The Agreement, how far do you go?

[Vorr]

So the Gentleman's Agreement got me thinking, how far does everyone go? As a GM what do you set as the limit? As a player what do you expect as a limit?

It seems most gamers agree on the obvious(to them) things that all most need to go with out saying. A GM must be fair. A GM must never lie, trick or mislead the players. The GM must never take advantage of things in the game. The GM must never have a ''no win'' spot in the game. Needless to say that (almost) every player automatically expects this from a RPG.

Then most gamers take the next step, that can be summed up as ''the players must be awesome heroes at all times to have fun. So the GM agrees to never target a character's needed items/equipment. The GM agrees to never take a player out of the game, by forcing a character do do nothing(like paralyzing them). The GM agrees to not optimize or otherwise make foes ''too'' powerful. The GM agrees to not have foes use things like intelligent tactics. The GM agrees to only use traps sparingly. Again, almost every player expects all of these too.

But then it will go further. A GM will agree to not target a character for any reason(they can only be 'targeted' as a part of the group). The GM will agree to not to anything to a character that might cause a player to ''not have fun'', for even a second. The GM will do things so the players will have fun, at all times, and by there definition of fun. Some, and far too many, players expect this.

The players, for the most part, simply agree to: ''not be a jerk''. The player will, in general, agree to follow the plot/story the GM sets out...as long as it does not come into conflict with the players personal definition of fun(and then the player can do whatever they want).

So:

As a Gm, how far do go? As a player, how far do you want a GM to go?

[Sandwich8080]

As a GM, I let it be known at the start of campaigns that I will make things very difficult. That actually attracts a lot of people, as we live in a rural area and the other guy who will GM often makes things way too easy (handing out way overpowered treasure, having any encounter that seems like it might kill a character to "miraculously" be resolved, etc.) I would never make an encounter unwinnable, that just seems to ruin the point. I have only had one person say I was unfairly targeting them, and I've had other problems with them in the past so I can't say I'd rely on his word.

As a player, I absolutely love an "unwinnable at first" encounter. Anything that requires me to use my head to beat it makes me feel like I actually won and didn't just roll a set amount of dice to progress the storyline. I've only had one campaign I didn't care for, and that was because the GM wouldn't let me die. After the 6th time of being dropped to exactly -5 hp (playing 3.5), I realized he was not going to allow my character to die. That made the rest of the campaign feel meaningless.

[Saph]

I'd say . . .

It seems most gamers agree on the obvious(to them) things that all most need to go with out saying. A GM must be fair. A GM must never lie, trick or mislead the players. The GM must never take advantage of things in the game. The GM must never have a ''no win'' spot in the game. Needless to say that (almost) every player automatically expects this from a RPG.

Yes to nearly all of these. The exception is never tricking the players – I'll do that from time to time.

Then most gamers take the next step, that can be summed up as ''the players must be awesome heroes at all times to have fun. So the GM agrees to never target a character's needed items/equipment. The GM agrees to never take a player out of the game, by forcing a character do do nothing(like paralyzing them). The GM agrees to not optimize or otherwise make foes ''too'' powerful. The GM agrees to not have foes use things like intelligent tactics. The GM agrees to only use traps sparingly. Again, almost every player expects all of these too.

No to pretty much all of these.

• Players must be awesome heroes: No. The players are the focus of the story, but whether they're awesome heroes or not is determined by the choices they make and the roll of the dice.
• Never target a character's needed equipment: I won't go out of my way to do it, but it'll happen occasionally. Usually, though, an enemy who wants to hurt a PC won't go for their equipment, he'll just try to kill them.
• Don't optimise or make foes too powerful: You'll get foes roughly as optimised as you are. Sometimes you'll get foes much more powerful/optimised than you are. Fighting such foes directly is not recommended.
• Don't have foes use intelligent tactics: Hahaha!
• Use traps sparingly: This is about the only one I agree with. Even so, from time to time it does make sense for enemies to place a ****load of traps, and in such cases I'll go to town. I mean, if you decide to go into a kobold warren, what are you expecting to run into?

I suspect you're a little off base with your 'almost every player'.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

"A GM must be fair" is a lot less common than the OP might think. *motions towards the Old Schoolers*

I think that "fairness" is at times a secondary concern. If you're running a combat competition, then sure, a GM should be fair. But a story? The GM is under no obligation to be "fair". In fact, I'd go a step farther: the GM is supposed to be just. That means hitting the players with the consequences of their actions. If they want to storm the castle, the just GM is obligated to give them a fittingly difficult challenge.

Though, I would think that it's more than possible to fudge this a bit to make things more dramatic. Still, being just as a GM is a good benchmark.

[BlckDv]

As with so many things, I think a lot of this depends on a mutual understanding of terms.

To one person Homebrew monsters at all are cheating, to a second, Homebrew monsters with powers not covered by existing rules are cheating (Yeah, my meta-gremlin can steal a random die from the table once per round preventing the players from rolling it), to a third Homebrew anything is fine as long as the DM provides the correct info on knowledge checks, and so on. Similar fuzzy lines exist for many of your other terms.

I do my best to work around these semiotic issues by having pre-campaign sessions and handbooks. (Yes, I actually hand out bound plastic covered books to each player at my own cost, a luxury I admit). I cover the themes and tone of the campaign (sometimes after a pre-campaign planning session with players, sometimes as a "take it or leave it" invite to a game). I talk about what style of DMing is to be expected, Rules-Arbiter refereeing a set of challenges by strict rules, co-author in a story in which the needs of narrative may be a higher rule than a specific element of RAW, groundskeeper of an exotic fantasyland (When the king said a dragon ate his best knights, the swamp had peasants at the edges whispering of the deadly dragon and the ranger noticed an odd lack of large animals, don't complain that you thought it had to be some lesser monster because a Dragon is too tough a challenge... go to the "Woods of Nasty Goblin Raids" instead.)

In games that I run one constant line that is not subject to negotiate is 'Real Threat for Real Victory.' Any event which provides the PCs a chance at wealth, fame, glory, or whatever they seek will have a real chance of failure. The monster may win, the traps may kill you, the crafty doppleganger may replace your father and poison your reputation. In my games you will always know that if you won, you earned it, you never have the style of "chosen heroes with plot armor." I have no problem with gamemasters or players who want that, just don't expect it at my table.

Other elements are system specific. In 4e I will set down how I treat Marks, in L5R I will have a guide to Face, Honor and Glory. In Vancian systems I will cover how new spells are acquired, etc.

Assumptions kill games. I long ago learned that "wasting" a session to clear up as many of these as you can before you start play can take a game from falling apart after 3-4 months to lasting for years.

[Friv]

I feel that you have entered into the discussion with an agenda, perhaps.

I don't agree that many of the steps you've listed in your second post are part of the "the players must be awesome heroes at all times" package, and I think that listing the package that way is an attempt to prejudice the thread. I also don't agree that the only player rule is "don't be a jerk", any more than all of the points that you listed boil down to the GM rule just being "don't be a jerk" - it is accurate, but also woefully less than the social contact that generally exists.


The second step that you've listed, if I discount the hostility, would be more summed up as "the players should always be having fun". It thus reads
* Don't remove equipment in a way that renders a player (not the character, mind you, the player) useless to their current task
* Don't take characters out of action for long periods of time without having something else for their player to do
* Don't create intended enemies so overwhelming that their use of intelligent tactics causes the players to have no chance of survival (or, for that matter, so overwhelming that they don't even need intelligent tactics to cause that).
* Don't design traps in such a way that the game screeches to a halt because the players now have to test each stone individually.

This is what most players expect, not "I must be amazing at all times". I would rate having fun several miles above being awesome as something I want out of a game. If I'm not having fun, why am I not doing something more worthwhile with my time?

[1337 b4k4]

I think you have far too narrow of a list of things "everyone" agrees to. A DM must indeed be fair. Fair arbitration is the cornerstone of our hobby. But to say that I should never lie, trick or mislead the players? Absolutely I will do these things. My players should expect to run into tricks, traps, lies and misdirection all the time. Note however that this is different from lying about the game. As a DM it is my responsibility to ensure that players understand their options, the lying and telling them that Craft(Underwater Basket Weaving) will allow them to breathe underwater indefinitely is poor form.

As for taking advantage, this is a yes and no. My players should expect that I will use every advantage the monsters may have to the fullest extent. However, just as I expect my players not to abuse broken parts of the system (and equally to not abuse the resources they've been given in game breaking ways), so too will I never abuse the powers in game breaking ways either.

As for "no win" scenarios, absolutely will these be possible in the game. The players should always be aware that sometimes they will simply be outmatched, that running away is a valid and necessary tactic. The same goes for paralysis, powerful foes and intelligent monsters. Being awesome heroes means nothing if you aren't challenged for that description. If you can't handle an intelligent foe, if you can't find a way around the powerful monster or the paralysis, then you are not an awesome hero, no matter how much "God Mode" makes you feel like you are.

Here is the agreement tend to have with my players:

I am here to run a game that I find interesting and entertaining. It is my goal to entertain you and to be entertained in the process. I am willing and open to helping ensure that you have a good time overall and will make reasonable accommodations to that effect. I am not, however, responsible for your fun. You are responsible for ensuring that you are having fun as often as possible within the confines of proper social behavior. If you feel that I am doing something which is intentionally and directly hindering your ability to have fun (which is different from simply challenging you), then it is your responsibility to bring it to me, in a mature and reasonable manner. Your concerns will be considered and we will discuss how to resolve the issue you have. However, ultimately I am the one putting time and effort into creating a world for you to play in, and I will not be putting my own fun on hold to placate yours. If we do come to such an impasse, it is regrettable, but we may have to part company for this game, and perhaps try again with a different game or campaign another time.

[awa]

The no win thing is also game dependent. I tend to run story based games where story is often more important than raw mechanics if I want to run a session where the pcs need to break out of jail i may very well put them in a situation where capture is really the only option my job as a dm is to make said capture reasonable and the escape satisfying.

[Vorr]

I suspect you're a little off base with your 'almost every player'.

You should read the ''gentleman agreement'' thread....

I feel that you have entered into the discussion with an agenda, perhaps.

Of course I do, I plan to take over the world!

Serisoulys, though...All I'm asking for is what limits do you put on an RPG? It seems (from reading other threads/talking to other players) that a lot of people not only put huge limitations on the games, but also automatically expect it.

I'm an Old School Killer Unfair Evil GM. Anything you might say you would not do in a game is the type of thing I do multiple times a game. And before anyone starts I'm not talking about the insane type of game, where the GM is attacking the players on some crazy power trip.

I'd be happy for others to list ''how far would they go".

I'd also like to hear from the player side.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The only thing that I guarantee in my games is verisimilitude. The rest is mutable.

I've done everything from adventures where the plot (the interaction between the players and their enemies outside of combat) is everything and what few combats are present are slanted to make the players feel like total badasses but slow them down so the bad guy has more time to work to a meat-grinder of a dungeon crawl where being paranoid is the only way to survive for more than a few rooms; rooms filled with SoD traps, monsters that are way over the party's head, and environmental factors that are actively trying to eat the PC's to horror adventures where the best the PC's can hope for is to stave off catastrophe for a little longer to war-campaigns where the fate of nations hinges on the PC's actions and the difficulty they face is as much their choice as mine.

Trying to lock in one difficulty and one campaign style for even a single group is difficult. To do it for the community at-large is flat impossible.

FWIW, I find myself drawn to political campaigns of middling difficulty.

[Saph]

You should read the ''gentleman agreement'' thread....

The thing is, most players aren't really that interested in formalising these sort of agreements – as long as the fun stuff outweighs the bad stuff, they're happy. The one who do talk about it a lot aren't a representative sample.

There's also a certain amount of hyperbole in these discussions. After you've been hanging around on these boards for a while you notice that whenever someone posts a thread about a game problem, there will invariably be at least one person (and usually more) who will declare that the DM is a **** and that the player should walk out. This happens with sufficient frequency that you have to wonder how these guys and girls ever get to actually play. Either they're much more tolerant than they act, they have a very accommodating circle of friends, or they must spend most of their gaming life bouncing from group to group as every DM they play with fails to match up to their standards one after another (which would at least explain why they have so much time to post).

I also think a lot of people get mixed up between "this is annoying at the time" and "this should never happen". In-game setbacks can be annoying but make success much more satisfying when it comes, and spectacular failures are often remembered as much more entertaining than straightforward victories.

[scurv]

I will have no win situations, Quite often you will be able to see them coming. Sometimes not. But If your character hears about a skeletal lord who can render you lifeless with a glowing eye... I do consider the players warned. But I like to talk! So if said skeletal lord is about to glimpse you to death, Maybe one could Talk their way out of the situation.

I do occasionally fudge things to help a player, but kids gloves come off when the group is level 4ish.

As the DM I won't cheat to the players detriment. Now i do reserve the right to tune encounters to fit the players. And with home-brewed stuff I do occasionally need to tweak an AC or Attack bonus.

And I am upfront. If a group of bandits are setting up an ambush to rob you. Anyone in a dress is getting ganked first! and people with the holy symbol are next!

And as for traps, The maps are the maps. If the npc's would realistically set up traps. Then there will be traps. And if you have no trap smith I will not DM wand away the traps.

As a final note. This DM can and will apply Karmic justice as needed. So players who habitually are the cause of the death of other peoples chars...May end up with Other issues to contend with.
If a player thinks neutral or chaotic neutral is just another word for evil May well end up finding out rudely about an alignment change they did not know they had.

[Asheram]

I basicly have four points on my agreement.

1. Everyone should have fun

2. Grudges stay at the door, no one should be singled out from IRL reasons

3. Everyone should have fun.

4. Don't bring anything to the table which will slow down the gameplay (Complex rules, Level drain, taking too long with a caster) ,
and if you do then you should bloody well bring an easy way of speeding it up. (Knowing the rules Well, accepting that the DM might wing a level loss, damn well know what to cast before you play a caster)



(and it's the DM's job to find out what fun is for the respective player...)

[Re'ozul]

My general rules when GM-ing are:

1) The GM will not lie or mislead in anything that is not in-game interaction (such as knowledge rolls, OOC questions). At the same time the GM does not have to answer any question about knowledge for which no in-game reason to know it exists. Further are the players to write down or otherwise note information aquired ingame and the GM is not required to regurgitate knowledge of this kind when asked (extenuating circmstances can exist however).

2) For any situation there exists at least one way for the player characters to exit said situation with their posessions, bodies and minds intact and several more with gradual decline in one or several of these areas. (retreat on part of the characters in the face of adversity is one possible course of action, the GM is not required to have all situations be easily surmountable by the characters)

3) Rule of cool is in limited effect

4) The GM may fudge the dice if he so wills as long as it is in favor of the players.

5) The GM may/is liable to steal any and all story/setting ideas that characters/players hypothesize on/about when given ingame information if those theories are better than what he had in mind.

6) There are no story inconsistencies, only "strange happenings that you need to investigate".

[valadil]

Was going to type up my thoughts, but Saph said:

I'd say . . .

And pretty much summed up what I wanted to say with a couple exceptions.

I absolutely will trick players. I like surprising them. It's half the fun. I won't fight back if they see through the tricks, but if they forget to roll sense motive when my NPC lies his butt off, that's their problem.

No win situations can exist, but the PCs have to try pretty hard to make them happen. I've met some players who insist that if I put a dragon into the game, either the dragon has to be beatable or it has to be not home when they go to take its hoard. Sorry, no. If an NPC tells the level 1 players "avoid the marsh, the swamp dragon has been hungry again" and they assume that means there's free XP in the swamp, they're going to have problems. I won't push the players into a no win situation, but I won't make up nonsensical safety nets to make up for their stupidity.

[TuggyNE]

The thing is, most players aren't really that interested in formalising these sort of agreements – as long as the fun stuff outweighs the bad stuff, they're happy. The one who do talk about it a lot aren't a representative sample.

There's also a certain amount of hyperbole in these discussions.

Well, given that... perhaps you should post your thoughts over in that thread, so as to give a bit more of a representative sample?

[huttj509]

No win situations can exist, but the PCs have to try pretty hard to make them happen. I've met some players who insist that if I put a dragon into the game, either the dragon has to be beatable or it has to be not home when they go to take its hoard. Sorry, no. If an NPC tells the level 1 players "avoid the marsh, the swamp dragon has been hungry again" and they assume that means there's free XP in the swamp, they're going to have problems. I won't push the players into a no win situation, but I won't make up nonsensical safety nets to make up for their stupidity.

The problem that can crop up there is game style.

In some games, that's a warning.

In some games, that's an adventure hook.

I've encountered many games where the idea "the DM wouldn't mention it if we weren't supposed to go interact with it" is valid. I've encountered many where it's a good way to be eaten by a dragon. This can then be (mis)interpreted as a killer DM "he sent us into the swamp where we got totally devoured with no chance of success!"

Not that there's really any solution, other than "figure out a way to determine assumptions about playstyle and many things which people take for granted and don't even think to ask about." While you're doing that, you can plan world peace as a way to relax with something easy.

[Friv]

I'm actually going to go ahead and post the only rule that gaming groups should ever need:

1. Everyone should be enjoying themselves. If someone is not enjoying themselves, you have a problem that needs fixing.

Enjoyment, I must stress, is not quite the same thing as "having fun", inasmuch as it implies a broader concept. Frustrating things can, in the long run, be extremely enjoyable. Difficulties are enjoyable if you have a reasonable chance to overcome them.

Boredom is not enjoyable, which is the reason that taking people out of play is, as a rule, a bad idea. Similarly, too much splitting the party can lead to people not enjoying themselves, depending on the players (some will be happy to listen and offer OOC comments and advice, others not so much). Feeling like someone is picking on you is not enjoyable, nor is feeling like nothing you do matters (either because you're too awesome or because you're too useless).

[navar100]

The DM is not the players' opponent/enemy. As long as the DM gets that, fully understands what that means, then everything else falls into place. As soon as the DM feels slighted the PCs succeeded at a task, are very good at something (obligatory: that doesn't cause the game to not function), or the players express happiness of what their characters can do, he needs to give up the chair.

[Asheram]

Enjoyment, I must stress, is not quite the same thing as "having fun", inasmuch as it implies a broader concept. Frustrating things can, in the long run, be extremely enjoyable. Difficulties are enjoyable if you have a reasonable chance to overcome them.

I suppose I should change the "Fun" in my previous post to "Enjoyment". I've got a friend, we've started to measure how much the group has enjoyed the session depending on how far he has curled up into fetal position.
Let's just say that the tighter spot my group is in, the more they are enjoying it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The problem that can crop up there is game style.

In some games, that's a warning.

In some games, that's an adventure hook.

I've encountered many games where the idea "the DM wouldn't mention it if we weren't supposed to go interact with it" is valid. I've encountered many where it's a good way to be eaten by a dragon. This can then be (mis)interpreted as a killer DM "he sent us into the swamp where we got totally devoured with no chance of success!"

Not that there's really any solution, other than "figure out a way to determine assumptions about playstyle and many things which people take for granted and don't even think to ask about." While you're doing that, you can plan world peace as a way to relax with something easy.

On that note, I'd like to point out that I -always- tell new players that I place a premium on verisimilitude and that if you do something foolish your character -will- die, barring the dice-gods smiling on you. Putting foward such basic point on what to expect from yourself as a DM is courteous at the very least and, IMO, is both required to ensure smooth gaming and should be expected.

Using the above example of hearing about a dragon in the swamp; maybe it's a plot-hook, maybe it's just a bit of setting detail. If you simply assume that it's the former without seeking out further information you're gambling your character's life. Gather information and knowledge local exist. So do hirelings that can use these skills on the party's behalf. Divination is a thing. There's no excuse for going into the swamp without at least -some- idea what you're going to find and doing so anyway -can- get you killed. At least that's my policy.

[LordBlades]

Apart, from the obvious (which can be summarized as 'don't be a ****'), here's a list of stuff that I do/I expect the group to do (depending on which side of the screen I'd be on):

-The group should agree on a target competence level and build chars accordingly (no god wizards in a group of fighters, but also no monks in a group of wizards).

- The playground should be kept level; if something's banned for PCs for mechanical reasons, it should be banned for NPCs at well.

-Keeping metagame to a minimum.

-No fudging. Rolling in the open preferred

-Keeping railroading to a minimum

[ArcturusV]

I do my best to work around these semiotic issues by having pre-campaign sessions and handbooks.

Huh... I thought I was in a very small minority of people to actually do things like that. Almost all my campaigns are in home brewed settings/worlds and I always write up a primer, print off copies, hand them out to all my players.

[Kasbark]

Okay, the first one i can attest to. I don't lie to my players or mislead them (unless in In Character for an NPC, i which case i'll obviously do it)

The second one i used to have an agreement with my players that if they used save or die/save or do nothing on enemies that was not just mooks, i would do the same. This worked reasonably well, but i still felt bad when taking a wizard out in round 2 of a 2 hour combat. When i did i generelly had them control some enemies during the combat, but still... Thats why my homebrew version of pathfinder has toned down those spells a lot, wither with a longer casting time, a save each round to end it, or simply nerfing the condition they inflict.

The third one i wholeheartedly disagree with. I will often go after just one character in a fight. I find thats a great way to make a combat interresting. Suddenly go after the druid instead of his meatshields - forcing him and the rest of the group to think on their feet and rethink their strategy.

[Blacky the Blackball]

So the Gentleman's Agreement got me thinking, how far does everyone go? As a GM what do you set as the limit? As a player what do you expect as a limit?

I disagree with many of yours both as a player and as a GM. They don't match how our group plays....

A GM must be fair. A GM must never lie, trick or mislead the players. The GM must never take advantage of things in the game. The GM must never have a ''no win'' spot in the game. Needless to say that (almost) every player automatically expects this from a RPG.

There's nothing wrong with tricking players or sometimes having no-win situations.

Then most gamers take the next step, that can be summed up as ''the players must be awesome heroes at all times to have fun.

Sometimes the characters are playing little more than peasants scrabbling in the mood for whatever they can scavenge (e.g. in Warhammer). They don't need to be "awesome" to have fun.

So the GM agrees to never target a character's needed items/equipment.

If it makes sense for the people they are fighting to target their equipment then those opponents will do that. Similarly if it makes sense that equipment might be lost, it might.

The GM agrees to never take a player out of the game, by forcing a character do do nothing(like paralyzing them).

Absolutely not. Paralysis (and charm) are perfectly fine conditions to inflict on a character.

The GM agrees to not optimize or otherwise make foes ''too'' powerful.

The foes are what they are. Some will be far too powerful for the PCs to fight. Others will be a walkover. It's up to the players to be smart about who they avoid and who they pick fights with.

The world doesn't level up with the characters.

The GM agrees to not have foes use things like intelligent tactics.

Of course intelligent foes will use intelligent tactics. It would be silly for them not to.

The GM agrees to only use traps sparingly. Again, almost every player expects all of these too.

From my experience, very few players expect the sort of agreements you are listing.

A GM will agree to not target a character for any reason(they can only be 'targeted' as a part of the group).

If it makes sense for the opponents to target a character (either tactically or because that character has done something to upset them) they will.

The GM will agree to not to anything to a character that might cause a player to ''not have fun'', for even a second.

I don't understand this one. Having bad things as well as goo happening to your character is fun.

The player will, in general, agree to follow the plot/story the GM sets out.

Not at all. The GM sets out what's currently going on in the world and what the plans are or various groups and entities and it's entirely up to the players how much their characters get involved with it, and on which side. There's no such thing as a "story" being set out by the GM.

As a Gm, how far do go? As a player, how far do you want a GM to go?

Much, much less far than you on both counts, it appears!

[White_Drake]

I hate it when the DM takes it easy on characters. I expect no quater, and when DMing give none. It can be a bit of a difficult for players who are used to those pushover DMs that bother with things like reasons for character death. My DMing style can be best encapsulated by TSR's wandering damage system. Any session that ends with my ripping up a character sheet while the player cries in front of me is good.

On a more serious note, I do enjoy grittier games, but by far most important is verisimilitude. Part of the reason I like sandbox games so much is because you can usually have a decent idea of, and even some control over, how much danger your character is in. If you want fabulous riches beyond most men's wildest dreams, attack the dragon. If you expect to survive the night after doing so, make sure you come loaded for bear, and with contingencies and good planning. If you are more cautious, you can take on lesser foes and work your way up to the dragon, although a non-static world may cause oth considerations to take prevalence.

[Kyberwulf]

What about the Players responsibilities.
Shouldn't it be stated that players shouldn't metagame?
Shouldn't a Dm be allowed to create monsters outside of a Manual, without a player crying about how that isn't in the Monster Manual. Shouldn't a Dm Be allowed to create a situation where some spells can't be used, to create a better story situation, without the word "Railroad" being shouted before a door slams shut. Shouldn't Players create characters that have motives and goals, not just as stats that are meant to take on every situation and landslide a victory. Should classes be played for their cool factor, rather then their "tier" level?

What about the other side of the agreement. The Player side.

[huttj509]

I think the largest benefit of a specific agreement on these things is not so much "you must do it this way," but making people think "wow, I always took [X] for granted. Maybe I should see if my new players (or old ones) have the same assumptions."

Over the various discussions of this sort of thing, I know I've encountered many times when someone's assumed playstyle just feels bizarre to me. If people can avoid being drawn into a defense/attack mentality it can be incredibly eye-opening, especially when you realize "oh, THAT'S where [person] was coming from in that game/session/thread."

In a similar vein, I know over the years there's been some good "pre-campaign questionnaire/checklist" posts on this forum...which I unfortunately don't have links to.

[toapat]

Why do you think I gave up? I wrote the post that started tha topic, and because I'm not tuggyne, i didnt get to maintain control. The largest problem is that I saw the "sit down and shut up" handling I had of player entitlement removed. The DM should be allowed anything he chooses to so long as it is not Rule 0, even including pulling out players from an encounter so long as he can justify it.

[shaddy_24]

I agree with the first set of rules. The second group is really dependent on situations and careful adjudication. I'm not saying they always have to be followed, I'm just saying that not following them can sometimes make a player feel useless or bored.

I've directly experienced that. We had one game where we were playing a mostly mundane party trapped in a dead end dungeon. The only way we had out was the bard using dimension door, and that's only if we could find our way back to the entrance. The DM used a group of Destratchan on us, and literally destroyed all my rogues equipment. My crossbow based rogue lost all his weapons and his armour. At level 11, that was over half my WBL in magic equipment. According to the base rules at least, he was nice enough to allow us to fix it all, but I literally couldn't contribute through the rest of that fight, and by the rules couldn't have done anything until we managed to work our way out again. I don't like destroying equipment because of that situation.

In a later encounter in the same dungeon, I was hit by a feeblemind and a 10 round stun. Same with the bard. The fight boiled down to the warblade whaling on the monster while it attacked the stunned party members because it would win if it fought the warblade one on one, and it should have won anyway with it's at will feeblemind against a level 11 group with no full spellcasters.

While I don't think the DM should avoid giving any challenges for the party, I think they need to carefully manage it so that players aren't left with literally nothing to do in a situation. I drove for half an hour to go to that session and spent 3 hours sitting around checking off a list of how long I was stunned.