Quote from: Old One Eye;878504Recruiting players just seems weird to me.  All I have ever done is ask one or two friends in normal course of talking if they feel like rolling up some characters and play some DnD.  Then they bring a couple more people I have never met, and we get to gaming.

Develop a good reputation as a DM, and your players will do the recruiting for you.

Simply asking people if they want to play is recruiting. It's not a mysterious process. But yea, word of mouth is a powerful force. Most of the my current group came to me that way.

Quote from: saskganesh;878535Simply asking people if they want to play is recruiting. It's not a mysterious process. But yea, word of mouth is a powerful force. Most of the my current group came to me that way.

True enough.  From my end it is the same as asking friends if they want to go to a movie or hit the bar.  The way some folks talk about recruiting, campaign pitches, setting expectations, or whatever sounds more like putting together a sports league than just hanging with friends and having something to do while hanging out.  More formal, if you will.

Quote from: cranebump;878408I have no problem with this. This what I assumed the whole "expectations" conversation included. The argument seems to be about what the pitch should include. I don't think you have to lay out everything. But I do feel you have to address basic style issues. You brought one aspect of this to light when you referenced campaign lethality -- a point you made that I fully agree with, by the way. Lehtality can be a non-starter for some players.

I just feel like players need to clearly know what they're getting into. Of course, I could say, "expect the unexpected," thereby covering myself for whatever I want to do (and thereby absolving myself of any inconsistencies I may develop over the course of the game).

But how does it hurt for me to say:

This is a sandbox campaign. Most of what I'll do is react to your choices within the parameters of the scenario. There is no plot immunity. Characters will die for other than story purposes. I play the monsters to their full potential, so don't expect them to be "fair" if you choose to fight them. Two more things: (1) I roll dice in the open, just like you. And (2) I subscribe to rulings over rules--in matters of disagreement, I have the final say. We'll cover other things as they arise. I hope you have fun. If you're not having fun, we'll discuss it personally outside the game.

Everybody ready?

Not sure why this would be so hard to do. In fact, I feel like it's the responsibility of the GM to do at least this, prior to starting the game.  The expectations thing is nothing more than a "here's how I run the game" statement. I assume none of us really have a problem with that?

Amusingly, that's a more succing version of what I tell to the group before we start a campaign with new players. Sometimes I give a speech to the old players, if I'm going to deviate from it for this game only, maybe to try and see what happens:).
Your version is more succint because I also cover trigger warnings, adult themes, insanity, OOC vs IC and I give examples of what I don't want to see;).

Quote from: Old One Eye;878537True enough.  From my end it is the same as asking friends if they want to go to a movie or hit the bar.  The way some folks talk about recruiting, campaign pitches, setting expectations, or whatever sounds more like putting together a sports league than just hanging with friends and having something to do while hanging out.  More formal, if you will.

It was nice when getting a game together was as simple as you describe.  Moving from the US to Europe really throws a monkey wrench into that, though.  When all your friends live a few thousand miles away, recruiting (in the more "formal" sense) strangers is pretty much the only option for in-person gaming.

Quote from: nDervish;878394It can go either way for me.  If it's a pre-game pitch, it pretty much needs to be one-way, simply so that everyone gets the same pitch.  If I recruit player A with one set of expectations, then negotiate with player B, then I need to go back and renegotiate with player A... by the time I get up to player E or F, I may not even remember what I've agreed to any more.  So in that case, it pretty much needs to be "I'm GMing, this is what I'm offering, you interested or not?"

Yeah, and I would pile on top of that. Maybe it's just my personal experience, but it's not like active recruiting to get a game started is necessarily common. It's probably more common that maybe a player in a campaign gets a new job, can't make the weekly game anymore, and the group wants to fill the seat. In that case, hey, this is an ongoing campaign. It's a thing that already exists. The only question put to a prospective player is whether or not you'd like to join it.

Or, perhaps even more common than that, when you have a successful ongoing campaign and you are approached by players possibly interested in joining. Now I think in that case, the burden is definitely on the PLAYER to make sure it's a fit. This thread seems to imply that the burden is always on the GM to discuss and listen to what players want. Definitely not the case.

QuoteAfter my last reply to you, I realized the next morning that PC death was really a poor choice for us to have been focusing on.  Partly because, as you allude to, it's not something that tends to have a significant overall impact on how the game is played (despite how crucial it is when it does become relevant), but mainly because it's something that a lot of people have very strong preferences about, to the point that they will refuse to play in games that aren't run in accordance with those preferences.

Well, yeah, if some people hold very strong opinions about any particular feature while it shows very little relevance in actual play, there is something seriously screwed up about the way those players think about things. And THAT would be the discussion that needs to take place.

So it's important that I point out, my question of why it matters was not a rhetorical one. For example, I believe it is important that players at least believe their characters can die. It forces them to make trade-offs based on risk. It affects their decisions and actions. I feel it keeps the flow of the game believable. Different players and different characters will have different risk tolerance. This brings in a rich and nuanced play experience for all.

Some people I've encountered who want PC death to be impossible, some of them want it that way because then they are free to play "heroically" with over-the-top action. Others, it's because they are distrustful of GMs. And still others mumble something about player agency.

Understanding the real benefits has done a lot more to improve the way I GM. I want intense settings for adventures, like inside of a volcano and for PCs to have skills well above ordinary humans so they can survive, and this satisfies the need for over-the top heroism. I make it a point to not play favorites at the table or to intentionally screw over players to satisfy those who are distrustful of GMs. I play sandbox to satisfy those who are concerned with player agency. And yes, I also get those benefits I like. Nuanced play accounting for risk/rewards.

This is a vast improvement over just idiotically choosing one side of the PC death issue and then robitically repeating the mantra, "That's my preference" 'til the day I die.

QuoteI think it would have been better if instead we'd gotten stuck on the "offhand bartender comments" example.  Most players are willing to play both in games where every word from the GM's mouth is directly plot-relevant and in games where the GM constantly throws out random details which may or may not be completely meaningless.  A lot of people may have preferences one way or the other, but I've encountered very, very few who will only play in games that do it their preferred way.  It is, however, something which greatly affects the way the game is played, making it important that players know which way the GM is doing things so that they can react appropriately, either by following up on everything the GM says or by trying to decide for themselves what they think seems interesting or potentially important.

And my question still, why does it matter? Let's say it's the worst case scenario. You have an expectation mis-match. The GM thinks he's sending out a call to action with the bartender's comment. Players don't take the plot hook.  Big deal. The GM made a mistake. Now the GM knows it's going to take more to get the job done. The GM has learned.

The converse is also true. The GM doesn't intend the bartender's comment to be a plot hook, but players take it that way. The GM can actually adapt to turn it into an adventure and now he knows how players will take such "flavor text." OR the GM can let the players spin their wheels for a little bit and allow the players to learn that sometimes a banana is just a banana. Big deal. They make a mistake. They learn, adjust, and move on.

This ability to adjust is not a matter of preference or expectation. It's a matter of being a superior player. This is one of my goals. Develop players into better players. That requires learning from their mistakes in the game.

Quote from: nDervish;877415You might want to reread Gronan's post.  He's not talking about when games fuck up.  He's talking about a game that has gone decades without fucking up, which he attributes, in part, to clarifying expectations and weeding out mismatches before a new player joins the group.

Exactly.

I've had several long-running campaigns where the expectations have been implicit rather than explicit, but they have been there. In my experience, campaigns without expectations have a lot of problems.

I'm not in favour of a Social contract or anything so formal, but all our players have a set of shared expectations. If those expectations are not met then there can be some discussions but generally the campaign continues.

Quote from: nDervish;878580It was nice when getting a game together was as simple as you describe.  Moving from the US to Europe really throws a monkey wrench into that, though.  When all your friends live a few thousand miles away, recruiting (in the more "formal" sense) strangers is pretty much the only option for in-person gaming.

Look at it this way. You have a chance to make new friends (hell, all of our friends were strangers at one point). Sometimes it can take a bit of time, but if you put your best foot forward and out some effort in, you'll probably get somewhere. And once you have one new friend, you'll get to meet their friends. Who likely have some similar interests to him or her. And there's your gaming group.

Like any other recurring shared activity, TTRPG's are very good at creating friendships.

Quote from: nDervish;878580It was nice when getting a game together was as simple as you describe.  Moving from the US to Europe really throws a monkey wrench into that, though.  When all your friends live a few thousand miles away, recruiting (in the more "formal" sense) strangers is pretty much the only option for in-person gaming.

When moving to a new area, I have always sought to make a new cadre of friends first for all the many shared social activities that entail the human condition.  After establishing a new network of friends, starting up some roleplaying is no different than any of the other zillions of things friends get each other to try.

Making new friends is easy.  Small talk with people to find those with whom you have commonality.  Ask them to go do something with you that matches the commonality discovered through small talk.  Getting a date works under the same simple principle, by the by.

Personally, I hate small talk, but it is the primary way society gets to know each other.  Once you snag one or two friends, they will introduce you to their social network and the bullshit small talk with strangers phase can end.

Quote from: cranebump;878408But how does it hurt for me to say:

This is a sandbox campaign. Most of what I'll do is react to your choices within the parameters of the scenario. There is no plot immunity. Characters will die for other than story purposes. I play the monsters to their full potential, so don't expect them to be "fair" if you choose to fight them. ...

Not sure why this would be so hard to do. In fact, I feel like it's the responsibility of the GM to do at least this, prior to starting the game.  The expectations thing is nothing more than a "here's how I run the game" statement. I assume none of us really have a problem with that?

What I have a problem with is that the onus seems always to be on GMs running just what an RPG game (and campaign, without qualification, just plain campaign) has meant from the start to go into such detail, not on the people running plotted productions.

Quote from: saskganesh;878535Simply asking people if they want to play is recruiting. It's not a mysterious process. But yea, word of mouth is a powerful force. Most of the my current group came to me that way.

My recruiting involves a waiting list and auditions.

Quote from: Old One Eye;878537True enough.  From my end it is the same as asking friends if they want to go to a movie or hit the bar.  The way some folks talk about recruiting, campaign pitches, setting expectations, or whatever sounds more like putting together a sports league than just hanging with friends and having something to do while hanging out.  More formal, if you will.

I've played through the London D&D Meetup group since 2008, one pitches a campaign on the message board and/or to players in a current campaign. Before that (2000-2006) I'd advertise on game store websites & such. I think last week was the first time ever I've just been sitting in the pub having a beer with someone from work and it turned out she'd been a D&D player and was a potential recruit; almost always the gaming comes first, friendships later. From what I see I don't think that's hugely uncommon among us nerds, especially when one arrives in a strange city where you don't know anyone.
Even with friends though, I do normally pitch a campaign, see if they'd like to play it. Certainly not every game suits everyone and I've rejected games that friends pitched if I had issues with it (eg a friend wanted to run Deadlands, but I didn't like the idea of the no-slavery South, which IMO turned the Union from morally ambiguous into straightforward villains, and the South from morally ambiguous into the white-hat good guys, and in-world validated IMO untrue claims that the war wasn't really about slavery, at least in large part).

Quote from: Old One Eye;878671Making new friends is easy.  Small talk with people to find those with whom you have commonality.  Ask them to go do something with you that matches the commonality discovered through small talk.  Getting a date works under the same simple principle, by the by.

But what if you're terrible at both?

IME lots of people use D&D as an icebreaker to make friends (there being barely any catpissmen around here), rather than friends looking for something to do and deciding on D&D. And D&D acts as a social glue to keep people together who might otherwise drift apart, considering that they may well live 90+ minutes away from each other in this big city.

Quote from: S'mon;879765But what if you're terrible at both?

Bluff your way to success. It's ok, people are terrible at telling the difference between truth and truth+. ;]

Quote from: Old One Eye;878671When moving to a new area, I have always sought to make a new cadre of friends first for all the many shared social activities that entail the human condition.  After establishing a new network of friends, starting up some roleplaying is no different than any of the other zillions of things friends get each other to try.

Indeed.  And roleplaying is my preferred shared social activity (well, top two, at least), so recruiting people for RPGs is how I go about finding new friends.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;879766Bluff your way to success. It's ok, people are terrible at telling the difference between truth and truth+. ;]

Cult of Done Manifesto, point 4:  "Pretending you know what you're doing is almost the same as knowing what you are doing, so just accept that you know what you're doing even if you don't and do it.

Quote from: nDervish;879790Cult of Done Manifesto, point 4:  "Pretending you know what you're doing is almost the same as knowing what you are doing, so just accept that you know what you're doing even if you don't and do it.

...this might be one of best motivational lists I've seen lately.