Table Rules and Standard Assumptions

[Theobod]

I've recently began codifying my table rules and assumptions, there not all done and dusted yet but here is the WIP, im interested not only in comments but also in what the playgrounders use in there own games :)
(Also: freakishly long time lurker, first time poster :D Hai guys :smallredface:)

0- Rule 0 is absolute, yes it does have to be pointed out, if I rule something, ANYTHING, its binding, if you cant convince me otherwise in 60 seconds, tough.
Caveat: I will look over your argument BETWEEN sessions, and IF I later agree (or if I later disagree with myself and settle on a third interpretation), that will be the FUTURE ruling, I never retcon and never apologise, this is not a democracy.

1- What the RAW DOESN'T say is my domain. Could also be stated as 'RAW silence isn't RAW'. What this means is that just because the RAW is silent on a topic doesn't mean that something doesn't happen, it means I decide what does happen. Some examples that have come up: (will add to as they come up)
--Falling damage: No you DON'T have to have a run up to jump down, that is just ridiculous, you also have no lateral distance covered, you are jumping parallel with your surface to reduce damage. And no, tumbling away falling damage doesn't take place in the same square as you land in. E.G. I jump off a cliff to a ledge 10 ft long, i fall 40 ft and score a whopping 45 tumble, however I rule tumbling requires adequate space, specifically 5 ft per 10 ft of fall you wish to negate (which is the RAW silent bit), thus i can either sack 2 of the dice from falling and tumble the 10 ft of ledge, ending up prone (due to taking fall damage at all) with 2d6 damage, or i could tumble off the edge of the ledge, continue falling with 10ft (the deficit) added to the subsequent fall and die messily, players choice.

2- All player rolls MUST be witnessed, either by the DM or another player, touching the dice after rolling before calling out the number results in a fail, yes, EVEN if you cant fail, like a skill check or damage roll, you have been warned. If its ambiguous same thing, take pains to make sure your rolls are witnessed.
Added benefit of players sharing in each others failures and victories.
(adapted from Jeanette's table rule of: if you touch the dice before the roll is witnessed, natural one, I extended the principle to all checks as a fail)
I also normally wont call it out, Ill simply say you fail, if you object I will simply say something along the lines of 'Forces you cannot perceive must be acting against you', when all your subsequent knowledge checks fail to identify what you will probably realise, you have no right to defend yourself, attempts to defend yourself or to repeatedly cheat have the added affect of directly increase the future threats you face and lower their treasure with no change in XP (in a point based system detailed under rule 4), you have been warned. The moral of the story? Be OVERTLY honest. I don't have to be sure, just have to suspect.

3- Where the RAW is lacking in technical terms, standard rules of the English Language prevail.
Example: Away means Away, in the counter charge manouver and in all the power throw line of manouvers (and the explosive spell metamagic feat and one or two others) the effect states you move your target(s) x squares 'Away from you', this means that not one single square of movement may be parallel or towards your character, thus each square of movement must increase the distance between you and your target.

ASCII fun for illustration
P(layer) charged by M(onster) in a standard grid, charging eastern edge of square, counter charged to move 2 squares away. (-\< and/ are directional markers, * is starting position)

P|M<--------------*

thus the only viable locations for M to be transposed is Northeast, east and Southeast, as north or south would move to a diagonal on square and still be adjacent, thus not away:
| | | |M|
| | |/| |
|P|*|-|M|
| | |\| |
| | | |M|


4- Metagaming will not be called out, but it will be punished.
I have never found calling out a players metagaming to be helpful, as players ALWAYS get arsy and defend themselves, so instead EVERY meta point used (every comment on another character's information, and every tactical statement that wasn't said in character) will be recorded, and will be 'spent' by me in increasing CRs by one step per point in the most vicious manner, with less treasure and the same XP, same as my punitive system for cheating, and again, calling me out on something also results in another point for me, you cannot see the tally, you cannot defend yourself without incurring more points, moral of the story? Be OVERTLY IC.

[Zombimode]

Whoa, dude... what level of maturity of players forces you to come up with an actual set of rules?

As a player I would raise an eyebrow if my DM would present me such rules. Rule like these always have the notion that you (the one who has made the rule) don't trust your players to be decent human being. This can come off as condescending and offending.

[Namfuak]

The last one seems slightly punitive, but if everyone is onboard it shouldn't be a problem. Generally, my opinion on DM rulings is that if the ruling significantly impacts a character, for example by making the concept no longer work or making a spell less useful, I'll allow the person to adjust their sheet for next session to deal with that particular issue.

[Theobod]

It can come off as condecending and offensive, but this does work both ways, attempts to call out generally end badly, so i decided to simply make them enforce eachother, which has actually had some great sucess.
Also at Nam: Yeah, while sometimes things slip the net i mostly nip that in the bud by working WITH party mates to gen characters (and thus discuss the rulings associated), however ****ups happen, and yeah in instances where its not been mentioned in game yet and doesn't work as expected i normally let em switch it out, but normally only in the first session or two, after that, well thats what retrains are for (even rebuild quests can be pretty flavorful).

[Vaz]

I usually just settle for saying monks are proficient with their Unarmed Strikes.

[Darrin]

The Gentleman's Agreement: making it more precise (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14498283).

[Theobod]

Oooooh now that is very intriguing, thanks for the linkie Darrin :smallsmile:

[Deophaun]

thus the only viable locations for M to be transposed is Northeast, east and Southeast, as north or south would move to a diagonal on square and still be adjacent, thus not away:
| | | |M|
| | |/| |
|P|*|-|M|
| | |\| |
| | | |M|

Why wouldn't the following work with your rule?
| | |M|
| | |:|M|
| | |/|-|M|
|P|*|-|M|
| | |\|-|M|
| | |:|M|
| | |M|

Edit: And looking again, I seem to have misunderstood each | | as an individual square.

[AuraTwilight]

You never apologize? Even when you turned out to be objectively wrong, rare as it may be?

I wouldn't game with you.

[Korahir]

...never apologise, this is not a democracy.

True, this is a game. If you would point that out to me i would leave the game as soon as possible. Apologizing for mistakes (which everyone makes) is key to social living.

[Curmudgeon]

1- What the RAW DOESN'T say is my domain. Could also be stated as 'RAW silence isn't RAW'. What this means is that just because the RAW is silent on a topic doesn't mean that something doesn't happen, it means I decide what does happen. Some examples that have come up: (will add to as they come up)
... And no, tumbling away falling damage doesn't take place in the same square as you land in. E.G. I jump off a cliff to a ledge 10 ft long, i fall 40 ft and score a whopping 45 tumble, however I rule tumbling requires adequate space, specifically 5 ft per 10 ft of fall you wish to negate (which is the RAW silent bit) ...
This is patently absurd. You're announcing that you'll just make up stuff except where the rules address every conceivable detail. So, because the Monster Manual is silent about bears shooting laser beams from their eyes, you can give wandering bears death rays to cut down the PCs?

Your Tumble house rule is also pretty unreasonable in a game which has evasion. No, I wouldn't play in your game either.

[lycantrope]

I hate two philosophies for dming.

1) make it clear to the players that they are free to try and break the game, and in doing so assure them that the game will break them long before they manage to do so. Eggshell grenades are an example. Stock up! Blind away! Expect enemies to do the same, if that's the route you take. This approach has kept rules lawyering issues to a minimum, and allowed the less op focused players to flex their flavoring skills.

2) dm v player encounter design, but with subtlety. I enjoy racking up player kills, but what's the point of overpowering them? That like winning with god mode on. Thus far, I'm proud to say that all my player deaths have been results of exceedingly poor decisions in the face of easily surmountable odds. This philosophy has actually superseded the first, in that a player has actually managed to "beat the dm" by overcoming dm fiat in place to keep their character alive, and then proceeding to get themselves killed anyway. Especially hilarious in evil campaigns, where characters are frequently rolling initiative and strength checks against each other when dividing up loot.

All that said, RAW is expected by everyone, and if obscurity within the rules requires a dm ruling, I shoot for the more conservative possibilities. No complaints thus far.

I do also call out meta gaming, but only if its obvious and the character has no business knowing the things the player knows (hello, knowledge checks).

[Flickerdart]

I don't know about you, but I use houserules to effect balance tweaks and enable smoother play, not to beat up the fourth wall with a rusty crowbar for the sake of extending my tyranny.

[TuggyNE]

0- Rule 0 is absolute, yes it does have to be pointed out, if I rule something, ANYTHING, its binding, if you cant convince me otherwise in 60 seconds, tough.
Caveat: I will look over your argument BETWEEN sessions, and IF I later agree (or if I later disagree with myself and settle on a third interpretation), that will be the FUTURE ruling, I never retcon and never apologise, this is not a democracy.

I mostly agree with this, except that, while retcons are a matter of style, apologizing is not; anyone can make a mistake, and it is not productive to insist, in the face of all logic and fun, that it is impossible for you to be wrong. Instead, attempt to minimize the bad effects both of wrong rulings and of arguing about rulings. You've gotten most of the way there already by stating that a quick ruling on the spot will be used for the session, but saying "I was not wrong, I am never wrong" just encourages bitterness to no purpose.


1- What the RAW DOESN'T say is my domain. Could also be stated as 'RAW silence isn't RAW'. What this means is that just because the RAW is silent on a topic doesn't mean that something doesn't happen, it means I decide what does happen. Some examples that have come up: (will add to as they come up)
--Falling damage: No you DON'T have to have a run up to jump down, that is just ridiculous, you also have no lateral distance covered, you are jumping parallel with your surface to reduce damage. And no, tumbling away falling damage doesn't take place in the same square as you land in. E.G. I jump off a cliff to a ledge 10 ft long, i fall 40 ft and score a whopping 45 tumble, however I rule tumbling requires adequate space, specifically 5 ft per 10 ft of fall you wish to negate (which is the RAW silent bit), thus i can either sack 2 of the dice from falling and tumble the 10 ft of ledge, ending up prone (due to taking fall damage at all) with 2d6 damage, or i could tumble off the edge of the ledge, continue falling with 10ft (the deficit) added to the subsequent fall and die messily, players choice.

Unstated, but hopefully intended, is that all such additive rulings are made to improve the internal logic of the game, rather than at a whim. Adding whole new mechanics is homebrewing, and should be treated as such, with the usual caution, attention to possible flaws and un-fun aspects, and willingness to revise.


2- All player rolls MUST be witnessed, either by the DM or another player, touching the dice after rolling before calling out the number results in a fail, yes, EVEN if you cant fail, like a skill check or damage roll, you have been warned. If its ambiguous same thing, take pains to make sure your rolls are witnessed.

That seems unnecessary; simply making such potentially-tampered rolls come up natural 1s is enough. If you can't fail a task, failing because of metagame reasons disrupts the game.

Essentially, if you suspect cheating, just make sure the cheating is guaranteed to be rendered null and void by your countermeasure; anything beyond that is overly punitive. And if they couldn't fail, cheating couldn't make them succeed when they would have failed.


I also normally wont call it out, Ill simply say you fail, if you object I will simply say something along the lines of 'Forces you cannot perceive must be acting against you', when all your subsequent knowledge checks fail to identify what you will probably realise, you have no right to defend yourself, attempts to defend yourself or to repeatedly cheat have the added affect of directly increase the future threats you face and lower their treasure with no change in XP (in a point based system detailed under rule 4), you have been warned. The moral of the story? Be OVERTLY honest. I don't have to be sure, just have to suspect.

This seems abusable, frankly; if any suspicion of player impropriety is treated as a convicted offense, and any attempt to explain (legitimately or otherwise) is treated as a further offense, then the players are punished merely for ticking you off, even by mistake, and can even be punished at your whim. All you really need here is to avoid long, drawn-out discussions of exactly why it wasn't cheating, so just put in a rule to that effect and call it good.


3- Where the RAW is lacking in technical terms, standard rules of the English Language prevail.

Agreed.


4- Metagaming will not be called out, but it will be punished.
I have never found calling out a players metagaming to be helpful, as players ALWAYS get arsy and defend themselves, so instead EVERY meta point used (every comment on another character's information, and every tactical statement that wasn't said in character) will be recorded, and will be 'spent' by me in increasing CRs by one step per point in the most vicious manner, with less treasure and the same XP, same as my punitive system for cheating, and again, calling me out on something also results in another point for me, you cannot see the tally, you cannot defend yourself without incurring more points, moral of the story? Be OVERTLY IC.

The problem here is that it is quite possible for someone to metagame by mistake, or without realizing what you consider to be metagaming, and they can't ask for clarification, explain why they didn't think it was metagaming, or whatever without being a) ignored and b) written up for more metagaming! Again: assuming that you are always right and the players always wrong, except when they're wronger, is unfair, incorrect, and unnecessary. They're people too, and just as capable of reasoning as you are; sometimes they will have a more accurate view of the situation, and accepting that possibility will not destroy the game. Indeed, it will enhance it, because respecting your players as more than just slaves toiling for your whimsy can hardly help but increase everyone's fun.


The Gentleman's Agreement: making it more precise (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14498283).

I always appreciate links to stuff I started! :smallsmile:

[Aramyth]

Being as polite as possible, you rules make you sound incredibly paranoid and distrusting, and if you go so far as to say that your mere suspicion of the players is enough to constitute a offense, you are not a DM, you are a tyrant. I would suggest you stop DMing, start rethinking your rules, and make the attempt to act mildly human.

[MeiLeTeng]

I never retcon and never apologise, this is not a democracy.


Disagreed wholeheartedly. IMO, being the DM != being in charge of the game.

If your players enjoy it then by all means go that route, but me personally I would likely hate playing with a set of rules like that.

As far as what rules/assumptions I play under it changes with the players that I DM for. Before the game starts I talk with all of them and we figure out together what we're going to use and go with.

I also have no issues with Metagaming, but we are more of a beer and pretzels group and less of a super into the roleplay aspect group.

[Deophaun]

The problem is, everyone metagames. It's unavoidable.

You know you're fighting a beholder, and you know what a beholder's capabilities are. But, your PC has no idea.

Now, are you going to act as you would have if you didn't know what the beholder was? No.

You might put yourself in a position to avoid its eyerays. Or, you might expose yourself to even more danger to avoid the appearance of metagaming. However, it is highly unlikely that you are going to respond as someone who had never heard of, let alone encountered, a beholder before. Instead, you're running off metagame knowledge and trying to figure out how to act based on that.

Plus, most instances of "metagaming" can be rationalized in character. Are the players formulating a plan of action OOC? Not metagaming. Why? They are roleplaying heroes that have faced death together on countless occasions. The PCs know each other, know their capabilities, know how they are going to act. The players, of course, have real lives that they have to pay attention to, so they don't commit each others' character sheets to memory, or read the 23-page back backstory Larry printed up for his character. But you can be certain those Larry's character considers his comrades know. The PCs don't have to spend time planing. They glance at each other and know. The players, however, do.

So that's the question: when you penalize metagaming, do you give your players the benefit of the doubt?

[Theobod]

Lots of good points, good to be called up on some too :)
Accounting for all constructive and honest points and ignoring ad hominem.
(sorry if i missed you, prod me and ill reply, but i think i got all the points)

On the point of apologising, simply no, reason being if it wasn't obvious at the time (they do get to gimme a rundown on why they think so with a page ref if they have it) we don't have all night to run over rules and I have had (still have) groups that WILL derail with arguments, so I avoid the issue, I however respect my players enough to have a look through AFTER for next time. But its a game, mistakes get made all the time on both sides. They don't apologise, neither do I and with this rule my gaming group has improved no end. (so much can get done in 4 hours when 2 of it isnt a rules discussion)

As for Cormudgeon's comment, no lazer eye bears, through the fact that's doable in the rules as is anyway is irrelevant (druid, occular spell, actually giving me ideas) Where the raw is silent is my domain, so while I COULD, its not something I WOULD do (sansing where the raw is already ample (again, druid, for that specific example, also lazers could be added to bears..... in no good sense mind but just for illustration and complete aside point, not a counter point, would increase CR, so strictly would be legit homebrew monster, not generally my cup of tea but anyway, back to the point) Not sure on your problem other than kneejerk 'oh noes my DM is a madman and everywhere the raw lacks he kills players/takes the ***/etc'
While i doubt i can convince you :) worth a try.

@flickerdart yep mostly erring on realism with an eye to balance (and before the 'no realism in my dnd' arguments start, any consistent system is an attempt at realism (someone said that recently in another thread) and to smooth over odd jumps in logic from the rules and @TuggyNE Yep basically to make some logical sense within the assumptions inherit in the game.
Not sure where folks are getting the 'Im not nor never wrong' vibe however, it might be reactionary to any absolute ruling but i do look over their argument (and refresh on all associated rules) for next time, as stated, if they convince me (and I don't see any problem with telling them to convince me later after one min of them proceeding to NOT convince me), thats the future ruling, they have proved me wrong, but for game time, 'im right for now, deal with it later' has actually smoothed over a few abrasive argumentative players and gotten the other players enforcing them. I've actually found it added a LOT when I wasn't being questioned over a mechanic every half round for 15 mins. Different strokes for different folks I guess :)

On the Overt IC and Overt Honesty rules I actually havnt had to employ them much, after stating you tend to find players keep eachother in line. And I actually rarely have players be longterm background buddies, they rarely know eachothers prowess to the full (hell one game we dont even know one goon is a necromancer (admittedly playing in that one but the DM uses the same rule)) and discussion of simple mechanic (erm does this spell work this way or that way) I dont consider metagaming, but when tactics come into it, a polite cough normally halts it XD and thats what Language skills and the ****ton of chatty message spells and predivining, parties with no access yell tactics in battle in a language they share and hope the enemy doesnt :) Found it adds a lot, specially when hot daym that ogre knew elven/etc
Both those rules basically get player enforced, havnt yet HAD to get punitive, and its stopped one player cheating outright (he was perrenial, we all knew it, we discussed it out of game with and without him and this rule was developed in conjunction with another DM (who wanted to stop the same shtick happening in her game)) and not only have we seen him stop cheating, but when he got over his win complex and started seeing his character win and fail WITHOUT deciet he started enjoying all parts of the session, not just what he could 'win'. Different strokes and all but i have had GREAT success with these rules, especially the cheating one.

We are not a beer and pretzels group, with one player exeption (who is getting better and if he didnt like it would vote with his feet) we are a roleplay heavy group (games vary from story to sandbox to modular, but the RP is a consistant high, i dont DM low RP games).

The PCs do have to plan, pre battle or if its all gone wrong, in battle, at least in my games, this seems like a playstyle point, so fairs fair, differs a lot, but in my games the party wants to know eachother beforehand they gen characters together, if not, they dont (sometimes an admixture, like the aformentioned game i play in, 2 good war buddies and a necromancer, guess who genned alone? :P) If they dont know what a party member can do OC but IC would they get a wisdom check to remember (DC10 plus level at which the character got the ability, negated entirely if the other player says 'I havnt shown him this ability before' or words to that effect (even buddies have secrets))
So yeah, to round off on Deophaun's final point: Benefit of the doubt is given when its something common to folklore or simply when its at least FEASABLE a character could know, but i normally call for a knowledge check when players try, and if it fails i simply tell them you have no reason to suspect this.
Again this may be playstyle, but actually in the beholder example I would expect them to treat it as any other threat..... for like one round untill all lazers a flaring UNLESS they have knowledge dungeoneering checks high enough, were prewarned of an eye tyrant in the regeion and what it could do (becomes pretty common knowledge after the first villiage or two is disintergrated and turned to stone while their mages couldnt do jack when being looked at). Having absolutely no foreknowledge of a foe makes the fight a damnsight harder when it has abilities easily counterable by foresight but brutal when unprepared, worthy of a CR bumb (and droop for super prepared) I found this ENCOURAGES roleplay and avoidance of metagaming as the loot stays the same while XP may drop a little if they are prepared, thus the party over WBL itself marginally over time, tecnically a meta carrot but hey.

Peace.

Edit: Also wanted to hear the playgrounders table rules and assumptions :) so far just gotten the monk unarmed strike profficiency (which i never thought neccesary honestly, cos they get IUS, which i always read as proficient plus lethal plus no provoking, basically a super profficiency :) )

[Jutnut]

The party in question is rather immature tbh.
I incorporate these rules in my games to avoid cheating and metagaming of this party, however if I have a more mature party as is the one I DM for in uni then I am less strict, it all depends on the group in question.

However the rules that are always in place are;

- Floor dice is no result, roll again
- Dice stay on the table once rolled (cant pick them up to view result)
- Rule 0

Everything else is put in if the group are nobs, and clearly signposted before game start.

@Deophone

Everyone is capable of not metagaming, for example my more mature group has a member which has been dnding for about 10 years, he has been a dm for most of them, he knows most of the gribblys and when I put them through Ravenloft, he had already run the module.
Sounds like he would know whats coming and react to it?
Nope!

For example they had a gibbering mouther all up in their business, he done a knowledge check and failed, so his character had no idea of its abilities, therefore he fought it like any other monster and tanked, and was swallowed whole... Luckily the party managed to kill it, but if he was to metagame he would have only used his throwing axes and would not have gone anywhere near the thing.

It's easy to do if you are using conscious effort and use the rules to see what your character knows.

[erikun]

I'm thinking that the DM should be overriding any dice result that returns an obviously silly result, such as a 10th level rogue slitting a sleeping 2nd level warrior's throat and not killing them, but I think this depends on the table. If you're trying to realistic/consistent results, then anything that doesn't have a chance to fail shouldn't even be rolled. If you're at a table who loves to roll everything and live with the result, by contrast, then such silly results should be allowed somehow. That is, after all, the nature of the game.

Are you familiar with the concept of a dicebowl / dicebox, Theobod? It is basically a contained area with sides that is the only place where rolls are considered valid, and only when the player calls why they are rolling or the DM requests a dice roll. Dice outside the dicebowl don't count. The idea is to prevent players from rolling dice randomly and calling out what they want to do after seeing the results. Obviously, only one person rolls dice in the dicebowl at a time.

The idea of using a bowl (preferably a large, shallow one) is so that dice stay towards the center and don't get caught up on edges.

[molten_dragon]

I've recently began codifying my table rules and assumptions, there not all done and dusted yet but here is the WIP, im interested not only in comments but also in what the playgrounders use in there own games :)
(Also: freakishly long time lurker, first time poster :D Hai guys :smallredface:)

0- Rule 0 is absolute, yes it does have to be pointed out, if I rule something, ANYTHING, its binding, if you cant convince me otherwise in 60 seconds, tough.
Caveat: I will look over your argument BETWEEN sessions, and IF I later agree (or if I later disagree with myself and settle on a third interpretation), that will be the FUTURE ruling, I never retcon and never apologise, this is not a democracy.

1- What the RAW DOESN'T say is my domain. Could also be stated as 'RAW silence isn't RAW'. What this means is that just because the RAW is silent on a topic doesn't mean that something doesn't happen, it means I decide what does happen. Some examples that have come up: (will add to as they come up)
--Falling damage: No you DON'T have to have a run up to jump down, that is just ridiculous, you also have no lateral distance covered, you are jumping parallel with your surface to reduce damage. And no, tumbling away falling damage doesn't take place in the same square as you land in. E.G. I jump off a cliff to a ledge 10 ft long, i fall 40 ft and score a whopping 45 tumble, however I rule tumbling requires adequate space, specifically 5 ft per 10 ft of fall you wish to negate (which is the RAW silent bit), thus i can either sack 2 of the dice from falling and tumble the 10 ft of ledge, ending up prone (due to taking fall damage at all) with 2d6 damage, or i could tumble off the edge of the ledge, continue falling with 10ft (the deficit) added to the subsequent fall and die messily, players choice.

2- All player rolls MUST be witnessed, either by the DM or another player, touching the dice after rolling before calling out the number results in a fail, yes, EVEN if you cant fail, like a skill check or damage roll, you have been warned. If its ambiguous same thing, take pains to make sure your rolls are witnessed.
Added benefit of players sharing in each others failures and victories.
(adapted from Jeanette's table rule of: if you touch the dice before the roll is witnessed, natural one, I extended the principle to all checks as a fail)
I also normally wont call it out, Ill simply say you fail, if you object I will simply say something along the lines of 'Forces you cannot perceive must be acting against you', when all your subsequent knowledge checks fail to identify what you will probably realise, you have no right to defend yourself, attempts to defend yourself or to repeatedly cheat have the added affect of directly increase the future threats you face and lower their treasure with no change in XP (in a point based system detailed under rule 4), you have been warned. The moral of the story? Be OVERTLY honest. I don't have to be sure, just have to suspect.

3- Where the RAW is lacking in technical terms, standard rules of the English Language prevail.
Example: Away means Away, in the counter charge manouver and in all the power throw line of manouvers (and the explosive spell metamagic feat and one or two others) the effect states you move your target(s) x squares 'Away from you', this means that not one single square of movement may be parallel or towards your character, thus each square of movement must increase the distance between you and your target.

ASCII fun for illustration
P(layer) charged by M(onster) in a standard grid, charging eastern edge of square, counter charged to move 2 squares away. (-\< and/ are directional markers, * is starting position)

P|M<--------------*

thus the only viable locations for M to be transposed is Northeast, east and Southeast, as north or south would move to a diagonal on square and still be adjacent, thus not away:
| | | |M|
| | |/| |
|P|*|-|M|
| | |\| |
| | | |M|


4- Metagaming will not be called out, but it will be punished.
I have never found calling out a players metagaming to be helpful, as players ALWAYS get arsy and defend themselves, so instead EVERY meta point used (every comment on another character's information, and every tactical statement that wasn't said in character) will be recorded, and will be 'spent' by me in increasing CRs by one step per point in the most vicious manner, with less treasure and the same XP, same as my punitive system for cheating, and again, calling me out on something also results in another point for me, you cannot see the tally, you cannot defend yourself without incurring more points, moral of the story? Be OVERTLY IC.

These make you sound like an immature, combative, control freak. Not someone I'd want to play a game of D&D with.

Maybe you should relax a little.

[Jutnut]

These make you sound like an immature, combative, control freak. Not someone I'd want to play a game of D&D with.

Maybe you should relax a little.

You should see the party.

[Theobod]

Dicebowl awesomeness.

Actually thats a rather good idea, one thats quite good for small groups round a table...... spread about a living room...... less useful but still a damn good idea, maybe round the table proper in other games :) thanks for that Erikun.

[Deophaun]

@Deophone

Everyone is capable of not metagaming, for example my more mature group has a member which has been dnding for about 10 years, he has been a dm for most of them, he knows most of the gribblys and when I put them through Ravenloft, he had already run the module.
Sounds like he would know whats coming and react to it?
Nope!

For example they had a gibbering mouther all up in their business, he done a knowledge check and failed, so his character had no idea of its abilities, therefore he fought it like any other monster and tanked, and was swallowed whole... Luckily the party managed to kill it, but if he was to metagame he would have only used his throwing axes and would not have gone anywhere near the thing.

It's easy to do if you are using conscious effort and use the rules to see what your character knows.
Except, that's not proof at all. You'll note that in my example, I included a player metagaming by placing his character in even more danger to avoid the appearance of metagaming. It's the simple fact that once you know something, you can't un-know it, and it will influence your actions whether you want it to or not, such as not taking appropriate precautions to avoid being swallowed by an amorphous monster. Sure, the gibbering mouther has that ability, which you would know by reading the entry. But, at the same time, you could also intuit that ability from just its description. If you never read the entry, you can rely on reason to keep you from falling prey to it. If you have read the entry, now you need to second guess what knowledge you could have reasoned out, and what knowledge you have read.

[Theobod]

And that second guessing is exactly what separating in and out of character knowledge requires, you havnt proven that metagaming is impossible to avoid, merely difficult, I would go so far as to say its the mark of a good roleplayer.

[Deophaun]

And that second guessing is exactly what separating in and out of character knowledge requires
Which is metagaming.

[Tork]

I do most of your 'Rules and Assumptions', like:

*Rule 0 - I am free to change anything from any published source for any reason.. This includes but not limited to the core rules, supplements, campaign settings, novels and the internet.

*DM Fiat - This is sort of an addendum to DM Rule 0. I may at any time "cheat" the rules of the game in order to progress the plot or make some other planned circumstance come about.

*Mental Challenges - I expect you, as the player, to actively figure out things in the game as a player, and not roll your way through things.

*Familiarity - I expect everyone involved to be familiar with the game. You should have strong familiarity with the SRD and know exactly what your character can do. You need not be a rule expert, but you must know enough to play your character.

*Two Hats - I subscribe to the 2-Hats Theory of DMing. When I'm planning the game, I'm absolutely trying to set up a, while not necessarily fair, plausible situation that does not screw the players for entering it. When I'm running the NPCs, though, I will be doing my absolute best to play them as they are. That means your enemies will be out for blood, and I will not be afraid to take it. I won't mock you, I won't rub it in, I won't laugh (because I'm not a bad person). In fact, I'll be sympathetic, and offer consolation. That doesn't change that your PC will be dead.


Game Information:
1.In general, most of the game information is secret during a game. As a DM I won't say 'the guard has an AC of 12, 8 hit points, and likes apple pie'. As a player, you won't know any of the game information, and as DM I won't tell you, so don't ask.
2.In general, most information in the game is secret during a game. As a player you can only figure out things by the description given. As a DM I won't say 'The goblin hits you with the dart of Blackfeather poison', but more 'the short, ugly humanoid throws a dart at you. The black oil on the dart causes your skin to burn.'
3.In general, most game effects are secret during a game. As a DM I won't tell you why something worked or did not work. As a player you have to figure thoes things out, in the game. For example, if you cast charm person on a black skinned guy and it does not work, I will not tell you his race and type.
4.In general, most game information about other players is secret during a game. Players are free to share whatever they want with each other. As DM though, I won't let you read another players character sheet. You are free to learn about another player's character in the game, through use of skill, magic, or whatever.
5.In general, most information stays secret even after a game. At least a couple weeks need to pass so the information is no longer current.


*Should you have a question about the game or anything in or about the game, it should not be asked in the game itself. I'm online at least a little bit everyday, so feel free to message, text, e-mail, chat or otherwise communicate any time with questions.

*During a game, the DM's word is the final say. As a player don't bring the game to a halt to question a situation. If you feel something is wrong, bring it up after the game. Keep in mind the Game Information rules and remember that as a player you don't know everything about the game world.

*Everyone is responsible for contributing to the game, keeping things moving and having fun. So try to avoid doing other things while gaming. Pay attention and game.

*It's best to avoid anti-social characters. It's no fun if your character is a quiet type, so you sit there and ignore the DM and the other players for two hours. What is the point of playing the game, if you don't play the game?

*By joining the game, you agree to play in a group. This means, in general, you must stay with the group. Do not try to run off on some personal side solo quest during a group game. I'm more then open to run a solo game at any other time during the week.

[eggynack]

Also wanted to hear the playgrounders table rules and assumptions :) so far just gotten the monk unarmed strike profficiency (which i never thought neccesary honestly, cos they get IUS, which i always read as proficient plus lethal plus no provoking, basically a super profficiency :) )
Amusingly, IUS doesn't give them proficiency at all. I don't even think it's supposed to. My suspicion is that they forgot that when you explicitly list every proficiency that a character gets, they don't implicitly get unarmed strike proficiency as they would if they had all simple weapons. The thing about monks lacking unarmed strike proficiency is that there's just about no one who actually plays that way. Most people don't know about it, and just about everyone who does knows that monks are underpowered, so they deserve all the delicious bones they can have thrown their way. There are some other classic house rules that just about everyone uses. The most notable are both drown healing, and unstoppable drowning, as well as everything having to do with ride by attack. Additionally, a good number of folks have house rules associated with spell schools. Personally, I favor the movement of healing to necromancy, and orb spells to evocation. There's also a bunch of changes that I think should be made to what constitutes evil. There are a bunch of spells that have no business being listed as evil, and as I've argued in the past, I don't think that either undead hordes or poison should be intrinsically evil.

[Jutnut]

Which is metagaming.

Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.[1]

In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions.[1]

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming

The fact you know the information is not metagaming but by acting as though your character knows this info even though they have no knowledge of it (discovered of course by knowledge checks) is.

[Theobod]

Hot daym Tork, your whole post rings a conchordant bell. Glad your not opposed to a tweak here or ther, stops the 'but hill giants dont have that feat' and 'why is the celestial charger using metamagic and castings spells it shouldnt have prepared' printed stuff is guideline, mostly adhered and mostly respected, but switched out fairly based on whimsy within reason. :)
Also wow, yeah never actually read that, I heard the cries of lacking proficiency over the years, but I thought it was all gumph.... unarmed strikes being a natural weapon and all.... then there it is.... in the table of weapons.... unarmed strike :D Simple gorram weapon.
Cheers for the chuckle.
(and i chuck a DC15 heal check to stop a downing man drowning (clearing his airways (not sure its raw though, heard there was something like that in stormwrack... hasnt actually come up)))

[jedipotter]

Hot daym Tork, your whole post rings a conchordant bell.

I'd agree with most of his too.

And I'd add :

*Dice must be rolled in the open.

*No take backs. If you try something and it turns out bad, you can say ''I don't do that".

*You may not ask if something will work.

*As DM my RAW interpretation trumps a players.


I like the 'no questions' too. I've had, oh 100's of games in the past ruined as one player would make a big deal about something and want to know about it, or worse want the know 'why'.

[Theobod]

Yeah, whys and 'what was the DC' and 'would that have worked's are for long after game when its no longer relevant. Also never allow takebacks, an action declared is an action enacted, turn over is turn over :)
I once considered going all 'ironman mode' and requiring actions for a turn to be declared within one minuit but never enacted, most are over in 15 seconds, the ones that arnt require looking up a spell or inventory item and the time spent searching seems unfair to count, just the odd dither here and there, not a perrenial enough problem to consider actually enforcing. However: if a players turn comes about, they are out of the room and dont respond to a yell..... I take their turn with logic being:
Do what im already doing if its working, if its not, do something to kill the foe, help an ally or preserve self, in that priority order unless the character is a coward :3 then order reversed :)

[Jutnut]

I'd agree with most of his too.


*You may not ask if something will work"

I like the 'no questions' too. I've had, oh 100's of games in the past ruined as one player would make a big deal about something and want to know about it, or worse want the know 'why'.

I find this happens with the noobs in my game more than anything, "can I attack him" "can I climb this wall" etc

I don't mind these questions per se but normally say "do you try this then" or "ofc you can but do you?" and they eventually break the habit, its not normally because they want to find the outcome but normally to figure out HOW to do something.

With experienced players I don't find this but if I did I would probably instigate this :)

Sorry tl;dr

Noobs normally do that as a cry for help. Experienced players that do that are *****.

[Theobod]

Oh and I have Monk Wis to AC and Swordsage Wis to AC stack, I consider wis in no armor and wis in light armor to be different enough to stack.

Edit: Well, ofc if the monksage wore armor he would get it once but yeah, get mah drift.

[jedipotter]

Also never allow takebacks,



My games are famous for ''You see a black door covered in rules and white skull images...several piles of bones lie on the ground in front of the door'' type descriptions and the players doing a ''Ok, I touch the door''.

And I find even experienced gamers ''ask too much'', if they are used to the ''Ask Style'' of gaming.

[eggynack]

Oh and I have Monk Wis to AC and Swordsage Wis to AC stack, I consider wis in no armor and wis in light armor to be different enough to stack.

Edit: Well, ofc if the monksage wore armor he would get it once but yeah, get mah drift.
Actually, it would also only apply once if the monksage were wearing no armor. The swordsage's bonus to AC only applies in light armor, so there's no point at which they stack. This becomes doubly problematic when you consider the unarmed swordsage, because they lose light armor proficiency without having the bonus to AC shift to being armorless. It's one of those many cases where the RAW is so disassociated from logic that most people don't even notice it. Most people don't have perfect rule knowledge, myself included, and they fill in the gaps. I knew a guy who reacted in disbelief when I pointed out that you can shoot an orb of force at a golem standing inside an antimagic field, and the golem will be effected as if he were any other monster. Additionally, Stormwrack doesn't appear to have any rules that stop either drown healing, or endless drowning. Drowning is an odd thing.

[TuggyNE]

On the point of apologising, simply no, reason being if it wasn't obvious at the time (they do get to gimme a rundown on why they think so with a page ref if they have it) we don't have all night to run over rules and I have had (still have) groups that WILL derail with arguments, so I avoid the issue, I however respect my players enough to have a look through AFTER for next time. But its a game, mistakes get made all the time on both sides. They don't apologise, neither do I and with this rule my gaming group has improved no end. (so much can get done in 4 hours when 2 of it isnt a rules discussion)

I don't fully understand why apologies (if called for) can't be delivered after/outside the game, but whatever.


Not sure on your problem other than kneejerk 'oh noes my DM is a madman and everywhere the raw lacks he kills players/takes the ***/etc'
While i doubt i can convince you :) worth a try.

@flickerdart yep mostly erring on realism with an eye to balance (and before the 'no realism in my dnd' arguments start, any consistent system is an attempt at realism (someone said that recently in another thread) and to smooth over odd jumps in logic from the rules and @TuggyNE Yep basically to make some logical sense within the assumptions inherit in the game.
Not sure where folks are getting the 'Im not nor never wrong' vibe however, it might be reactionary to any absolute ruling

Mostly the fact that there actually are people who say fairly similar things in their houserules, except that they don't make any particular attempt to be consistent, to rule things based on how they should fairly be, or whatever, but simply tyrannize their players however they feel like. And most of us have had unpleasant discussions with such people. :smallsigh:

But yeah, as long as you use your authority reasonably and to good ends, it's OK.


And I find even experienced gamers ''ask too much'', if they are used to the ''Ask Style'' of gaming.

What exactly counts as too much, and what's the "ask style"?

[GolemsVoice]

*You may not ask if something will work.

I always allow my gamers this right, and I would ask it of any DM I play under. The reasons are simple: As a player,my point of view is radically different from a) what my character actually sees and b) what the DM envisions. This is not a video game, nor a movie. So if I ask "Will this work" I mean, in general "Can I try this, are there any obvious obstacles that I might be missing." Now, I don't want the GM to says "Sure, the DC is 20" or "No, because there are hidden traps in the floor" but I'd at least tell my players if something they wanted to do would be obviously stupid from their character's point of view. Most of the times such things happen, it's simply because information the players received has been interpreted differently by the players. Again, I'm not asking for more information than the fact that yes, I could surely try given the information that my character would have at the moment.

It also serves to bring everybody on the same page regarding a situation, which eliminates endless discussions after the fact, which are decidedly worse.

[CRtwenty]

I always allow my gamers this right, and I would ask it of any DM I play under. The reasons are simple: As a player,my point of view is radically different from a) what my character actually sees and b) what the DM envisions. This is not a video game, nor a movie. So if I ask "Will this work" I mean, in general "Can I try this, are there any obvious obstacles that I might be missing." Now, I don't want the GM to says "Sure, the DC is 20" or "No, because there are hidden trapes in the floor" but I'd at least tell my players if something they wanted to do would be obviously stupid from their character's point of view. Most of the times such things happen, it's simply because information the players received has been interpreted differently by the players. Again, I'm not asking for more information than the fact that yes, I could surely try given the information that my character would have at the moment.

It also serves to bring everybody on the same page regarding a situation, which eliminates endless discussions after the fact, which are decidedly worse.

I agree. Usually when PCs ask this they're clarifying with the DM that there's nothing they missed that would be readily noticed by their character. Sometimes a Player will miss something like a giant fire pit in the center of the room and try to charge or something even though their PC would see it clear as day.

I also agree on the "no takebacks" rule. If a Player says "I do this" they're character is now performing that action regardless of how stupid it may see in hindsight. That habit usually gets broken pretty fast once the Player sees that mooning the King or whatever stupid action they decided to do actually has some consequences.

[Tork]

I always allow my gamers this right, and I would ask it of any DM I play under. The reasons are simple: As a player,my point of view is radically different from a) what my character actually sees and b) what the DM envisions.

Seems odd to me. Players 'asking' to do something is just wrong....they should just have the characters try to do it. But asking the DM ''if we do this will we be 100% successful'' is wrong.

Where does your other point of view come from? The DM describes things and that is the only 'point of view'. When the DM says ''the rift is a good ten feet across and full of boiling acid just five feet down from the top'' that should be clear. How can a player see or envision something else?

And I'll add another bit, often the 'ask' is more like ''I'm to lazy to look up the rules and details about my character, so DM just tell me what is what''.

[eggynack]

Seems odd to me. Players 'asking' to do something is just wrong....they should just have the characters try to do it. But asking the DM ''if we do this will we be 100% successful'' is wrong.

Where does your other point of view come from? The DM describes things and that is the only 'point of view'. When the DM says ''the rift is a good ten feet across and full of boiling acid just five feet down from the top'' that should be clear. How can a player see or envision something else?

And I'll add another bit, often the 'ask' is more like ''I'm to lazy to look up the rules and details about my character, so DM just tell me what is what''.
What if the DM hasn't told you about every facet of the room? For example, your description of the room didn't mention anything about the roughness of the walls, so the player could logically ask whether climbing on the walls would be effective. When you describe a place, it's pretty rare that you'll describe every aspect of it in minute detail, especially if it's a room more complicated than just an acid pit and nothing else. Maybe you're in a forest, and you're unclear as to whether the terrain is difficult. Maybe you're in a chase, and the DM didn't perfectly describe every alley and side road, or if he did, maybe he didn't say whether the nearby houses had windows that could be feasibly jumped through. I had a DM who rarely if ever mentioned what the weather was, which would affect the effectiveness of call lightning, so it would be completely reasonable to ask whether my lightning bolts would be the regular type, or the super charged type. If I want to, I can learn every single detail of a room I'm in without asking a single question. By contrast, everything I know about a room in game is viewed through the lens of the DM's description. This means that asking is often a completely valid path for a player to take.

[Kudaku]

Like a few other posters I'm worried about the general tone of your rules - to me you come across as aggressive and condescending.

For example, asking players not to argue rules at the table is perfectly fine - you are perfectly in your right to confine that kind of activity to after the game. However, refusing to apologize if you do make a mistake is pointless, rude, and much more likely to make players resent you. An honest apology doesn't cost you anything and if you made an erroneous ruling that significantly punished the players, you should at the very least accept responsibility for your mistake by fessing up and saying you're sorry.


Seems odd to me. Players 'asking' to do something is just wrong....they should just have the characters try to do it. But asking the DM ''if we do this will we be 100% successful'' is wrong.

Where does your other point of view come from? The DM describes things and that is the only 'point of view'. When the DM says ''the rift is a good ten feet across and full of boiling acid just five feet down from the top'' that should be clear. How can a player see or envision something else?

And I'll add another bit, often the 'ask' is more like ''I'm to lazy to look up the rules and details about my character, so DM just tell me what is what''.

It's a reasonable assumption that a player doesn't always know the DC of a task, but the character in question might have a decent idea of how hard something is.

A new player might think his +4 bluff modifier is enough to trick the local innkeeper he's actually the local baron and should get drinks for free. The character in question would probably be able to assess his own bluff skill and realize that he is unlikely to pull that off.

A player with no climbing experience might think 'a cliff' is an easy climb for his +3 climb modifier character. The character in question however, would take one look at that cliff and realize that his odds of making it to the top without breaking his neck is near nil.

A bard player is considering challenging another bard to a sing-off, but wants to assess his competition first. Since the player is unable to hear the bard's music, he should be able to ask the GM "how good is this musician? Is he better than me"?

Looking up DCs only gets you so far since the DCs listed are examples - the only person at the table who knows what the DC of a task is, is the GM.

That does not mean a player should always be able to ask if something will work, however - if the character has no reason to know, then neither does the player. Nor are you under any restriction to give them exact information - phrases like "you're not sure if you can pull that bluff off since the baron would normally travel with an entourage" or "You're not at all confident in your climbing skills - the cliff is high, broken, and you can't see many good handholds" serve well at getting the message across.

[jedipotter]

What if the DM hasn't told you about every facet of the room? For example, your description of the room didn't mention anything about the roughness of the walls, so the player could logically ask whether climbing on the walls would be effective. When you describe a place, it's pretty rare that you'll describe every aspect of it in minute detail, especially if it's a room more complicated than just an acid pit and nothing else.


True, most Dm's don't describe every facet, but then players are free to ask for more details.

I also hate the 'ask if something will work' or 'ask if I can do something' types of questions. I have to waste so much time with the answers of 'maybe' and 'try it and see' each time.

I don't really get the idea that a character might know how hard something is based on the 'plus' the character has. I think this should be more ''common sense''.

[Kudaku]

I don't really get the idea that a character might know how hard something is based on the 'plus' the character has. I think this should be more ''common sense''.

Thing is that common sense relies on something being common. It's hard to apply common sense to checks in Spellcraft, for example.

Furthermore, think about it like this:
I am a construction worker with roughly six years experience.

I can assemble a play house in my sleep.
I can examine a bathroom at a glance and tell you whether or not you should check the shower tiles for mold.
I have a good chance of building a small house, given enough time, some blueprints, and the required materials.
I could probably oversee a large construction project. However I'd probably make some mistakes along the way, as I have not performed in such a position before.
I will have a hard time designing and building a mansion from scratch by myself. I might build a large house, but with no blueprints odds are that it's going to be crooked in places :smallbiggrin:
I will not be able to build a skyscraper by myself, as this task is beyond me.

The above is obvious to me because I am aware of what my own theoretic bonus in profession: Construction Worker. As my bonus increases and I transcend humanity (ie go above level 4) the difficulty of these tasks decreases, and I have a higher chance of completing them successfully.

However, if someone were handed a character sheet that listed my +5 modifier in Profession: Construction Worker, what that translates to is not necessarily obvious to them - though that knowledge should be available to them since the character in question would be perfectly well aware that he couldn't build the Golden Gate by himself at level 1.

I realize I'm using examples that are over the top to make my point here, but think about it - consider a friend that studies or works with something you have absolutely no knowledge about. Could you accurately place what tasks and assignments he'd be able and unable to perform? Then consider skills that have no real-world analogue, like Spellcraft or Use Magic Device, and ask yourself the same question.

[eggynack]

True, most Dm's don't describe every facet, but then players are free to ask for more details.

I also hate the 'ask if something will work' or 'ask if I can do something' types of questions. I have to waste so much time with the answers of 'maybe' and 'try it and see' each time.

I don't really get the idea that a character might know how hard something is based on the 'plus' the character has. I think this should be more ''common sense''.
What's the real difference between asking if the walls are smooth, and asking if it's feasible for you to climb across the walls? As Kudaku mentions, the latter assumes that you have perfect knowledge of every DC in the game. The DM doesn't have to say "Yeah, you'll make it," because that's not how the game works, but he can say, "I'd say it's about a DC 25 climb check, at least based on what your character is aware of." That seems completely and utterly reasonable. I know exactly how likely I am to be able to climb any given wall, because that amount is zero My character knows exactly how likely he is to be able to climb any given wall, because people have an intuitive sense for how capable they are of climbing a given surface. I don't know how likely my character is to climb any given wall, because that's a metagame construct.

[GolemsVoice]

True, most Dm's don't describe every facet, but then players are free to ask for more details.

I also hate the 'ask if something will work' or 'ask if I can do something' types of questions. I have to waste so much time with the answers of 'maybe' and 'try it and see' each time.

And that's exactly what they do when they ask, or at least, what I'd do when I ask, and what I'd allow my players to do. I'd ask for enough details to reasonably assess the chance of succeeding in the task I have set out for. That could mean asking about the smoothness of a wall I'd like to climb, or about the general state of a crowd I'd like to speak to, or about the awareness of a guard I want to sneak past.

I'd rarely give the player the exact DC, but I'd give them enough information so that he can figure out if he wants to do the task, given the difficulty of the situation ("The guards are highly alert and look very professional") and his own skill ("My Move Silently is only 4, better not attempt it").

This way, the players can make informed choices.

This becomes especially important if there are not akebacks in any form. Nothing is more frustrating for a player than attempting something and failingy devastingly just because the player thought the situation was different than it actually was. So the action he took might have seemed completely reasonable given HIS perception, but turned out to be foolish given the DM's perception.

[Kudaku]

On the flip side, you only give players the information that should be readily apparent to their character - if there's factors that are not apparent to the character, then it shouldn't be apparent to the player either.

A fairly easy climb up a steep hill could be complicated by a log trap waiting to crush whoever is unfortunate enough to grap the wrong handhold. Unless the player found the trap (using whatever means are used at the table), you wouldn't mention it.

[Andezzar]

On the flip side, you only give players the information that should be readily apparent to their character - if there's factors that are not apparent to the character, then it shouldn't be apparent to the player either.

A fairly easy climb up a steep hill could be complicated by a log trap waiting to crush whoever is unfortunate enough to grap the wrong handhold. Unless the player found the trap (using whatever means are used at the table), you wouldn't mention it.True, That is why you do not answer with "you can do that." But with something like: "To your knowledge, nothing prevents you from doing that." Just like you never tell the Searcher "there are no traps" but, "you do not find any traps"