approves of the character concept, the alignment doesn't matter. Fixating on the label "evil" is being blind to the actual character.

A good player with a good concept can play an evil character in any campaign and make it an enjoyable game. If a player isn't good enough and doesn't have a good concept, the alignment isn't going to save the character from ruining the game.

Again, if you are dealing with immature players, go ahead and forbid it.

3) PVP - I much, much prefer, "If, and only if, you have a good reason IN and OUT of Character, and you tell me first, then I will permit PVP." This way, even if you refuse to allow it, you at least give the appearance about being open-minded and fair about the subject (I also recommend actually being open-minded and fair about the subject).

4) Cellphones - This is mostly okay, but I think you are focusing on a particular case instead of giving a general rule with exceptions.

If you get together with some friends to game and then spend the time texting to your other friends, reading a book, or playing on your Gameboy, that is usually considered rude. Put it away and pay attention.

HOWEVER! I actually got away with it because I demonstrated that I was paying attention. In the case of the Gameboy, I was playing a PC who wasn't the sharpest of mind - by playing the Gameboy, I was actually handicapping my ability to follow what was going on - which was par for course with my PC. The DM hated that I got away with it, because he couldn't argue the logic.

5) Couples - I wouldn't go for this, and it's not because of the number of long-term relationships in my group. When we get together to game, it is just us, the DM and the players. If one of the player's friends wants to hang out and watch and listen, that player asks for permission (which is usually always given). Same thing if it is a boyfriend or girlfriend - you ask for permission first.

If two people weren't a couple beforehand and got to know each other through gaming together, this rule would seem extremely irritating to them. If they were already a couple, this rule might get them to abandon the game before they joined - a pretty petty reason to turn away a group.

The problem you cited isn't couples, but the drama that is associated with them. Declare the game a dating-drama-free zone and make sure people keep their relationship issues out of the game, and the game issues will stay out of their relationship.

6) Sexual entendres - This is your personal preference. You also said that you adore movie quotes. But if I was in your game and everyone used movie quotes left and right, I would get pretty sick of them quickly. One of our players quips a few key words from the lyrics of a song whether the situation is appropriate - but he does this way too often.

I digress. You don't like it, you're running the game, you ask the players to keep it to a minimum. Sounds good.

7) Justify your actions - This is a trap. "But my character would do it!" is something Rich talked about. Yes, you should be able to justify all of your characters actions, but just because you can give a reason behind an action does not mean that the action is automatically acceptable.

All this rule does is understand the motives of the jerk/loonie/sociopath. It does not forgive them.

kamikasei
2009-09-01, 12:30 PM
5 is in case one of my players thinks it's okay to bring their girlfriend that they've only been going out with for a week and they're expecting me to allow it. And while I HOPE none of my players are like this some people expect preferential treatment for girlfriends/ boyfirends/ friends with benefits.

Seriously, this is just a case of "don't be an ass" and it's that general principle you need to stick to.

You cannot possibly anticipate all the ways in which people might be asses, and banning them after they come up is too late. Make it clear that you as the DM are hosting the game and they need to be respectful and considerate of both you and the game just as they would any event and its host. If they're incapable of respect and consideration, tell them they're not welcome for that reason, not because they've broken this or that rule.

Not using phones at the table in such a way as to distract from play is a basic courtesy. Not cracking risque jokes in the wrong context is minimal social awareness. Not bringing someone uninvited to an event they have no interest in where a host they haven't met will have to try to accommodate them in an ongoing activity is just common sense. Not trivializing rape is simple decency.

Of your rules, only "no evil characters" and "no PVP" really count as table rules at all. The rest should be dropped in favour of requiring your players to display a scrap of maturity or, if they lack it, cultivate some.

UserClone
2009-09-01, 12:30 PM
I'd double your entendre...*eyebrow waggle* :smallamused:

Seriously? You're asking teens to be adults, while simultaneously asking them to pretend that they're spellslinging elves on a quest to slay the mighty princess and rescue the frightened dragon, or wait, what was that quest again? I -Ooooo...butterfly!

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-01, 12:36 PM
Seriously? You're asking teens to be adults...

A hell of a lot easier than asking them to strictly adhere to the currently written version of #5, and more productive in general too.

#7 is excessive, and having only two conditions listed for justification makes me leery. Just put "Justify your character's actions", preferably right next to the vaguely similar and simple rule, "No PvP".

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 12:37 PM
I'd double your entendre...*eyebrow waggle* :smallamused:

Seriously? You're asking teens to be adults, while simultaneously asking them to pretend that they're spellslinging elves on a quest to slay the mighty princess and rescue the frightened dragon, or wait, what was that quest again? I -Ooooo...butterfly!

the impression I get from this post is that you're saying anybody who plays dungeons and dragons ever is incapable of being an adult.

the rules have been changed again to accommodate good reasons for the change.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-01, 12:42 PM
More wording nitpicks...


2.No evil characters unless you can get them to work well with the rest of the group and you won't play stupid evil.
3.No PVP unless you have a good reason for it such as another player being a traitor or they're hogging all the items.


2) Doesn't working well with the rest of the group preclude stupid evil?
3) "hogging all the items" may not be a good enough reason in some cases; and in any case listing examples seems unnecessary and perhaps misleading. "No PvP unless clearly provoked" might work, but the current wording is adequate, I suppose.

UserClone
2009-09-01, 12:52 PM
Really, what I'm trying to say is that it's a heck of a lot easier to get young people to play something fun than it is to get them to play something fun while doing it in a mature fashion while avoiding mature themes.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 01:09 PM
Really, what I'm trying to say is that it's a heck of a lot easier to get young people to play something fun than it is to get them to play something fun while doing it in a mature fashion while avoiding mature themes.

I'm not even asking them to avoid mature themes. I'm asking them to A avoid sexual double entendres and B to avoid rape. I realize that with most people a PG rating is unrealistic so I'm just getting rid of the two things I find most offensive. at my FLGS they won't allow graphic depictions of violence so I don't have to worry about that and none of my current players would describe graphic violence.

UserClone
2009-09-01, 01:15 PM
:smallconfused:

...*shrug*

Not the game for me, then, on the whole. But if it works for you and yours, that's the main thing. In fact, I'd suggest that asking your group's opinion of your table rules is more effective than asking ours.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-01, 01:16 PM
I'm asking them to A avoid sexual double entendres and B to avoid rape. I realize that with most people a PG rating is unrealistic so I'm just getting rid of the two things I find most offensive.

You find sexual puns and innuendo offensive on a level even comparable to rape? :smallconfused:

Unwitting Pawn
2009-09-01, 01:33 PM
It seems to me the age of your group(s) is the problem.

If they were sensible, mature adults, then these things shouldn't be a problem, without needing to lay down any ground rules at all. And if there was a disconnect within the group on what was acceptable behaviour, then mature adults should be able to discuss it. (Only as a last resort should we have to ban the occasional ars*h*l* of adult age).

With teenagers, I think it's fairly unlikely that you'll be able to lay down the rules and actually expect them to be adhered to sensibly. In fact, I'd almost say that it's kind of unfair to demand that level of maturity from teenagers during a leisure activity. They clearly aren't ready for it yet.

If there is such a disparity between your mental age/maturity and the rest of the group's, then you need another group :smallfrown:.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-01, 01:41 PM
I think we're all overreacting. IIRC, the OP hasn't even met the group yet. If the group gives you trouble, consult with them. A forum can only give you so much help - and after three pages, I think that limit has been reached.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 02:41 PM
You find sexual puns and innuendo offensive on a level even comparable to rape? :smallconfused:

no. it's just they use them so much I'd prefer it if they could tone it down for two and a half hours.

thanks all for helping me make my rules a bit more reasonable.

oh and this is also for future campaigns with other people. I'll probably only mention one or two at the start and the others only if they become a problem.

kc0bbq
2009-09-01, 03:20 PM
no. it's just they use them so much I'd prefer it if they could tone it down for two and a half hours.

thanks all for helping me make my rules a bit more reasonable.

oh and this is also for future campaigns with other people. I'll probably only mention one or two at the start and the others only if they become a problem.Thanks for taking the criticisms as they were intended and being open to adjusting the rules. Even if my one post was probably less than helpful.

Your new rules are much better and don't draw a knee-jerk "avoid at all costs" reaction from me, and I'm old and crabby. Well, not old, but you know what I mean. I would have almost never broken any of your initial rules to begin with, but the way they were worded was bothering me. But, like I said, you aren't wrong for any rules you want; I'm not wrong for my reaction either. Certain themes can have their place.

Blackfang108
2009-09-01, 03:27 PM
and double entrendres are fine. Just no sexual ones.

There's another kind?

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 03:29 PM
There's another kind?

a double entendre is a word or phrase with two meanings. here's an example form the disney movie Aladdin.

"things are unraveling boy!" Jafar uses magic to unravel the magic carpet.

now you know and knowing is half the battle.:smallwink:

KeresM
2009-09-01, 03:45 PM
I was introduced to DnD by a boyfriend I had in my teens, after we'd been dating only a couple weeks.

That was over sixteen years ago.

Glad his GM was a lot more reasonable.

Froogleyboy
2009-09-01, 03:52 PM
isn't a double entendre, a type of mexican food? RACIST!

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 03:55 PM
isn't a double entendre, a type of mexican food? RACIST!

so I can be racist because I don't like a certain type of food even If I like the people from that place? also I don't believe that IS a form of mexican food.

PS. I love certain types of mexican food.

Steward
2009-09-01, 04:08 PM
I feel bad that I can't tell if you're joking.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 04:12 PM
I feel bad that I can't tell if you're joking.

If you're talking about the thing about mexican food no I'm not. You're not racist because you don't like a certain type of food, I actually DO like that kind of food and people from mexico but I've never heard of a food called "double entendre."

If you're talking about the rules no I'm not.

Boci
2009-09-01, 04:33 PM
If you're talking about the thing about mexican food no I'm not. You're not racist because you don't like a certain type of food, I actually DO like that kind of food and people from mexico but I've never heard of a food called "double entendre."

If you're talking about the rules no I'm not.

I think he was refering to the possibility Froogleyboy may not have 100% serious when he called you rascist. As for your rules, well it just shows that there are some topics in which random people from the internet cannot help you all that much.

ericgrau
2009-09-01, 09:39 PM
I was introduced to DnD by a boyfriend I had in my teens, after we'd been dating only a couple weeks.

That was over sixteen years ago.

Glad his GM was a lot more reasonable.

That's a good point. Female gamers often come in as girlfriends. If we want more of them then it'd pay to be lax about relationships.

Froogleyboy
2009-09-01, 09:45 PM
so I can be racist because I don't like a certain type of food even If I like the people from that place? also I don't believe that IS a form of mexican food.

PS. I love certain types of mexican food.

Whoa whoa whoa, calm down. I was making a joke (though I was sure that it was a mexican food, but it seems i was mistaken) You gotta learn to chill.

Blaine.Bush
2009-09-01, 09:56 PM
Whoa whoa whoa, calm down. I was making a joke (though I was sure that it was a mexican food, but it seems i was mistaken) You gotta learn to chill.

You mean learn to chili? HAH! A joke! :smalltongue:

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 09:57 PM
Whoa whoa whoa, calm down. I was making a joke (though I was sure that it was a mexican food, but it seems i was mistaken) You gotta learn to chill.

sorry about that. It was meant to be in an inquisitive tone not an angry one.

and to everybody else yeah I'm going to see how well having couples goes and THEN decide if I should use the rule.

CockroachTeaParty
2009-09-01, 11:42 PM
My experience with gaming couples:

Hmm... admittedly lacking. While I've been pleased to have an increase in female players in recent years in the various groups I've played in, only a few of them have ever been in a relationship with another player. Typically, this did not adversely effect anything.

In one instance, the DM's girlfriend was a PC, and as far as I could tell she got no special treatment. In another instance, two of the PC's were in a relationship, but we all managed to get through the Red Hand of Doom without so much as one awkward moment relating to the relationship itself. I suppose it depends on the people themselves. Best to approach it on a situational basis, perhaps with a slightly elevated sense of caution.

What I see, perhaps somewhat more tragically, is a kind of 'queen bee situation,' where one girl slowly attracts the affections of the rest of the (male) gaming group. The closest thing to DRAMA I've seen was because of these sort of scenarios...

My personal philosophy is to leave romance at the door when it comes to pretending to be elves in Fantasy Land. But... I've never had the opportunity to play in a game with someone I've been in a relationship with...

I am so very alone... :smallfrown:

(Goes and cries and rolls up a tiefling warlock named 'Darkness')

"You down with D&D?"
"Yeah you know me!"
"You down with D&D?"
"Yeah you know me!"
"Who's down with D&D?"
"Yeah all the geeks!"

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 11:52 PM
I am so very alone... :smallfrown:



you think you're alone? I"m sixteen and a half and I haven't even had my first kiss yet. Of course that could be partially due to me being Asexual.

Wubba
2009-09-02, 01:47 AM
1-4 seem perfectly reasonable. 6 is a personal comfort thing, so while double entendres aren't a problem for most groups, it's perfectly sensible to ban them if they make people uncomfortable.

The "no couples" rule was unreasonable, but you've changed it. The new version seems fine, though I'd expect people would ask before bringing anyone new to a game, not just boy/girlfriends.

One thing I do have a problem with, though, is this:

There are ways to justify all of these. Even torture is justifiable. I see no way to Justify rape and so it is not allowed.

Can you explain a situation where torture is justified? I'd doubt it, bit if you can then that same justification can be used for rape. Rape is basically a specific subset of torture, and neither of them have any good justification.

(Note: Torture to extract information isn't a justification because it doesn't work. Torture makes someone say whatever they think will make the pain stop, not the truth. If torture works then there is irrefutable proof that witches posed a major threat to 17th century Americans.)

Uec
2009-09-02, 05:59 AM
I dont think rule 5 was reasonable in the first one, new rule 5 is perfectly fine. Couples can create problems, even if it isn't teenagers.

All the others are perfectly fine, your rule 4 is even less restricting than what I would use, which would be

"Cellphones are shut off during play, unless you have a good reason and explain to me why you have it turned on. Feel free to use it when we take breaks"

Keeping in mind that breaks tends to happen at least once a hour. I really don't think it's unreasonable to require people to turn off the things and concentrate on the game.



*In amusing news, I've never been allowed to bring a girlfriend to the table, and I'm 24 years old now. Not that I can blame the DM's considering my track record with relationships.

archmage45
2009-09-02, 06:39 AM
you think you're alone? I"m sixteen and a half and I haven't even had my first kiss yet. Of course that could be partially due to me being Asexual.

Don't worry about it too much. I didn't get my first kiss till I was about 16 and a half. I also didn't get my drivers license till I was 19.

I think the rules are ok. A little strict, but ok.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-09-02, 07:43 AM
So After reading through this long discussion i have a few questions.
Before said questions Ultimately it is your game and your life.

First why do you ask about these house rules? Have you been challenged on them?(Have you talked to a friend about it? and they didn't like em).

Second I wish you luck with your trying to get a bunch of teens to not think sexual or have sexual innuendos come out. **** im 23 and i make bad sex jokes all the time.

thirdly. I find it amusing that you can justify torture but you can't justify rape. As Rape can be a form of torture. In our group we use rape occasionally.. Raiders Rape and pillage. generally bad things do that. Pritty much most half orcs, half fiends, half ogres, and a few other halves are created via rape how do you justify those?

Boci
2009-09-02, 08:17 AM
you think you're alone? I"m sixteen and a half and I haven't even had my first kiss yet. Of course that could be partially due to me being Asexual.

There is no need ro rush things. I got my first kiss, and lost something on the same day when I was 17.5 when Ifound someone I could act naturally around.

P.S. Don't asexual organisms reproduce by forming clones of themselves?

Blacky the Blackball
2009-09-02, 09:24 AM
I've never heard of a food called "double entendre."

Last time I went to a Mexican restaurant and ordered a double entendre, the waitress gave me one.