Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877006I've always had more people wanting to play my games than I've had space, so I can be as fussy as I like when I run a game.  And if the referee isn't having fun, the game WILL suck.

And playing, well, I'll try a lot of things once.  But it had better be more fun than reading a book or building a model boxcar, because if it isn't I'll do those things instead.

More or less that:).
For that matter, I am willing to be flexible. I've tried mostly all games that have come my way, and have been willing to suffer through systems I didn't like - provided I expected something or someone else to compensate for it. Once, I even tried a heavily houseruled* variant of Palladium's [strike]abomination[/strike] system.

I'm much less willing to give stuff that turned out to suck a second chance**, though. And if I'm being flexible enough to contemplate it, would you also be flexible enough to contemplate those other options I'm going to suggest that also happen to be stuff I know would work better for your idea;)?
Flexibility, it works both ways.

*My understanding is that no other variants of Palladium exist, though, since you're either houseruling it, or it's falling apart anyway. IIRC, the Glitter Boy not being able to lift his own weapon was recently discussed on this forum.

**I'm not planning to give Palladium a second chance, for example. Not after chargen took us about 4 hours with the GM guiding me over chat, and him knowing exactly where everything we needed is located:D.


Hey, Gronan, does that make me a honourable grognard:p?

Quote from: Bren;876959Is the Silver Horde some RPG group of dungeon-dwelling women? :confused:

Googling "Silver Horde" gives me a lot of stuff about fishing, possibly salmon fishing in 1930s Alaska.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;876961Genghis Cohen.

Quote from: Bren;876983Ah. Disc World.

Yeah, it was a reply to your Old Arnie joke;)!

Quote from: AsenRG;877034Hey, Gronan, does that make me a honourable grognard:p?

Actually, I think it just makes you "not afraid to like what you like."

In the case of friends with different tastes, there are plenty of other things we can do to socialize, there's no need to play a game someone doesn't like.  "The game not happening" is not the greatest evil.

Quote from: Ravenswing;876873One of my first blogposts -- Gaming Geek Fallacy #4: My Game Is Great, Your Game Sucks -- covers the syndrome.

But really, it's simple.  You've had to have noticed that this kind of behavior's just plain prevalent in our culture.  For you to like a kind of music I don't, to follow a sport I don't, to vote for a political party I don't, to enjoy a kind of food I don't, to wear a style of clothing I don't ... all that is not only a referendum on my good taste, but you've just singled yourself out as Not One Of Us.  

True! I suppose the ubiquity of mass communications has allowed more folks to locate their tribes, and, naturally, my tribe IS better.:-)

I'll follow your posted link here in a few minutes. Yet, somehow, I feel I know what it's going to say.

Quote from: Lunamancer;876992The other is a side-effect to "discussing expectations." You'll go in with some expectations anyway, but if you haven't discussed them and don't know where other people are coming from, you're far more aware of the fact that things may not go how you expect. In fact, they probably won't. It forces you to be more open-minded in approach.

Another problem with discussing expectations is it feeds the beast. Anyone can go off and play a solo campaign and do everything exactly the way they want it. People join groups because the benefits of being part of a group outweigh cost of giving up the things you like that aren't compatible with the rest of the group. When you discuss expectations, it draws a circle around what everyone's gotta give. Rather than just jumping into the game where you would experience the benefits of having a group.

What kind of expectations are you thinking of as the focus of discussion in these comments?  I agree that drawing a circle around what everyone's gotta give is a bad idea.  When I say that I think discussing expectations up front is a good idea, I'm talking about things like:

• If the GM says, "you overhear the bartender complaining about meat disappearing from his cellar", does he mean "this is the plot hook for tonight's adventure and you are expected to ask the bartender for more information" or "random things are happening in the world around you"?
• If two PCs have different goals, is that good play or bad play?  What if the difference leads them into conflict?  What if that conflict escalates to become violent?
• Are the PCs expected to use violence as a first resort or the last?
• When combat breaks out, is it Combat as Sport or Combat as War?
• Can PCs die?  If so, under what circumstances?  Is it permanent?  How will replacing lost characters be handled?

In my experience, if two people at the table have differing expectations on things like these, then there's a strong chance (but not a guarantee) that one or both of them will be very unhappy with the game and may well leave.  Given that, it seems best to work those problems out up front in order to head off that kind of problems before they occur, whether by finding a mutually-acceptable way to run the game or by allowing people who would be unhappy to skip the campaign entirely.

I don't get the difference between "expectations" and "what everyone's gotta give." Aren't they the same thing.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;877067I don't get the difference between "expectations" and "what everyone's gotta give." Aren't they the same thing.

It's sales talk. What everyone's gotta give is what the people at the table are willing to concede or give to the others at the table so that they can reach a meeting of the minds about common expectations.

Simple example.

Player A wants a game with 1-2 challenging combats a session and a character who is really good with combat. Player A would like to run a character like D'Artagnan.

Player B doesn't want a game that is only about combat and would like to include romance and romantic entanglements, especially for his character. Also he likes Johnny Depp. And Musketeers.

The GM wants to run a pirate campaign using the new game she bought, Honor+Intrigue, to see how the (relatively new) system works and because she really like pirates (except for Captain Jack Sparrow).

They might all agree to a game of King's Musketeers using the Honor+Intrigue system

• with at least 1 challenging combat every session or at least every two sessions
• where Player A's character is the best fighter in the group
• with a romantic subplot or entanglement for Player B's PC - this may have the potential, but not the guarantee of a long term relationship, or it may be a series of romantic subplots with a guest starring NPC of the week
• with a pirate setting, but no Johnny Depp-like characters.

So they all get some of what they want but not all of what they want.

Player A gives on the number and frequency of combats in game and agrees to try the new game system. In return she gets a guarantee of frequent combat and a character who excels at combat - possibly a character like D'Artagnan.

Player B gives some by including frequent, challenging combat (not really B's preference or reason d'etre), not having any Jack Sparrow pirates in the game, and trying the new game system, but gets some romantic subplots or entanglements focused on his character and the promise that challenging combat won't take up the majority of every session, and Musketeers.

The GM gives on the pirate campaign idea, running Musketeers instead but in return she gets to try out Honor+Intrigue and doesn't have to have any Jack Sparrow characters in the game.

So you're saying that this is bad? Because it highlights all the points of contention between everyone.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;877081So you're saying that this is bad? Because it highlights all the points of contention between everyone.

No.

I'm trying to clarify "the difference between "expectations" and "what everyone's gotta give"." I'm also trying to show how everyone giving or compromising may end up in a solution that meets most or at least some of the desires or expectations each person in the group.

And to be even more clear, I'm not trying to differentiate between expectations and desires, if for no other reason than that most people don't themselves a priori know which are which. Until faced with the result of a compromise i.e.  until the rubber meets the road, as it were, they may easily confuse what they want with what they'll accept.

I think a lot of people might THINK that something is a deal breaker but if they actually gave it a chance they might like it.

For example there's one player I know who absolutely hates any "trivial" roleplaying scenes, like talking to shopkeepers. They think all the item shop stuff should just happen in between sessions with them just picking items and handwaving it. But I think it's those small details that add to immersion, and an NPC isn't magically different just because they also own a shop. They might have quest hooks, they might evolve into something else, etc.

Now if this player actually tried that out I think they would enjoy it but they draw the line right from the start and there's not much you can do there.

As for a megadungeon, OK let's say that it's a big huge place for exploration instead of just 7 rooms. How would you account for the mixed levels of characters?

Like for example, suppose normally you have a bunch of level 4s. But then next time level 1s all show up, but last time most of the easy stuff got cleared out. Now only the deeper parts of the dungeon with the tougher creatures are on the prowl. They can't really do anything. Maybe there would have to be some "gating" like video games to steer them in appropriate directions.

If the entire first level has been cleared out and nothing else has moved in, it sucks to be them.

On the other hand that's what led me to brave the third level of Greyhawk alone as a first level magic user with a torch, a dagger, robes, 3hp, and a Charm Person spell.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;877115For example there's one player I know who absolutely hates any "trivial" roleplaying scenes, like talking to shopkeepers. They think all the item shop stuff should just happen in between sessions with them just picking items and handwaving it. But I think it's those small details that add to immersion, and an NPC isn't magically different just because they also own a shop. They might have quest hooks, they might evolve into something else, etc.

Sometimes talking to a shop keeper is fun. Sometimes it feels like a waste of time better spent by letting me buy a new set of arrows to replace those I lost and a dagger to replace the one I broke. This seems like an area perfect for compromise.  Or maybe not.

QuoteAs for a megadungeon, OK let's say that it's a big huge place for exploration instead of just 7 rooms. How would you account for the mixed levels of characters?

The traditional method is to increase the difficulty as levels descend. The rules in the old days gave you tables for wandering monsters indexed by dungeon level that did exactly that.

So on the first level there are mostly 1st and 2nd level monsters, some third level monsters - like a wight or two maybe, and the occasional (and relatively tough) 4th level monster - like say an Ogre or werewolf or the even more dangerous wraith or gargoyle.

Whereas on the 3rd level most monsters would be say fourth level with the occasional tribe of goblins or orcs with a shaman or hero chieftain giving some level 1 creatures, and the occasional 6th level monster like say a Chimera, Vampire or maybe a Spectre.

Now I may have the levels out of adjustment, it's been something like 3 or 4 decades since I looked at the OD&D tables, but hopefully you get the jist.

So then the players know that deeper is deadlier, but conversely deadly monsters tend to have the better stuff - more loot, actual magic items, and such. So the players choose the degree of danger (in general terms) by choosing a level. Sometimes they guess wrong and find something too dangerous and they die. Sometimes they are overly cautious, stay on the first level forever and get bored killing Kobolds and looting their corpses for a sack of 50 copper pieces. Which is not enough money to pay for the prepared rations they bought in town to eat on the trip to the dungeon or the healing potion they drank to recover the hit points lost to the Kobold pit trap.

And if they show up later and all the easy stuff is gone, but the dead Kobold's pit trap is still there...too bad...so sad. Maybe they should have looted a few more rooms instead of heading back to town right after the mage cast his best spell.

Quote from: Bren;876952Lot of wimmen in your dungeons are there?

Yes, normally in the wimmen pools.

Quote from: nDervish;877053What kind of expectations are you thinking of as the focus of discussion in these comments?  I agree that drawing a circle around what everyone's gotta give is a bad idea.

Let me be clear. I'm not conflating expectations with preferences at all. Except for the fact that there are preferred expectations. So you can't "talk out expectations" without drawing a circle around at least one area where players may butt heads.

In fact, that's exactly the contention, isn't it? That not discussing expectations somehow stacks the deck towards "player conflict."

QuoteWhen I say that I think discussing expectations up front is a good idea, I'm talking about things like:

So maybe before we discuss our expectations we need to discuss our expectations of what expectations are. Or instead we could do like we just did. Communicate like human beings and learn from our misunderstandings.

QuoteCan PCs die?  If so, under what circumstances?  Is it permanent?  How will replacing lost characters be handled?

Well, let's start with the last one first, since I think that ones the most obvious. Pretend your a player. You show up your first day with a new group. You don't know anything about them, and they decide just to jump into the first session without discussing expectations.

Question: Can PCs die?

Answer: At this point, you can't rule it out.

Conclusion: Not only is it possible, it's perfectly reasonable that players can form similar expectations without relying on discussion, luck, or coincidence.

Advantages: As GM, I can fudge when I need to to make sure PCs don't die. But player behavior and decisions remain tempered and believable, evaluated through the idea that PC death is possible.

QuoteIf the GM says, "you overhear the bartender complaining about meat disappearing from his cellar", does he mean "this is the plot hook for tonight's adventure and you are expected to ask the bartender for more information" or "random things are happening in the world around you"?

Same thing only different. Pretend you're a GM. You're preparing to run your first adventure with a new group. You don't know anything about them, and they decide they want to jump right in without discussing expectations.

Question: Will PCs bite at an off-handed comment made by a bartender?

Answer: At this point, you don't know.

Conclusion: You'd better have another way to hook them.

Advantages: It demands of the GM to either be aware of and engage PC motivations. Or else plan adventures that are less linear. Either way, it keeps the choices of the PCs as the center of the game.

I leave the other enumerated items as an exercise for the reader.

QuoteIn my experience, if two people at the table have differing expectations on things like these, then there's a strong chance (but not a guarantee) that one or both of them will be very unhappy with the game and may well leave.  Given that, it seems best to work those problems out up front in order to head off that kind of problems before they occur, whether by finding a mutually-acceptable way to run the game or by allowing people who would be unhappy to skip the campaign entirely.

I would say the latter does NOT follow from the former. You left out two important things. Or rather one important thing that gets injected in two key places. Fallibility.

Let's say I gather my players around the campfire to sing kumbaya and discuss our expectations for the upcoming campaign. Can you 100% guarantee that once we've settled on a set of expectations, that the game that results in actual play, will be a perfect match to those expectations?

This leads to the second point of fallibility. If we did not discuss our expectations in advance, sure, the players would still hold expectations. As I was just discussing, some expectations are more natural or dominant than others. But how certain would they be of those expectations? I contend they'd be far less certain and therefore far quicker to adapt to how the game is actually going.

Without a 100% guarantee that the game will go expected, the ability to adapt to how the game actually plays out--if you are truly concerned about expectation mis-match--is clutch. The advantage goes to silent wisdom.


I can even point to an example that's objectively measurable. Consider the science of the olive bar:

QuoteIt later occurred to me that the ambiguity might by the whole point. People eat and then feel a sense of obligation, and then buy. Might this really be a marketing scheme?

Later, with a small team of researchers, I staked out the olive bar to see if this theory holds up. We pretended to be regular shoppers. Over the course of an hour, we observed unscrupulous people walking by quickly, stuffing a few in their mouths without buying anything; other scrupulous people bought without sampling any. After an hour of watching, our team only saw one other customer who replicated my own behavior.

The next day, our team observed several people who bought olives but did not sample, one man who at handfuls and walked away, and one person who sampled an olive and proceeded to fill up a container and purchased.

So while we saw plenty of sampling, only two people in two days both sampled and bought.

Not ready to declare the theory a bust, it was time to interview people who watch this bar all the time: the baker and the wine salesman. The baker said people steal olives all the time, and he laughed about it. I asked why he doesn't put up a sign that forbids it, and he just laughed and shrugged.

The wine guy was more forthcoming. If people ask him, he freely suggests that they try some samples. People who do sample also usually buy. We asked if this was the point after all, and he answered with a general theory of his own:

Paraphrasing: A grocery store lives on the fence, neither claiming their food is their own nor inviting people to freely sample what they want. We create zones of uncertainty and let people wander within them freely, letting people take their own path. The hope is that they will imagine the store's food as their own, and then make that come true. The olive bar is a case in point: it not only lives on the fence; by being so beautifully displayed, it suggests a home environment, and has thus spawned antipasto parties all over town.

At this point, the baker became more open with his knowledge of olive-bar sociology. He revealed that the olive bar is one of the most consistently profitable sectors of the store. "It brings in $1,450 per week" he said excitedly.

Our team of researchers had the theory confirmed: the bar's profitability—which is a measure of how well it serves the public—is related to its shades of grey concerning the legitimacy of sampling from it. We also found that one customer cited an authority for olive sampling: a guy on the Food Network actually recommends that people do this!

Clearly, the rule ambiguity here is deliberate but it serves a larger social goal of bringing us what we want. Yes, there are those who take advantage, and there is some slippage. But the appearance of generosity, combined with people's sense of fairness, ends up being quite profitable.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;877115I think a lot of people might THINK that something is a deal breaker but if they actually gave it a chance they might like it.

Generally, I've tried things I say are deal-breakers at least once -- and generally more than once. I say things like the following are deal-breakers for me because from experience I know I will not have fun:

a) RPGs where the average combat often takes more than 10 minutes of actual playing time

b) groups so focused on the RAW that they spend more than 5-10 minutes out of the average 4 hour session looking up rules or (worse) arguing over rules.

c) groups where my character is expected to be a character in the GM's (or adventure designer's) "novel" following the planned plot.

d) groups that expect me to care about character builds (even more so if they consider combat ability the only truly important thing in a build).

e) groups that encourage min-maxers or rules lawyers.

f) groups where I'm expected to buy, read, and study the rules to even try the game.

QuoteAs for a megadungeon, OK let's say that it's a big huge place for exploration instead of just 7 rooms. How would you account for the mixed levels of characters?

I've ran groups with huge differences in character level since the mid-1970s in TSR-style D&D. I simply do not run game systems that expect all characters to be about the same level nor do I run campaigns that need all the same characters there every session to work.

QuoteLike for example, suppose normally you have a bunch of level 4s. But then next time level 1s all show up, but last time most of the easy stuff got cleared out. Now only the deeper parts of the dungeon with the tougher creatures are on the prowl. They can't really do anything. Maybe there would have to be some "gating" like video games to steer them in appropriate directions.

There are a number of ways to handle situations like this, Examples: 1) some higher level NPCs offer to hire the characters and go along with them, then treat it as I would any other mixed level group. 2) give these characters this week a chance to do something that doesn't involve going deeper into the dungeon -- like looking for a rumored hidden area in the already cleared area.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877148I can even point to an example that's objectively measurable. Consider the science of the olive bar:

Science? This should be interesting. I hope there is a journal citation.

QuoteThe wine guy was more forthcoming. If people ask him, he freely suggests that they try some samples. People who do sample also usually buy. We asked if this was the point after all, and he answered with a general theory

You do understand that the off-the-cuff theory of some guy in the wine department is not "objectively measurable", right?

QuoteAt this point, the baker became more open with his knowledge of olive-bar sociology. He revealed that the olive bar is one of the most consistently profitable sectors of the store. "It brings in $1,450 per week" he said excitedly.

You do also get that you've provided no data to back up the assertion that the olive bar is "consistently profitable", right? Also that "brings in" typically refers to revenue, not profit. What is the profit on $1,450 per week in revenue and how does that profit compare to other sectors? Canned goods may have a lower revenue, but they probably have much lower stocking and spoilage costs. So what are the total costs associated with earning that revenue? How does the profit (Revenue – Expenses) compare to other sectors? How does that revenue, cost, and profit compare to other stores that don't ambiguously make olives available for sampling or taking? So many objective questions with so few answers.

QuoteOur team of researchers had the theory confirmed: the bar's profitability—which is a measure of how well it serves the public—is related to its shades of grey concerning the legitimacy of sampling from it.

Hey, another assertion without any objective data to support it.

QuoteBut the appearance of generosity, combined with people's sense of fairness, ends up being quite profitable.

Quite profitable compared to what?

So a guy in the wine department of some store, somewhere has a theory. I have a theory too. It could be bunnies.