Comment on “Homework Time”

I'll admit to having invented those particular hoity-toity terms on the fly, but I don't think the concepts they denote are baseless or empty. No "authority" has put these forth other than myself, Alexis, so I'm sorry if I wasn't clear that I was trying to explain my personal viewpoint -- albeit one I think others could benefit from adopting.

I was using "rules of engagement" here to refer to governing interactions at the table between human beings (the players and the DM). Examples: do not insult other participants; players acting to undermine other players is not tolerated as this is a team game; cheating on the dice is forbidden; trolling (I will attempt a definition if you want one, but not this moment) is forbidden; my rule above about DM not taking sides. I assume that most people have some of these but don't make them explicit; I am all about explicit. Most people don't need to be told not to cheat, but relentless trolling? insults? DMs taking sides or blatantly fudging to make encounters run longer? I've seen those behaviors destroy any semblance of worthwhile gaming, and I don't want them at my table. [Some of these would necessarily apply only to players or only to the DM. The roles are asymmetric after all.]

On the other hand, "rules of interaction" refers to the rules which govern the game world. Assassins can assassinate, thieves can backstab, other classes cannot do either (in my game at least.) Combat actions X, Y, and Z cost this, that, and the other amount of AP. The price of a widget X is determined from this recipe, based on these material components, the prices for which are themselves calculated in such and such way. And so on. These are what are typically thought of as "the game rules".

We can call them whatever you want. "Rules you (and I) have to follow to play at this table" and "rules that your character follows in the game" is more explicit, if you like. It's the same as having two sets of rules at your local soccer club: one which you agree to if you want to use the space, and one you agree to by playing the game of soccer. It should go without saying that the content of both sets are subject to individual game-group taste.

Again: I think most people do actually have rules in the "engagement" category, they just don't spell them out. I am doing so because when I believe when I say "there should be DM rules," the first reaction is likely to be "b-b-but isn't the DM above the rules?" He's above the game-world rules but that doesn't mean he's a tyrant free of social conventions. The English-language double meaning between "rules" meaning one type and "rules" meaning the other leads to that reaction, so I've added descriptors.

My memories of crappy games with other DMs are fresh in my mind. I'd be excited to play at a table whose DM explicitly acknowledged their responsibilities in this manner ... which is why I'm talking about it. (yes of COURSE this is way of saying I'd like to run as a player in my own gameworld -- who wouldn't?)