How to endear yourself to other players?

[CheddarChampion]

There's all kinds of advice online for how to be a good DM, but what advice would you give someone who wants to play nice with others?

There's rules for out of game stuff of course. But specifically while the game is being played, what can you do to make other players like playing with you?

Don't talk down to people, even if it is in character.

If someone comes up with a plan, try to go along with it, point out something that would cause an issue, or tell them why tell them why your character wouldn't be cool with that.

If you like what someone did, tell them!
"That's clever!" or "Nice Job!"

If you need to call someone out, do it out of game. And do it politely: "Hey X, could you not bring up real world politics in the game? It ruins the mood."

[J-H]

Set up their characters to shine. Buffs, Advantage creation, conversational tactics that lead to points relative to their background, skills, etc.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Be punctual.
Be well-groomed.
Don't police their roleplaying.
Share the spotlight.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Bringing snacks is a massive bonus.

[stoutstien]

Bringing snacks is a massive bonus.

I was going to post this. Good food makes life better for all involved.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I was going to post this. Good food makes life better for all involved.

Hear! hear!

[NaughtyTiger]

Know your character sheet.

Don't play a pain in the butt, and blame it on roleplaying...

[HappyDaze]

Know your character sheet.


Let me expand that to "Know how all of your options work."

If you're going to play a Wild Shaping Moon Druid that wants to select new spells after every long rest but still ends up throwing Conjure Animals around before going beastly yourself, know how the spells and animals (their attacks, their movement, and their senses) work and be ready to make FAST decisions so your turn doesn't take 4x as long as everyone else put together. I had to have this discussion with my wife when she decided to play such a character.

[Yakmala]

1: Show up when you are supposed to.

2: Know how all of your skills, abilities and spells work.

3: Do not speak out of turn.

4: Know what you are going to do when it's your turn and get through it quickly.

5: Use your skills and spells to make other players better.

6: If you and another player have similar skills, don't always try and beat them to the punch or outshine them. Let them have their share of the moments.

7: If you are Chaotic Neutral, don't play it as Chaotic Stupid.

[Pex]

Don't steal from the party. When you find treasure don't keep it for yourself. Share adventure relevant information you learn. You don't always have to get your way, but yes, you should never be never getting your way. If you like to rules lawyer pick your battles. Let the small things go. People will appreciate wanting to follow the rules, but when the player is in his moment of glory don't ruin it with a technicality that makes it not work at all. Do not separate yourself from the party to do your own thing during adventure play unless that's part of the party's plan to split up in the exploration/discovery phase. Do your own private thing during downtime. Do not make snide comments. Do not say your character is superior to others. Do not boast you made a saving throw or did not lose hit points or didn't drop during the combat or have resistance/immunity to something. Do not refuse to help party members. When you do help party members do not comment how dumb they were to get into the situation they are in and sigh you have to save them again.

[HappyDaze]

7: If you are Chaotic Neutral, don't play it as Chaotic Stupid.

Regardless of what alignment you pick, don't play it as an all-consuming drive. Even the most benevolent of Neutral Good folks can get really annoying when they turn it up to 11.

[Zhorn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkFuimg1umY

But more seriously;

Be presentable

Good hygiene, basic grooming, dressed appropriately.
If these base standards are not met, people will be less inclined to sit at the same table as you.

Be respectful.

Show up on time, share the spot light, show interest in the characters and plans of others.
People tend towards showing the same courtesies as those afforded to them

Be engaged.

Show enthusiasm for the game, your involvement, and the involvement of others
Feeds partly into sharing the spotlight, but a more active component. Don't be a wallflower, you need to participate and contribute, and encourage others to do the same.
Acting on bad plans and ideas is better than not engaging in ANY plans or ideas. Help feed into the game. It helps your DM if you can show you can run with the ball, and encourages your fellow players to know you can pass the ball back and forth between them.

[MaxWilson]

But more seriously;
[LIST=1]
Be presentable

Good hygiene, basic grooming, dressed appropriately.
If these base standards are not met, people will be less inclined to sit at the same table as you.

I came here to say this but you beat me to it. : )

Also, be cheerful* and engaged. Don't take spotlight, but also be willing to be engaged--even if you're playing a stoic archaeologist who isn't afraid of dead people, make sure you've got some kind of Achilles Heel that pushes your buttons, makes you emotionally vulnerable, and lets people see who you are behind the stoic mask.

*Grimdark cheerful is perfectly fine too, but don't whine, don't complain, and look for ways to move forward.

Consider being willing to be the one who does stupid things in order to give the party interesting stuff to do. If there's a mysterious potion and no one will drink it because they're all afraid it's poison, consider drinking the potion. If there's a cage with a left inside of it to pull, consider being the one to pull the lever. If the stench goblins want someone to propose marriage to their princess, be willing to do it unless someone else does it first. Don't do this if you feel like it's causing more trouble for other players than it's worth, but if they're enjoying watching you take risks so they can find out what happens, keep doing it.

[NaughtyTiger]

Don't steal from the party. When you find treasure don't keep it for yourself.

i thought about adding this, cuz it comes up alot.... but some tables supposedly like it (not convinced that's a true statement)

[Toadkiller]

Yes, and. Instead of but, no.

It’s improv. If someone comes up with a plan or a story hit work with them to expand it instead of shutting it down.

[Pex]

i thought about adding this, cuz it comes up alot.... but some tables supposedly like it (not convinced that's a true statement)

They may like it at first, but it will eventually cause problems. Players will be fighting among themselves. When the rogue is hunting for treasure while everyone is fighting and finds the great sword +1 flame tongue and never mentions it to anyone nor give it to the fighter who has great weapon style and great weapon master putting it in his bag of holding so he can sell it later, the game is over.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Bring beer/ale.
Be the loot guy(writing everything the party gets and how much each member took).
Be the note guy who always write what happened in the session.



They may like it at first, but it will eventually cause problems. Players will be fighting among themselves. When the rogue is hunting for treasure while everyone is fighting and finds the great sword +1 flame tongue and never mentions it to anyone nor give it to the fighter who has great weapon style and great weapon master putting it in his bag of holding so he can sell it later, the game is over.

It is reasonable in my table. But the rogue will also not complain when the party will punish him for it.

The players never fight among themselves in here, only the character fight among themselves.
I see a game with no in character rivel and in party fighting Boring.
Killing your friend character may not be ok on every table but it is in mine and we are all still good friends.

There is no wrong type of fun, you just need to find someone who also think it's fun.

[MaxWilson]

i thought about adding this, cuz it comes up alot.... but some tables supposedly like it (not convinced that's a true statement)

I think it's more "some tables like the playstyle that results from competition between players, instead of just competing with the DM's imaginary monsters." That doesn't mean there aren't repercussions to getting caught stealing, but the possibility adds spice.

Nobody likes being stolen from, but then again nobody likes dying in Mafia either, but they do like playing Mafia.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I would also like to add, just be nice. Try to take into account other people’s feelings, and if something you are doing is clearly bothering someone else, ask them about it, and try to fix it.

[da newt]

Rule #1 of life applies: "DON'T BE A D!(K"

Be a selfless teammate whenever possible. Cheer for your party members - always keep in mind you are NOT competing with them, it's your party against the world. You may be the DPR king or reality altering finger wiggler but your secondary role is always cheerleader. Find reasons to praise/congratulate others, and sympathize when it doesn't go well for them.

"Yes, and ... " is always good.

Take it seriously, but not too seriously.

Play efficiently.

If you want to do something risky or stupid, make sure it won't negatively impact the other players.

Don't hoard the good stuff - make sure it gets to the PC who can use it best for the party.

[MrStabby]

Actively engage in other PC's backstories, desires and motivations and adapt yours to be compatible with theirs.

Have an honest discussion about playstyle and what you want from the game and be willing to compromise.

Dont be an arse.



Odd thing to hear about grooming coming up. I hadn't realised it was such an issue at tables if I hadn't had a shave for a few days. On the other hand being clean I get.

[Pex]

I think it's more "some tables like the playstyle that results from competition between players, instead of just competing with the DM's imaginary monsters." That doesn't mean there aren't repercussions to getting caught stealing, but the possibility adds spice.

Nobody likes being stolen from, but then again nobody likes dying in Mafia either, but they do like playing Mafia.

It's a difference of expectations and atmosphere. Party games are not the same as roleplaying games are not the same as boardgames.

[HappyDaze]

"Yes, and ... " is always good.


Except when it's not, which is when it explicitly goes counter to one of the dozens of other good points that have been made on this thread.

[RSP]

If you like to rules lawyer pick your battles. Let the small things go. People will appreciate wanting to follow the rules, but when the player is in his moment of glory don't ruin it with a technicality that makes it not work at all.

This is an interesting one as it sounds like you’re saying “let other players break the rules,” which I don’t agree with as a strategy to make the table run better.

[stoutstien]

This is an interesting one as it sounds like you’re saying “let other players break the rules,” which I don’t agree with as a strategy to make the table run better.
Pretty much. Let the DM handle it unless it directly impacts you. Stoping the game because of little things isn't fun for anyone.

[RSP]

Pretty much. Let the DM handle it unless it directly impacts you. Stoping the game because of little things isn't fun for anyone.

But this goes with “know your character sheet/abilities.” If players don’t, it impacts the game for everyone.

DMs shouldn’t be the only ones responsible for knowing the rules: they already have the highest workload at the table by far. If Player X shows up not knowing how their abilities work/the rules of the game, correcting them is better than having that continue for the entire campaign.

But that’s my opinion, others may be fine letting those Players constantly try to break the rules.

[Azuresun]

If you're doing a lot of the talking, stop and check you're not talking over other players who are trying to make a point, or just dominating the conversation so much that they can't get a word in edgeways.

Related to the above, if you see a player isn't saying much, they might be shy, or uncertain what to do or what they can do. So try actively seeking their input, or pointing out when they could help with something.

"...so that's why I think we should go to the troll caves. But what do you think, Jane?"
"We need a distraction. Hey, John, don't you have some illusion magic that might help with that?"

Likewise, if they seem to be forgetting their own abilities a lot, a gentle reminder can help. Don't give orders, don't overrule what they're doing, just let them know there's another option in their current situation.

[stoutstien]

But this goes with “know your character sheet/abilities.” If players don’t, it impacts the game for everyone.

DMs shouldn’t be the only ones responsible for knowing the rules: they already have the highest workload at the table by far. If Player X shows up not knowing how their abilities work/the rules of the game, correcting them is better than having that continue for the entire campaign.

But that’s my opinion, others may be fine letting those Players constantly try to break the rules.

there's a difference between a player not knowing their class abilities and a player who constantly in disagreement with the 90% of the game that is summed up as "ask your DM."

[RSP]

there's a difference between a player not knowing their class abilities and a player who constantly in disagreement with the 90% of the game that is summed up as "ask your DM."

Sure, but the situation in question was “do you correct other Players who don’t know their abilities”, not “should you be a Player who is constantly in disagreement with the 90% of the game that is summed up as ‘ask your DM.‘“

[stoutstien]

Sure, but the situation in question was “do you correct other Players who don’t know their abilities”, not “should you be a Player who is constantly in disagreement with the 90% of the game that is summed up as ‘ask your DM.‘“

That's the point. literally anyting that a player ask the DM and the DM allows is what happens as far as the game is concerned. if a player wants the flap their arms to see if they can fly and a DM says sure that's the end of it. If a player disagrees with that to the point it ruins their enjoyment of the game then they should probably be in the DM position.

[RSP]

That's the point. literally anyting that a player ask the DM and the DM allows is what happens as far as the game is concerned. if a player wants the flap their arms to see if they can fly and a DM says sure that's the end of it. If a player disagrees with that to the point it ruins their enjoyment of the game then they should probably be in the DM position.

I disagree with the jump you’re making.

If a Player, say, tries to use an ability that requires sight on a target that is Invisible, and the DM doesn’t think of the sight requirement in the heat of the moment, pointing it out isn’t the same thing as arguing against a DM ruling.

If you believe those two situations to be the same, then we’re on very different viewpoints.

The DM and, in theory, the other Players want to play by the rules, but asking everyone to remember all the rules at all times, is a lot, particularly for new Players or DMs who are running the world and NPCs, as opposed to one character.

[stoutstien]

I disagree with the jump you’re making.

If a Player, say, tries to use an ability that requires sight on a target that is Invisible, and the DM doesn’t think of the sight requirement in the heat of the moment, pointing it out isn’t the same thing as arguing against a DM ruling.

If you believe those two situations to be the same, then we’re on very different viewpoints.

The DM and, in theory, the other Players want to play by the rules, but asking everyone to remember all the rules at all times, is a lot, particularly for new Players or DMs who are running the world and NPCs, as opposed to one character.

Stoppage of the game due ruling disagreements have the same effect regardless. now if a DM is unsure of the rules and ask the table then that's different but once they decided that sight wasn't required then that's it. No point stopping the game over it.
You better off bringing it up at the end of the session or the beginning of the next one. Im partial for all those discussions only at the beginning of sessions.

[RSP]

Stoppage of the game due ruling disagreements have the same effect regardless. now if a DM is unsure of the rules and ask the table then that's different but once they decided that sight wasn't required then that's it. No point stopping the game over it.
You better off bringing it up at the end of the session or the beginning of the next one. Im partial for all those discussions only at the beginning of sessions.

It’s not a ruling disagreement: the DM isn’t saying “I’m not playing with lighting conditions;” they’re forgetting to have the lighting conditions affect the character’s.

You appear to want the game to run in a “if the DM doesn’t catch me, I can do whatever I want with the rules.” I’m going on record as saying I don’t think this is the way to endear yourself to other Players.

No one likes the player who always “forgets” the rules that negatively impact their character.

[stoutstien]

It’s not a ruling disagreement: the DM isn’t saying “I’m not playing with lighting conditions;” they’re forgetting to have the lighting conditions affect the character’s.

You appear to want the game to run in a “if the DM doesn’t catch me, I can do whatever I want with the rules.” I’m going on record as saying I don’t think this is the way to endear yourself to other Players.

No one likes the player who always “forgets” the rules that negatively impact their character.

If you have a player constantly trying to get one over on the table then the issue is nothing to do with the rules.

[RSP]

If you have a player constantly trying to get one over on the table then the issue is nothing to do with the rules.

Agreed: and same with Players who get upset when they have to follow the same rules that everyone else is adhering to.

Pointing out that someone is trying to do something in violation of the rules isn’t being a bad Player; it’s also not the same thing as arguing over rulings.

[stoutstien]

Agreed: and same with Players who get upset when they have to follow the same rules that everyone else is adhering to.

Pointing out that someone is trying to do something in violation of the rules isn’t being a bad Player; it’s also not the same thing as arguing over rulings.

Eh. It's a question of timing. If a player is interrupting the pacing and tempo of the game pointing out violations then they are 100x more annoying then the player who doesn't know the difference between actions and reactions. a player only needs describe what they want to attempt to do and the DM takes it from there using the rules to facilitate that decision.

[RSP]

Eh. It's a question of timing. If a player is interrupting the pacing and tempo of the game pointing out violations then they are 100x more annoying then the player who doesn't know the difference between actions and reactions. a player only needs describe what they want to attempt to do and the DM takes it from there using the rules to facilitate that decision.

If the DM intends the game to have the lighting rules, then pointing out those rules isn’t going against the DM, it’s helping them. If during combat it’s pointed out that the Variant Human Character can’t Counterspell the Wizard d/t not seeing them in the dark conditions, that’s not a pacing thing, it’s a rule thing.

The DM doesn’t want the encounters they work on creating to be sidestepped because they forget a rule.

[stoutstien]

If the DM intends the game to have the lighting rules, then pointing out those rules isn’t going against the DM, it’s helping them. If during combat it’s pointed out that the Variant Human Character can’t Counterspell the Wizard d/t not seeing them in the dark conditions, that’s not a pacing thing, it’s a rule thing.

The DM doesn’t want the encounters they work on creating to be sidestepped because they forget a rule.

Question of taste I suppose. I'm of the mentality that of a single rule mechanic is the make or break factor of an encounter then that encounter probably sucked to begin with.

Anecdotal side note: I'm actually getting to play in a game recently and I'm having a blast not dealing with rules past the basics. All the other players are new to newish as is the DM. It's not my job to make sure everyone is playing by the rules. My job is figure out how to get the 23 shrubs out of the city an other party members stole out of the city before we get caught.

[Pex]

But this goes with “know your character sheet/abilities.” If players don’t, it impacts the game for everyone.

DMs shouldn’t be the only ones responsible for knowing the rules: they already have the highest workload at the table by far. If Player X shows up not knowing how their abilities work/the rules of the game, correcting them is better than having that continue for the entire campaign.

But that’s my opinion, others may be fine letting those Players constantly try to break the rules.

They're not trying to break the rules. They don't know they're doing it, especially for new players. They're excited by what's happening. When the Sorcerer wants to Quicken Fireball then cast Polymorph say something. When the Barbarian wants to pour a potion of healing down the dropped Cleric's throat then attack the orc who dropped him to have his heroic moment, if the DM doesn't say anything about it keep quiet. Doesn't matter how right you are the Barbarian can't do both, you're ticking off the Barbarian and the Cleric players. Maybe the DM as well who also knows you are right but was going to let it go anyway to allow the Barbarian his moment of glory of saving the Cleric for a change and be the hero, but now you're putting him on the spot to enforce the rule.

[stoutstien]

They're not trying to break the rules. They don't know they're doing it, especially for new players. They're excited by what's happening. When the Sorcerer wants to Quicken Fireball then cast Polymorph say something. When the Barbarian wants to pour a potion of healing down the dropped Cleric's throat then attack the orc who dropped him to have his heroic moment, if the DM doesn't say anything about it keep quiet. Doesn't matter how right you are the Barbarian can't do both, you're ticking off the Barbarian and the Cleric players. Maybe the DM as well who also knows you are right but was going to let it go anyway to allow the Barbarian his moment of glory of saving the Cleric for a change and be the hero, but now you're putting him on the spot to enforce the rule.

Where the like button on this site.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Engage at the table. First ever adventure I ever did, I was a player and none of the two other players really did anything. It was a family game and one of the players either didn't show up, or just continuously asked which dice to roll. The other didn't learn their abilities and complained the whole time. No-one role-played save me, and everyone treated it as though it was a video game, fight monster, get xp. DnD is not a video game, it can be played like one, but conventionally, it isn't.

[RSP]

They're not trying to break the rules. They don't know they're doing it, especially for new players. They're excited by what's happening. When the Sorcerer wants to Quicken Fireball then cast Polymorph say something. When the Barbarian wants to pour a potion of healing down the dropped Cleric's throat then attack the orc who dropped him to have his heroic moment, if the DM doesn't say anything about it keep quiet. Doesn't matter how right you are the Barbarian can't do both, you're ticking off the Barbarian and the Cleric players. Maybe the DM as well who also knows you are right but was going to let it go anyway to allow the Barbarian his moment of glory of saving the Cleric for a change and be the hero, but now you're putting him on the spot to enforce the rule.

Why not explain the rules to the Player so they understand the game? Do you really assume the Player is incapable of understanding the 1 Action per turn rule?

Why would explaining that both using a potion and attacking use Actions, “tick off” the Barbarian??

Do you actually think explaining the rules of the game to a new player should make them mad?!?

Why on earth would you want that at your playing table?

“I told you NEVER TELL ME THE RULES! I PLAY THE WAY I WANT!!”

Yeah, sounds fun.

I, however, prefer helping new players learn the game. I expect all Players to be respectful and reasonable at the table. If someone doesn’t realize something’s wrong and someone else points it out, that’s completely fine. It should not be met with anger: if that’s the case, that Player isn’t respecting the others at the table.

[stoutstien]

Why not explain the rules to the Player so they understand the game? Do you really assume the Player is incapable of understanding the 1 Action per turn rule?

Why would explaining that both using a potion and attacking use Actions, “tick off” the Barbarian??

Do you actually think explaining the rules of the game to a new player should make them mad?!?

Why on earth would you want that at your playing table?

“I told you NEVER TELL ME THE RULES! I PLAY THE WAY I WANT!!”

Yeah, sounds fun.

I, however, prefer helping new players learn the game. I expect all Players to be respectful and reasonable at the table. If someone doesn’t realize something’s wrong and someone else points it out, that’s completely fine. It should not be met with anger: if that’s the case, that Player isn’t respecting the others at the table.

In all honesty if a player says never tell them the rules and then you tell them the rules you are directly and purposely being disrespectful to that player.
players other than the DM simply do not have the responsibility or the authority to make rulings.

There is also the issue of different learning styles and techniques. Some people can read the basic rules and apply them in a very straightforward fashion other learn by forming cognitive relationships and connections with doing. So you might think that you're helping that player but you could be disrupting them actually learning how to play the game by reciting the rules to them.

[RSP]

In all honesty if a player says never tell them the rules and then you tell them the rules you are directly and purposely being disrespectful to that player.
players other than the DM simply do not have the responsibility or the authority to make rulings.

Again, it’s not rulings: it’s literally the rules of the game. And the table absolutely has the ability to remind players of the rules.

I can’t believe that’s how anyone plays.

Player: “I kill the Orc Chieftain.”

DM: “Okay roll to see if you hit.”

Player: “No. I said I killed the Chieftain, so the Chieftain is dead.”

Again, I’m not sure who’s playing at your tables that you can’t have respectful conversations about the rules like adults, but it sounds like an awful, unsocial bunch.

[stoutstien]

Again, it’s not rulings: it’s literally the rules of the game. And the table absolutely has the ability to remind players of the rules.

I can’t believe that’s how anyone plays.

Player: “I kill the Orc Chieftain.”

DM: “Okay roll to see if you hit.”

Player: “No. I said I killed the Chieftain, so the Chieftain is dead.”

Again, I’m not sure who’s playing at your tables that you can’t have respectful conversations about the rules like adults, but it sounds like an awful, unsocial bunch.

Using hyperbole to support your view isn't really helpful. First off nobody said that a players declaring the results of they're action only that they are declaring what they're trying to do. Second the DM making a ruling and stating a rule or the exact same thing are leagues different than a player doing that same.

[RSP]

Second the DM making a ruling and stating a rule or the exact same thing are leagues different than a player doing that same.

No they aren’t. If there’s a question of how the game is played, that’s a ruling. If it’s something everyone at the table knows is a rule of the game, and the DM forgets to factor it in, that’s not a ruling, it’s just that they weren’t thinking of that rule at the time.

Reminding anyone at the table of the rules shouldn’t be met with anger. Again, it’s everyone’s responsibility to know the rules and their character’s abilities. If someone’s failing at that part of the game, a reminder is completely acceptable.

Allowing Players to ignore the rules because they don’t want to deal with them, isn’t the answer.

[NaughtyTiger]

They're not trying to break the rules. They don't know they're doing it, especially for new players. They're excited by what's happening. When the Sorcerer wants to Quicken Fireball then cast Polymorph say something. When the Barbarian wants to pour a potion of healing down the dropped Cleric's throat then attack the orc who dropped him to have his heroic moment, if the DM doesn't say anything about it keep quiet. Doesn't matter how right you are the Barbarian can't do both, you're ticking off the Barbarian and the Cleric players. Maybe the DM as well who also knows you are right but was going to let it go anyway to allow the Barbarian his moment of glory of saving the Cleric for a change and be the hero, but now you're putting him on the spot to enforce the rule.

Then when ranger tries to do the same thing the next session, DM says no that's against the rules...
I'm with Rsp...

call out the error, if the DM says it's okay, then fine it's out in the open.

if the DM says, don't help me, then fine (ish).

[stoutstien]

Then when ranger tries to do the same thing the next session, DM says no that's against the rules...
I'm with Rsp...

call it out, if the DM says it's okay, then fine it's out in the open.

Unless it somehow leads to some irreversible outcome just make a note and bring it up after the session or before the next one. That way of it was intentional then it's covered and of it wasn't it can be addressed without game stoppage.

[RSP]

Unless it somehow leads to some irreversible outcome just make a note and bring it up after the session or before the next one. That way of it was intentional then it's covered and of it wasn't it can be addressed without game stoppage.

Why not teach the Players while it matters? Tell the Barb from the previous example, they can either give a potion or attack. Explain how death saves work. Give them the benefit of the doubt that they can understand the rules and make a choice with consequences.

[stoutstien]

Why not teach the Players while it matters? Tell the Barb from the previous example, they can either give a potion or attack. Explain how death saves work. Give them the benefit of the doubt that they can understand the rules and make a choice with consequences.

Because it's solely the DMs call and they have enough to keep track of before a player decides to interrupt them every 5 minutes with rule citations.
Who knows maybe communal ruling is more common than I expect. That would explain why there's a common complaint that encounters take too long to complete.

[RSP]

Because it's solely the DMs call and they have enough to keep track of before a player decides to interrupt them every 5 minutes with rule citations.
Who knows maybe communal ruling is more common than I expect. That would explain why there's a common complaint that encounters take too long to complete.

Yeah, DMs have enough to keep track of before being asked to remember every rule in the book during every situation. That’s one reason why it’s okay to help them out.

Another is that we’re all playing the game together. Everyone at the table, Players and DM, are playing the game and have an interest in it being played by the rules. No Player has a right to ignore that or try to intimidate others into letting them ignore the rules by “getting ticked” that the rules are enforced.

Getting mad because someone is reminding you of relevant rules isn’t acceptable. I don’t care if it’s Chess, Risk, or D&D, it’s not respecting the people you’re playing with to do so.

Two examples that came to mind while on this thread:

1) been playing with my current group for over two years. DM and I had played 5e before (and together), and the other Players has a strong history with D&D but we’re new to 5e.

Early on, one Player on their character’s turn drank a potion, then went to attack. The DM allowed it to happen. Fast forward two years and in the last month two of the other Players were confused about whether they could drink a potion and attack on the same turn.

I don’t think that happens had their first experience with potions been adjudicated correctly.

2) a couple sessions ago my 13 Warlock tried to Counterspell an NPC Wizard Casting. I asked the DM what level the spell was and was told 5th, so I rolled my Cha check and didn’t beat the DC 15. The spell got cast (Cloudkill) and start affecting the PCs. Our Wizard PC Dispels it on their turn (using a 5th). The following round it hits me that I should have auto-succeeded on the Counterspell due to only having 5th level spells. The PCs should have a few more HPs and the Wizard a 5th level slot, but I forgot about it. I wish another Player had picked up on that and reminded me, but that’s not what happened. I apologized for my mistake.

[stoutstien]

Yeah, DMs have enough to keep track of before being asked to remember every rule in the book during every situation. That’s one reason why it’s okay to help them out.

Another is that we’re all playing the game together. Everyone at the table, Players and DM, are playing the game and have an interest in it being played by the rules. No Player has a right to ignore that or try to intimidate others into letting them ignore the rules by “getting ticked” that the rules are enforced.

Getting mad because someone is reminding you of relevant rules isn’t acceptable. I don’t care if it’s Chess, Risk, or D&D, it’s not respecting the people you’re playing with to do so.

Two examples that came to mind while on this thread:

1) been playing with my current group for over two years. DM and I had played 5e before (and together), and the other Players has a strong history with D&D but we’re new to 5e.

Early on, one Player on their character’s turn drank a potion, then went to attack. The DM allowed it to happen. Fast forward two years and in the last month two of the other Players were confused about whether they could drink a potion and attack on the same turn.

I don’t think that happens had their first experience with potions been adjudicated correctly.

2) a couple sessions ago my 13 Warlock tried to Counterspell an NPC Wizard Casting. I asked the DM what level the spell was and was told 5th, so I rolled my Cha check and didn’t beat the DC 15. The spell got cast (Cloudkill) and start affecting the PCs. Our Wizard PC Dispels it on their turn (using a 5th). The following round it hits me that I should have auto-succeeded on the Counterspell due to only having 5th level spells. The PCs should have a few more HPs and the Wizard a 5th level slot, but I forgot about it. I wish another Player had picked up on that and reminded me, but that’s not what happened. I apologized for my mistake.

Sounds like your group just has a more game as war mindset which is fine. You also have a predetermined agreement at your table about calling rules which is just something that think is uncommon or at least in my experience. I've been a tables where it happens and I get no enjoyment from it. I get all my rule lawyering out my system on forums like this.

We drifted off topic a tad so to wrap it back, respect the player's before the game.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Don't try to overshadow other players. If an existing player is an elf rogue who specializes in perception based things, probably don't try to do the exact same thing but better.

[RSP]

Sounds like your group just has a more game as war mindset which is fine. You also have a predetermined agreement at your table about calling rules which is just something that think is uncommon or at least in my experience. I've been a tables where it happens and I get no enjoyment from it. I get all my rule lawyering out my system on forums like this.

We drifted off topic a tad so to wrap it back, respect the player's before the game.

The disrespect to Players doesn’t come in pointing out the rules to them, it comes from a Player ignoring the rules that everyone else is playing with; or worse, a Player getting mad at other Players because they have to abide by the rules same as everyone else.

I really don’t see how you can defend a Player getting mad at others because the rules of the game they are playing that they don’t know/are ignoring, are pointed out to them.

[NaughtyTiger]

Not knowing the all rules is okay.
Don't ask the DM for clarification on every rule while she is attending to someone else. Ask the player next to you, so the DM can do her job.

[Pex]

Then when ranger tries to do the same thing the next session, DM says no that's against the rules...
I'm with Rsp...

call out the error, if the DM says it's okay, then fine it's out in the open.

if the DM says, don't help me, then fine (ish).

You can remind the correct rule when the combat is over so that everyone understands. There wouldn't be a next time for the Ranger. If there is a next time anyway then you can remind them and no one will get ticked off because they'll remember it was discussed. I said pick your battles, not never correct a rule break. Being a rules lawyer to help people learn the game is fine. Being a suffering know it all is not if you want to endear yourself to other players, which is the point of this thread.

[lordshadowisle]

If you're doing a lot of the talking, stop and check you're not talking over other players who are trying to make a point, or just dominating the conversation so much that they can't get a word in edgeways.

Related to the above, if you see a player isn't saying much, they might be shy, or uncertain what to do or what they can do. So try actively seeking their input, or pointing out when they could help with something.

This would be so helpful in the games I'm playing online. Unfortunately without face-to-face and only with voice chat, it can sometimes be difficult to get a word in.

[RSP]

You can remind the correct rule when the combat is over so that everyone understands. There wouldn't be a next time for the Ranger. If there is a next time anyway then you can remind them and no one will get ticked off because they'll remember it was discussed. I said pick your battles, not never correct a rule break. Being a rules lawyer to help people learn the game is fine. Being a suffering know it all is not if you want to endear yourself to other players, which is the point of this thread.

Again, it’s not okay to “get ticked off” whether it’s the first time someone’s learning a rule, or the tenth time they’ve forgotten about it. It’s not okay to get mad at people because you don’t know/remember/care about the rules.

The Player who does that is simply trying to bully the DM and the table into not enforcing the rules on their character - it should never be accepted as okay.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Another thing is being kind to new players who may not know the rules as well as you.

[RSP]

You can remind the correct rule when the combat is over so that everyone understands. There wouldn't be a next time for the Ranger. If there is a next time anyway then you can remind them and no one will get ticked off because they'll remember it was discussed. I said pick your battles, not never correct a rule break. Being a rules lawyer to help people learn the game is fine. Being a suffering know it all is not if you want to endear yourself to other players, which is the point of this thread.

And I’m just curious on this: in your “it’s okay to get mad if someone tells you the rules the first time, but not on subsequent times,” how does explaining the rules of character creation factor in? If you explain Darkvision and the lighting rules while a new Player is deciding between a Halfling and an Elf character, does that sufficiently count as telling them once, so “no one will get ticked off” because it was discussed? Or are they still allowed to “get ticked off” at other Players for reminding them in this odd rule of yours?

Likewise, if the DM states at session zero that they have a certain houserule, is that considered something the Players should “remember it was discussed” or do they get to get angry when they’re reminded of it?

Again, just curious on when you think it’s okay to get mad at other Players for abiding by the rules of the game. .

[stoutstien]

And I’m just curious on this: in your “it’s okay to get mad if someone tells you the rules the first time, but not on subsequent times,” how does explaining the rules of character creation factor in? If you explain Darkvision and the lighting rules while a new Player is deciding between a Halfling and an Elf character, does that sufficiently count as telling them once, so “no one will get ticked off” because it was discussed? Or are they still allowed to “get ticked off” at other Players for reminding them in this odd rule of yours?

Likewise, if the DM states at session zero that they have a certain houserule, is that considered something the Players should “remember it was discussed” or do they get to get angry when they’re reminded of it?

Again, just curious on when you think it’s okay to get mad at other Players for abiding by the rules of the game. .

no one said that it was ok to get mad and take it out on a fellow player. those are scenarios you invented to support your point. IF a player did have an out burst at another player for correcting a ruling then both players in question are in the wrong.

[RSP]

no one said that it was ok to get mad and take it out on a fellow player. those are scenarios you invented to support your point. IF a player did have an out burst at another player for correcting a ruling then both players in question are in the wrong.

Read Pex’s Posts that I quoted: they’ve said it multiple times.

[Kish]

i thought about adding this, cuz it comes up alot.... but some tables supposedly like it (not convinced that's a true statement)
I find myself suspecting it's more a matter of a combination of "I like it because I'm thinking in terms of my being the one who gets more treasure" and "If I admit I don't like it the people I'm imagining reacting to this will laugh at me and call me a wimp."

[stoutstien]

Read Pex’s Posts that I quoted: they’ve said it multiple times.

i guess if the only way you know how to deal with being upset or ticked off is to have an outburst but that is something you added.

[RSP]

i guess if the only way you know how to deal with being upset or ticked off is to have an outburst but that is something you added.

Being upset or ticked off at someone because you have to abide by the rules of a game you’re playing with others is not an okay way to react.

You can defend it all you want, but it’s not an appropriate way to play D&D or any game. As you’ve decided to answer for Pex, I’ll ask you as well: why do you think it’s okay to get mad at other Players for pointing out rules of the game that were otherwise being ignored?

Why don’t the other Players have a say in how the game is played? They’re all involved just as much as other Players.

Why do you think it’s okay to bully or intimidate other Players at the table with statements like “dont tell me the rules” when they’re ignoring the rules?

Why is it okay to treat the rest of the table this way?

[MrStabby]

I think that pointing out the rules is fine. Repeatedly pointing out the same rule isn't. Poining out rules in an agressive way isn't fine.


Too often these discussions neglect everyone with a stake in the outcome. People think about the DM and person making the illegal action and the person poining it out. Just as important are the other people at the table.

These other people may be quiet because they are new, because they are lacking in confidence or for any number of other reasons. They have characters as well that would like to do cool things, but cool isn't just what you can do - its what you can do that makes you stand out. If a DM being lax is letting some small subset of characters (which may be just 1) dominate all the awesome things happening in a session then it has an impact on these other players.

This doesn't mean the decision to let a player break the rules to do stuff is wrong, but it should be a decision made knowingly. With a new DM or one who has played under such consitent house rules that they forget what is RAW, this can be hard to keep on top of. A supportive player looking out for EVERYONE at the table who speaks up to ensure people are aware of the rules is a good thing - as long as they pipe down when people know. Its good as long as they are a source of information rather than an advocate against the DM and as long asthey can do it quickly.

[RSP]

I think that pointing out the rules is fine. Repeatedly pointing out the same rule isn't. Poining out rules in an agressive way isn't fine.


Too often these discussions neglect everyone with a stake in the outcome. People think about the DM and person making the illegal action and the person poining it out. Just as important are the other people at the table.


Agreed. All the Players (including the DM) have input in the game, both in the game world and the real world, and no Player has a right to disrespect others.

And each Player and each PC should have a chance to contribute, but that’s different than forcing PCs (not Players) to contribute by breaking the rules. Explaining the rules so the Player is aware of what their PC can (and can’t do), is better than making them think the game is played under a false set of rules.

Explaining the rules to a new Player or reminding them of the rules if they’re forgetful, isn’t taking away from what their PC can do, it’s actually helping them become aware of what their PC can do (within the rules of the game).

If while playing baseball, one player doesn’t want to stop batting after their 3rd strike, the other players have a right to point out the rules everyone is playing under, and get the player who struck out to conform to those rules. It’s not appropriate for the player who struck out to get angry (or ticked off) that the other players want them to abide by the rules.

That’s not “preventing that batter from having their moment to shine”, and really it’s more the opposite: the player who wants to not abide by the rules is taking away the other Players’ ability to shine and act.

In the baseball analogy, the batter not leaving the plate until they get a hit, is taking away from other players’ chances to legitimately get a hit.

In D&D, allowing the Barb to break Action economy to “illegitimately” heal a down PC and kill the BBEG, is preventing other PCs from from having the opportunity to do one of those things legitimately. In that sense, it’s disrespectful to the other players who also want their PCs to contribute and are doing so in a way that abides by the rules.

[da newt]

Rsp29a and Stoutstien are providing a fine example of "How to endear yourself to other players." See how well they have endeared themselves to each other? Thanks guys!

[RSP]

Rsp29a and Stoutstien are providing a fine example of "How to endear yourself to other players." See how well they have endeared themselves to each other? Thanks guys!

I’ve been thinking that as well, though, I think we’re both remaining civil and, as this conversation is not taking up table game-time, it’s being done in an appropriate way.

Sarcasm aside, I do believe it’s a good way to see how different Players view their rights/responsibilities at the table.

[Waterdeep Merch]

It goes a bit above and beyond and isn't going to be something everyone can do, but if you make a character who is likable in nature and roleplay them well the other players will notice.

I don't necessarily mean a heal/buff bot, though that is definitely an easy way to get there. I don't mean someone with an awesome backstory, either, because your actions in the present are what will determine likability, not how well they were written in the past. And I don't exactly mean a nice character, though characters that have a nice streak are more likely to be likable.

Think about the most universally beloved characters in fiction (not your favorites- the ones everyone else loves). Try boiling them down to their core, the reason everyone likes these characters, see if you can't find something you can make a character sheet for and roleplay at the table.

[NaughtyTiger]

You can remind the correct rule when the combat is over so that everyone understands. There wouldn't be a next time for the Ranger. If there is a next time anyway then you can remind them and no one will get ticked off because they'll remember it was discussed. I said pick your battles, not never correct a rule break. Being a rules lawyer to help people learn the game is fine. Being a suffering know it all is not if you want to endear yourself to other players, which is the point of this thread.

You can also remind the correct rule when combat is happening so that everyone understands the context.
The scenario that Rsp laid out is a player got the rule wrong, and the DM missed it cuz she forgot a condition of the game. There will be a next time, cuz the DM will prolly forget something again.

You indicate that reminding someone of a rule at the moment is "battle". I disagree
You indicate that reminding someone of a rule at the moment is "being a suffering know it all". I disagree
You indicate that that being a "rules lawyer" is fine. I disagree.


When the Barbarian wants to pour a potion of healing down the dropped Cleric's throat then attack the orc who dropped him to have his heroic moment, if the DM doesn't say anything about it keep quiet. Doesn't matter how right you are the Barbarian can't do both, you're ticking off the Barbarian and the Cleric players. Maybe the DM as well who also knows you are right but was going to let it go anyway to allow the Barbarian his moment of glory of saving the Cleric for a change and be the hero, but now you're putting him on the spot to enforce the rule.

Takeaways from this scenario:
A player pointing out the rule ruins the fun for both.
A DM pointing out the rule is more fun for the table.

Neither the barbarian nor the cleric know the rules of the game, or the cleric does and is okay with slipping it past the DM.
Once the rule is clarified the DM must follow the rules, and cannot allow the cleric up.

Rsp never said he would continue in-game corrections if the DM or another player said stop. Any continued suggestion that that is the case is unfair.

At this point, it is clear that my default playstyle differs from stoutstein's or pex's. Does that mean that they would hate playing with me? No... if they clarify that they don't like X, i will very likely stop doing X...

[Pex]

Continuously interrupting the game to correct every minutiae of rule breaking is not endearing. It has nothing to do with the rightness of playing by the rules. It's about social interaction. Do speak up when it's a major violation. Don't worry about the small stuff at the moment it happens and deal with it later. If the DM/players want you to speak up every time all the time, great, do it. You wouldn't be ticking them off then.

I know this to be true because I speak from experience being the rules lawyer. I had to learn when to speak up and when to keep my mouth shut.

[NaughtyTiger]

Continuously interrupting the game to correct every minutiae of rule breaking is not endearing. It has nothing to do with the rightness of playing by the rules. It's about social interaction.
Agree completely


Do speak up when it's a major violation.
Unless the DM tells you otherwise


Don't worry about the small stuff at the moment it happens and deal with it later.

If the DM/players want you to speak up every time all the time, great, do it.
Yep, figure out which of the two table types you are playing at... keep in mind this nature of the table can change over time.


I had to learn when to speak up and when to keep my mouth shut.
Similar experience.

[MrStabby]

It goes a bit above and beyond and isn't going to be something everyone can do, but if you make a character who is likable in nature and roleplay them well the other players will notice.

I don't necessarily mean a heal/buff bot, though that is definitely an easy way to get there. I don't mean someone with an awesome backstory, either, because your actions in the present are what will determine likability, not how well they were written in the past. And I don't exactly mean a nice character, though characters that have a nice streak are more likely to be likable.

Think about the most universally beloved characters in fiction (not your favorites- the ones everyone else loves). Try boiling them down to their core, the reason everyone likes these characters, see if you can't find something you can make a character sheet for and roleplay at the table.

I think this is a pretty good way of looking at character generation. Make aniconic character by it being a character that people want to game alongside.


Continuously interrupting the game to correct every minutiae of rule breaking is not endearing. It has nothing to do with the rightness of playing by the rules. It's about social interaction. Do speak up when it's a major violation. Don't worry about the small stuff at the moment it happens and deal with it later. If the DM/players want you to speak up every time all the time, great, do it. You wouldn't be ticking them off then.

I know this to be true because I speak from experience being the rules lawyer. I had to learn when to speak up and when to keep my mouth shut.

I don't think anyone is talking about doing it continuously.

We are talking about doing it when we have reasonable grounds to believe a mistake has occured (i.e. that it is not an intentional special case or house rule or a ruling but rather something that slippedby), that that mistake is having a negative impact on at least one person's enjoyment of the game, that that mistake that can be changed and that it is likely to happen again. Now if this is happening "continuously" then you have bigger problems than the player offering corrections - the DM has absolutely lost the trust of their table at that point.

[RSP]

Continuously interrupting the game to correct every minutiae of rule breaking is not endearing. It has nothing to do with the rightness of playing by the rules. It's about social interaction. Do speak up when it's a major violation. Don't worry about the small stuff at the moment it happens and deal with it later.

Im not sure why the assumption is “continuously interrupting the game” comes from. You gave the (conflicting) examples of:


When the Sorcerer wants to Quicken Fireball then cast Polymorph say something. When the Barbarian wants to pour a potion of healing down the dropped Cleric's throat then attack the orc who dropped him to have his heroic moment, if the DM doesn't say anything about it keep quiet.

So, according to you it’s okay to correct a Sorcerer on Action economy but not a Barbarian. Apparently because the Barbarian will be “ticked off” if you correct them, but, I’m guessing, the Sorc won’t.

Again, getting ticked off isn’t an appropriate response to being advised on the rules; it makes no sense.

You’re citing your experiences as reasons to do one and not the other; I’ve cited my experiences as how allowing new players to see that drinking a potion and attack in the same Action has led to continued confusion for the new players on what they’re allowed to do.

If you need to continually correct Players on what constitutes an Action and what doesn’t, or how the different types of Actions can be used, that’s fine: you’re helping them learn the game.

The more correcting they get, the faster they’ll learn. The more they inconsistently see the rules play out (that is not getting corrected or only getting corrected sometimes), the more confused they’ll be.

If that takes 15 times to correct someone, okay. They shouldn’t get ticked off that they’re being corrected; they should appreciate the help (or at least just get ticked off at themself for repeatedly making the same mistakes).

Correcting the violations when they happen reinforces the rules. Not correcting them reinforces the allowance of the violation. That’s how people learn.

And again, if you’re playing with people who are getting ticked off that they don’t know the rules, and are being instructed on them, that’s on the person getting angry: it’s not reasonable to come into a game with other players, that has a set rule system, and assume you’re just going to play it how you want.

That’s what’s disrespectful.

[NorthernPhoenix]

The thing i see missing here is being nice to and respecting the DM. It's all well and good to "not steal from the party", but making a enemy of the DM is by far one of the most hurtful things you can do without thinking about it. Yes, the DM is controlling the pieces that are not on your team, but the game is still about everyone playing together, and the DMs fun matters too. Factor that into how you play. I think this needs to be said more specifically than a general "be nice" due to the "4 and 1" nature of the game.

[MrStabby]

The thing i see missing here is being nice to and respecting the DM. It's all well and good to "not steal from the party", but making a enemy of the DM is by far one of the most hurtful things you can do without thinking about it. Yes, the DM is controlling the pieces that are not on your team, but the game is still about everyone playing together, and the DMs fun matters too. Factor that into how you play. I think this needs to be said more specifically than a general "be nice" due to the "4 and 1" nature of the game.

A reasonable point. As a forever DM I dont tend to think of this! I think it's also up to the DM to guide what's nice. For some, rejecting a plot hook is rude. For other DMs they will throw a dozen at the party and will see what sticks. Some DMs will design a campaign so you can play either side, others will expect heroics and it will throw their vision into disarray if the PCs dont match DM expectations... and so on.

[Pex]

Im not sure why the assumption is “continuously interrupting the game” comes from. You gave the (conflicting) examples of:



So, according to you it’s okay to correct a Sorcerer on Action economy but not a Barbarian. Apparently because the Barbarian will be “ticked off” if you correct them, but, I’m guessing, the Sorc won’t.

Again, getting ticked off isn’t an appropriate response to being advised on the rules; it makes no sense.

You’re citing your experiences as reasons to do one and not the other; I’ve cited my experiences as how allowing new players to see that drinking a potion and attack in the same Action has led to continued confusion for the new players on what they’re allowed to do.

If you need to continually correct Players on what constitutes an Action and what doesn’t, or how the different types of Actions can be used, that’s fine: you’re helping them learn the game.

The more correcting they get, the faster they’ll learn. The more they inconsistently see the rules play out (that is not getting corrected or only getting corrected sometimes), the more confused they’ll be.

If that takes 15 times to correct someone, okay. They shouldn’t get ticked off that they’re being corrected; they should appreciate the help (or at least just get ticked off at themself for repeatedly making the same mistakes).

Correcting the violations when they happen reinforces the rules. Not correcting them reinforces the allowance of the violation. That’s how people learn.

And again, if you’re playing with people who are getting ticked off that they don’t know the rules, and are being instructed on them, that’s on the person getting angry: it’s not reasonable to come into a game with other players, that has a set rule system, and assume you’re just going to play it how you want.

That’s what’s disrespectful.

It's not about action economy. It's about being the glorious hero. The sorcerer wants to nova for power. Nothing wrong with that, but he's trying to supernova. The barbarian is getting heroic spotlight. The cleric dropping is a serious moment, and the barbarian is trying to save the day. However, again, I said pick your battles not never correct. If you feel telling the barbarian he can't do that is important enough to mention, do it. You can have a different subjective value on what needs correcting. What you don't do is correct every mistake that happens. That is what will tick people off. Being right about the rules is irrelevant. Teach the game, not metaphorically beat them over the head with the Player's Handbook. I choose not to correct when the player is doing something heroic.

[Democratus]

I'm with Pex on this one.

The method I use to teach new players is to slowly course-correct with the rules.

If, early on, they get super excited and declare stuff that might be stretching things - that's great! It means they are getting into the game.

After the game is over, I have a breakdown where I discuss how things went this time and which "new rules" I am going to enforce starting next session. I find that this is much better for the flow of the game session and it keeps the energy up. With new players, energetic and fast-paced is much better than constant interruptions to make sure we stick to the rules.

Fun > Story > Rules for introducing new players. This has been my experience over the years.

My veteran players know this. And we all go into "host the new player" mode when we bring in someone. It's great for the new player and it strengthens the bonds between all the vets.

[NaughtyTiger]

I'm with Pex on this one.

The method I use to teach new players is to slowly course-correct with the rules.

If, early on, they get super excited and declare stuff that might be stretching things - that's great! It means they are getting into the game.

After the game is over, I have a breakdown where I discuss how things went this time and which "new rules" I am going to enforce starting next session. I find that this is much better for the flow of the game session and it keeps the energy up. With new players, energetic and fast-paced is much better than constant interruptions to make sure we stick to the rules.

Fun > Story > Rules for introducing new players. This has been my experience over the years.

My veteran players know this. And we all go into "host the new player" mode when we bring in someone. It's great for the new player and it strengthens the bonds between all the vets.

Just to be clear, nobody is arguing against a DM/table saying this is how they want to run the game.

[RSP]

It's not about action economy. It's about being the glorious hero.
The sorcerer wants to nova for power. Nothing wrong with that, but he's trying to supernova. The barbarian is getting heroic spotlight.

Not sure why the Sorc can’t be trying to be the glorious hero; that appears to just be your assumptions about the type of people who play Barbs vs those who play Sorcerers.



The cleric dropping is a serious moment, and the barbarian is trying to save the day. However, again, I said pick your battles not never correct. If you feel telling the barbarian he can't do that is important enough to mention, do it. You can have a different subjective value on what needs correcting.


For the record, I was never arguing for “If you feel something is irrelevant, you should point it out,” obviously anyone who speaks up about a rule correction feels it’s relevant to the game; but I’m sure you’re aware of that and just trying to come off your original stance, so I’ll leave it at that.



What you don't do is correct every mistake that happens. That is what will tick people off. Being right about the rules is irrelevant. Teach the game, not metaphorically beat them over the head with the Player's Handbook. I choose not to correct when the player is doing something heroic.

That’s your choice, but it’s not wrong to make other choices, either. Again, everyone is playing the game together, and helping others remember the plethora of rules isn’t a spiteful thing. As stated, I forget rules too, and appreciate when others help correct me, in part because I don’t want to have my character do something he shouldn’t be able to and spoil an encounter. That, to me, is like cheating in a sport contest and then celebrating your win; you didn’t actually legitimately overcome the challenge presented to you.

Other people may not care about that and just want to win no matter what. To each their own.

[cZak]

This would be so helpful in the games I'm playing online. Unfortunately without face-to-face and only with voice chat, it can sometimes be difficult to get a word in.

I've noticed this myself, and try to curb my talking
Online (ex: Roll20) I've found typing it out in chat actually gets more attention than some of the speakers with that *ding announcement

[MrStabby]

I've noticed this myself, and try to curb my talking
Online (ex: Roll20) I've found typing it out in chat actually gets more attention than some of the speakers with that *ding announcement

I think it is not always the players but sometimes the technology.

If you have a bit of a lag then your interjections will not fit the gaps in the conversation and you will hear people talking over you. To everyone else, you are talking over them.

[NaughtyTiger]

I think it is not always the players but sometimes the technology.

If you have a bit of a lag then your interjections will not fit the gaps in the conversation and you will hear people talking over you. To everyone else, you are talking over them.

plus side conversations are nearly impossible. in person, you can roleplay between players while the DM and a player are hashing die rolls.
but online, their is 1 audio channel. and i belongs to the DM.

i type chat alot, but nobody else reads it...

[stoutstien]

plus side conversations are nearly impossible. in person, you can roleplay between players while the DM and a player are hashing die rolls.
but online, their is 1 audio channel. and i belongs to the DM.

i type chat alot, but nobody else reads it...

aye, online games have there own pool of problems and dynamics that have to be addressed which is something I'm running into myself. text side conversations are possible but as you've ran into not a replacement for the simple enjoyment of the side game. the one thing a player needs for online games in a huge amount of patience because they are just more prone to issues and interruptions.

[NaughtyTiger]

aye, online games have there own pool of problems and dynamics that have to be addressed which is something I'm running into myself. text side conversations are possible but as you've ran into not a replacement for the simple enjoyment of the side game. the one thing a player needs for online games in a huge amount of patience because they are just more prone to issues and interruptions.

(and spectrum internet dropping out at the crucial moment)

[stoutstien]

(and spectrum internet dropping out at the crucial moment)

yea. locally we are something like 230% capacity from talking to one of the network guys who work for the internet company. play-by-post is what i am focusing on at the moment.

[Trustypeaches]

Give lots of compliments, both in and out of character.

"My word, you were a whirling dervish in that fight, I could scarcely keep track of your blades as they cut through the air."
"Hey man, that was a really awesome RP moment after the meeting with the Oracle. I love the dynamic our characters are building and can't wait to see where it goes."

[Wizard_Lizard]

plus side conversations are nearly impossible. in person, you can roleplay between players while the DM and a player are hashing die rolls.
but online, their is 1 audio channel. and i belongs to the DM.

i type chat alot, but nobody else reads it...

I've done online games to varying degrees of success. Mostly it's been everyone typing (Which works alright since I'm fairly fast at typing, as are most of the others.), side conversations are done in direct messages.

[NaughtyTiger]

yea. locally we are something like 230% capacity from talking to one of the network guys who work for the internet company. play-by-post is what i am focusing on at the moment.

play-by-post? like on a message board?
how slow is it? i feel like the narrative quality would go up, but every interaction would sloooooow way down.


Mostly it's been everyone typing (Which works alright since I'm fairly fast at typing, as are most of the others.), side conversations are done in direct messages.
i haven't had such luck..

[Wizard_Lizard]

play-by-post?
i haven't had such luck..

Try discord as a suggestion. Granted, even I don't have that much experience with online games. It's a bit of a different feel.

[stoutstien]

play-by-post? like on a message board?
how slow is it? i feel like the narrative quality would go up, but every interaction would sloooooow way down.


the general pacing is slowed down but not as much as i thought thanks to everyone having a laptop in their pocket. i think in the next year will will see streamlined apps for running games in this way.

[Azuresun]

It goes a bit above and beyond and isn't going to be something everyone can do, but if you make a character who is likable in nature and roleplay them well the other players will notice.

A very good point!

Going off on a tangent from this, I've noticed that playing the cool loner who needs to be drawn out of her shell is cool....but if everyone is playing Wolverine or Batman or Shadow the Hedgehog, it can mean the group doesn't really bond. So I now make a point of playing characters who, even if they're not charismatic, have the sorts of personalities where they want to get to know the other characters and show an interest in them. Kind of like the Kitty Pryde / Robin / Sonic to balance the aforementioned characters out.

This is also one of the reasons I dislike optimisation culture, since it helps promote a mindset where it's all about how much Your Guy can do by himself.


Give lots of compliments, both in and out of character.

"My word, you were a whirling dervish in that fight, I could scarcely keep track of your blades as they cut through the air."
"Hey man, that was a really awesome RP moment after the meeting with the Oracle. I love the dynamic our characters are building and can't wait to see where it goes."

Yes! It really helps when someone just lets their character openly be impressed by the others.