No. Because the people that would need it are hopeless anyway.

GMing sections are useful because even if you're a 5/10 GM, you've probably got at least some sort of creative take on something.

My few rules are as follows. All of these were assumed until violated and had to be made explicit.
 Contribute to the snacks and drinks.  
At some point you will buy your own dice.
 You will show up bathed.  
Phones will be only be out for no more than 2 seconds, if you need to respond please step out.  
Please let us know if you are going to be late, do this before start time.
 Do not distract from the game, if younare there just to chit chat about everything else do not show up.  During discussions about the game and I ask if there any topics to be avoided let me know now, if it was not covered please calmly let me know it is bothering you, do not flip your shit and go full spaz.
  When the genre is chosen and the themes decided, t ie superheroes, do not try to become murder hobo, please try to stick to genre cconvention .
If you do something in game that breaks or takes advantage of the mechanics that gives me permission to do the same.

No. It's not the place of some game designer to dictate what players should or shouldn't do at your table.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;10899476. Put in effort.

This. The problem is this will be written somewhere in the rulebook they may not bother to own, much less read, when they show up expecting to be entertained by the nerd doing all the work behind the screen. "The rules can't cure asshole," like a wise old man once said.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1094322No. It's not the place of some game designer to dictate what players should or shouldn't do at your table.

We see it now and then in board gaming with designers trying to make rules to dictate how players play instead of just letting them go at it however. Some are practically obsessed with preventing anyone from becoming the leader in co-op games. Others think they can stop cheating by adding more and more rules.

Quote from: Omega;1095057We see it now and then in board gaming with designers trying to make rules to dictate how players play instead of just letting them go at it however. Some are practically obsessed with preventing anyone from becoming the leader in co-op games. Others think they can stop cheating by adding more and more rules.

There is one example of this that I actually agree with - there's a wargame where if a player tales too long in making his next move (5 minutes, I think), the player to his right takes the slow player's turn instead!

Quote from: Antiquation!;1091860As a matter of fact I have actually observed widespread idolatry of the "gross geek" culture here, where some are actually proud of going to publicly organized play groups as disheveled, unkempt and disgusting as possible (stained sweatpants, greasy hair, bad smells and wolf shirts everywhere!).

Culture can form around any set of shared traits and beliefs, good or bad, and once it does those standards will be enforced and form the basis of the community.

This is why support groups need at least one person moving them in the right direction, because otherwise they'd just be enabling each other's bad behavior. And if they form before such people are involved, it will be too late as the cultural standards will already be set.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1091864If a particular game is designed to reward some approaches over others, make sure the players are told that right up front,

This is all I really ask.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1094322It's not the place of some game designer to dictate what players should or shouldn't do at your table.

Quote from: Omega;1095057We see it now and then in board gaming with designers trying to make rules to dictate how players play instead of just letting them go at it however. Some are practically obsessed with preventing anyone from becoming the leader in co-op games. Others think they can stop cheating by adding more and more rules.

RPG rules are nothing more than a set of agreements and techniques which have been found to consistently lead to particular results. They should not be treated as dictates from tyrannical designers trying to control your life, but simply instructions on how to do something, and some ways of doing things are better than others.

Yet I cannot deny I'm seeing an increasing number of designers trying to prevent their games from being played not just 'wrong', but 'unethically'. Vincent Baker even pulled his classic Dogs in the Vineyard because they couldn't figure out a way to do that. And sadly the cargo cult style faith in 'safety tools' (which I'm generally for) has contributed to this absurdity.

But I'm pretty sure the answer is not to double down on the "game designers are dictators when they tell you how to play their game" philosophy.

I only have the experience of playing with childhood friends. They can smell like poop if they want to, the only thing I require is that they try to get into the setting and the mood of the game. If we play a horror game we all should work together to make it scarier. Horror is always the hardest genre of rpgs to GM. If they try to buy into the game and setting for me, and keep the wisecracking to a minimum (to quote the movie Raw Deal: "Smart I like. Smartass I don't."), I'm a happy camper since I put alot of effort into preparing sessions.

Quote from: GIMME SOME SUGAR;1096493They can smell like poop if they want to

Nope. I demand some basic hygiene from anyone who sits at my game table.

(One of the more disgusting moments I have ever had at a convention game was sitting next to a guy who had a funk going on that smelled like Parmesan cheese.)

I like play examples; omit them from your rules and it's probably going to be played like D&D. (If you intend that, at least include a short play example to make clear you intended that.)

But expectations on the players? That seems a nearly orthogonal issue to me: how you organize your gaming group (if some players expect to murder each other and some expect mandatory cooperation, you've got a problem that the rules are unlikely to solve). Maybe designer notes to help determine if the rules are likely to be better or worse for your gaming group.

Quote from: rawma;1096809I like play examples; omit them from your rules and it's probably going to be played like D&D. (If you intend that, at least include a short play example to make clear you intended that.)

But expectations on the players? That seems a nearly orthogonal issue to me: how you organize your gaming group (if some players expect to murder each other and some expect mandatory cooperation, you've got a problem that the rules are unlikely to solve). Maybe designer notes to help determine if the rules are likely to be better or worse for your gaming group.

Hello again, my friend. Well, isn't roleplaying meant for friends to have a good time together? I see roleplaying as a cooperative event, between both players and the GM. But a player's character can still be a bastard though. It's obviously worse if two players have something against each other. They would probably be happier if the group was split up in two then.

Quote from: rawma;1096809I like play examples;

Agreed. I consider them crucial because I want to see what the author had in mind for how the game would/could/should be played. I like seeing what they highlight in the play example and how the present the player interactions.

Quote from: jeff37923;10898175. Don't be an asshole.

My take on #5 is to keep in mind to show respect for what everyone believes, but also for how quickly or indeed slowly/quietly everyone talks.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1094322No. It's not the place of some game designer to dictate what players should or shouldn't do at your table.

It's more to be handled by individual groups, yes.

I don't mind if the book has suggestions, although preferably presented as suggestions. For inexperienced GMs.

Quote from: Jame Rowe;1097787My take on #5 is to keep in mind to show respect for what everyone believes, but also for how quickly or indeed slowly/quietly everyone talks.

What if what one of your players believes in something completely stupid and demands either passively and/or aggressively that you and others comply with those beliefs?

Quote from: Jame Rowe;1097788It's more to be handled by individual groups, yes. I don't mind if the book has suggestions, although preferably presented as suggestions. For inexperienced GMs.

What if the book suggests it's okay for the aforementioned person that has stupid beliefs to have those beliefs and play them in your game which expressly has nothing to do with your game, nor any conceits of its setting, nor anything else germane to the point of playing the game itself?

Is it in fact necessary to be told whom/what/how you should run your game at your table? Are we that infantile? Does it actually help anyone? If so how? And why are the creators of these games somehow given this authority over us by us, and why are we even debating it?

The gulf that exists between these realities, and the point of this discussion should be the alarm bell to those that find the topic "disturbing" or invisible to their basic desires to play a round of makebelieve elf-games.

Let alone the "why this gulf exists."

The water is boiling. The frogs are cooking.