D & D group compact [Archive] - Wizards Community

D & D group compact [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Ian Demagi
10-17-06, 10:01 AM I wanted to get some feed back. Our D & D group has been in existence since the late 80's. For may years players have played on Friday night in "the freaking Nati." Of course over the years the players have changed, guys move, guys die, loss interest, whatever. We have had the same group for 3-4 years now.

In many ways, the the game belongs more to the group rather than the DM. I was wondering if a set of parameters would be good both for players and DM's.

Players will (or will not):

Call if your going to be late
Greet other people in the house if you meet them
trust the DM to be fair, even if the ruling seems unfair at the time

DM's will (or will not)

DM's will not ban or modify anything that is considered Core for any reason: this includes classes, spells, races.

Ian
RobbyPants
10-17-06, 10:32 AM It's really up to the group as a whole. See what they all think. If you're all cool with it, then great! If not talk it out.

Personally, the whole trust thing on both sides is important. If the players can't trust a DM ruling, there could be a problem. If the DM has to figure out how a player rolled a number all the time (suspecting cheating), then that can cause problems.

I'm a little surprised by the whole "DM can't modify core" rule. I think it's in a DM's best interest not to mess with core rules too much, but he shouldn't be limited like that (IMO).
Ian Demagi
10-17-06, 10:52 AM Yeah, our present game has Druid & Barbarian classes banned and clerics are highly discouraged (no one took one, we have a favored soul healer), Also banned were hexblade, warlock (evil discriptors), dragon (anything), and some prestige classes. Haste & slow were moved to 4th level. So this one hits close to home.

I see all the time on the boards people wanting Druids & Clerics nerf'd.

Ian
RobbyPants
10-17-06, 10:56 AM Yeah.

While the DM does run and rule his own game, it's not just his. I've thought about trying odd campaign ideas (such as an 18th century, low magic campaign), but if the players aren't interested, what's the point in me running it?

If you can live with the DM's houserules, cool. If not, perhaps everyone should talk. It the majority of the players want to see a particular type of game, the DM has two choices: change his game or risk losing players.

...not that I'm advocating players blackmailing their DM into super monty haul campaigns!!! ;) Both sides need to be reasonable.
CharlieRock
10-17-06, 11:02 AM D&D has become more involved for both players and DMs. Used to be designing a dungeon on a graph page, writing names of monsters and scribbling down everythings HPs&GPs on a scratch sheet. Now ... ;)

In addition to the suggestions the OP made (they are good) , try to be prepared (both sides of the screen) as much as possible. :)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ian Demagi 10-17-06, 10:01 AM	I wanted to get some feed back. Our D & D group has been in existence since the late 80's. For may years players have played on Friday night in "the freaking Nati." Of course over the years the players have changed, guys move, guys die, loss interest, whatever. We have had the same group for 3-4 years now. In many ways, the the game belongs more to the group rather than the DM. I was wondering if a set of parameters would be good both for players and DM's. Players will (or will not): Call if your going to be late Greet other people in the house if you meet them trust the DM to be fair, even if the ruling seems unfair at the time DM's will (or will not) DM's will not ban or modify anything that is considered Core for any reason: this includes classes, spells, races. Ian
RobbyPants 10-17-06, 10:32 AM	It's really up to the group as a whole. See what they all think. If you're all cool with it, then great! If not talk it out. Personally, the whole trust thing on both sides is important. If the players can't trust a DM ruling, there could be a problem. If the DM has to figure out how a player rolled a number all the time (suspecting cheating), then that can cause problems. I'm a little surprised by the whole "DM can't modify core" rule. I think it's in a DM's best interest not to mess with core rules too much, but he shouldn't be limited like that (IMO).
Ian Demagi 10-17-06, 10:52 AM	Yeah, our present game has Druid & Barbarian classes banned and clerics are highly discouraged (no one took one, we have a favored soul healer), Also banned were hexblade, warlock (evil discriptors), dragon (anything), and some prestige classes. Haste & slow were moved to 4th level. So this one hits close to home. I see all the time on the boards people wanting Druids & Clerics nerf'd. Ian
RobbyPants 10-17-06, 10:56 AM	Yeah. While the DM does run and rule his own game, it's not just his. I've thought about trying odd campaign ideas (such as an 18th century, low magic campaign), but if the players aren't interested, what's the point in me running it? If you can live with the DM's houserules, cool. If not, perhaps everyone should talk. It the majority of the players want to see a particular type of game, the DM has two choices: change his game or risk losing players. ...not that I'm advocating players blackmailing their DM into super monty haul campaigns!!! ;) Both sides need to be reasonable.
CharlieRock 10-17-06, 11:02 AM	D&D has become more involved for both players and DMs. Used to be designing a dungeon on a graph page, writing names of monsters and scribbling down everythings HPs&GPs on a scratch sheet. Now ... ;) In addition to the suggestions the OP made (they are good) , try to be prepared (both sides of the screen) as much as possible. :)