What are your default assumptions about D&D?

[Zarrgon]

What are your default assumptions about D&D?

This came up recently. It would seem that many players have assumptions about D&D. And when they sit down to play a game of D&D, they automatically assume that all of their assumptions are true and apply to the gmae about to be played, unless the DM specificity say something before the game.

So, ok, what are they?

Some I've heard:

*Magic shops are everywhere. It is assumed a character can buy magic stuff whenever they want too.

*Groups must have ''one of each character type''.

*Spellcasters are everywhere. It is assumed a character can get a spell cast for them whenever they wish to, for the price listed in the rules.

[Tvtyrant]

Any changes in rules will be explained at the beginning of the game, or if retroactively nerfed be allowed to be trained out of (IE if I use web and it becomes nerfed then I will get to trade it for something else.)

Any tremendous changes in paradigm will be explained before hand; my character shouldn't be assuming there is a great wheel cosmology in place in Eberron for instance.

[ryu]

*Casters who actually bother blasting know what they're doing. IE: All blasters are mailmen or above in competency.

*Any wizard that survived to level two did so by understanding the basic power structure of schools to turn them to his best advantage, or he's an abrupt jaunting fiery burst spec who will likely retrain or shuffle later.

*If their is demand for any service or good there is also supply for that service or good, because the natural ramifications of magic and capitalism.

*Yes even those goods and services.

*Actually especially those goods and services.

*If there isn't proper supply for a good or service it is my moral obligation, and birthright as a wizard to fill the gap.

[Zarrgon]

Any changes in rules will be explained at the beginning of the game, or if retroactively nerfed be allowed to be trained out of (IE if I use web and it becomes nerfed then I will get to trade it for something else.)


So just to follow up, does the player get to decide if a change is a 'nerf' or not?

[Setra]

Multiclassing experience penalties will be ignored

[Morcleon]

The DM and players are not aiming to fight each other; this is a cooperative activity (unless otherwise agreed upon by all parties).

Everything can be refluffed.


So just to follow up, does the player get to decide if a change is a 'nerf' or not?

Yes. If a retroactive change makes it so that you would not have selected that ability if you had known about said change, it constitutes a nerf, and you should be allowed to switch it out.

[Alent]

That the group will spend more time arguing about the rules and eating than actually playing.

That at least one person will play a Tier 5 class because of their misperception of D&D as a combat video game.

That nobody else at the table will understand the point of Druid is to make the act of banning overpowered non-core classes/splatbooks an irrational decision.

[BowStreetRunner]

All encounter challenge ratings will scale with the player characters, therefore after the first few levels it is never wise to bring mounts or followers along unless they are within a few levels of the PCs, such as a Paladin's Special Mount or a Cohort gained through the Leadership. If you bring along normal mounts or low-level followers, (even if you leave them camped outside the dungeon to wait for you) they will die.

[Spore]

Unless otherwise noted, Paladins will be reminded at LEAST trice per session that "a paladin wouldn't do that".

At least one player will try and come up with a totally different and gamebreakingly awesome rogue character.

They will always fail. Or derail the campaign into the adventure of McRogue, because the DM doesn't notice that HE creates the DCs for bluff checks.

And at least in my rounds: We will start up five different campaigns and none will end. Ever. They simply die off.

[Crake]

If we're talking about setting assumptions, and not mechanics assumptions, I personally try not to have any when entering a new setting, and instead trust the DM to provide me with the information I need. If I have any questions, I don't look them up in books, I ask the DM, because when it all comes down to it, it's the DM's world, so he's the only one with answers unless otherwise specified.

That said, I really don't like when DMs take the lazy approach and expect me to find out information on my own by reading campaign material, as this is a) a lazy DMing approach and b) can result in misconceptions where the DM has made changes you aren't aware of and hasn't taken the time/forgot to tell you about said changes. I'd always rather hear it from the DMs mouth.

Now if we're talking mechanical assumptions, I just assume everything is RAW, but reasonable. Typically things I would deem silly if I were to run a game, I also assume my DM would find silly and dont even bother with (although sometimes I ask anyway :smalltongue:). An example of this would be DWK true dragon shenanigans. I would never accept such a thing in one of my games, and regardless of any potential rules legitimacy it holds, I would never ask for such a thing as a player. Although like others have stated, if I pick something based on RAW, and then its functionality is changed, I expect to be able to re-pick this option. For example, one of my DMs decided to rule that using ethereal jaunt doesn't let you go through certain solid objects (like natural terrain), something about "deep ethereal/not deep ethereal". We found that out before i picked up ethereal jaunt via some phase spiders, but had I taken it, and THEN he told me about that, I would have expected a repick on the spot (now I'm just straight up not gonna take it).

[Maginomicon]

I assume that the GM is willing to read rules sources when it makes sense to read things.

I assume that the GM is willing to think like a game designer when thinking about house rules.

I assume that the GM can be reasoned with when attempting to determine Rules as Intended.

I assume that the GM does not use Rule 0 as banhammer unless absolutely game-breakingly necessary.

I assume that the GM won't be so crass as to decide an out-of-game social interaction with the roll of a die.

I assume that the GM writes down their mother-$%@&ing house rules somewhere (in a maintainable way) I can get to and read at any time.

[Togo]

I assume that the players and the DM are working together to create a good and enjoyable game. The corollary to that is that players will cooperate to create characters that mesh well together, don't duplicate eachother's core capabilities, and set out to create characters that are equally powerful rather than the most powerful characters they can. And then that the DM will aim the campaign at that power level, that team, that set of personalities and that set of capabilities.

[The Trickster]

I assume that the point of playing D&D is to have fun, and that everyone will try there best to keep the game as friendly as possible.

I assume that any houserules will be explained before the game starts.

I assume that there will be RP, and that the RP will have an impact on the game.

I assume that the dysfunctional stuff isn't in the game (monks are proficient with unarmed strikes, dragon disciples don't disqualify themselves for their PrC, drowing resurrections, etc).

I assume that there are no wish loops, ice assassin shenanigans, or any other game breaking stuff, unless we all agree on it.

I assume that if a nerf is needed to a character, that the characrer may instead choose another spell/feat in its place.

I assume that I will be able to ask questions about the game, so that I may make an appropriate character.

I think that's it, although I may add more later.

[Faily]

I assume that as a base, the GM will follow the RAW, and notify ahead of time the changes to the RAW for his campaign. Failure to inform of changes and additional houserules are met with frustration and disappointment (because you make something to work according to the rules, only to learn that's not how it's going to work in this game).

I assume that players and GM alike are sitting down to play together in creating a story and having a fun time.

I assume that players do not cheat (and yet it happens).

I assume that the player characters will get their due rewards for overcoming challenges (xp, treasure, etc), as noted in the book.

I assume that the purchase of magic items is available, unless the GM has mentioned ahead of time that such is not possible for the campaign/setting (mind you, I have no issue with such not being possible. Only the inability to not explain the current campaign-world the players).

I assume that the GM will be knowledgeable enough with the rules to be able to make the game run smoothly with minimal fuss (and yet some GMs still have to ask how to calculate DCs after several years).

I assume that the GM will understand how alignment works according to the Rules.

[Telonius]

I assume that the DM has put a fair amount of effort into the campaign. (I do not assume anything about the quality of the effort until I've seen it in action).

I assume that the DM is going to have a good grasp of the rules. (I do not assume that they'll know the particulars of Grappling without having to look).

I assume that each player is doing their best to keep their character sheet updated. (After several encounters with several new players, both as a regular player and as DM, I no longer assume that "their best" includes remembering that you have to add skill points every level; increasing base saves, base attack bonus, and feats at regular intervals; or basically anything other than keeping track of what loot they've taken).

Unless we're running a horror campaign, I assume that every encounter is somehow solve-able. (I do not assume that every battle is winnable; there is a difference).

I assume that, whether there are houserules or not, the rules apply equally to everyone. If Rule Zero is invoked, I assume it must be either for excellent cause or for some truly unforeseen circumstance. (I do not assume a standard ruleset, and always ask what the houserules are).

I assume that everyone at the table will respect everyone else. No parentheses.

[G.Cube]

I assume no pc may be of evil alignment.

I assume if there is an eager new player at the table all other players will be too interested in thier part of the game to assist them, so it is up to me to answer all questions they may have.

I assume that DCs, entitled skill checks, and player ingenuity is irrelevant when the DM wants something to happen in a certain way.

[CRtwenty]

That the DM will explain the setting and overall theme of the campaign ahead of time. So that PCs can design their characters appropriately.

PCs will design their characters as a group for party balance.

The DM will explain any house rules and banned sources prior to the start of the first session.

The party will pool a certain amount of their loot for items or services that help the entire party such as healing and restoration items, or material components for resurrections.

Players rolling a new PC will be allowed to join the party with relative ease.

[Zman]

I assume other players and the DM understand dnd wasn't meant to be optimized beyond a moderate extent, and it certainly was not meant to handle the obscure and game breaking combinations possible that are possible with a vast array of source material.

I assume players and the DM will not attempt to break the game through rules abuse or over optimization.

I assume other players realize that just because a spell is poorly written and allows abuse that it should be used as often as possible in that fashion.

I assume other people find absurd combinations such as Lloth Touched Water Orc Half Miniataurs as ludicrous and fun sapping and immersion thrashing as I do and it has no place in most games.

I assume that everyone understands that the game is a collective effort to have fun.

I assume other players prefer games that make sense and are not simply DM fiat and pen and paper Oblivion(Horrible Leveled Game World).

I assume others find high level play especially "Epic" as rocket tag ridiculous as I do.

Unfortunately, I am often disappointed and proven to make an ass out of me and you(Ass U Me).

[pwykersotz]

I assume nothing, play a spontaneous caster, and roll with it. I find that maintaining assumptions about a campaign ruins my fun of exploring a new world. Sure, sometimes there's a turkey, but most of the time it's pretty fun.

[ryu]

I assume nothing, play a spontaneous caster, and roll with it. I find that maintaining assumptions about a campaign ruins my fun of exploring a new world. Sure, sometimes there's a turkey, but most of the time it's pretty fun.

That's.... oddly specific. Where on earth did that come from?

[Raven777]

Sometimes, wild turkeys appear. They gobble the dices and knock over the mountain dew and make a mess of things. Didn't you know?

[pwykersotz]

Sometimes, wild turkeys appear. They gobble the dices and knock over the mountain dew and make a mess of things. Didn't you know?

Exactly. Like in South Park.

Also:

tur·key
ˈtərkē/
noun
noun: turkey; plural noun: turkeys

1.
a large mainly domesticated game bird native to North America, having a bald head and (in the male) red wattles. It is prized as food, esp. on festive occasions such as Thanksgiving and Christmas.
the flesh of the turkey as food.
2.
informal
something that is extremely or completely unsuccessful, esp. a play or movie.

[ryu]

Okay now it makes sense.

[Craft (Cheese)]

* Players will be expected to have in-character reasons to be working together and to have a common goal: Preferably one more nuanced than "We're all random mercenaries all independently hired to do the same job."

* Backstories shouldn't be too long (a couple of paragraphs is usually sufficient), but should include a connection to at least two other PCs, and at least three unresolved plot hooks in your character's past.

* No PVP, ever, unless the player (not necessarily the character) consents to it first. No, not even if you're Evil. No, not even if he murdered your entire family and you want nothing more than revenge. These subplots can be interesting but that's all they are: Subplots. They are not to interfere with the main focus of the campaign. (Sometimes the main focus IS PvP, but that's rarely fun for any longer than a one-shot.) The players are teammates first and rivals second.


*Magic shops are everywhere. It is assumed a character can buy magic stuff whenever they want too.

I modify this: You can buy any magic items you want while in town but you need at least a month in advance to do so: This represents asking around, getting the item shipped to you from somewhere else, or even commissioning a crafter to do a custom job just for you. These times are abstracted so it always takes about a month, no matter how many items you're buying or how expensive they are.

If you don't have that much time to sit around, then the only items you can purchase will be randomly generated, up to the town's GP limit. If you *really* need a particular item, and don't have the time to sit around for it, you can embark on a side quest to get it, and the whole party needs to agree that it's important enough to do this side quest for.

I think it strikes a nice balance between verisimilitude and playability. Plus, it encourages the players to fluff their characters as having a life outside of adventuring.

(Not that unrestricted magic marts *can't* have verisimilitude, but doing so requires assumptions about how the world works that aren't always appropriate for the setting.)


*Groups must have ''one of each character type''.

If I see a big gaping hole in the players' capabilities (e.g. nobody in the party can Teleport) I'll point it out and urge them to fill the gap somehow, but if nobody wants to modify their characters to do so then I won't force the issue. Plus, themed parties can be lots of fun and sticking to the theme sometimes means having a gap.

[Bronk]

Truly... Sometimes you're just trying to explore someplace new, when a turkey just appears and tries to ruin your day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2doG1XmR4w

[Urpriest]

I assume that people play 3.5 because they enjoy building characters.

I assume that players will want to talk about their characters in between sessions, both mechanical and RP aspects.

I assume that new players will be willing to learn new things, and that experienced players will be willing to help them.

I assume that anyone who feels confident enough in their skill to DM experienced at least some fraction of the WotC product line for 3.5 as it was published, including some exposure to Dragon. I assume that they thus think of the game's fluff not as the contribution from one book or another, but as the overall impression given by commonalities between many products. Similarly, I assume that they have read a few published adventures or Dungeon articles, and via them understand how monsters are put together.

I assume that any player who wants to try something controversial will talk it over with the DM first.

I assume that DMs occasionally make mistakes, and that if I politely point out something that I suspect is a mistake the DM will (when they have time) either acknowledge that mistake, or state otherwise, either way without getting offended.

I assume that players will be ok with quick, possibly mistaken rulings in order to maintain pacing, but only so long as the correct rule is looked up after the session and applied correctly in later cases.

Edit: I assume that other game systems, whether 2e, 4e, Star Wars, or Age of Mythology the Board Game, will not make an appearance. In-setting games like chess or card games are possible exceptions.

[Krobar]

I assume adventuring is dangerous and PCs are eventually going to die.

[BWR]

1. Things work as the RAW state unless otherwise noted at the start of the campaign. It's not always possible to take into account every rule and every item in the game, so changes may be made during play, but these should only come into effect the following session. Both sides should be polite enough not to continune to abuse the contentious element the rest of the current session. Players will in most cases be allowed to replace elements that are altered in-game.

2. No cheating. It seems obvious yet some people will do so.

3. The DM will inform the players what they need to know about the setting beforehand. What sort of game this will be, what sort of characters are acceptable, how close to any established canon for the setting ithe game will stick etc. White lies to hide some plot-critical information are acceptable but should be used sparingly. Silence is more useful.

4. Low-op. I and others I play under are pretty low-op by the standards of some people on thie forum. We are for the most part not interested in running or playing high-op games, and with lack of interest comes lack of proficiency. Certainly, optimization is a spectrum of options but it's fine for a blasty wizard to have Spell Focus and Spell Penetration and a few Evocation spells and not go full mailman or whatever. The Tippy-verse, while an interesting intellectual exercise, will never occur - it's considered TO and not playable along the lines of Pun-Pun and other ridiculous things.

5. Miscellaneous. The magic shop is fine either way. If it exists, ok. If it doesn't, ok. I already accept the existance of magic and vast underground complexes and flying reptilian genius powerhouses that somehow don't rule the world, I can accept magic not being sold or sold like slabs of meat. As long as the setting is internally consistent, I won't complain (too much) about some oddities. There can still be poverty, hunger and disease in a world with lots of 5th level clerics, there can still be blacksmiths who can make a living in world with 9th level wizards. It's possible for a band of plucky heroes to defeat the BBEG who lives in a conveniently easy to locate dungeon filled with ridiculous traps and 'wandering' monsters who hang around for no discernable reason.

[Darth Stabber]

I assume that players that write evil on their character sheets aren't morons, and have maturity and restraint to play them "anti-heroically", not "kill the party and steal their stuff".

I assume that the gm understands why low magic games don't work, or at least understands why I don't want to be there when he finds out why they don't work.

I assume kender are banned and will quit the group post haste if I find otherwise. I have never seen one handled maturely and I am not willing to put up with the infantile defenses that players put forth in defending this poorly designed race. Seriously every kender ever should die in a fire, and every one who likes them is a terrible person.

I assume that if another character messes with mine his life is forfeit. Steal even one object from my character and the retribution will be complete and total. Some would say out of scale, I would say demonstrative. Attack me and you may as well eat you character sheet as my character will do everything in his power to ensure that your destruction is complete, including rekilling. This goes triple for kender, in fact if I have not quit I will PvP kill it in cold blood, regardless of alignment consequences. DIE KENDER DIE!!! Seriously F kender, they are a poor excuse to steal from your party members and not get murdered. The fact that they were not driven to extinction in dragonlance is why that setting is complete trash.

I assume that any player who plays a specialist evoker is a little "special". Ditto any good cleric that preps cure spells, or druid prepping SNA. Pessimism means more happy surprises.

I assume that the GM will do different voices different NPCs, and will be very disappointed if wrong.

I assume that mild refluffs will be acceptable.

I assume that multiclass xp penalties, monk fist non-proficiency and similarly silly things are gone.

[geekintheground]

i assume all material is fair game, unless specifically told otherwise.
i assume books wont get banned, just certain material from said books.

[NichG]

My rule 0 of game assumptions:

- I will assume that my assumptions will be wrong, including this one, until I know the GM pretty well.

Rule 0 conduct corrollary: I will act according to my assumptions until proven wrong, at which point I will attempt to adapt as gracefully as possible rather than being surprised that my assumptions were wrong.

Ebberon game that turns into a planehopping, rules-hopping World of Darkness/Exalted/BESM/GURPS crossover? Sure, bring on the surprises!

Of course, this is tempered by my rule 1 of game assumptions:

- The GM is trying (not necessarily succeeding) to run a game that is fun for the GM and for the players.

Rule 1 conduct corrollary: I will endeavor trust what the GM is doing until Assumption 1 is proven wrong, at which point I should probably find another game.

[Eaglejarl]

As a player:

*) I will assume that the DM will not railroad me

*) Corollary: it is my job to pick up and act on plot hooks, or to proactively do things that the DM can easily flesh out into an adventure

*) Corollary to the corollary: If I / my party want to do something proactively (start a business, break into a goldsmith's vault to steal his stuff, etc) the DM will roll with it and build adventures off of it

*) I am not the center of the universe. The world will change around me, regardless of my actions. Wars might start, shops might open or close, epidemics might stalk the land, people might fall in love or die, all without me being anywhere nearby


As a DM:

*) The players have every right to debate with me, but no right to argue with me.

*) I say when the debate is over, and the players will accept that

*) I will deal fairly with the players -- if they suggest that I've misinterpreted / misunderstood / not known something and they think it should work differently, I will seriously consider their point and act on it if they seem to be right

[Brookshw]

I assume players and DM will discuss character creation as a group prior to the beginning of the campaign and that feedback will be offered.

I assume most things can be refluffed to fit any campaign.

I assume the DM will endeavor to list every house rule up front prior to the start of the campaign, and should it later be determined that additional modifications need be implemented, any that impact a characters build they can freely swap out. At no point should this be used as a means to "penalize".

I assume that we're sitting down to have fun and that is the first objective of the game, and that everyone will work towards this end first and foremost.

I assume players should have a massive amount of agency.

I assume cheese will be kept to an acceptable level based on the group/party.

I assume that no one wants to play rocket tag.

I assume equal application of rules to PCs/NPCs/Monsters.

I assume at least one session per campaign will result in random shenanigans that have little or nothing to do with the overall campaign.

I assume there will be no shortage of bad jokes.

I assume rule 0 / Fiat are tools to help the game and should be used both sparingly and with the overall enjoyment of the game in mind.

I assume the players will reserve large shopping trips to large cities and that exceptionally powerful items will be brought to the DMs attention.

I assume at least three times per campaign my players will make my head hurt.

I assume if source material is desired from a book the DM is not familiar with it will be brought to their attention in advance of it coming up at the table.

I assume if anyone will be unable to attend a session they will attempt to provide as much advance notice as possible.

[Tvtyrant]

So just to follow up, does the player get to decide if a change is a 'nerf' or not?

I should hope so. If the DM were to suddenly make teleport only work on places with a teleport pad or something, and I used it mostly for short range hops I would expect to at the least be allowed to pick up Dimension Door as well. A better response would be for the DM to allow me to dswap for a different 5th level spell and give me DD as a freebie, seeing as how they just took a big chunk out of my character design.

As a DM I banned nets after our home rules had made them too strong by far, and paid out a ton of cash to the players in game as a settlement. They were basically using them as a touch attack stun ability...

[Coidzor]

Any relevant errata of which the DM is aware will be used, except for maybe the one that makes mounts & skirmish not mix & the weird errata that stops being errata for one book and starts being errata for another book partway through.

No evil PCs unless it's an evil campaign that has about a 50-50 chance of devolving into an uninteresting and tawdry affair of knifing one another in the gutters as it does of actually progressing and having a storyline.

Magic exists. And not "low magic," either.

There is a form of healing that is accessible in a straight-forward manner.

No PvP unless we're playing the aforementioned hobos stabbing one another in the ditch for the Evulz, or there's advance notice.

No Kender or Kleptomaniac Rogues.

Downtime will be available unless specified otherwise.

Random sidequests that allow one PC to hog the spotlight for an entire session or longer are generally a bad idea and to be avoided, and if they do occur then the other PCs won't just be tagging along but will be incorporated into the damned thing as well.

Most shopping lists beyond small expenditures(e.g. the party replaces its stock of wands of cure light wounds/lesser vigor) will be compiled between sessions and run by the DM either between sessions or at the next session before play begins.

If we do end up as murderhobos scrabbling in the ditch with one another, all those present are obligated to begin playing Yakkety Sax (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnHmskwqCCQ)if at all within their power.

Similarly, any chase scene will involve Yakkety Sax (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnHmskwqCCQ) as the theme music if any comedy of errors leads to it or there's not a more suitable song.

Rules changes are discussed prior to game or prior to session or even between sessions if at all possible.


Multiclassing experience penalties will be ignored

Probably the biggest one, yeah.


So just to follow up, does the player get to decide if a change is a 'nerf' or not?

It doesn't really matter, if the DM change the rules without informing the players until they try to interact with the rules as the players understand them only to have the DM pull the carpet out from under them, the safest bet is that what the DM just did was a **** move. If the DM changes the rules & gives the players notice after the game is in session, anything that makes their current setup not work in the way they intended it to do so or that means they would not have picked one of the options they did...