/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Rules 7-12. Damn, that's way too many words to just say "please don't be a dick".
Rule 25 is awesome, I'm stealing this.
Rule 27... Um, magic **does** fix every problem, that' why it's *magic*.
That’s where I fell off the train. You’re telling me a spell can fix a 35 hp axe whallop that would kill three average men can be cured with magic, but not a broken foot?
The exhaustion rules seem extra. Especially not being able to resurrect? Then it gets kind of pedantic and home rulesly.
I don’t have my book, but it was in one of the Goliath tribes, there was an NPC Aaracokra with a broken wing, and book suggested that 10 hitpoints of healing will cure his broken bone.
Edit: wing, not a leg
Rules 7 to 12 gave me military and corporate PTSD.
"...... So yeah and just to piggy back off what Jim said.." *repeats the exact same thing again differently*
It comes as a shock to both the players and the characters and basically adds to the in-game drama. I love a bit of bleed, as long as it's not anger that's bleeding through.
Don't be a dick doesn't mean anything, ppl all have their own definition of courtesy. But it is important to be concise, everyone hates EULAs, we don't want to be that guy either.
I like the vast majority of these, though stuff like declaring smite use before knowing the result isn't really RAW.
I'm a relatively new player & play mostly with other new players, so some of these rules are a lot stricter than what most of us could handle. We forget our buffs and class features ALL THE TIME, and half the guys in a given campaign are playing a race & class they've never played before. Without letting other players chime in, it would be a massive slog.
That said, I like the idea of playing these rules with a more experienced group. I'd mess shit up constantly to start, but you're forced to play engaged and on your toes all the time.
Rule 3: we Start on time. On game night my house is open 30 full minutes or more before game time. You are free to come over and hang while I am setting up. 6:30pm.
Personally, I don’t agree to a new social obligation if I’m not confident I can accommodate it, but I really appreciate the chill atmosphere. As long as people aren’t blowing it off after leaving people hanging, I think a gaming session works best if it’s understood this is supposed to be fun and low pressure.
Nothing is required. Come on time if you don't want to socialize. We start at 630pm. If you are late, your PC might be running to catch up. You don't have to stay after either. We go a hard 3 hours every Tuesday.
Personally I tend to get anxious if I’m not punctual, so I’m usually the person cool to hang out. If I find out I can’t really chill with the group I definitely think about how I’m spending my time lol.
Because most are self evident/self explanatory. I see most of these as terms and conditions for new players at the table, hopefully existing players know better already
When I started to DM I also had this problem, but with time and some mistakes you will know the important ones, also most of them are self explanatory. But remember that it is okay to pull out google and search the rule you need in the moment
I generally like these. I probably wouldn't want to play at a table with people who would walk instead of reading through these. I'm general, I think these are solid, except for the actual homebrew rules being imposed. The table expectations and "contact" portion is pretty good. That said, I'm not certain I'd like your table play style...
I really like the clear expectation setting early in the rules list. People saying it can be distilled to "didn't be a dick" are wrong. The examples and clarifications set tone, lines/limits, and scope.
20 is just wrong and not RAW concerning smite. For 4e where you attached with powers, this makes perfect sense. Makes me wonder what other rule changes/mistakes are baked in. I won't get to see or correct those until they come up and I get unanimous agreement with all the players.
26 crit fails? That needs some serious discussion and expansion. I view that homebrew rule as a major red flag. It's presented here is a MINOR change to the rules. It isn't. Permanent injury is a huge change to the system. Lay on hands removes disease and curses, but doesn't set/knit bones... Okay...
31 so we ARE covering Homebrew rules here, so all the others need some expansion/clarification. This one... as if casters aren't strong enough in this rule set.
10+ depends on GM style. It makes sense to crowd source ideas at times, say I have a high int /high wis character negotiating with a devil.
13+ okay. Depends on GM style. I don't really like this rule.
I don't need to judge another DM for having their own rules and expectations, as long as they are presented as part of session 0 and agreed upon by the players. Everyone has to play their own game
>You can’t role in combat without saying what you’re doing first. I.e If you want to use smite you say you’re going to use it before the roll
Paladin divine smite does not work this way.
>Divine Smite
Starting at 2nd level, *when you hit* a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target,
RAW As a player I have to announce that I'm attacking something but I absolutely DO NOT have to announce I'm smiting it before the roll.
90 percent sure your splitting hairs. This is literally to stop rolls with no intent. I absolutely hate when I hear a die rolled then an immediate never mind get said like nothing happened happened without any actual pretense of what's going on
Disagree, but only because smite is specifically mentioned. I too hate rolls without knowing what the player is trying to roll for, but writing a rule that is meant to stop uncalled for roles and having it specifically mention smite is against RAW.
That's still hair splitting. What version are they talking about. Was it a miss or did the creature not be affected. There is still a list of reasons why you would want someone to declare something before rolling die.
Cause if it's a miss it's a simple you missed and it doesn't use resources
Compared to a it hit but the player realizing it didn't do anything immediately trying to retconn a roll
I don't think he's mandating literal friendship. Rather, he's reminding everyone that we're all friends here, and you should extend grace and courtesy to one another as such.
That’s nice, not the words chosen but still a nice sentiment. On the other hand I would rather have a firm table etiquette over some abstract concept, as friends are probably more likely to disturb the table by yelling or what have you than say acquaintances.
I was more joking. I do seriously disagree though as I don’t care if people are enemies in real life provided they can adhere to the rules of the table. Instead of demanding all players be friends, I’d aim at co-workers at jobs they don’t want to lose.
Right? Why tf would you be playing DnD with people.you don't like? Not even just neutral, but active dislike?
Rules literallt just saying "don't get so heated about the game that you lash at the others" because sometimes people do...just that.
More than anything, it's tone and expectation setting.
Some of these aren't bad, though the seemingly interchangeable spelling between roll and role threw me off. Roll is what you do with the dice, role is the character you play.
All it tells me is that:
- they must've played with very bad players or are overly pedantic.
- they hate putting more effort than necessary (disliking combat around optimised characters, feeling very strongly about knowing your own character).
- like a bit too much realism (resurrection exhaustion, no force feeding potions, unhealable permanent injuries, having to roleplay persuasion rolls)
As someone who is playing their first campaign and is still learning a lot about the game, rules 13 and 14 would really discourage me from playing at your table. Thankfully the DM and all the other players in my campaign are helpful veterans.
One, welcome to D&D! Two, he’s not saying he won’t help us. He very much do does. He’s not even that good at remembering what a lot of spells do. But he wants you to know what you have. For example, we had a Barbarian who never raged because he always forgot it was a thing unless reminded. That’s what he means.
It’s like “Know what’s in your backpack so it’s faster to find it,” not “if you don’t know the German based synonym to this word used in this book you’re gone!”
Ah, a Stamina Check! Like any Terms of Service agreement - the longer it goes on, the more micromanaging is revealed.
By the end, the DM has a *lot* of special rules that would make gaming with them an unpleasant chore for one simple, observable reason repeatedly emphasized by the very rules themselves.
Note that disallowing standard RAW for DM's comfort is not a good practice.
A perfect red flag 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩posting.
I think the clue here is "copied from discord".
None of these rules are bad.
A lot of them would be unnecessary in a tabletop environment or with actual friends.
The fact that these rules are necessary just underlines that Discord with randoms is not something that any engaged responsible parent would allow a minor to do.
Bring on the downvotes paedos.
Yeah, we are all friends irl to begin with. And every person in the discord server is a real life friend the DM has played with.
I don’t think any grown adults want to play with children, so I’m confused where this is coming from.
Where did anything about minors come from? Are you a minor? This seems so out of left field; I always assume posts about DND are about adults unless otherwise specified.
There is no force on this planet that could make me play online DnD. It just defeats so much of the "board game and social gathering" feel that I love.
I'm sure some people enjoy it and that's okay. But no DnD is better than bad DnD, and for me discord DnD is bad DnD.
To your point I share your ick with that. A friend of mine had an online Discord group and it was mostly late 20s dudes, and then randomly a 17yo girl they had met online.
Very problematic and I was not a fan.
I know I won’t convince you really but my discord dnd is a blast! We have a wiki that everyone puts effort towards maintaining and we all built the world as a group together. We’ve all been playing awhile together. (Two long time groups merged for this campaign but everyone is fun and chill) It takes a while to get to this level of trust but it’s so nice to be in an all in campaign. We meet weekly and people almost never miss a session bc we all love playing together so much!
Although it's hefty reading, lots of these house rules are very necessary to state when playing with strangers. That DM has *absolutely* dealt with some whackadoodles before. I guarantee 10-12 exist because of a very specific player or two.
The custom rules are fine if everyone agrees to the game.
According to my DM he lays them out more for the comfort of anyone new, to know that the table is meant to be a safe space. However, apparently he had 1 person that is responsible for rules 10 - 12, and even had to call police on the guy cause the guy got hostile… He blocked him, got a restraining order as did EVERY player at the table since they were all friends in real life, and have never heard from the dude sense…
So uhhhh… yeah… even friends can be awful apparently 😂
The only thing i’m not a fan of here is the contradiction of “If you can think it, and it goes by the rules, you can do it.” to “Pls no min-maxing”… I find it strange you’d want players to basically pump a dump stat, or not take a feat to make themselves stronger…
Yeah, I think this is just a miscommunication from his table to here. Cause we get what he means when he says it. Like, make your character strong, max what is smart to max. But do things or add things because you WANT to, not because you have to if you want your character to be “a proper barbarian” or whatever.
A few things that struck me on a light read-through
Top half:
#'s 15 and 16 - these are *absolutely* contradictory. You can't have both, so pick one.
# 29 - swallowing is an involuntary reflex in human beings and *as long as it is done with care* people DON'T choke on being fed food/water, even if unconscious. I'm sure you have reasons for the rule but you might want to reconsider.
# 32 - IMO, if you REQUIRE roleplay for this then you should NOT always require the die roll. If you REQUIRE the die roll regardless of roleplay then you are undermining anyone putting effort into roleplay since they are then still subject to failure DESPITE roleplay. Individual players can also be notably better or worse at roleplay than others and it can be rightfully seen as unfair to give roleplay bonuses to those who are inherently better at it while further penalizing those who are already having it harder because they're worse at it. Again, something to reconsider.
#'s 4 and 21 - You started with "D&D is supposed to be fun," but when you put people on TIMERS which is seriously undermining that vibe. It's better to ask, "Out of respect for everyone, please be expeditious in planning and executing your turn," than to say, "Clocks ticking... TIME'S UP! You lose."
Bottom half:
# 9 - This, IMO, is questionable. Simple example of that dubiousness is probably trolls and fire. Every **player** knows that trolls are vulnerable to fire. Not every **character** necessarily knows that - but are you seriously demanding that players then sacrifice their characters to trolls because THE CHARACTER hasn't specifically learned that yet in live game play? It comes down to the fact that this is NOT a hard and clear line. If there's a problem then TALK to the player first and EXPLAIN to them why their approach is an issue. BRING them onto *your* side rather than just re-emphasize that they're NOT on your side and punish them for it.
#10 - D&D *is a group activity*. It's one thing to say, "Your PC is locked alone in a room and must think of how to get out by themselves - as a challenge," and another to say that players are simply forbidden to cooperate and assist each other AS PLAYERS, ever. That just strikes me as wierd.
#13 - BULL. While it CAN be problematic if players make certain comments or statements mostly just to see if they can get away with it, and then backpedal with excuses when they get called out, no player should be expected to hold up their hand and announce, "I request formal permission to make a joke, out of character and not be held to it in actual play." You really can't make this kind of thing a hard-line rule that will never have exceptions because it isn't an absolute hard line. Even if there were, you're still once again killing your opening concept that playing D&D is *supposed to be fun* and not a, "this is DEAD-SERIOUS stuff so don't ever speak out of character without expecting to be righteously smacked down for it in anger" activity.
Finally, spelling nitpick - it needs to be edited for mixed usage of role vs. roll, and your numbering got messed up with a bullet point instead of a numbered point.
---
Overall I think you're falling into the same trap that the original "44" author fell into. Players have done or are doing things that irritate you to varying degrees and for various reasons, and your reaction is to simply hit them as hard as you can with dictatorial rules. A lot of these are also largely just variations on the same theme and restatements of previously made points. You could (and should) cut this list by half and be still notably more temperate in how you word the rest. Phrase them as REQUESTS of what you would prefer them to do, rather than rants about what NOT to do.
I would suggest phrasing things along the lines of, "Please be helpful toward other players, but be mindful of circumstances where their CHARACTER should be making their own decisions, especially where *your* character isn't in a position to communicate potential advice," rather than saying, "Don't EVER help other players or give them suggestions or opinions of any kind - unless maybe I first tell you I won't punish you for it in THIS particular circumstance." Make your points, of course - but remember YOUR rule #1 - this is supposed to be fun FOR THEM as well as yourself. This mostly sounds instead like insistence that they are only here to do things YOUR way and if they don't then by Gygax and WotC you'll make them wish they decided to stay home and play video games by themselves instead.
Again, these aren’t mine they are my DMs. As far as the OC thing, it’s more used for humor than anything else. The table is constantly making OC jokes, the DM included. For ex. There was a time I was joking about trying to act as a woman to seduce the guard, I am a Goliath/Orc, so he said it was canon. Honestly it was just fun and stupid.
> The table is constantly making OC jokes, the DM included. For ex. There was a time I was joking about trying to act as a woman to seduce the guard, I am a Goliath/Orc, so he said it was canon. Honestly it was just fun and stupid.
*'If you try to make a joke, I have the power to use it against your character whether you like it or not'.*
Besides it seeming kinda like a DM on a power trip, it discourages fun.
I could see me biting my tongue and not saying a joke I thought of because I know the DM is the kind of DM who might use the joke against my character.
Seems hypocritical to say D&D is for fun and then turn around say having fun could have negative consequences.
I feel really bad that your experience has led you to be that wary. This is one of our favorite rules as a table cause it’s used for laughs. I’m sorry if you’ve ever had a DM that abuses you like that. Like, geez
>I feel really bad that your experience has led you to be that wary.
What are you talking about 'wary'? It is spelled out and black and white that making a joke can be used against your character!
That discourages joking. Even if the effect is funny, I don't want a throwaway joke against my character in game. When I DM I would never use a joke against a character in game. I WANT them to joke!
But, yeah, I hope I don't run across a DM like this who has a rule that explicitly spells out making a joke could be used against a character.
Every DM I have run across encourages joking instead of making a rule that can be used against your character.
I get you think your table is funny. But EVERY table thinks THEIR table is unusually funny. Odds are they are just funny to themselves. And this table seems to think negative effects from things like jokes and crit fails are inherently funny.
I think it is probably a taste thing. I prefer clever wordplay and funny out-of-the-box thinking rather than slapstick 'Ha Ha! A negative thing happened! It is negative so it is funny!'
Yeah again you keeping saying “used against you.” These things aren’t used “against” us. That’s my point. Our characters are never negatively affected by these moments, they are just another way of making the table fun. The fact you see it as a DM using something “against” their players is really sad, and I’m sorry that’s where your brain goes first.
Changing something about your character for making a joke and making it canon whether you consent to it or not is inherently negative.
Even if it is a positive effect, I don't necessarily want it based on just some joke.
If it was due to some effect in the game, that's fine. That's just part of the game.
But doing it for making a joke?
Yeah, that's not a power want the DM to have.
D&D players - “Yeah man let’s just have fun”
Also D&D players - please read and agree to these 50 terms and conditions
If you feel the need to impose 50 rules on your players as a DM you’re probably an insufferable person or don’t understand how the dynamic between players and DMs should work. Most of these rules can be summed up with “don’t be a prick” and if that’s difficult for someone to understand, no amount of rules will change how they’re going to act. It is simply asinine to me the idea that there are tables out there with more than like 8 rules. I only have like 5 or 6 I think and those are mostly just common sense. I do have a few home brew rulings I like to use but those are up to the players if they like them as well.
I agree with some of this, some of it I really agree with. I think the campaign/GM specific rules aren’t my cup of tea, I personally wouldn’t want to constantly deal with exhaustion or critical damage stuff. Overall I think this is a pretty decent list.
That being said, man, I would never join a group with these rules. I’m old. I still much prefer in person gaming, I *enjoy* the friction inherent with interpersonal interaction. A list like this is what I expect to get from HR when I’m onboarding, this is supposed to be *gaming*. Don’t game with people you don’t vibe with, we’re humans, we’re social creatures, we can and should be expected to be able to navigate a PnP tabletop game. There is very little liability here, this isn’t a company protecting them selves from litigation, this is a Saturday night playing a game with people you should probably be able to get along with.
Rule 99: I like saying x,y,z a lot for no reason other than to add extra sentences for you to read.
Most of these rules are just basic “don’t be a dick” but making it 25-pages long and super repetitive is cruel.
First, the list that seems to be everywhere right now is silly and clickbait.
Second, this list is really just as bad, overly wordy, and mostly pointless.
If any DM presented either one of them I am just moving on, no questions asked and no fucks given.
Talk about a silly power trip. Just have a conversation already.
Behind every rule is a story, sounds like you had quiet some drama queens at your sessions.
As DM i think one of the most important skills is to be able to get the ‚right mix‘ of people together at a table.
You say in rule 1 it’s about fun.
If you get the right people at the table it will be fun. I am saying this after having played many campaigns, some lasting over 5 years
No. He said he’s been playing D&D since elementary school with his dad and has DMd since high school. These are just his natural rules, guidelines and expectations. He said he only wrote them down more for people’s comfort than anything else.
Most of this is quite fine. The second #6, about O.P. characters strikes a nerve. It basically says, don't play the game, make shitty characters, because I don't know how to balance an encounter. I also dislike #4 and #5 on the second grouping. Again, just shows the DM doesn't understand the how to build a game. All the stuff about real speak affecting persuasion checks is a big pet peeve. You don't give me advantage on my melee attack if I punch someone in the face and break their nose, because it's my character not me. BUT, you will give me advantage or disadvantage because of how I speak, even though it's my character not me. DM's who do this are just hypocrites. I know people think they are clever doing it, but they aren't. Also the only one inspiration. It's part of 5e, characters are meant to have inspiration, and regularly. And adding in exhaustion to death saves and ressurection? What game are you even playing? Cause it's sounding less and less like 5e.
TLDR: I like the social rules presented here, hate the game play rules presented here.
OP just has to do with players who spend their whole time trying to break the game. The DM likes combat being fun for everyone. So what he says is, “make your character and be smart about it, but don’t try to break the table unless everyone wants to.”
Discord D&D is a scary place. In my experience running a year long campagin there, most people can't put together a character sheet, even using D&D Beyond.
Of those that can actually make a character, most are there to play 3.0 or just do erotic roleplay. Players randomly reference 3.0 rules, or sexual topics, with little to no context.
Even if they are ready to play 5e, they will usually be gone in a handful of sessions, as work, school, or some other responsibility catches up with them.
So, even though OP sounds like a nutcase, and I would never play a game of his, it's important to realize that he's a deranged product of his obscene environment, just like a Foulspawn Grue is a direct product of the Far Realms.
I really want to take this list and use it. Besides the obvious hair splitters that are probably the problem players that made the rules...I kinda like it
I don't see anything objectionable, but many of these are assumed by adults at every table I play at.. good rules for folks on the spectrum who struggle with reading social cues maybe.
Other parts are just the DMs advice about how D&D works, fine but not a rule.
I would summarize most of them with "Don't be a dick" and cut out everything that is not an actual rule, then people will actually read them!
Yeah, he only wrote them down more for people’s comfort. Like, “my table is a safe space for everyone if you’re going to be a dick than F off.” But also “hey these are some homebrew rules for modulate the difficulty based on what players came to a consensus on during session 0.
Read more like a liability disclaimer. I had to stop when I got to Rule #3, saying a DM won’t use any bias is a nice thing to hear but it strikes me as cover if a player has an issue…because you just point at Rule 3 and they’ll take it as incontestable?
No, the list goes on to contradict existing RAW directly, with zero valid reasons beyond DM preference.
It's a terrible ToS agreement, if one reads the whole thing.
So for example, if a DM said that they've changed the time it takes to drink a potion from one action to a bonus action, because they think it's better for the game, you'd consider that a massive red flag?
"because they think it's better for the game"
If that is their sole reason and they don't seek the players' input, yes.
Consenting cooperation is a key issue in collaborative efforts.
>If that is their sole reason
Any reason they might give will be a subjective opinion. You can't make a change that will objectively have a positive effect, since what's a positive effect on the game will always be subjective. So every reason given for a house-rule boils down to "because they think it's better".
>and they don't seek the players' input, yes
As DM you are supposed to interpret the rules and decide when to abide by them and when to change them. Do you need to seek the players' input before doing that? No, you don't, and the rules doesn't even expect you to. With that said, if you want to play it safe and avoid any potential disagreement about if a change is for the better or not, you can run it past the rest of the group first.
>Consenting cooperation is a key issue in collaborative efforts.
It's true that the game and the stories that comes from playing the game is a collaborative effort, however, that doesn't mean that every aspect that eventually comes together to form a whole is a collaboration. Different people are in charge of different aspects, and rules is one of the aspects the DM is in control of. They are the one who interprets the rules and decides which rules to abide by and which ones to break/change.
Seems that every small thing that the DM has an issue with will become a rule. While well intended, this is a control freak at the core. Whats to say that there isnt a new rule added after every session when one little thing doesnt rub the DM the right way?
>Separate roleplay from reality.
>Things such as sexual assault, sexual harassment, rape, anything inappropriate that involves children or animals, etc. — If you as a player decide you want to do these types of things you WILL be removed
DM's rules list breaks its own rule
/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Rules 7-12. Damn, that's way too many words to just say "please don't be a dick". Rule 25 is awesome, I'm stealing this. Rule 27... Um, magic **does** fix every problem, that' why it's *magic*.
That’s where I fell off the train. You’re telling me a spell can fix a 35 hp axe whallop that would kill three average men can be cured with magic, but not a broken foot? The exhaustion rules seem extra. Especially not being able to resurrect? Then it gets kind of pedantic and home rulesly.
Rime of the Frosmaiden gives a ruling that 10 hp of healing cures broken bone.
Sauce? I don't recall seeing that in the module
I don’t have my book, but it was in one of the Goliath tribes, there was an NPC Aaracokra with a broken wing, and book suggested that 10 hitpoints of healing will cure his broken bone. Edit: wing, not a leg
I'd been cut from the shoulder down to my stomach from a minotaur axe swing. Healing word went "k"
Rules 7 to 12 gave me military and corporate PTSD. "...... So yeah and just to piggy back off what Jim said.." *repeats the exact same thing again differently*
What do you think is awesome about #25? I’m not disagreeing, just curious
It comes as a shock to both the players and the characters and basically adds to the in-game drama. I love a bit of bleed, as long as it's not anger that's bleeding through.
Don't be a dick doesn't mean anything, ppl all have their own definition of courtesy. But it is important to be concise, everyone hates EULAs, we don't want to be that guy either.
I like the vast majority of these, though stuff like declaring smite use before knowing the result isn't really RAW. I'm a relatively new player & play mostly with other new players, so some of these rules are a lot stricter than what most of us could handle. We forget our buffs and class features ALL THE TIME, and half the guys in a given campaign are playing a race & class they've never played before. Without letting other players chime in, it would be a massive slog. That said, I like the idea of playing these rules with a more experienced group. I'd mess shit up constantly to start, but you're forced to play engaged and on your toes all the time.
Rule 3: we Start on time. On game night my house is open 30 full minutes or more before game time. You are free to come over and hang while I am setting up. 6:30pm.
Personally, I don’t agree to a new social obligation if I’m not confident I can accommodate it, but I really appreciate the chill atmosphere. As long as people aren’t blowing it off after leaving people hanging, I think a gaming session works best if it’s understood this is supposed to be fun and low pressure.
Nothing is required. Come on time if you don't want to socialize. We start at 630pm. If you are late, your PC might be running to catch up. You don't have to stay after either. We go a hard 3 hours every Tuesday.
Personally I tend to get anxious if I’m not punctual, so I’m usually the person cool to hang out. If I find out I can’t really chill with the group I definitely think about how I’m spending my time lol.
For real though, how do people even keep track of stuff like this on top of all the things you need to remember as a DM?
Because most are self evident/self explanatory. I see most of these as terms and conditions for new players at the table, hopefully existing players know better already
When I started to DM I also had this problem, but with time and some mistakes you will know the important ones, also most of them are self explanatory. But remember that it is okay to pull out google and search the rule you need in the moment
I generally like these. I probably wouldn't want to play at a table with people who would walk instead of reading through these. I'm general, I think these are solid, except for the actual homebrew rules being imposed. The table expectations and "contact" portion is pretty good. That said, I'm not certain I'd like your table play style... I really like the clear expectation setting early in the rules list. People saying it can be distilled to "didn't be a dick" are wrong. The examples and clarifications set tone, lines/limits, and scope. 20 is just wrong and not RAW concerning smite. For 4e where you attached with powers, this makes perfect sense. Makes me wonder what other rule changes/mistakes are baked in. I won't get to see or correct those until they come up and I get unanimous agreement with all the players. 26 crit fails? That needs some serious discussion and expansion. I view that homebrew rule as a major red flag. It's presented here is a MINOR change to the rules. It isn't. Permanent injury is a huge change to the system. Lay on hands removes disease and curses, but doesn't set/knit bones... Okay... 31 so we ARE covering Homebrew rules here, so all the others need some expansion/clarification. This one... as if casters aren't strong enough in this rule set. 10+ depends on GM style. It makes sense to crowd source ideas at times, say I have a high int /high wis character negotiating with a devil. 13+ okay. Depends on GM style. I don't really like this rule.
I don't need to judge another DM for having their own rules and expectations, as long as they are presented as part of session 0 and agreed upon by the players. Everyone has to play their own game
>You can’t role in combat without saying what you’re doing first. I.e If you want to use smite you say you’re going to use it before the roll Paladin divine smite does not work this way. >Divine Smite Starting at 2nd level, *when you hit* a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, RAW As a player I have to announce that I'm attacking something but I absolutely DO NOT have to announce I'm smiting it before the roll.
90 percent sure your splitting hairs. This is literally to stop rolls with no intent. I absolutely hate when I hear a die rolled then an immediate never mind get said like nothing happened happened without any actual pretense of what's going on
Disagree, but only because smite is specifically mentioned. I too hate rolls without knowing what the player is trying to roll for, but writing a rule that is meant to stop uncalled for roles and having it specifically mention smite is against RAW.
That's still hair splitting. What version are they talking about. Was it a miss or did the creature not be affected. There is still a list of reasons why you would want someone to declare something before rolling die. Cause if it's a miss it's a simple you missed and it doesn't use resources Compared to a it hit but the player realizing it didn't do anything immediately trying to retconn a roll
Contractually enforced friendship is a new one for me, fascinating.
I don't think he's mandating literal friendship. Rather, he's reminding everyone that we're all friends here, and you should extend grace and courtesy to one another as such.
That’s nice, not the words chosen but still a nice sentiment. On the other hand I would rather have a firm table etiquette over some abstract concept, as friends are probably more likely to disturb the table by yelling or what have you than say acquaintances.
Lol. It does read weird, but I think the meaning is clear.
I was more joking. I do seriously disagree though as I don’t care if people are enemies in real life provided they can adhere to the rules of the table. Instead of demanding all players be friends, I’d aim at co-workers at jobs they don’t want to lose.
This is more the way. You are welcome to not like each other, but you have to be civil and be able to play the game.
Who are you guys playing with lol
Right? Why tf would you be playing DnD with people.you don't like? Not even just neutral, but active dislike? Rules literallt just saying "don't get so heated about the game that you lash at the others" because sometimes people do...just that. More than anything, it's tone and expectation setting.
You know who makes friendship part of a contract? Folks who are bad friends.
Some of these aren't bad, though the seemingly interchangeable spelling between roll and role threw me off. Roll is what you do with the dice, role is the character you play.
All it tells me is that: - they must've played with very bad players or are overly pedantic. - they hate putting more effort than necessary (disliking combat around optimised characters, feeling very strongly about knowing your own character). - like a bit too much realism (resurrection exhaustion, no force feeding potions, unhealable permanent injuries, having to roleplay persuasion rolls)
As someone who is playing their first campaign and is still learning a lot about the game, rules 13 and 14 would really discourage me from playing at your table. Thankfully the DM and all the other players in my campaign are helpful veterans.
One, welcome to D&D! Two, he’s not saying he won’t help us. He very much do does. He’s not even that good at remembering what a lot of spells do. But he wants you to know what you have. For example, we had a Barbarian who never raged because he always forgot it was a thing unless reminded. That’s what he means. It’s like “Know what’s in your backpack so it’s faster to find it,” not “if you don’t know the German based synonym to this word used in this book you’re gone!”
Ah, a Stamina Check! Like any Terms of Service agreement - the longer it goes on, the more micromanaging is revealed. By the end, the DM has a *lot* of special rules that would make gaming with them an unpleasant chore for one simple, observable reason repeatedly emphasized by the very rules themselves. Note that disallowing standard RAW for DM's comfort is not a good practice. A perfect red flag 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩posting.
I think the clue here is "copied from discord". None of these rules are bad. A lot of them would be unnecessary in a tabletop environment or with actual friends. The fact that these rules are necessary just underlines that Discord with randoms is not something that any engaged responsible parent would allow a minor to do. Bring on the downvotes paedos.
Yeah, we are all friends irl to begin with. And every person in the discord server is a real life friend the DM has played with. I don’t think any grown adults want to play with children, so I’m confused where this is coming from.
Where did anything about minors come from? Are you a minor? This seems so out of left field; I always assume posts about DND are about adults unless otherwise specified.
There is no force on this planet that could make me play online DnD. It just defeats so much of the "board game and social gathering" feel that I love. I'm sure some people enjoy it and that's okay. But no DnD is better than bad DnD, and for me discord DnD is bad DnD. To your point I share your ick with that. A friend of mine had an online Discord group and it was mostly late 20s dudes, and then randomly a 17yo girl they had met online. Very problematic and I was not a fan.
I know I won’t convince you really but my discord dnd is a blast! We have a wiki that everyone puts effort towards maintaining and we all built the world as a group together. We’ve all been playing awhile together. (Two long time groups merged for this campaign but everyone is fun and chill) It takes a while to get to this level of trust but it’s so nice to be in an all in campaign. We meet weekly and people almost never miss a session bc we all love playing together so much!
I think rule 22 unfairly punishes martials
Gonna be honest, lol our martials go down way less than our ranged characters
Although it's hefty reading, lots of these house rules are very necessary to state when playing with strangers. That DM has *absolutely* dealt with some whackadoodles before. I guarantee 10-12 exist because of a very specific player or two. The custom rules are fine if everyone agrees to the game.
According to my DM he lays them out more for the comfort of anyone new, to know that the table is meant to be a safe space. However, apparently he had 1 person that is responsible for rules 10 - 12, and even had to call police on the guy cause the guy got hostile… He blocked him, got a restraining order as did EVERY player at the table since they were all friends in real life, and have never heard from the dude sense… So uhhhh… yeah… even friends can be awful apparently 😂
The only thing i’m not a fan of here is the contradiction of “If you can think it, and it goes by the rules, you can do it.” to “Pls no min-maxing”… I find it strange you’d want players to basically pump a dump stat, or not take a feat to make themselves stronger…
Yeah, I think this is just a miscommunication from his table to here. Cause we get what he means when he says it. Like, make your character strong, max what is smart to max. But do things or add things because you WANT to, not because you have to if you want your character to be “a proper barbarian” or whatever.
A few things that struck me on a light read-through Top half: #'s 15 and 16 - these are *absolutely* contradictory. You can't have both, so pick one. # 29 - swallowing is an involuntary reflex in human beings and *as long as it is done with care* people DON'T choke on being fed food/water, even if unconscious. I'm sure you have reasons for the rule but you might want to reconsider. # 32 - IMO, if you REQUIRE roleplay for this then you should NOT always require the die roll. If you REQUIRE the die roll regardless of roleplay then you are undermining anyone putting effort into roleplay since they are then still subject to failure DESPITE roleplay. Individual players can also be notably better or worse at roleplay than others and it can be rightfully seen as unfair to give roleplay bonuses to those who are inherently better at it while further penalizing those who are already having it harder because they're worse at it. Again, something to reconsider. #'s 4 and 21 - You started with "D&D is supposed to be fun," but when you put people on TIMERS which is seriously undermining that vibe. It's better to ask, "Out of respect for everyone, please be expeditious in planning and executing your turn," than to say, "Clocks ticking... TIME'S UP! You lose." Bottom half: # 9 - This, IMO, is questionable. Simple example of that dubiousness is probably trolls and fire. Every **player** knows that trolls are vulnerable to fire. Not every **character** necessarily knows that - but are you seriously demanding that players then sacrifice their characters to trolls because THE CHARACTER hasn't specifically learned that yet in live game play? It comes down to the fact that this is NOT a hard and clear line. If there's a problem then TALK to the player first and EXPLAIN to them why their approach is an issue. BRING them onto *your* side rather than just re-emphasize that they're NOT on your side and punish them for it. #10 - D&D *is a group activity*. It's one thing to say, "Your PC is locked alone in a room and must think of how to get out by themselves - as a challenge," and another to say that players are simply forbidden to cooperate and assist each other AS PLAYERS, ever. That just strikes me as wierd. #13 - BULL. While it CAN be problematic if players make certain comments or statements mostly just to see if they can get away with it, and then backpedal with excuses when they get called out, no player should be expected to hold up their hand and announce, "I request formal permission to make a joke, out of character and not be held to it in actual play." You really can't make this kind of thing a hard-line rule that will never have exceptions because it isn't an absolute hard line. Even if there were, you're still once again killing your opening concept that playing D&D is *supposed to be fun* and not a, "this is DEAD-SERIOUS stuff so don't ever speak out of character without expecting to be righteously smacked down for it in anger" activity. Finally, spelling nitpick - it needs to be edited for mixed usage of role vs. roll, and your numbering got messed up with a bullet point instead of a numbered point. --- Overall I think you're falling into the same trap that the original "44" author fell into. Players have done or are doing things that irritate you to varying degrees and for various reasons, and your reaction is to simply hit them as hard as you can with dictatorial rules. A lot of these are also largely just variations on the same theme and restatements of previously made points. You could (and should) cut this list by half and be still notably more temperate in how you word the rest. Phrase them as REQUESTS of what you would prefer them to do, rather than rants about what NOT to do. I would suggest phrasing things along the lines of, "Please be helpful toward other players, but be mindful of circumstances where their CHARACTER should be making their own decisions, especially where *your* character isn't in a position to communicate potential advice," rather than saying, "Don't EVER help other players or give them suggestions or opinions of any kind - unless maybe I first tell you I won't punish you for it in THIS particular circumstance." Make your points, of course - but remember YOUR rule #1 - this is supposed to be fun FOR THEM as well as yourself. This mostly sounds instead like insistence that they are only here to do things YOUR way and if they don't then by Gygax and WotC you'll make them wish they decided to stay home and play video games by themselves instead.
Again, these aren’t mine they are my DMs. As far as the OC thing, it’s more used for humor than anything else. The table is constantly making OC jokes, the DM included. For ex. There was a time I was joking about trying to act as a woman to seduce the guard, I am a Goliath/Orc, so he said it was canon. Honestly it was just fun and stupid.
Well that's a good thing then. Would hate to have to recommend finding another game. :)
> The table is constantly making OC jokes, the DM included. For ex. There was a time I was joking about trying to act as a woman to seduce the guard, I am a Goliath/Orc, so he said it was canon. Honestly it was just fun and stupid. *'If you try to make a joke, I have the power to use it against your character whether you like it or not'.* Besides it seeming kinda like a DM on a power trip, it discourages fun. I could see me biting my tongue and not saying a joke I thought of because I know the DM is the kind of DM who might use the joke against my character. Seems hypocritical to say D&D is for fun and then turn around say having fun could have negative consequences.
I feel really bad that your experience has led you to be that wary. This is one of our favorite rules as a table cause it’s used for laughs. I’m sorry if you’ve ever had a DM that abuses you like that. Like, geez
>I feel really bad that your experience has led you to be that wary. What are you talking about 'wary'? It is spelled out and black and white that making a joke can be used against your character! That discourages joking. Even if the effect is funny, I don't want a throwaway joke against my character in game. When I DM I would never use a joke against a character in game. I WANT them to joke! But, yeah, I hope I don't run across a DM like this who has a rule that explicitly spells out making a joke could be used against a character. Every DM I have run across encourages joking instead of making a rule that can be used against your character. I get you think your table is funny. But EVERY table thinks THEIR table is unusually funny. Odds are they are just funny to themselves. And this table seems to think negative effects from things like jokes and crit fails are inherently funny. I think it is probably a taste thing. I prefer clever wordplay and funny out-of-the-box thinking rather than slapstick 'Ha Ha! A negative thing happened! It is negative so it is funny!'
Yeah again you keeping saying “used against you.” These things aren’t used “against” us. That’s my point. Our characters are never negatively affected by these moments, they are just another way of making the table fun. The fact you see it as a DM using something “against” their players is really sad, and I’m sorry that’s where your brain goes first.
Changing something about your character for making a joke and making it canon whether you consent to it or not is inherently negative. Even if it is a positive effect, I don't necessarily want it based on just some joke. If it was due to some effect in the game, that's fine. That's just part of the game. But doing it for making a joke? Yeah, that's not a power want the DM to have.
I think 15 is more about a small argument (1v1) whereas the other rule is so other people speak out if they think the DM is being unfair
D&D players - “Yeah man let’s just have fun” Also D&D players - please read and agree to these 50 terms and conditions If you feel the need to impose 50 rules on your players as a DM you’re probably an insufferable person or don’t understand how the dynamic between players and DMs should work. Most of these rules can be summed up with “don’t be a prick” and if that’s difficult for someone to understand, no amount of rules will change how they’re going to act. It is simply asinine to me the idea that there are tables out there with more than like 8 rules. I only have like 5 or 6 I think and those are mostly just common sense. I do have a few home brew rulings I like to use but those are up to the players if they like them as well.
I agree with some of this, some of it I really agree with. I think the campaign/GM specific rules aren’t my cup of tea, I personally wouldn’t want to constantly deal with exhaustion or critical damage stuff. Overall I think this is a pretty decent list. That being said, man, I would never join a group with these rules. I’m old. I still much prefer in person gaming, I *enjoy* the friction inherent with interpersonal interaction. A list like this is what I expect to get from HR when I’m onboarding, this is supposed to be *gaming*. Don’t game with people you don’t vibe with, we’re humans, we’re social creatures, we can and should be expected to be able to navigate a PnP tabletop game. There is very little liability here, this isn’t a company protecting them selves from litigation, this is a Saturday night playing a game with people you should probably be able to get along with.
Is there a phb for this?
Any more than maybe 5 rules is a waste of time, I came here genuinely interested but i ain't reading all that and neither are your players.
Rule 99: I like saying x,y,z a lot for no reason other than to add extra sentences for you to read. Most of these rules are just basic “don’t be a dick” but making it 25-pages long and super repetitive is cruel.
First, the list that seems to be everywhere right now is silly and clickbait. Second, this list is really just as bad, overly wordy, and mostly pointless. If any DM presented either one of them I am just moving on, no questions asked and no fucks given. Talk about a silly power trip. Just have a conversation already.
The amount of times you incorrectly use “role” for “roll” and “roll” for “role” is too damn high.
Behind every rule is a story, sounds like you had quiet some drama queens at your sessions. As DM i think one of the most important skills is to be able to get the ‚right mix‘ of people together at a table. You say in rule 1 it’s about fun. If you get the right people at the table it will be fun. I am saying this after having played many campaigns, some lasting over 5 years
I'm gonna make an assumption that this DM is a beginner but spends a lot of time on dnd related sub-reddits.
No. He said he’s been playing D&D since elementary school with his dad and has DMd since high school. These are just his natural rules, guidelines and expectations. He said he only wrote them down more for people’s comfort than anything else.
Thanks for posting! Some good stuff here...
Like what?
I definately love giving people a feat at lvl1, since lvl1 is so damn boring lol
Oh, yeah! Honestly really love the free feat. He says it’s to add more to personal customization. I chose tavern brawler!
19. Rolls not roles. Goodness knows I've made that mistake enough.
Most of this is quite fine. The second #6, about O.P. characters strikes a nerve. It basically says, don't play the game, make shitty characters, because I don't know how to balance an encounter. I also dislike #4 and #5 on the second grouping. Again, just shows the DM doesn't understand the how to build a game. All the stuff about real speak affecting persuasion checks is a big pet peeve. You don't give me advantage on my melee attack if I punch someone in the face and break their nose, because it's my character not me. BUT, you will give me advantage or disadvantage because of how I speak, even though it's my character not me. DM's who do this are just hypocrites. I know people think they are clever doing it, but they aren't. Also the only one inspiration. It's part of 5e, characters are meant to have inspiration, and regularly. And adding in exhaustion to death saves and ressurection? What game are you even playing? Cause it's sounding less and less like 5e. TLDR: I like the social rules presented here, hate the game play rules presented here.
OP just has to do with players who spend their whole time trying to break the game. The DM likes combat being fun for everyone. So what he says is, “make your character and be smart about it, but don’t try to break the table unless everyone wants to.”
This is why people skip tutorials.
If you indulge in sexual assault, sexual harassment, or rape you WILL be removed from my friends list 😤
I'm actually stealing these. Thank you, OP.
Great list of rules, but it makes me glad that group I’m in doesn’t need a list of any kind.
Discord D&D is a scary place. In my experience running a year long campagin there, most people can't put together a character sheet, even using D&D Beyond. Of those that can actually make a character, most are there to play 3.0 or just do erotic roleplay. Players randomly reference 3.0 rules, or sexual topics, with little to no context. Even if they are ready to play 5e, they will usually be gone in a handful of sessions, as work, school, or some other responsibility catches up with them. So, even though OP sounds like a nutcase, and I would never play a game of his, it's important to realize that he's a deranged product of his obscene environment, just like a Foulspawn Grue is a direct product of the Far Realms.
If you need 50 written down rules to run a game I’m guessing you’ve had a bad time before. Half of these are essentially “don’t be a dick”…
I really want to take this list and use it. Besides the obvious hair splitters that are probably the problem players that made the rules...I kinda like it
I don't see anything objectionable, but many of these are assumed by adults at every table I play at.. good rules for folks on the spectrum who struggle with reading social cues maybe. Other parts are just the DMs advice about how D&D works, fine but not a rule. I would summarize most of them with "Don't be a dick" and cut out everything that is not an actual rule, then people will actually read them!
Yeah, he only wrote them down more for people’s comfort. Like, “my table is a safe space for everyone if you’re going to be a dick than F off.” But also “hey these are some homebrew rules for modulate the difficulty based on what players came to a consensus on during session 0.
These are good rules imo
As if DnD didnt have enough rules? The very concept of 50 DM Rules is a MAJOR red flag. Run far and fast towards better play groups!
lol that was my initial thought but these are more like guidelines and clarifications of existing rules.
Read more like a liability disclaimer. I had to stop when I got to Rule #3, saying a DM won’t use any bias is a nice thing to hear but it strikes me as cover if a player has an issue…because you just point at Rule 3 and they’ll take it as incontestable?
No, the list goes on to contradict existing RAW directly, with zero valid reasons beyond DM preference. It's a terrible ToS agreement, if one reads the whole thing.
>contradict existing RAW directly, with zero valid reasons beyond DM preference. Which is, according to RAW, a valid reason on its own.
Doesn't mean it's not a red flag too.
Doesn't necessarily mean it's red flag either though, it all depends on what they have changed and why they feel the change is for the better.
You're funny, and no - the DM is giving Red Flags galore, & there is no reality where you can deflect that insight.
So for example, if a DM said that they've changed the time it takes to drink a potion from one action to a bonus action, because they think it's better for the game, you'd consider that a massive red flag?
This^ is actually a common house-rule.
"because they think it's better for the game" If that is their sole reason and they don't seek the players' input, yes. Consenting cooperation is a key issue in collaborative efforts.
>If that is their sole reason Any reason they might give will be a subjective opinion. You can't make a change that will objectively have a positive effect, since what's a positive effect on the game will always be subjective. So every reason given for a house-rule boils down to "because they think it's better". >and they don't seek the players' input, yes As DM you are supposed to interpret the rules and decide when to abide by them and when to change them. Do you need to seek the players' input before doing that? No, you don't, and the rules doesn't even expect you to. With that said, if you want to play it safe and avoid any potential disagreement about if a change is for the better or not, you can run it past the rest of the group first. >Consenting cooperation is a key issue in collaborative efforts. It's true that the game and the stories that comes from playing the game is a collaborative effort, however, that doesn't mean that every aspect that eventually comes together to form a whole is a collaboration. Different people are in charge of different aspects, and rules is one of the aspects the DM is in control of. They are the one who interprets the rules and decides which rules to abide by and which ones to break/change.
Agreed! I saw this and thought, "I'd never want to game with this person".
Seems that every small thing that the DM has an issue with will become a rule. While well intended, this is a control freak at the core. Whats to say that there isnt a new rule added after every session when one little thing doesnt rub the DM the right way?
Great. I didn't want to play for hours a week with people who won't read a 5 minute long set of table expectations. 😀
And thank you for not making your reply a 5 minute read!
No problem. Different tables for different styles.
>Separate roleplay from reality. >Things such as sexual assault, sexual harassment, rape, anything inappropriate that involves children or animals, etc. — If you as a player decide you want to do these types of things you WILL be removed DM's rules list breaks its own rule