Pre-game checklist?

[Kessel]

I’m prepping a campaign, the players will have a wide range of experience and a wide range of differing house rules that they’ll be coming from. Is there a reference, such as a one-page checklist that exists, that sets out which of the more common house rules we’ll be drawing from?

There are so many things left ambiguous in the PHB, I was hoping that a quick reference sheet for our table would be a way to head off arguments?

I thought I’d ask here before trying to create one from scratch. If it doesn’t exist yet, what type of rules clarifications or house rules should be ironed out before starting a campaign?

My thanks.

[KOLE]

How much DM experience do you have? To make your life easier if you’re relatively new, tell all your players you’re running strictly RAW to learn the system before you start tweaking it. Don’t take rule suggestions from individual players unless you trust them.

Otherwise, start with a session 0 where no game play will happen about two weeks before the campaign starts and have the conversatiom eith the whole table about what they want. If they reach a consensus on something (for example, advantage and disadvantage cancelling each other out one to one, or taking potions as a bonus action, both very commom house rules) than run with it. If they disagree or argue, tell them it’s strictly RAW. It’s your game to run, your comfort and ease of use is more important as the DM than their pet rules. If it effects builds they had planned, at least it was session 0 so they can change up the character.

[stoutstien]

I think the biggest things are settle on a general theme and level of seriousness of the game. the rest of the stuff is a distant second.

As for the ambiguous stuff like illusions and vision id suggest looking back on the first point to find that answer. I found most players aren't really that concerned on the ins and outs of every ruling as long as they're fairly consistent.

[Kessel]

I'm still newish to DM-ing, only at it about a year. my last campaign I had two players that have DMed and their constant arguing about interpretations of rules sidelined everything for everyone.

RAW is probably the best way to tackle it.

And I agree, commitment and general theme are key.

Thank you, both of you.

[stoutstien]

How much DM experience do you have? To make your life easier if you’re relatively new, tell all your players you’re running strictly RAW to learn the system before you start tweaking it. Don’t take rule suggestions from individual players unless you trust them.

Otherwise, start with a session 0 where no game play will happen about two weeks before the campaign starts and have the conversatiom eith the whole table about what they want. If they reach a consensus on something (for example, advantage and disadvantage cancelling each other out one to one, or taking potions as a bonus action, both very commom house rules) than run with it. If they disagree or argue, tell them it’s strictly RAW. It’s your game to run, your comfort and ease of use is more important as the DM than their pet rules. If it effects builds they had planned, at least it was session 0 so they can change up the character.

I'm still newish to DM-ing, only at it about a year. my last campaign I had two players that have DMed and their constant arguing about interpretations of rules sidelined everything for everyone.

RAW is probably the best way to tackle it.

And I agree, commitment and general theme are key.

Thank you, both of you.

Ugh. DMs can make the best and the worst players. That's one thing to make clear. Anything short of PC death isn't grounds to interrupt the flow of the game to quibble over rules. That's what these forums are for. My personal role there is if there's anything that they have a disagreement on or need clarification is for them to write it down and it will always be handled at the beginning of sessions. Never during or at the end.

[KOLE]

I'm still newish to DM-ing, only at it about a year. my last campaign I had two players that have DMed and their constant arguing about interpretations of rules sidelined everything for everyone.

RAW is probably the best way to tackle it.

Happy to help. In situations like that, I always tell players to shelf the discussion until after the session. Then I examine relevant info, and make a call that will be carried forward, but almost never do I change it mid session, that's usually more trouble than it's worth. Don't be afraid to tell these two in particular "You can run it that way at your table, but this is how we'll do it at my table." Rules badgering can be some of the worst and most disruptive behavior at a table, it's best to nip it early on.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm still newish to DM-ing, only at it about a year. my last campaign I had two players that have DMed and their constant arguing about interpretations of rules sidelined everything for everyone.

Tell them up front that you want them to not do that.
Also tell them this. (This has worked for me)

If, during play, you think it works differently than what you are running, you get to say "I thought it worked like {X}" and if you agree it does and if you disagree it doesn't.

Then follow up after the game. To see if you want to change your mind when you are in 'rules assessment mode' not 'play the game mode'

X = explain how they think it works

You need to address this at session 0. You don't want them interrupting the flow of play.

RAW is probably the best way to tackle it.

Yes. Don't use someone elses house rules. Make your own, or introduce your own, but if someone brings a house rule and wants to use it the best first response is "I'll think about it, but not tonight" since you have to decide if it fits.

[MoiMagnus]

There are so many things left ambiguous in the PHB, I was hoping that a quick reference sheet for our table would be a way to head off arguments?

Quick tip: Postpone arguments to post-session (or between sessions), and make it clear that's your politics. Don't say "I always use RAW" because it only opens the debate about what is RAW, and you might not be the most knowledgable around the table. During the session, the rule debate should never go further than a player saying "I though that it worked like that" and the GM saying either "Oh, right, indeed" (if that was an oversight) or "I don't think it does, but we can talk about it after the session" (if that's a more complex question).

Sure, it might leads to some players being at a disadvantage during a single session. But you can apologise for it after the session, and it's not worth the loss of pacing. And in the rare unfortunate case where the rule debate is about something that could lead to a PC death, it's still not worth to interrupt the game for a debate. It might be worth giving the benefits of the doubt to the objecting player and take his suggestion of ruling, but the debate should still be postponed to after the session.

Note that I'm talking about "debate" since the beginning, but it's not just about "who is right". The discussion after the session is mostly about "what resolution feels better to everyone". That's the moment where, if you want to stick to your ruling (which should be your behaviour unless very good objections are raised, as if you stick to your rulings you have more chances to be consistent) but see that it breaks the way a PC was intended to be played, you can allow the player to change parts of his character (even if that mean retconning some part of the story).