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.

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.

 If you have players who dislike clearing out dungeon rooms without a good reason AND refuse to talk to NPCs (which could lead lead to the reasons they are looking for) then you need to slap them upside the head and/or get better players.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;877115As 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.

" Can't really do anything" is bullshit. This only because lazy players equate "can't charge mindlessly into combat" with "can't do anything"

This is why TSR D&D is superior to to the modern version. You aren't required to find things to beat up to get the bulk of your XP. Going to a deeper level of a dungeon than you can reasonably handle for whatever reasons is simply playing on hard mode. Clever plans and strategies will need to be utilized to obtain treasure without getting killed.

A great example is in the classic Keep on the Borderlands module. There are many caves to choose from in that ravine, and some are deadly for 1st level characters. Adventurers are still free to choose whichever one they want. One cave is the lair of an owlbear. If the players discover this cave and find out what lives there they can leave it alone until they are more powerful or try their luck at 1st level. Attempting that cave at 1st level requires more care and strategy to survive than it would if the party were all 3rd level but it certainly can be done, and the rewards of that treasure haul are much sweeter at 1st level than at 3rd.

So a party of 1st level characters going into that level 4 dungeon need to account for that in their approach to exploring the level. Kicking down doors and barging in to places will make the adventure brutal and short. The party needs to avoid combat as much as possible until they get a bit more powerful. The problem with WOTC D&D is that all or most of your XP comes from combat encounters so playing carefully and getting away with treasure without fighting does jack and shit for getting more powerful.

Quote from: Ravenswing;877248
And that's no different from any other game.  Why does a party of 5th level types not assault a line of cacodemons in D&D?  Because they know they'll get smoked.  Why will they take on a line of kobolds?  Because they know they'll smoke them.  Pretty much any game you can have a sense of what's sensible to fight, what's risky to fight, and what's suicidal to attempt.  GURPS doesn't mean "everyone automatically dies."  It means "calibrate your notions of what's feasible to the system."

Oh yeah, system expectation gap can be a bitch. I ran a GURPS Conan game for my group about 20 years ago. They were used to D&D for the most part. The party had discovered a cavern full of cultists and were moving in to take take them out.

A line of spear wielding guards stood between the party and several broad stone steps leading up to a level area with an altar, a victim, a high priest, and his most accomplished underlings.

One of the players with a high speed decided to go into D&D mode and charged right past the line of spearmen. He ended his move a couple yards past them. He was doing the whole ignore the mooks and go right for the main bad guy approach that often works so well in D&D.

The two guards that he ran between, on their turn, turned and stabbed him in the back with their spears. Getting a back attack, he could only dodge at -2 because he was aware of them. As expected he was hit twice in the vitals for x 3 impaling damage. He pretty much died on the spot much as someone would reasonably expect.

We all laughed our asses off at that one. :teehee:

The concept I have the hardest time getting across to D&D players who I run GURPS for is simply being outnumbered matters a LOT. It doesn't matter if you are outnumbered by low skill scrubs. Even a mook can score a solid hit if you are out of active defenses.

Quote from: nDervish;877415The only ways to determine whether a new player considers the possibility of the GM fudging to prevent PC death to be tolerable are to either ask them or watch the GM fudge to save a PC's life and see if the player rage-quits the campaign.

Anecdotal evidence (like everyone elses, of course) - I have had two players actually ragequit with much Sturm und Drang due to PC death (one to an interparty argument that went deadly).  Within two months, they both were back because the campaigns they had been playing in were boring as hell now by comparison.

Quote from: Ravenswing;877248I expect we're dealing with the average gamer who -- while probably ignorant of the intricacies of Dogs In The Vineyard or Melanda: Land of Mystery -- has enough experience to have gained a notion of likes and dislikes.

The new players I've picked up here in Sac tend to be 20-somethings who started with WotC D&D, so I take nothing for granted.  

Someone doesn't like shopping? Ok.  If they actually trying playing the game however, and talking to people they may find out there's a local protection gang trying to horn in on another gang's turf, or that shopkeeper's daughter is getting unwanted attention by a trading ship captain, or any one of a hundred things going on in your average sized town or city.

When most people say they don't like shopping, I've found they mean they don't like sitting there while MacGuyver combs the city looking for 13 bags of marbles and 3 live worms.

Of course the "don't knock it til you try it at my table" applies to a lot more than shopping and with the current crop of gamers is really just "how about you ease the fuck down and give the GM one chance before you demand your perfect tailored experience".  Which is literally what I told one group when they were hassling a new GM who was having trouble juggling too large a group for his comfort level.  After I called them on their bullshit, things went fine.

Quote from: Ravenswing;877248Players get smart.  They don't feel the need to do frontal assaults on three times their numbers, with the enemy sporting sword-and-board with a second line of crossbowmen.  They think that getting down to a couple HP means it's time to bug out, not to play Horatio-at-the-bridge.  They think that if one of the two physicians is down with bog fever and they're down to the last two bottles of Water of Coral (= health tonic), that's the Gods' way of telling them it's time to sneak or negotiate, not to fight.

And that's no different from any other game.

Exactly.  I've run and played RQ, WFRP1, RM, lots of "deadly games".  So since you said you didn't like "high mortality rates", I wondered what systems you thought that applied to or were you just talking about GMs who make things brutally hard, the "fantasy fucking vietnam" campaign?

Quote from: Ravenswing;877397This is muddleheaded from several directions.

No it isn't. Your interpretation is muddleheaded. I thought we were already clear up-thread a bit that expectations are not necessarily preferences.

QuoteI see no downside to this.  The worst that happens after a frank discussion is a player says "Hrm, sounds like your game isn't for me, toodles," and walks.  (Some might think that a player deciding neither to waste his time nor mine isn't all that much of a "worst.")

Well, if that's how you want to do things then fine. Personally, I don't want to waste a player's time showing up just to decide the game isn't for him and leave. Whether or not the player fits foreseeably fits the game and the game fits foreseeably fits the player is handed before the player shows up and is the basis by which the player is invited and decides to show up. Another point you are muddling.

Quote from: nDervish;877415No, I'm neither arguing nor conceding it because that uncertainty is precisely part of my point.  We don't know what the most common expectation regarding PC death may or may not be.

That is NOT what dominant means. It has nothing to do with how common or uncommon an expectation is. I was crystal clear about that. That's your baggage, not mine.

QuoteThe only ways to determine whether a new player considers the possibility of PC death to be tolerable are to either ask them or to watch a PC die and see if the player rage-quits the campaign.

Whether or not a player finds PC death to be tolerable is a preference. Not an expectation.

QuoteThe only ways to determine whether a new player considers the possibility of the GM fudging to prevent PC death to be tolerable are to either ask them or watch the GM fudge to save a PC's life and see if the player rage-quits the campaign.

Can you "watch" the GM fudge? I don't doubt some do it openly. Generally, I think it is done secretly. In any case, if I fudge, I do so secretly, so this passage certainly has zero relevance to me.

QuoteIf someone in my game is going to find either possibility intolerable, I'd prefer to know up front so that,

All else being equal, I prefer a lot of things. That's not really relevant. The question is whether I prefer it enough to pay the cost. I derive certain benefits from, for example, from a game where the possibility of PC death being ambiguous. I'm not willing to give that up to accommodate a hypothetical gamer childish enough to "rage quit" a game.

Personally, I've never seen it happen. I don't doubt that it has. But if this is really so common thing all across the gaming world that we all ought to prepare for it, then maybe the things I'm doing different from you are things you ought to be doing instead. Because maybe, just maybe, I was right when I said discussing things feeds the beast.

QuoteYes!  Exactly!  I have no idea what you're thinking of when you say "expectations" in this context,

I speak English. Not gamerspeak.

Expectation: "A strong belief that something will happen or be the case in the future."

Context clues show clearly when I'm deviating from this slightly. When I speak of "weak expectations" I mean "A weak belief that something will happen or be the case in the future."

If I want to use the word expectation strictly by the dictionary, then weak expectations shouldn't be viewed as expectations at all. So to restate my case in light of that, I would say when you discuss expectations, you are in fact creating expectations. Maybe you're creating new expectations by discussing existing ones. Or maybe you're creating the very expectations you're discussing. Maybe the player would be fine either way, PC death, no PC death, it's all good. But now that you've discussed it, you've pigeon-holed the game. You've created a strong belief about whether or not PC death will happen in the future.

And if for some reason conditions change in the future where standing by those expectations become imprudent--in a no PC death game, maybe players are taking advantage of that and killing suspension of disbelief, or in a no fudging game, maybe you as GM made an error that puts the party into a TPK situation through no fault of the players--do you still have the freedom to make the correction without violating what are now strong beliefs? This is what is meant by feeding the beast.

QuoteI've given examples of things that I think of as "expectations" in this context. [...] You, however, have done fuck all to clarify what you mean when you talk about "expectations".

No. I accepted your examples of expectations and showed how I applied them to my concerns.

QuoteWhich is why I asked you what you meant by it.  Ain't my fault that you're too busy attacking my position and looking for opportunities to talk down to me that you haven't had the time to answer my question.

You chose to interpret it as an attack on your position rather than me saying "I except your examples of expectations as expectations. Here's how they apply to my concerns." That's your problem. I also explained what I meant by "dominant" in my last post and you still chose to interpret it as meaning "common." A pattern. You seem to misinterpret beyond the degree that is believably accidental.

QuoteYou 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.

Is he? That may be his intent, but this is what he said: "NOTHING fucks a game faster than mismatched expectations, and fifteen minutes of discussion can clear up 90% of the most severe mismatches." To me, that sounds like he accepts that some mismatches will still exist, maybe even some severe ones. But he estimates they would be 10 times more numerous sans discussion.

But is he actually measuring expectation mismatch when the game is running smoothly? According to you, earlier, you can only ever observe a mismatch in two ways. One, by discussion. Two, by disaster. So it would be impossible to measure mismatch when things are going right. If they are actually contributing to the fun of the game, by your own admission, you'd have no way of knowing it.

Moreover, you and he both mention that irreconcilable mismatches that come up in the pre-game discussion are filtered out. So the only times you are aware of mismatches aside from disaster never get the opportunity to play. Geez, no wonder you correlate expectation mismatch to ruining a game. You systematically blind yourself to anything else!

QuoteYour sample is biased as well.

If I go over to the phone book and select everyone with a last name that begins with a particular letter of the alphabet, this sample is not biased if I want to use this sample to get an idea of the age of the population. If, however, I choose this sample to get an idea of the ethnic background of the population, the letter I choose may bias the sample. Especially if I choose a letter like 'x'.

If you filter your games based on pre-game discussions about expectations, your experience is biased with regards to having anything to say about the effects of expectations on game play. If I do not filter my games according to expectations, my sample is not biased in those regards.

QuotePersonally, I've never seen that happen.  I've seen people quit games because "I know I haven't mentioned X before, but I really can't stand it", but never "you said the game would be X and it isn't".

Your focus determines your reality.

If after a round of kumbaya, we decide we're going to use AD&D 1E to play a pirates campaign, and some of us show up expecting there to be gun powder and others not, you can say, "Hey, the problem of mismatch is because we didn't discuss gunpowder expectations." But I would be pointing out that the problem is that you DID discuss the expectation to play pirates. And that's what led to the mismatched expectations over gunpowder, because it's in-genre. If we had just said we were getting together to play 1E and leave it at that, nobody would expect gunpowder because it isn't included in the rules.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877435Well, if that's how you want to do things then fine. Personally, I don't want to waste a player's time showing up just to decide the game isn't for him and leave.

Whether or not the player fits foreseeably fits the game and the game fits foreseeably fits the player is handed before the player shows up and is the basis by which the player is invited and decides to show up. Another point you are muddling.

1: So youd rather waste x+ hours of the players time rather than just lay things out before the game even starts?

2: So youd rather lay things out before the game even starts rather than waste x+ hours of the players time?

x: Point 2 is what most of us are saying. We lay down the rules system, campaign basics and any personal rules before a session is even begun to see if the prospective player is even going to be invited.

Quote from: Omega;8775121: So youd rather waste x+ hours of the players time rather than just lay things out before the game even starts?

2: So youd rather lay things out before the game even starts rather than waste x+ hours of the players time?

x: Point 2 is what most of us are saying. We lay down the rules system, campaign basics and any personal rules before a session is even begun to see if the prospective player is even going to be invited.

It isn't. Most of you are saying waste table time discussing expectations. And raising strawman nightmare scenarios if you don't about quasi-autistic gamers who throw a fit if they don't 100% get their way. I'm saying those gamers don't get an invite in the first place. So not only do I not waste x amount of table time discussing expectations with them. I save y amount of pre-table time not inviting them.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877507Whether or not a player finds PC death to be tolerable is a preference. Not an expectation.

You've wasted a huge amount of time in this thread quibbling over definitions.  When nobody in the world agrees with you odds are you're not Galileo, you're Harold Camping.

In any case you are no longer worth paying attention to.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877507Whether or not a player finds PC death to be tolerable is a preference. Not an expectation.

Incorrect. We've had more than a few threads here and on RPGG where people have at some point mentioned their players, or themselves go into a game with very specific expectations of this or that element.

A player may expect to be able to charge every combat.
A player may expect to get a magic item every single encounter.
A player may expect not to die at all ever in a campaign.

And many others. Some were also preferences, others were 100% not. But all were examples of what the player expected to see.

Often this comes about because that is all they have ever known at the table.

Some will change gears readily. Some wont.

Personal and absolutely frustrating example I've mentioned before:
After moving and picking up a new group of players I discovered the players had some rather severe expectations of what sessions would be like. Mainly that the DM was out to kill them at every turn and in general make gameplay unpleasant. They had been conditioned to min-max and powergame as a survival skill. And to absolutely distrust the DM.
None of them preferred that.

Once weaned off that mindset my player group was much more relaxed and open-minded.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877516Most of you are saying waste table time discussing expectations.

Only in your fevered little brain.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877516It isn't. Most of you are saying waste table time discussing expectations. And raising strawman nightmare scenarios if you don't about quasi-autistic gamers who throw a fit if they don't 100% get their way.

I'm saying those gamers don't get an invite in the first place. So not only do I not waste x amount of table time discussing expectations with them. I save y amount of pre-table time not inviting them.

1: I haven't.

2: Um. How are you supposed to know these would-be players are unworthy without talking to them first? Some of the expectations and preferences a player have may not be apparent until at the table or well in if you do not take the time to do a little Q&A. Even if its as simple as "Im running Spelljammer want to play?" or "What sort of systems are you familliar with and/or like?" or "Do you like interacting with NPCs?" or "Are you a serial killer?" So of the prospective player Hates Spelljammer, Loves Gurps, "Kills everything that moves, or needs help moving a body - then maybeee they arent going to fit? Or maybe I need to learn a little more? Or explain a little, or a-lot, more? Are these preferences? Expectations? Psychoses?

Quote from: Omega;877521Incorrect.

Not incorrect.

The remainder of your post is dedicated to showing how preferences and expectations are two different things. Congratulations. That's EXACTLY what you were just telling me I was incorrect about.

Expectations, preferences, experienced players, limited experience players, entitled players, dickhead GMs - there's way too many variables out there to have a hard fast rule or process that works in 100% of all cases.  Still, if we all have a running active campaign, then we're all doing something right that works for us, even if it doesn't work for others.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877519You've wasted a huge amount of time in this thread quibbling over definitions.  When nobody in the world agrees with you odds are you're not Galileo, you're Harold Camping.

In any case you are no longer worth paying attention to.

Fixed your image typo.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;877425The concept I have the hardest time getting across to D&D players who I run GURPS for is simply being outnumbered matters a LOT. It doesn't matter if you are outnumbered by low skill scrubs. Even a mook can score a solid hit if you are out of active defenses.

I've had the same disconnect a few times over the years; a lot of D&D players just don't understand that this is a different game with different paradigms.  I've wound up using that analogy: that you wouldn't expect bridge to work by the same rules and using the same tactics as blackjack, just because they're both card games.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877435No it isn't. Your interpretation is muddleheaded. I thought we were already clear up-thread a bit that expectations are not necessarily preferences.

Judging from the reaction of just about everyone else to your posts, there seems to be two different conversations going on in this thread: the one taking place inside your head, and the one everyone else is seeing ...

Quote from: Lunamancer;877435Well, if that's how you want to do things then fine. Personally, I don't want to waste a player's time showing up just to decide the game isn't for him and leave. Whether or not the player fits foreseeably fits the game and the game fits foreseeably fits the player is handed before the player shows up and is the basis by which the player is invited and decides to show up. Another point you are muddling.

... this being an example.  How in the merry hell do you not understand that the easiest and surest way of ensuring you're not wasting that player's time is to talk to him over what your game is about?  You can "foresee" all you like, but for my own part, I neither claim to possess prophetic gifts nor be a telepath.