Quote from: Ravenswing;878134Fair enough.  But, of course, weapons are just a small aspect of the lot.  Do your ships have wheels (only invented in the 18th century) or steering oars or tillers?  Do they have sternpost rudders (only ubiquitous by the late 14th century)?  Do your anchors have the arm-and-curved-shank design with pointed flukes?  That's strictly modern-day; none of those elements predate the 18th century.  And so on and so forth.

Well, I'm doing a mix of designs for Tekumel, but they're mostly cogs, nefs, caravels, junks, balsa plots, papyrus boats and proas for ocean-travel. So they have a mix of steering systems, really, sternpost rudders often don't exist, and anchors are definitely just a big weight:).

Then again, I might add a steering wheel if I felt like it, since Tekumel has forgotten more technology than we have seen;).

Quote from: Lunamancer;877591That's putting it diplomatically.

Part of my job is deciding who to hire. If I hear the candidate keep referring to his years of experience without ever actually demonstrating his knowledge by explaining in detail how things work as informed by that experience, this is a red flag. The guy is more stuck in his ways than he is knowledgeable. He's not a good hire.

As I said, nothing counts. You have to prove it. Even if you've already done so. No credit for navigating where you've already been. It is assumed that place is no longer worth going to.

QuoteIf you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day.
If you tell a man what to expect, you'll minimize misunderstandings right until conditions change.
If a man learns to adapt expectations, you'll minimize misunderstandings for a lifetime.  

I'm arguing in favor of #3.

I think #2 assumes that discussing expectations is a one way street, wherein the godlike GM says, "here's how I do things."  If that is the case, it is still better than sucker punching players (though I don't find it personally preferable to a real exchange).

 My assumption is that the discussion concerning expectations involves input from both sides, with a general agreement about what we'll be doing. It goes without saying that conditions change. Further the fact t that conditions change does not make discussion moot. It's a cooperative affair. Or should be, at any rate. I don't really see what is gained by not communicating, save a heightened level of confusion.

Then again, maybe I'm just set in my ways about, you know, talking to people and shit. Maybe I should just text them, so that I don't have to bother with listening.:-/

Quote from: cranebump;878279I think #2 assumes that discussing expectations is a one way street, wherein the godlike GM says, "here's how I do things."  If that is the case, it is still better than sucker punching players (though I don't find it personally preferable to a real exchange).

It hardly has anything to do with a godlike GM. The GM has an idea for a campaign and finds players who are interested in playing it. It's pretty simple. My analogy was to a business where you have separate departments for sales and production. The selling process involves communication, absolutely. But you don't have the customers tinkering with the product. They're seeking out your expertise. Otherwise, they'd just do it themselves. Conversely, you don't ask them to do something outside of their specialty.

QuoteMy assumption is that the discussion concerning expectations involves input from both sides, with a general agreement about what we'll be doing.

The trick when pitching your campaign idea is not to discuss the sort of things that typically fall under "discussing expectations" as they are typically features, not benefits. But rather to educate prospective players on how they can get what they want from the campaign. It's the benefits that count. Not the features.

QuoteIt goes without saying that conditions change. Further the fact t that conditions change does not make discussion moot. It's a cooperative affair. Or should be, at any rate. I don't really see what is gained by not communicating, save a heightened level of confusion.

Didn't say anything about making discussions moot. The point is it will never keep up the way the ability to adapt as you go will. And being adaptable is really as simple as planning according to one single expectation: expect the unexpected. Everything else is superfluous and just seeks to over complicate a very simple thing.

QuoteThen again, maybe I'm just set in my ways about, you know, talking to people and shit. Maybe I should just text them, so that I don't have to bother with listening.:-/

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's a cop out. It's something people say when they're unable or unwilling to address real problems.

Name one expectation you think needs discussing. PC death has been a recurring theme in the thread. Answer the question. Why does it matter? Why does anyone need to know this up-front? Whatever answer you give is either the real heart of the matter or at least a step closer to it. The expectation itself people are arguing over is irrelevant. It's the heart that needs addressing.

Quote from: Ravenswing;878134No one familiar with Harn fails to recognize it as the great counterexample to the truism that most low-tech fantasy RPGs are only superficially medieval at best.

Fair enough.  But, of course, weapons are just a small aspect of the lot.  Do your ships have wheels (only invented in the 18th century) or steering oars or tillers?  Do they have sternpost rudders (only ubiquitous by the late 14th century)?  Do your anchors have the arm-and-curved-shank design with pointed flukes?  That's strictly modern-day; none of those elements predate the 18th century.  And so on and so forth.

Lets see.
Rudder: Was the hand operated type usually. No wheels. Dolphins had more advanced ships. How advanced? I never got the answer to that.
Anchors: Lemurians used a net basket full of stones. Others used a rock with an eyehole in it. Others used wooden toothed anchors as those date back to Roman times. I described them as single or double toothed chevron/arrow shapes.
Sails: This was the iffy one. I stuck to the general roman, viking, egyptian, and arabian styles of design.

Note that like in Conan, which RS parodies, anachronisms were present. But I kept things to a certain tech threshold overall.

One of the great things about game design research is that sometimes you learn some really unexpected things. Like the toothed anchors being around a-lot longer than I thought.

Quote from: Omega;877798Off topic.

In AD&D no. No gunpowder in the core rules. (Not counting crossover rules with Gamma World or Boot Hill) But I do not have the DMG handy and could be wrong there.

In 2e. Yes. Gunpowder. Though not in the core rules that I recall. It did show up in the setting books. Especially Spelljammer.

There were also some articles in Dragon and I think White Dwarf introducing guns.

The 1e DMG does indeed have crossover rules for Boot Hill which gives DnD stats for pistols, dynamite, and the like.

The 2e PHB has an arquebus in the general weapon list.

Quote from: Old One Eye;878319The 2e PHB has an arquebus in the general weapon list.

Optional but indeed there.

Bemusing note. For some reason back then I kept assuming it was another pole arm...

Quote from: Omega;878325Bemusing note. For some reason back then I kept assuming it was another pole arm...

An oddly named weapon in D&D and you thought it was some type of pole arm. Where the hell did you get that idea?

Quote from: Bren;878330An oddly named weapon in D&D and you thought it was some type of pole arm. Where the hell did you get that idea?

oopsa, meant crossbow/ballistia, not pole arm. I blame Gary.

Quote from: Bren;878161Medieval cogs and Viking longships were the standard ships in the D&D of my youth. I've got a supplement down in the basement from (I think) Judges Guild that included ships of those types. Personally, I'm partial to triremes and longships so mostly I've had steering oars.

Bireme & Galley from Fantasy Games Unlimited was great, complete with deck plans.

For models large enough for boarding actions, check out for instance the 1/72 plastic offerings from Zvezda (Carthaginian, Greek and Roman triremes, medieval English ship with high castles), Revell Germany and Emhar (Viking ships).

Quote from: Bren;878330An oddly named weapon in D&D and you thought it was some type of pole arm. Where the hell did you get that idea?

(cackles) I assume you have your [SARCASM] tag on.  

Quote from: cranebump;878279I think #2 assumes that discussing expectations is a one way street, wherein the godlike GM says, "here's how I do things."  If that is the case, it is still better than sucker punching players (though I don't find it personally preferable to a real exchange).

 My assumption is that the discussion concerning expectations involves input from both sides, with a general agreement about what we'll be doing.

It 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?"

A multi-sided discussion tends to be the norm after (prospective) players have been rounded up and it's possible for everyone to take part in that conversation together.  If we do this for any given campaign, I prefer to either do it online or at a relatively-informal side gathering, so as to avoid taking table time away from actual gaming.

Quote from: cranebump;878279It goes without saying that conditions change. Further the fact t that conditions change does not make discussion moot. It's a cooperative affair. Or should be, at any rate. I don't really see what is gained by not communicating, save a heightened level of confusion.

Agreed.

Quote from: Lunamancer;878307Name one expectation you think needs discussing. PC death has been a recurring theme in the thread. Answer the question. Why does it matter? Why does anyone need to know this up-front? Whatever answer you give is either the real heart of the matter or at least a step closer to it. The expectation itself people are arguing over is irrelevant. It's the heart that needs addressing.

After 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.

I 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.

Quote from: Lunamancer;878307It hardly has anything to do with a godlike GM. The GM has an idea for a campaign and finds players who are interested in playing it. It's pretty simple. My analogy was to a business where you have separate departments for sales and production. The selling process involves communication, absolutely. But you don't have the customers tinkering with the product. They're seeking out your expertise. Otherwise, they'd just do it themselves. Conversely, you don't ask them to do something outside of their specialty.

The trick when pitching your campaign idea is not to discuss the sort of things that typically fall under "discussing expectations" as they are typically features, not benefits. But rather to educate prospective players on how they can get what they want from the campaign. It's the benefits that count. Not the features.

If they're going to be using your product, it might be a good idea for them to know how it works. Further, if a customer has some awareness of what your product offers, or rather your "company" in this case, they might be more likely to invest in it. Or, they might take their resources elsewhere and save you both some time.

QuoteDidn't say anything about making discussions moot. The point is it will never keep up the way the ability to adapt as you go will. And being adaptable is really as simple as planning according to one single expectation: expect the unexpected. Everything else is superfluous and just seeks to over complicate a very simple thing.

So, your point is it's useless to discuss anything unless the discussion covers all unforeseen contingencies? Nice. Every conversation is now a non-starter. "Expect the unexpected" isn't simple. It's unclear and inexact. Anything but simple, really. It's simple to YOU, because it allows you to do anything as a GM and not have to explain it. That seems to be your focus here?

By the way, this is pretty much what I proposed. Discuss expectations. Expect the unexpected. I never proposed having an endless round of discussion concerning every speck of minutiae the game offers. But I do think making sure everyone is on the same page initially is worth spending a few minutes over. Communicating with someone doesn't make you beholden to their belief systems. You seem to be against having even that conversation, to the point where if seems like you're so hidebound about the concept of not sharing any conversation at all -- to the point that the existence of flesh-and-bone people is, in fact, superfluous to playing a cooperative game. You've taken it a step further to say that anyone who expects anything else has some sort of personal problem beyond your own refusal to offer any sort of initial give-and-take. The problems are all player-related, it seems. At least, that's what I get out of it.

To be clear, when it comes to "expectations," all I'm lobbying for is two minutes at the beginning of the campaign--hell, even one minute--for me to figure out whether or not you're my definition of a douche bag, or just a firm GM with clear convictions. Maybe if I get that, I can save us both some time and heartache. Are you saying you can't spare even that?

Quote from: nDervish;878394If 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?"

I 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?

Quote from: cranebump;878279I think #2 assumes that discussing expectations is a one way street, wherein the godlike GM says, "here's how I do things."  If that is the case, it is still better than sucker punching players (though I don't find it personally preferable to a real exchange).

I don't negotiate (much). I decide to run one of my three major campaign worlds (JG Wilderlands or either of my homebrews) using my version of old school D&D. I then find and recruit players who want to play in that setting with an old school GM using old school rules in the playstyle I'm running the campaign for. If someone wants something else that means they don't want to play in my campaign -- which is fine with me.

This probably will not work as well if one has an established group of people one wants to GM for, but since I recruit players who want to play in what I have decided to run, it works great for me.

Recruiting 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.