TheRPGSite

Catching up in some of the threads, I came across this:

Quote from: Lunamancer;869317Take the last campaign I ran in college. By then I had come to grips with reality. I wasn't going to have my perfect campaign. People had home work and projects and term papers and exams. Things that made their schedules irregular. So I said fuck it. No more story bullshit. Just dungeon crawls. We begin in town, we end in town. Whoever shows up, shows up.

The way that campaign grew in popularity was absolutely staggering to me. I booked huge tables in conference rooms on campus and we still got to the point of standing room only. We had to continue one session in a laundry mat, because the campus center building was closing and everyone was having too much fun to stop playing. The emotional highs some of the encounters brought players too was unbelievable. All those years of trying hard, trying to make sure there was a little of something for every type of player never measured up.

Stupid me. I saw we had a core group that kept showing up reliably, week after week. And they all wanted to do something more. More story. Some kind of epic quest. Bigger adventure. I said fine. That fell apart after 3 weeks. After 3 months of these 6 players never missing one game, making 2 games back-to-back proved too much of a burden.

Let me be clear, the moral here is not that we should all play dungeon crawls and nothing else. Notice, things never went right when I "listened to my players." They only went right when I was responsive to the reality of actual play. I only switched to dungeon crawls to alleviate the pressure of being expected to show up to the weekly game. It wasn't the dungeon crawl itself so much as saying, "Hey, fuck all your tight-ass aesthetics. This is supposed to be fun. Not work." And when things fell apart is when I decided to change gears from something that was already working perfectly.

Listen to the players. But listen to their actions more than their words. I don't care how much they bitch. If they show up every week, they're having fun. For some people, bitching IS fun. And if they tell you how awesome your game is and how sorry they are they have to miss it this month, they might not be telling you the whole story.

There's two sentences in there I think are important.

• Notice, things never went right when I "listened to my players." They only went right when I was responsive to the reality of actual play.
• It wasn't the dungeon crawl itself so much as saying, "Hey, fuck all your tight-ass aesthetics. This is supposed to be fun. Not work."

The reason I bring it up is that at one point in college I went through the exact same thing.  My players all claimed to want "deeper roleplaying", and they did that by wanting to play in campaigns I had available like MERP or Shadowrun which were long-term and had grown complicated.  They turned their noses up at a Rifts Coalition campaign, which was "guys with big guns blowing shit up."  However, when Rifts was scheduled, guess who showed up religiously?

There's something about the College Years as opposed to High School or Real Life that seems to want more escapism.  The schedules are wilder, from semester to semester, relationships are harder because they're threatening to be the Real Thing, the pressure is on as graduation nears.  Campaigns where the stakes and pressure are high for the characters as well can be too much of a good thing.  They wanted a complicated, in-depth campaign, they just weren't able to do it week after week.

In the end, we kept playing during that time because I basically did the same thing as Lunamancer did - don't listen to anyone's words, observe their actions and focus only on what seems to be actually working when the dice start rolling.  That worked.  Endless planning sessions, votes for game system or campaign, none of the "talk it out stuff" did.  Not then.

Now of course, with older players (some of whom are the same), it's different.

What are your experiences as GMs?  Was there a certain time more than others when you gave the players what they needed, not what they said they wanted?

Well, four things:

(1) I think games run better when you have a strong GM.
(2) I think you can have that in many modes of play.
(3) It may be easier to be more firm in your rulings if you get the aesthetics out of it and treat it like a board game, with tables, and dice and hard turns and shit.

and, finally:

(4) Someone is going to see this thread as a criticism of their style of play.

That was a great post. There's something freeing about just raising up your flag and letting whoever wants to play show up. Don't need to worry about endless micromanaging.

Though I wonder what it was about not having an expectation of showing up making a difference. I mean someone can not show up anyway either way.

The problem with giving players what they need instead of want is getting them to go along. I just "know" some potential players will like certain things, but some of them are very fussy about the game going exactly along with their preferences.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876476I just "know" some potential players will like certain things, but some of them are very fussy about the game going exactly along with their preferences.

Fuck 'em.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876476That was a great post. There's something freeing about just raising up your flag and letting whoever wants to play show up. Don't need to worry about endless micromanaging.

Yeah, the campaign was basically a shake-down tour for new grunts, doing the standard patrol of the Coalition borders.  Equivalent to an open table dungeon, but it turned out not to really be that open because everyone came nearly every session.  All the scheduling conflicts just seemed to go away.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876476Though I wonder what it was about not having an expectation of showing up making a difference. I mean someone can not show up anyway either way.

Yeah, I dunno.  Were some of the players unconsciously exercising power by refusing to show?  Were some just not wanting that much responsibility?  I expect it's just people looking for something simpler and expectation free at a time when everything seems complex and pressured.  Who knows?  All I know is the result.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876476The problem with giving players what they need instead of want is getting them to go along. I just "know" some potential players will like certain things, but some of them are very fussy about the game going exactly along with their preferences.

True, although the 90s I think were much less like this than modern times, but when I just said "Here's what we're doing, show up if you want to.", people did.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;876481Fuck 'em.

Agreed

Quote"deeper roleplaying"

Hah...Do they want to be inside? ;)

Great post and great thread.

I'll file it under further proof that creative affairs are better managed by people who are actually invested in creating content, rather than people invested in pleasing an audience. (Are you listening, Hollywood?)

Incidentally, I just shot our 5e DM the link to this thread. One player had the most ridiculous meltdown (IMHO, ultimately over his own inability to respond to freedom of choice) and I told the DM to stick to his guns -- and the player that if he wanted to do something else, my character would join him, no drama, no strings attached.

Quote from: CRKrueger;876467In the end, we kept playing during that time because I basically did the same thing as Lunamancer did - don't listen to anyone's words, observe their actions and focus only on what seems to be actually working when the dice start rolling.  That worked.  Endless planning sessions, votes for game system or campaign, none of the "talk it out stuff" did.  Not then.

This isn't unique to college or to RPGs. It's a matter of something I call "conviction" which is basically the degree of an opinion. It's measure is what's at stake. What cost are you willing to pay.

It's easy to say, "I think homeless people should be guaranteed a bed and a hot meal." Your willingness to step up and provide those things out of your own pocket or your own sweat is the level of conviction you have in your belief.

In RPGs, it's easy to say you want complex plots. It's not so easy to feel like a dumb ass because you failed to pick up on the subtle clues. It's easy to say you want grander, longer-arcing stories rather than those contained in a single session. It's not so easy to suffer through sessions of exposition waiting for the campaign to approach the climax.

What I'm suggesting is opinion is irrelevant. It's conviction that counts. Don't tell me that you want it. Show me what you're willing to give to get it.

Not for many years, actually.  By the early 80s, I'd figured out a foolproof scheme.  I'd run the game I wanted, using the system I wanted, at the venue that was convenient, with the frequency I wanted.  Sure, the players bitched at times -- when I shifted from Fantasy Trip to GURPS, when I moved sessions from the inner city university campus to my apartment in the suburbs -- but they kept playing.  I figured it was ten times easier all around to get players who wanted to play the game my way than any other option.

Still believe that.

I tend to a balance between when not running a module.

I state what I am running and how. Then wait and see who wants to give it a try.

I ask them if they have any long term goals and make note. Things like "wants to build a castle" or "wants to find a long lost legendary magic weapon."

IE: Things the player can invest in. But are not instant gratification or abstractions.

After that I present multiple situations and see what the players go after and what they dont. How are they interacting, or not, with the things going on around them.

IE: I pay attention to the things they want in game and play off it where appropriate.

EG: A player takes interest in the local merchants and frequents that area. If I didnt have something allready planned for the merchant then the interactions with the PC may suggest directions to go.

With a module I just ask if they want to play after describing the base premise. Though I've had players join in with no foreknowledge.

What gets me about some of these posts is that the existence of person B, who enjoys style B, seems to be an affront to Person A/Style A, who, in all likelihood while never, ever sit down at a table to game with Person B to begin with. Makes it really easy to say "Fuck 'em" when you never game with "'em."

Sorry, but you just wasted that swagger, man...

Quote from: CRKrueger;876467There's something about the College Years as opposed to High School or Real Life that seems to want more escapism.  The schedules are wilder, from semester to semester, relationships are harder because they're threatening to be the Real Thing, the pressure is on as graduation nears.  Campaigns where the stakes and pressure are high for the characters as well can be too much of a good thing.  They wanted a complicated, in-depth campaign, they just weren't able to do it week after week.

While I agree with your conclusions and share the preference for open table sandboxes, I don't see them as being any more suitable for one particular stage of life or another.  Or, if anything, they strike me as most suited to Real Life, considering how many forum threads I see lamenting that, between work and kids and spouse and everything else, it's impossible to commit to a regular weekly game any more.

Strange how important this is, and yet never addressed in any GM advice I know of.

Quote from: CRKrueger;876467don't listen to anyone's words, observe their actions and focus only on what seems to be actually working when the dice start rolling.  That worked.  Endless planning sessions, votes for game system or campaign, none of the "talk it out stuff" did.  Not then.

Of course. What people do is far more indicative of what they truly think and feel than what they say. It's why we have poets. It's why this documentary is so important (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s). It's why modern RPG design takes this into account and attempts to enable conversations on that level.

Yet despite understanding this, here we are on a medium that can only account for what people say, and we barely try to look past that to see what people actually mean. Over and over again. On every RPG board with people who should know better.

Quote from: CRKrueger;876467Now of course, with older players (some of whom are the same), it's different.

Thing is, my gaming drastically improved (or rather stopped being a completely miserable experience) once I started playing with people who were willing and able to express their limits and desires in a clear and mature manner. I'm done performing magic shows for or with petulant children who show no respect and demand to be entertained in ways which will neither bore nor offend them. That stopped being fun forever ago.

Quote from: CRKrueger;876467Was there a certain time more than others when you gave the players what they needed, not what they said they wanted?

Always.

The problem is that most people are absolutely terrible at reading people well enough to do this, believe they're better at it than they actually are, and get very defensive when their mistakes are pointed out. And (ironically) tabletop roleplayers tend to be even worse in this regard.

And what about the GMs who claim to deliver one kind of experience (deep roleplaying, etc) but then deliver another? I still see this happen (though far less often now), and most get really defensive when it's pointed out. It seems many GMs expect players to be able to read them well enough to avoid problems like this, and therefore it's the player's fault when such problems aren't.

The problem is not that gamers (and I'm talking about players and GMs here) don't know what they want and/or can't express it, the problem is the lack of communication skills which enable it, and instead of addressing that I'm seeing a lot of people here take the typically defensive stance of "if you don't like my game then fuck off".

Or, you know, folks might not be making some claim, misrepresented or otherwise, about their games and may instead be saying: "I run my games the way I run them, and if you don't like it, fuck off."  That's not necessarily defensive. It may just be comfortable with the idea that one doesn't NEED more players, especially ones that make one's own experience more difficult or less enjoyable in some way.

Conviction also applies to expectations.

The groundhog didn't see his shadow today. Spring is coming early. How much would you bet on it?

It's healthy to be aware of the fallibility of your expectations.

A degenerate gambler might go all in. We don't go blaming his expectations. The odds may very well be in his favor. The problem is the behavior. The strategy. The lack of weight the gambler gives to the possibility he will lose. Because even if he wins this time--even if the outcome matches his expectations--that still doesn't make it a wise bet. You go all in every time, even if your odds of winning are 99%, eventually you will lose everything.

Given that I find over-confidence in expectations more problematic than the expectations themselves, I'm not sure why I'd benefit from a talk to provide the illusion that we're on the same page expectations-wise.

Quote from: CRKrueger;876467What are your experiences as GMs?  Was there a certain time more than others when you gave the players what they needed, not what they said they wanted?

Consider a GM who is good at running "deeper roleplaying", and four times better at running dungeon crawls which wrap up in a single session, but doesn't realize there's any difference. The players in the latter kind of game with that GM say "This is great, but it would be twice as good with deeper roleplaying!"; when the GM changes the game to the former, they discover that it is only half as good. It's not always the players being wrong about what they like.

In actual play, the most similar problem I have run into is players wanting some change that the game/rules in use weren't suitable for, but not wanting to change to another game/rules. They weren't wrong about their preference in either way - they did want the change, they did want the same game/rules - but the two preferences were incompatible.

Wait so in the OP, when this guy is running games that "start in town, end in town," he manages to get through the entire thing in one session?

That's pretty impressive and hard. Usually you will only get halfway through a dungeon.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876693Wait so in the OP, when this guy is running games that "start in town, end in town," he manages to get through the entire thing in one session?

That's pretty impressive and hard. Usually you will only get halfway through a dungeon.

Eh...

I was playing AD&D, starting with level 1 characters, and not pulling any punches. Very much a let the dice fall approach. You only go through a few encounters at most before you need to rest up.

You didn't do the whole dungeon. You'd get a lot of play out of one dungeon.

But I mean, if you're going to make it so people can swap in and out based on session, you have to have the entire mission wrapped up right? You can't do that if you're still 30000 feet under a mountain because you decided to break there.

This thread inspired me to try something like this, like 4 hours per session, open table, maybe once a week. I would be able to fit it solidly into my normal day, 8 PM to midnight, without having to schedule or do anything. Unlike a normal D&D session which is 8 hours or so for me, where I have to go and make sure everybody can set aside the day ahead of time, etc.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876709But I mean, if you're going to make it so people can swap in and out based on session, you have to have the entire mission wrapped up right?

That may be your disconnect right there.  In my experience, "back at town by the end of the session" dungeon campaigns generally don't have "missions" as such.  You go in, explore as much as the session gives you time for, and get out.  You might have an (player-set) objective that you want to accomplish while you're in there, but not a mission in the sense of "the king has ordered you to retrieve the Royal Chalice from the orcs on level 4".

Ah, I see. So it's not a totally separate adventure each time. Hmm, I think that would be more exciting, though much harder to pull off...

Wouldn't it get boring just clearing out dungeon rooms for no real greater purpose?

Quote from: Omega;876585EG: A player takes interest in the local merchants and frequents that area. If I didnt have something allready planned for the merchant then the interactions with the PC may suggest directions to go.

This is interesting.

Because I do the same thing. But the foremost thought in my mind is not that I'm adjusting to what the players enjoy. After all, it's MY prep time. Not theirs. I'm out to satisfy MY ends. Not theirs. Why should I? They're not even at the table at the time. And MY goal is to use my prep time efficiently. So of course I'm going to be sure to detail areas I believe are most likely to come up in the game.

Of course there is a greater purpose. There has to be a reason WHY your character is going down in the dungeon in the first place. And the purpose has to be strong enough to justify the struggle of multiple sessions of exploration and braving dangers. The purpose could be common to the party but it need not me. All that matters is that each character has some compelling reason for going down there.

Well, I would expect it's just "go get gold and magic items" but if it's 5e the magic items are going to be slim, and feels kind of like busywork if you're just rotating in and out every few sessions.

That's why I immediately connected it to having some mission every session.

Also would you say in such a format, the dungeon should just be a megadungeon that's wide open and let's you explore, or should it be Angry GM style where everything is balanced by CR and it's more like a small adventure in its own right?

The third way is DCC style where it doesn't use many rooms; every room has a purpose and is its own encounter, and instead of aimless wandering around you have like a 7 room dungeon and that's it. But those 7 rooms are all filled with the meat of the play.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876744Ah, I see. So it's not a totally separate adventure each time. Hmm, I think that would be more exciting, though much harder to pull off...

Wouldn't it get boring just clearing out dungeon rooms for no real greater purpose?

I think the greater purpose is to gain wealth and power, but I think that only applies to games with a "name level." Not the way I usually play, but there's something to be said for keeping it simple--"I go in there to bring fancy shit out...guess I'm a tad insane...":-)

Quote from: Lunamancer;876748This is interesting.

Because I do the same thing. But the foremost thought in my mind is not that I'm adjusting to what the players enjoy. After all, it's MY prep time. Not theirs. I'm out to satisfy MY ends. Not theirs. Why should I? They're not even at the table at the time. And MY goal is to use my prep time efficiently. So of course I'm going to be sure to detail areas I believe are most likely to come up in the game.

Its more a matter of adjusting to whats being focused on. The PC is paying attention to the merchant and that may well mean that what the PC does changes what the merchant had planned or what someone else had planned for the merchant. That and I as the DM have to come up with conversation on the fly. But that is standard.

EG: Daern and co walk into the evil merchant shop. Beforehand I'd plotted out that in the shop was a suit of full plate that was to be shipped to the boss. It was on display to attract and impress customers. Daern catches sight of it and decides that it would go great on James the Paladin and makes the NPC an offer. His other reason for wanting to buy it was to keep it out of the bosses hands.

I wasnt expecting the players to pick up on a background detail. But here we are and the NPC now has to decide if a-lot of gold now is worth delaying delivery of the armour till a new set can be ordered.

IE: The players payed attention to something and I rolled with it. If Id decided beforehand that the merchant was not the type to sell. Then Id have stuck to that short of the PCs getting really persuasive. Thus the players shift in interest has a potential impact on events going on.

Or say a player shows a-lot of interest in running their own business in the game. And I have a currently sidelined player who is exactly that. I will try to accommodate that if events allow. I ask myself. "Will this intrude on the rest of the game? Will it detract from the other players enjoyment?" an so on. And of course how much extra work do I need to do to set that up or not.

Lots of good comments and discussion, just thought I'd give more info on my OP, because some of the responses share a pattern.

Most of the players were present before, during, and after the "Scheduling Crisis".  They played in complicated, long-term campaigns before and after.  It wasn't really a case of competing playstyles or the players or I accidentally finding our niche.

What used to work, just kind of stopped working.  So, I tried switching up campaigns, taking votes, having talking sessions (all stuff we didn't really do before or after) and that really didn't help.  Only after I said "Fuck it I'm running Rifts, show up if you want." did that get things kickstarted again.  Even though it was a military campaign and subject to structure, orders, reports, etc, I tried to make it as interesting as possible and I guess I did.  After about 18 months, the campaign ended when the characters found the major Mechanoid base on the east coast and called in a massive airstrike on their own position.

After that we went back to Shadowrun and everything was ok again.  In any case, me focusing solely on table play and taking with a grain of salt what was said by the players outside of the game is what ended up working for us during that rough patch.

It's the same for any event coordination. At the end of the day someone has to say, "we're doing this, at this (regular) time." The committee meetings are more pro forma until decisions are made and actions are taken. At that point it's join in or walk.

Your campaign scope may be like a weave or knit, with different levels of stretch and give, but in the end you have to go with the pattern you just cut out.

My bigger challenges are when my GM schedule gets screwed up over extended periods.

Quote from: Opaopajr;876840It's the same for any event coordination. At the end of the day someone has to say, "we're doing this, at this (regular) time." The committee meetings are more pro forma until decisions are made and actions are taken. At that point it's join in or walk.

This is a great point.

I think there's an analogy to be drawn to selling a product. The customer does not get to muck around with the product. Typically, the customer has no expertise to even do so anyway. That's why the customer is buying a product. Whatever it is he gets out of it is something he can't get on his own.

It falls upon the sales person to understand the customer, to know what the customer needs or wants, and then demonstrate how the product can deliver those things. The sales person does not change the product to suit the customer. The sales person educates the customer on how the product works.

If you translate this to RPGs, the GM is typically both wears two hats, as both producer and salesman. The GM puts together something that reflects what SHE wants and in HER style without player input. Then the GM switches to salesperson mode to assemble a group. If it isn't a match for a particular player, the player just doesn't join the group. So getting a group may entail finding out what various players are hoping to find in the game and then explaining how her idea provides that.

And that's the key. Showing how this RPG or campaign or GMing style can accommodate X.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876759Also would you say in such a format, the dungeon should just be a megadungeon that's wide open and let's you explore, or should it be Angry GM style where everything is balanced by CR and it's more like a small adventure in its own right?

This is kind of neither here nor there, so this shouldn't be taken as a "should", it's just some things I try to do. I try to run in a way that self-regulates power levels. In other words, I don't like artificial constraints like, "This adventure is not appropriate for characters over level 5" or anything like CRs.

Rather, I try to be conscientious about including certain things. Like the possibility of loss. If the rewards in the adventure don't exceed what PCs might lose, going on a lower-than-appopriate level adventure can potentially set them back. Players who are always punching up will advance a lot quicker than those who try to bypass thinking with superior stats and gear.

QuoteThe third way is DCC style where it doesn't use many rooms; every room has a purpose and is its own encounter, and instead of aimless wandering around you have like a 7 room dungeon and that's it. But those 7 rooms are all filled with the meat of the play.

Eh...

I think the key to a good dungeon crawl--and I don't care how great those 7 rooms are, it takes more to keep players wanting to come back to the same dungeon--is that the exploration itself has to be fun and interesting. Players should be just dying to know what's down the stairs. Not just 7 more rooms, this time with even tougher encounters.

Quote from: cranebump;876595What gets me about some of these posts is that the existence of person B, who enjoys style B, seems to be an affront to Person A/Style A, who, in all likelihood while never, ever sit down at a table to game with Person B to begin with.

One of my first blogposts -- Gaming Geek Fallacy #4: My Game Is Great, Your Game Sucks (http://ravenswing59.blogspot.com/2013/09/ggf-4.html) -- 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.  

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876744Wouldn't it get boring just clearing out dungeon rooms for no real greater purpose?

I am amused that you ask that question while your signature proclaims "Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose."  :D

But there can be a greater purpose.  The main point, IMO, is that the greater purpose is chosen by the players rather than externally imposed and that they can change directions if they choose to do so.

For example, the last ACKS campaign I ran was focused on the PCs colonizing a recently-discovered island.  They started out with a smallish town of around 100 families with a basic palisade and a few towers to defend it, then they were left to their own devices to work out how to defend and develop the town.  There was a megadungeon where they could go to collect loot which could then be used to equip the militia or buy supplies and hire workers from back in civilization.  There was wilderness to explore in order to locate resources, threats, and potential allies.  And all of this could be addressed in bite-sized, single-session chunks at the players' whims, while the players remained highly focused on developing the town.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876759Also would you say in such a format, the dungeon should just be a megadungeon that's wide open and let's you explore, or should it be Angry GM style where everything is balanced by CR and it's more like a small adventure in its own right?

I strongly favor the wide-open approach, allowing the players to decide for themselves how to balance risk vs. reward.

I don't think I've ever heard of this style of campaign being run in a "CR balanced" style, probably because you can't really balance by CR in advance if you don't know how many PCs (or which PCs) will be participating in a given session.  If you're comfortable adjusting that on the fly, I suppose it could be done, but that's not a style I enjoy, so I wouldn't ever try it myself.

Quote from: Lunamancer;876860I think the key to a good dungeon crawl--and I don't care how great those 7 rooms are, it takes more to keep players wanting to come back to the same dungeon--is that the exploration itself has to be fun and interesting. Players should be just dying to know what's down the stairs. Not just 7 more rooms, this time with even tougher encounters.

Excellent point!  Regardless of whether it's mission-driven or player-directed, the key to interesting dungeon crawls is to have interesting dungeons, filled with unique features, mysteries to discover (ideally taking several delves to find the answer), etc.

I don't give people what they think they need. I give them either what I think they need, or what I think the game needs, depending:).

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;876614Strange how important this is, and yet never addressed in any GM advice I know of.

It is quite clear in at least Sorcerer and LotW, though I think it's only stated explicitly in Sorcerer;).

There is a 'greater purpose' to dungeon crawling.

To craahsh my enemiesse
To see dem driffen befoah me
To heah de lamentations of dere wimmen.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;876939There is a 'greater purpose' to dungeon crawling.

To craahsh my enemiesse
To see dem driffen befoah me
To heah de lamentations of dere wimmen.

Lot of wimmen in your dungeons are there? :p

Given Arnie is nearly 70 if his enemies are of a similar age they may need to be driven before him because using their walkers to walk before him would be way too slow. ;)

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

Given Arnie is nearly 70 if his enemies are of a similar age they may need to be driven before him because using their walkers to walk before him would be way too slow. ;)

Silver. Horde.
And I think the women come after you go out of the dungeon.

Quote from: AsenRG;876955Silver. Horde.

Is the Silver Horde some RPG group of dungeon-dwelling women? :confused:

Googling "Silver Horde (http://www.silverhorde.com/)" gives me a lot of stuff about fishing, possibly salmon fishing in 1930s Alaska (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silver_Horde_%281930_film%29).

Genghis Cohen.

Ah. Disc World.

Quote from: Ravenswing;876873One of my first blogposts -- Gaming Geek Fallacy #4: My Game Is Great, Your Game Sucks (http://ravenswing59.blogspot.com/2013/09/ggf-4.html) -- 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.  

I wish people would also be flexible. Like OK great, your preferred style isn't the one being played. But can't you just give it a chance or enjoy it for what it is anyway? I feel like only playing games where it's "my way or the highway" splinters groups too easily.

So in that sense knowing what you especially like is good, but often I see that mindset coupled with "if it's not exactly like X then I'm just going to sit out." Which seems counterproductive to me.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876988I wish people would also be flexible. Like OK great, your preferred style isn't the one being played. But can't you just give it a chance or enjoy it for what it is anyway? I feel like only playing games where it's "my way or the highway" splinters groups too easily.

Yeah, I've observed a couple factors contribute to this problem. One is confusing feature with benefit. If one guy says "I prefer a linear core mechanic" and the other says, "I prefer a non-linear core mechanic" you obviously can't do both simultaneously. What you can do is call bullshit. The mechanic is irrelevant. What they "prefer" are the perceived benefits they derive from those mechanics. If you can find another way to deliver those benefits, you've got a game. But if people are going to be unreasonable and cling to the features, you'll just have to drop them.

The 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.

QuoteSo in that sense knowing what you especially like is good, but often I see that mindset coupled with "if it's not exactly like X then I'm just going to sit out." Which seems counterproductive to me.

Of course if such a player had a special knack to bring unbelievable amounts of fun to the game, I'd be willing to accommodate someone like that. Of course usually such a person won't. The fact that they don't see the group as valuable enough to give an inch makes it unlikely they'll be attuned in such a way that they can provide immense levels of fun for the group.

Game masters, however, who do go above and beyond in trying to make sure everyone is having fun, to the degree they are successful, they've earned the right to run the game exactly as they want to run it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876988I wish people would also be flexible. Like OK great, your preferred style isn't the one being played. But can't you just give it a chance or enjoy it for what it is anyway? I feel like only playing games where it's "my way or the highway" splinters groups too easily.

So in that sense knowing what you especially like is good, but often I see that mindset coupled with "if it's not exactly like X then I'm just going to sit out." Which seems counterproductive to me.

Heh, I'll be lazy and recycle my reply to a response to the blogpost I linked:

QuoteI have sympathy for your take, but a lot of people are in their comfort zones. I know GURPS. I've written for it, I've played it, I've GMed it, and I've been doing that since before the system was published. I'm generally going to want to play in GURPS campaigns, and I'm never GMing anything else. If you start up a new campaign in (say) The Whispering Vault, you're asking me to learn a 134-page rulebook, and I'm inclined to want to know -- before I go to that trouble -- that I'm going to like the campaign, that I'm going to like the rule system, and that you're going to do it for a good while. For a one-shot? I probably won't.

But this attitude is no different than with any other preference. I'm a hockey and soccer fan; I'm not a racing or a basketball fan. I like certain kinds of ice cream, and don't like others. I like most any kind of seafood that started out having fins, and don't like seafood that started out living in shells. I'm not saying that basketball isn't worth playing, or that lobster isn't worth eating ... I'm saying I already know what I like, and I'm comfortable with sticking to that.  A lot of people are.

Beyond that, I've seen a number of times being "flexible" turn out to mean "wanting to play the games I'm hot to try out," and a number of the proponents being far less interested in games outside their comfort zones.

In any event -- and I suspect a lot of other grognards have the same mindset -- a lot of comfort zoners have had a lot of games or styles thrown at them, and have suffered through too many learning-curve runs in mediocre systems using milieus that do nothing for them.[/COLOR]

I'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.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876759Well, I would expect it's just "go get gold and magic items" but if it's 5e the magic items are going to be slim

You can run 5e ok with a 1e frequency of magic items, just keep the item 'pluses' under control (maybe halve & round up), especially AC boosters, and use mostly single-shot and charged consumable items. Potions make a great treasure in 5e.

Having dungeons be the sole source of magic items is very old school and provides a strong motivation for dungeon crawling.

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 (http://www.silverhorde.com/)" gives me a lot of stuff about fishing, possibly salmon fishing in 1930s Alaska (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silver_Horde_%281930_film%29).

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 (http://ravenswing59.blogspot.com/2013/09/ggf-4.html) -- 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wlvzfKnnfs).

Quote from: nDervish;877053

• 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?

Just between you, me and everyone else, that's a damn good laundry list.  Mind if I pinch it?

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.

On the one hand, I agree that a lot of people just reflexively reject things.  But ...

To start with, no GM ever trying to push something on reluctant players fails to use that line.  I've suffered through a torrent of crap, over the decades, from the You're Sure To Like It If You Only Try crowd.

For another, take a look again at your example.  You don't make any part of a case for why the player really ought to like this.  Instead, you suggest that you like greater immersion, that you think that shopkeepers are just as valid NPCs to talk to than any other, that you would like to use them as a vehicle to present plot hooks.  Great (and I agree with you), but so what?  Those are your preferences.  Your player demonstrably does not share them.  

On what basis do you think he'd enjoy those interactions if only he tried them, beyond your own wishful thinking?

Ultimately, my preferences are my preferences.  I hate alignment.  I despise PvP.  I greatly dislike random chargen, high mortality rates, dungeons, lack of credible realism.  Hack-and-slash bores me, horror or slapstick does nothing for me, and I'd just as soon avoid class-based or "fate point" systems.  Impenetrable jargon just to be kewl for the sake of being kewl (WoD, I'm talking to you) causes my eyes to roll back.  These preferences have been honed through nearly forty years of gaming experience, and I assure you that none of them are based on caprice or WAGs.

I am a far better judge of my own preferences than you are ... and that applies to any gamer, dealing with any GM.

Quote from: Ravenswing;877207I am a far better judge of my own preferences than you are ... and that applies to any gamer, dealing with any GM.

You're what, in your 50s and have been playing RPGs longer than some of the posters here have been alive.  It's kind of silly to think that your level of experience applies to someone like a 20 year old who started playing last year and has only ever played 4e D&D.  You don't know what you don't know, and there is such a thing as an uninformed opinion.

Quote from: Ravenswing;877207I greatly dislike...high mortality rates...lack of credible realism.

Just curious, do you find those a little at odds?  You like GURPS which is kind of heavy on the realism and the deadliness side, so I'm wondering what systems do you find are much deadlier?

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

As I read the terms, not really.  What I'm referring to as "expectations" is more along the lines of "assumptions about The Way Things Are Done", while I read "what everyone's gotta give" more as "obligations".

If you've only ever played one system with one group, then you're likely to have the expectation/assumption that other systems will work similarly and that other groups will play in a similar style.  If I've also played the same system, but with a different group, then I'll also have my own expectations/assumptions about what "playing System X" means, and they'll likely be different than yours.  If we then decide to play System X together without discussing our individual expectations, then we're going to run into situations where we have clashing assumptions about what should happen or how things should be run.  I prefer to at least try to discover those clashes and work them out in advance when possible, so that we don't have to interrupt the game with it later.

"What everyone's gotta give", on the other hand, seems to me more like a category for the (presumed) dealbreakers.  Things like "the GM's gotta give me a +1 sword by the time my fighter is fourth level" or "the players must agree to pursue whatever plot hooks I offer" (and the corresponding "the GM's gotta give us plot hooks so we can find The Story").

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.

You're right that people are often more flexible in what they will enjoy than they might think they are, but also keep Ravenswing's point in mind, that there's also a strong chance that people will actually know what they do and don't like.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;877115Like 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 lot of attempts out there to define what constitutes a "megadungeon".  None of them agree completely, but one common element that I've seen in a lot of them is that they're so big that "clearing a level" is impossible.  Also, as Gronan mentioned, they should be "living" places, where the inhabitants are doing things independently of the PCs.  So the PCs may have cleared out the kobold warrens on level 1, but that just makes room for the goblin tribe which had been warring with them to expand into the kobolds' former territory.  And then some grizzly bears take shelter in an attached cave during a storm and push the goblins out of a couple rooms.  Etc.

I would never use any kind of level-based gating, since that deprives players of the opportunity to balance risk vs. reward for themselves.  If a first-level magic-user wants to go down to the third level of the dungeon, then he's likely to die horribly, but the payoff will be enormous if he manages to bring back even a single treasure stash from down there!  Conversely, if a party of ninth-level characters want to systematically exterminate everything on the first level of the dungeon, they can, but the treasure and XP available to them there is utterly meaningless to someone that powerful, so they'd just be wasting their time by doing it.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877148Question: 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.

Disadvantages:  Players may expect the GM to fudge when he feels a need to make sure PCs don't die, while the GM is strictly anti-fudging and never feels a need to prevent PC death.  This can lead to players rage-quitting when a PC dies at a time or under conditions where they feel that PCs "shouldn't" be at risk of death.

Better, IMO, to tell players up front, "I don't fudge.  If the dice say your character dies, then it's time to roll up a new one." and let the players who don't like PC death bow out at the start.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877148Question: 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 get the impression that you expected it to be a plot hook that the GM wants the players to pursue.  On the contrary, if that had come up in a game I was running, it would have just been random world trivia.  If players share your expectation that offhand comments by bartenders are meant to hook them into linear adventures, that would quickly leave me thinking "WTF?  Can't I insert any detail into the game world without these bozos immediately assuming it's A Matter of World-Shaking Importance?"

Quote from: Lunamancer;877148I 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?

Sure, you're absolutely correct that people are fallible and that perfect knowledge of participants' expectations will not result from discussing said expectations.  But the discussion will get you closer to that knowledge than you would have been otherwise.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877148As I was just discussing, some expectations are more natural or dominant than others.

The problem which discussing expectations is meant to address is that there is no general agreement about which expectations are more natural or dominant.

For example, my expectation is that offhand comments by bartenders are offhand comments by bartenders, nothing more and nothing less.  Your expectation is that offhand comments by bartenders are hooks meant to drag PCs into a linear storyline.  Each of us thinks that our expectation is the more natural one.

Quote from: Ravenswing;877205Just between you, me and everyone else, that's a damn good laundry list.  Mind if I pinch it?

Be my guest!

Quote from: nDervish;877219Disadvantages:  Players may expect the GM to fudge when he feels a need to make sure PCs don't die, while the GM is strictly anti-fudging and never feels a need to prevent PC death.  This can lead to players rage-quitting when a PC dies at a time or under conditions where they feel that PCs "shouldn't" be at risk of death.

Go back and reread the part that you even quoted. If you go in not knowing what the expectations are, PC death can't be ruled out. It's the dominant expectation. Or call it a meta-expectation. If you're not going to argue against that point specifically, then I guess you have conceded it.

QuoteI get the impression that you expected it to be a plot hook that the GM wants the players to pursue.

Nope. I was just trying to give an example from the GMs point of view to show that meta-expectations cut both ways. I'm pretty sure that was understood. Though I would expect someone who is arguing in bad faith to pretend otherwise.

QuoteSure, you're absolutely correct that people are fallible and that perfect knowledge of participants' expectations will not result from discussing said expectations.  But the discussion will get you closer to that knowledge than you would have been otherwise.

Sure. If you isolate one moment in time, freeze frame it, and hang it on your wall. Again, my contention was that less certainty in an expectation makes one quicker to adjust expectations. In the longer run, I think not discussing expectations will get a closer match between expectations and reality.

QuoteThe problem which discussing expectations is meant to address is that there is no general agreement about which expectations are more natural or dominant.

What is meant by "natural" or "dominant" is that they don't require general agreement. Like when they claim defecting is the dominant strategy in the prisoners' dilemma.

If you know you're playing a game where PCs can't die, you know your PC will survive. If you know you're playing a game in which PCs can die, you don't know if your PC will survive. And if you don't know which sort of game you're playing, you don't know if your PC will survive. So not knowing your PC will survive is the natural or dominant expectation. If you don't like either of those words, call it a meta-expectation. It exists and it doesn't require general agreement.

QuoteFor example, my expectation is that offhand comments by bartenders are offhand comments by bartenders, nothing more and nothing less.  Your expectation is that offhand comments by bartenders are hooks meant to drag PCs into a linear storyline.  Each of us thinks that our expectation is the more natural one.

It's a great example of how little you understand the concept, that's for sure.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877050Actually, 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.

Well, there goes my "honorary grognard" badge:D!
But yeah. A game not happening is sometimes worse than a game with conflicting players happening. Talking from experience, I am;).

Quote from: Ravenswing;877205Just between you, me and everyone else, that's a damn good laundry list.  Mind if I pinch it?

BTW, Combat as Sport isn't opposed to Combat as War. The same people sometimes revert to either, depending on the circumstances;).

Quote from: Ravenswing;877207On the one hand, I agree that a lot of people just reflexively reject things.  But ...

To start with, no GM ever trying to push something on reluctant players fails to use that line.  I've suffered through a torrent of crap, over the decades, from the You're Sure To Like It If You Only Try crowd.

For another, take a look again at your example.  You don't make any part of a case for why the player really ought to like this.

Actually, he is making a case for it. The player likes adventure, and shopkeepers can lead to even more adventure by virtue of spreading rumours;).

Quote from: CRKrueger;877216You're what, in your 50s and have been playing RPGs longer than some of the posters here have been alive.  It's kind of silly to think that your level of experience applies to someone like a 20 year old who started playing last year and has only ever played 4e D&D.

Just curious, do you find those a little at odds?  You like GURPS which is kind of heavy on the realism and the deadliness side, so I'm wondering what systems do you find are much deadlier?

That, too.
And let's not forget that GURPS has options in the core that make the system that much less deadlier. Can't tell you what they are, though, as I've never used them, because they didn't fit my preferences at the time:D!

Quote from: CRKrueger;877216You're what, in your 50s and have been playing RPGs longer than some of the posters here have been alive.  It's kind of silly to think that your level of experience applies to someone like a 20 year old who started playing last year and has only ever played 4e D&D.  You don't know what you don't know, and there is such a thing as an uninformed opinion.

Correct on the first part.  That being said, most of the posters here are grognards, judging from responses in various pertinent threads, and those among us who "merely" started play in the early to mid 80s seem to be the kids of the lot.

That being said, why yes: it'd be silly to assume that my level of experience applies to a newbie.  It'd also be silly to assume that it applied to a 91 yr old monoglot Tibetan yak herder who'd never heard of RPGs, while we're dealing with equally obvious and banal comparisons.

I 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.  I'm going to do someone who claims to hate interactions with NPC shopkeepers, and finds anything more than off-session routine purchase to be a waste of time, the honor of knowing better about what he likes and dislikes than I do, and I'm going to presume that he's got a reason for forming such a dislike.  I'm not going to claim he doesn't really feel that way without a much better reason than that I don't share his POV, or that it intrudes on my rhetorical flights of fancy.

Quote from: CRKrueger;877216Just curious, do you find those a little at odds?  You like GURPS which is kind of heavy on the realism and the deadliness side, so I'm wondering what systems do you find are much deadlier?

Nope, I don't find them at odds at all.  My own campaign's been nothing but GURPS since before the system was published, and I can't think of as many as a dozen PC deaths in all that time.  

How can that happen?  By changing expectations.  Players 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.  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."

Quote from: Ravenswing;877248Correct on the first part.  That being said, most of the posters here are grognards, judging from responses in various pertinent threads, and those among us who "merely" started play in the early to mid 80s seem to be the kids of the lot.

Imagine how I feel, having started near the end of the 90ies:D.
But I assure you, people that started even later than that can still behave as grognardly as any grognard!

Quote from: Ravenswing;877248GURPS doesn't mean "everyone automatically dies."  It means "calibrate your notions of what's feasible to the system."

Yup, also true for Runequest, CoC and the like;).

Quote from: Lunamancer;877236Go back and reread the part that you even quoted. If you go in not knowing what the expectations are, PC death can't be ruled out. It's the dominant expectation.

Obviously it's your expectation. It's the dominant expectation if the vast majority of people share it. Whether or not your expectation is actually dominant is still the question. On the one hand, given what I know about gaming, it logically should be the expectation since I've run and played in games where death has occurred. But I known most gamers don't have my experience. I also know that people's expectations usually aren't particularly logical. So logic doesn't tell us much about what someone else's expectation will be. Though it may help us to feel righteous in our expectations.

But the great thing is that instead of playing guessing games we can actually talk about our expectations. Is it a perfect solution? No. Nothing is. But it has the virtues of being honest and ethical and the practical value  that it has a better chance to avoid a serious clash in expectations than just assuming you know what other people expect.

QuoteIn the longer run, I think not discussing expectations will get a closer match between expectations and reality.

Some of us disagree.

QuoteWhat is meant by "natural" or "dominant" is that they don't require general agreement. Like when they claim defecting is the dominant strategy in the prisoners' dilemma.

In the prisoner's dilemma defecting is the strategy that yields a higher expected value than any other strategy. That is what is meant by "dominant" in game theory. It is important to realize that most of life is not a simple 2x2 matrix of decisions like the prisoner's dilemma. Also an important aspect of the prisoner's dilemma is it assumes the prisoners don't have an opportunity for communication, side agreements, or collusion. None of those things are true about matching expectations in a game group. In fact, communication, side agreements, and collusion are all present and are commonly used.

QuoteIf you know you're playing a game where PCs can't die, you know your PC will survive. If you know you're playing a game in which PCs can die, you don't know if your PC will survive. And if you don't know which sort of game you're playing, [strike]you don't know if your PC will survive.[/strike]

Which is why if you don't know which sort of group it is, you ask the GM and the other people at the table, "Hey are we expecting characters might die in this game?" And they answer. Now you know.* 'And if it matters to you, you can further investigate under what circumstances PCs might die, how likely that might be, etc.


* Knowledge cannot be perfect. But by asking in the question in the third case and getting an answer you will "know" the answer in the same imperfect way that you know the answer in the first two cases. So you might as well ask.

Quote from: RandallS;877169Generally, 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.

1: same here. I'll give about anything a try. Even Gurps (gasp!) Seen some of the following too.

a: I dont mind if there is some meaning to those 10 minutes. But if just swinging a dam sword at a kobold once takes that long then I am going to baulk at some point.

b: I see this most often on the first session of a new game at the table. and that includes board games. First play of Risk 2210 took 6 hours because we were all new to Risk and 2210s rules despite the game being shorter due to limited rounds simply because we were learning it for the first time.

But if every single session is arguing and looking up rules then that can get really old really fast.

c: Ive played in a few over the years. They can be fun when everyone is on board for it.

d: Since I skipped 3 and 4e I missed this era of gameplay. It has allways sounded a bit boring really. Ive seen it during playtesting of PC games where a playtester was obsessing over a fraction of a second faster DPS one class had over another. Also missed the one class per group CFMT that seemed to develop during 2e.

e: These I have seen but wisely avoid.

f: Never seen this and I hope its rare. At most I've seen groups that expect you just have the PHB. And at least two where you were told hands off the MM.

g: A personal irk: Groups that force players to GM to join. I like being a GM. I do not like being forced into it and think that making someone GM is just begging for a bad session sooner or later.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877236In the longer run, I think not discussing expectations will get a closer match between expectations and reality.

I have 42 years of experience running and playing in RPGs that proves the direct opposite.

NOTHING fucks a game faster than mismatched expectations, and fifteen minutes of discussion can clear up 90% of the most severe mismatches.

Of course, if somebody tells me "No thanks, that doesn't sound like fun to me" my widdle ego isn't crushed.

About shopkeepers...

I see value to skipping it. I see value to roleplaying them out. I really don't have a dog in the fight per se. Surely if it turns out a shopkeeper ends up being central to the action in the game somehow, players would want to play out any scenes that were somehow relevant, especially if there is opportunity to prevent something from messing with the PCs supply lines.

And if you ONLY ever play it out when it is relevant--and I'm sure you can think of millions of examples where the GM faces this--every time you do so you're telegraphing what ought to be a surprise. Therefore, it's probably good practice to play these things out at least some of the time when it's not particularly important.

So I would consider a lack of tolerance for that to be entirely unreasonable. Gronan mentioned that if the GM isn't having fun, the game is going to suck. A variation on that would be, if you don't give the GM some room to breathe, the game is going to suck. Just because preferences and expectations can be highly subjective does not mean they are all equally realistic, fair, or valid.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877311I have 42 years of experience running and playing in RPGs that proves the direct opposite.

NOTHING fucks a game faster than mismatched expectations, and fifteen minutes of discussion can clear up 90% of the most severe mismatches.

Of course, if somebody tells me "No thanks, that doesn't sound like fun to me" my widdle ego isn't crushed.

You're not even really addressing what I said. 42 years of experience doesn't tell me you understand the distinction between expectations that are strongly held and those that are not.

There was a story about a mathematician that was consulted by the military. They brought him fighter planes that were damaged in combat. They had noticed they had a lot of bullet holes near the fuselage but almost no bullet holes near the engine. They wanted him to run a statistical analysis so they can put the armor where the evidence shows the most bullet holes.

The mathematician told them they were wrong. They should really do the exact opposite. The sample was biased. The planes with all the bullet holes in the engine were the ones that didn't make it back.

All people are talking about is when games fuck up. Then going and finding an expectations mismatch and assuming that is to blame. What about all those times there were expectations mismatches--which, realistically speaking, is practically 100% of the time--and everyone had a great time. No one looks for problems when everyone's having fun. So the sample is biased. Your experience draws you to the exactly wrong conclusion.

What I'm saying is that weakly-held expectations are healthy. Only strong mismatches fuck up the game. By discussing expectations you rule out mismatches but you increase the strength of the expectations so that if they are off (and they always are) they are potentially disastrous.

I have successfully avoided disaster without ever discussing expectations. This would seem to provide a counter example to your "proof" while your experience does not contradict the way I am seeing the problem at all.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877328What I'm saying is that weakly-held expectations are healthy. Only strong mismatches fuck up the game. By discussing expectations you rule out mismatches but you increase the strength of the expectations so that if they are off (and they always are) they are potentially disastrous.

This is muddleheaded from several directions.

First off, there's nothing intrinsically "healthy" about weakly-held expectations.  Presuming you define that to mean that the player either doesn't care all that much about "expectations" or he does have preferences but doesn't view them as dealbreakers, I reject the notion.  I agree that a player who isn't passionate about elements he's not getting from your game is less likely to pitch a fit at your table.  He's also unlikely to be passionate about what he is getting.  I like people who are passionate about my game; it's far more fun and far less work.

"you increase the strength of the expectations" -- well, yes, I agree that me telling players what my game is about is quite likely to give them a notion as to what my game is about, as well as inform them about what my game isn't about.  Those expectations are not "always" off; they're only off if the parties fail to discuss them honestly or thoroughly.  

I 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.")

Quote from: Lunamancer;877236Go back and reread the part that you even quoted. If you go in not knowing what the expectations are, PC death can't be ruled out. It's the dominant expectation. Or call it a meta-expectation. If you're not going to argue against that point specifically, then I guess you have conceded it.

No, 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.

The 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.

The 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.

If someone in my game is going to find either possibility intolerable, I'd prefer to know up front so that, if we strongly disagree, we can either find a mutually-acceptable third option or decide not to play together, rather than wait until it comes up in actual play and take the risk that it may destroy an otherwise-enjoyable campaign after we've invested significant time and energy to it.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877236It's a great example of how little you understand the concept, that's for sure.

Yes!  Exactly!  I have no idea what you're thinking of when you say "expectations" in this context, which is why, when I first engaged you on this, the very first words from my keyboard were

Quote from: nDervish;877053What kind of expectations are you thinking of as the focus of discussion in these comments?

I've given examples of things that I think of as "expectations" in this context.  I've even attempted to explain to mAcular Chaotic what I see as the conceptual difference between "expectations" and "what everyone's gotta give".  I'd say I've demonstrated some understanding of the concept as I see it.

You, however, have done fuck all to clarify what you mean when you talk about "expectations".  For all I know, we could be using the same word to refer to two completely different and utterly unrelated things.  Which is what I suspected when I brought this up.  Which 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.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877328All people are talking about is when games fuck up.

You 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.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877328Then going and finding an expectations mismatch and assuming that is to blame. What about all those times there were expectations mismatches--which, realistically speaking, is practically 100% of the time--and everyone had a great time. No one looks for problems when everyone's having fun. So the sample is biased. Your experience draws you to the exactly wrong conclusion.

Your sample is biased as well.  We don't know for a fact which conclusion is correct.  Or they could both be wrong and it makes no difference either way.  Without comparing longevity and end-state of campaigns with up-front discussion of expectations vs. those without such discussions, there's no way to determine that.

More likely, it's highly context-dependent, which is what I seem to recall the original point having been when someone (I don't recall who and can't be bothered to look it up) first brought this up.  If you're gaming with friends you've known forever then there's little need to discuss expectations up front because you're likely to all be coming in with roughly the same expectations, so just jump in and go with it.  If, on the other hand, you're recruiting from a local gaming club, FLGS, or other group of people who are little more than strangers and don't have a shared history, you want to make your expectations clear at the start so that the people joining the game can self-select for similar (or at least compatible) preferences because strongly-held expectations are likely to clash when you get a bunch of strangers together for their first shared campaign.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877328What I'm saying is that weakly-held expectations are healthy. Only strong mismatches fuck up the game.

Agreed.  And what I'm saying is that there are certain areas in which expectations tend to be strongly-held.  If you identify those strong mismatches up front, then you can at least try to resolve them before they fuck up the game.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877328By discussing expectations you rule out mismatches but you increase the strength of the expectations so that if they are off (and they always are) they are potentially disastrous.

Personally, 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".

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.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WrNfguwAtjo/T19AHdvhmeI/AAAAAAAAKwE/NHa-OGfS45E/s1600/thenisaygood128512151757031250.jpg)

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.

(http://tonsofcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Get-off-my-lawn.jpg)

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.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877532Not 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.

Keep struggling.

With an open campaign, whether old style or something like officially sponsored D&D events at shops, I think it's just fine for people to find out that something isn't to their taste. In that context, I don't see a very big difference from board games, card games, etc., that might or might not rock the boat of Individual X.

If you're settling down to have The Usual Suspects show up every week, then it's more important to make sure everyone is on the same page.  Part of the appeal of the RPG form is that it's so flexible, a "make your own game" game. That's also a potential for friction, which I think gets emotionally boosted because everyone involved has a creative investment -- and because of the role-playing aspect, to which people tend to bring more attachment than to pawns in an ordinary game.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877311I have 42 years of experience running and playing in RPGs that proves the direct opposite.

NOTHING fucks a game faster than mismatched expectations, and fifteen minutes of discussion can clear up 90% of the most severe mismatches.

Of course, if somebody tells me "No thanks, that doesn't sound like fun to me" my widdle ego isn't crushed.

Two things:  

(1) Experience counts for nothing to the inexperienced. They assume you're out of touch (says my 20 years in education).

And

(2) The idea that discussing expectations will prevent misunderstanding is so self-evidently true, that I cannot believe anyone is arguing against it. (And yet, here we are...somehow...):-/

Quote from: Omega;8775291: I haven't.

Didn't say you have. Talking about "most" was your idea. I was just responding to it.

Quote2: Um. How are you supposed to know these would-be players are unworthy without talking to them first?

There are a number of ways to know this. Including talking with them. Who said I wouldn't be talking with them? I said I won't discuss the expectations of the game with them at the table. And in fact, I won't even invite them to the table. This is what I mean about the strawman. It's not enough to invent an imaginary person. You also beam him in from outer space. Be realistic. Is he a guy from work? Was he talking about how awesome his character is at the con? How did he find out about my game? Is he inquiring about joining, or am I actively recruiting players?

QuoteSome 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?"

This question is obviously an invitation type question. So why am I asking this? Do I know the guy? Or have I already been casually conversing with the guy and then segued into inviting him? If so, the content of that conversation must have informed me that he's good to give it a shot.

Or this guy a total stranger I am approaching to get a group assembled as quickly as possible? If so, that wouldn't be my leading question. I would first ask if he was looking for a game. Obviously I'm only continuing if the answer is yes. Then I would have a couple of qualifying questions. None of these questions would be about his expectations. How could he have any? I haven't even told him a thing about the game yet, who's playing it, or even if I'm running one.

Based on his answers, I would "pitch" him the game a way that educates him as to how to get what he wants out of the game.

I would not discuss things like whether or not PC death is possible. If he brings it up, this is a feature, not a benefit. I would ask follow up questions to find out what benefit he derives from that feature. My only concern would be whether or not it's possible for him to derive the benefits from my game. I could care less if his preference on PC death is a match to mine. If he receives the benefit, he'll be happy. If it's possible for him to receive the benefit, he will if he deserves to.

All of this comes before he's even offered an invitation. And at no point do his answers actually influence what I intend to run.

QuoteAre these preferences? Expectations? Psychoses?

Preferences are what he likes or dislikes. They are subjective. A distinction between feature and benefit is also important.

Expectations are what he thinks will happen. They are either right or wrong as reality will soon determine. It's rare anything happens exactly as expected. Reality can prove better (closer to preference) than expected or worse (further from preference) than expected. So the assumption that a mismatch is somehow automatically bad is highly suspect.

Psychoses is nothing I've brought up. If you want me to make up something on topic that first the term for the sake of completeness, I would say any strongly-held preference or expectation that is unrealistic belongs here.

Whether or not he believes PCs can die is an expectation. If he finds PC death intolerable, that's his preference. If he strongly believes PCs can't die despite my not telling him they can't, then his expectation is unrealistic. If he finds PC death intolerable and chooses to join a group without getting a verbal commitment that PCs won't die, it's psychosis.

Quote from: cranebump;877573Two things:  

(1) Experience counts for nothing to the inexperienced. They assume you're out of touch (says my 20 years in education).

That'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.

To Gronan's credit, I think he's pretty open about that. He doesn't claim to play each and every style under the sun. He's good at sticking to his schtick. That's consistent with my read on the signal.

Quote(2) The idea that discussing expectations will prevent misunderstanding is so self-evidently true, that I cannot believe anyone is arguing against it. (And yet, here we are...somehow...):-/

If 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.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877507Can 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.

Not entirely on-topic, but players aren't idiots.  In my (and many other forum posters') experience, they tend to be pretty good at identifying when the GM fudges, even if it's done in secret.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877507Expectation: "A strong belief that something will happen or be the case in the future."

Thank you.  We seem to be using roughly the same meaning (I described my usage above as "assumptions about how the game will work").

Quote from: Lunamancer;877507So 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.

Yes, I would agree with that.  However, I see this setting of expectations as a good thing.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877507But 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.

Depends on the specific expectations which you set in that discussion.  On the topic of PC death, mine is "I let the dice fall where they may and don't fudge to 'fix' their results.  If this means that a PC dies, then they're dead and cannot be resurrected."  This does not mean that PC death will happen - I've never presided over a TPK and even the death of a single PC is rare - only that I won't intervene to prevent it.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877507You 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.

No, what I interpreted as attacks in my previous reply were that, in the post I was replying to, you stopped just short of openly accusing me of arguing in bad faith, then later asserted that I didn't understand what we're talking about.  I chose to refer to them as attacks on my position because that was the most generous interpretation available and I didn't want to jump straight to accusing you of ad hominem.  You now imply that I'm deliberately misunderstanding you and the jump is looking smaller by the minute.

Is this the "explanation" of "dominant" that you're referring to: "What is meant by "natural" or "dominant" is that they don't require general agreement."?  My contention is that uncertainty is not the "natural" or "dominant" expectation in the plain English meaning of those words.  Most people will expect that PC death will be handled in the same way that they are most accustomed to, based on previous campaigns they've participated in, or perhaps in the way which is stated in the current game's rules, if it uses a system which makes an explicit statement on the matter.  I'm not aware of ever encountering anyone who goes into a game with a new GM or new group thinking "I wonder if PC death can happen in this game?", although it's not something that is often talked about, so I suppose it could be more common than I expect it to be.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877507So 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.

Yes, fair point.  However, if they're enjoying and contributing to the game, then the very lack of disaster implies that the game fits their preferences, even if it violates their expectations.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877507If 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.

Indeed they wouldn't.  They wouldn't be expecting to play pirates at all, with or without gunpowder, because that's not in-genre for the generic AD&D campaign that you implied would be played when you chose not to set any expectations beyond "AD&D1".

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

I don't recall anyone saying expectations should be discussed at the table.  I find the pitch for the game (whether an open invitation or inviting an individual) to be the most efficient place to deal with them.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877516And raising strawman nightmare scenarios if you don't about quasi-autistic gamers who throw a fit if they don't 100% get their way.

About a year and a half ago, I had a player who occasionally complained about not liking my policy that, if your character dies, you make a new starting character as a replacement.  He wanted to carry over all his experience, gear, etc. to the new character, but I didn't really think much of it because no PCs had died anyhow, so it had no practical effect either way.

Then, one night, completely out of the blue, he went off into a 20-minute rant about how horrible it was that he'd lose everything he'd earned in the game if his character died.  A couple weeks later he disappeared.  And then, a few months after that, I was talking to another local GM who asked me why I thought it was important for replacement PCs to be starting characters and told me that was the reason this guy had quit my game.

So, yeah, it does happen, and not just in straw men.

Prior to that, I had a guy who had expected a very social campaign which ended up being more of a hexcrawl, so, one night, he told me, "Hey, your game is great for what it is, but that's not what I want, so, nothing personal, but I think I'm gonna bail."  Mismatched expectations can lead to players leaving in a mature fashion without a disaster, too.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877516I'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.

And how do you know who not to invite?

Quote from: Lunamancer;877587Based on his answers, I would "pitch" him the game a way that educates him as to how to get what he wants out of the game.

And how does it "educate" him?  By telling him what to expect in the game?  I'd call that "setting expectations" and is exactly the kind of thing I've been advocating all along.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877516Expectations are what he thinks will happen. They are either right or wrong as reality will soon determine. It's rare anything happens exactly as expected. Reality can prove better (closer to preference) than expected or worse (further from preference) than expected. So the assumption that a mismatch is somehow automatically bad is highly suspect.

I don't think anyone has said that, either.  Any discussion of expectations, if detailed enough, will inevitably turn up mismatches because no two people will ever have exactly the same expectations absent a long shared history (and quite possibly not even then).

The point is to come to a shared understanding of what is to be expected, then see whether that shared expectation includes any dealbreakers and, if so, decide on how to deal with it.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877516Whether or not he believes PCs can die is an expectation. If he finds PC death intolerable, that's his preference. If he strongly believes PCs can't die despite my not telling him they can't, then his expectation is unrealistic.

No, I would say that, if you haven't given him any indication of what to expect, then any expectation he may have is going to be pretty much equally realistic.  Strongly believing that PCs won't be able to die in your game may be incorrect, but it's not [/i]unrealistic[/i], given that many GMs will not allow PCs to die in their games.

In any case, if the player's preference is such that he finds PC death intolerable, my preference is that he knows up front that, in my game, PCs can die, thus allowing him to choose whether he wants to find a way to tolerate that possibility or if he'd prefer not to participate.  Your apparent preference to allow him to play without realizing that, in your game, his expectation is incorrect seems to me like a recipe for bad feelings when that expectation is proven to be in error.

Quote from: nDervish;877701Not entirely on-topic, but players aren't idiots.  In my (and many other forum posters') experience, they tend to be pretty good at identifying when the GM fudges, even if it's done in secret.

Players only ever know fudging has happened those times that they are aware of it. There is no way of knowing how often it happens without their knowledge. Conversely, there are times when players believe the GM has fudged when the GMs haven't. Are these falsely recorded and counted as one of those times the GM tried to put one over on the players, but the players were just too darn clever for that?

I recall one time I was accused of fudging to have a new player find some really great magic items. Other players in the group shouted him down, correctly surmising that I had rolled up the magic items randomly and that's just how the dice fell. The player who did the accusing was himself a GM that, while some players enjoyed playing other, most of us regarded as a pretty terrible GM. He fudged pretty much everything.

Now I could imagine the one player yapping on a forum about that time the GM tried to slip one by him and he caught him. He might even admit to fudging himself and claim that gives him expertise in spotting it when others do it. Would the other players chime in on such a thread? Probably not. Who gets on a forum to talk about that time the GM didn't fudge? Some pretty goofy biases emerge from forum discussions when you stop and think about it.

I have a pretty solid track record on fudging completely undetected. If you don't undermine player choice (and this includes the benefits of counterfactual prudent action that they could have taken), they have no reason to think anything is off.

QuoteYes, I would agree with that.  However, I see this setting of expectations as a good thing.

Except there are certain expectations, a few of which I have noted, where there is a benefit to ambiguous space. And in any event, to me, a good player is one who is capable of adapting his expectations as befits a dynamic world. I want to develop good players. I could care less about catering to bad ones. The idea of 'setting expectations' as being sacred--or the meta-expectation the consequences of not doing so are dire--is off-putting in the extreme.

QuoteDepends on the specific expectations which you set in that discussion.  On the topic of PC death, mine is "I let the dice fall where they may and don't fudge to 'fix' their results.  If this means that a PC dies, then they're dead and cannot be resurrected."  This does not mean that PC death will happen - I've never presided over a TPK and even the death of a single PC is rare - only that I won't intervene to prevent it.

The point has nothing to do with how often a PC death happens, or even if it happens at all. It has to do with how the belief that PC death is possible affects their choices. In my opinion, the experience is richer if players believe PC death is possible. Even if it isn't. So if it isn't? I have two choices. Lie or say nothing. I choose to say nothing.

QuoteIs this the "explanation" of "dominant" that you're referring to: "What is meant by "natural" or "dominant" is that they don't require general agreement."?  My contention is that uncertainty is not the "natural" or "dominant" expectation in the plain English meaning of those words.

Dominant: the most important, powerful, or influential. Here, I'm using it to mean the most influential. I talked about the usage of the word in game theory as far as dominant strategies go. In biology, they might talk about dominant genes. If you've got two of the recessive gene types, you exhibit the recessive trait. If you've got two of the dominant gene types, you exhibit the dominant trait. But if you've got one of each? You also exhibit the dominant trait. It's the most influential. You could have a population consisting of 9000 people with the recessive gene and 1000 with the dominant one. It's not about probability or frequency. It's about consequence.

As it applies to uncertainty and PC death, as you point out, even when you make it explicit in your games that it is possible, it doesn't make it probable. But it is consequential.

It's clearly logical that if you're not sure what type of campaign you're playing, death-enabled or death-disabled, you can't rule out the possibility that PC death is possible. You can't just play the probabilities. You have to play the consequences.

Does that mean there are gamers for whom this logic does not occur to them? No. Might they even be in the majority? I can't speak to that. But if you go in thinking your guy can't die and you find out the hard way you're wrong, you have two choices. Quit. Or learn a lesson. Remember, I'm not out to cater to shitty players with shitty attitudes. I'm looking to develop players into good, adaptable ones. This serves my purpose quite well.

QuoteMost people will expect that PC death will be handled in the same way that they are most accustomed to, based on previous campaigns they've participated in, or perhaps in the way which is stated in the current game's rules, if it uses a system which makes an explicit statement on the matter.

Again "most" is not something I can speak to. Past experience may shape your perception of the probabilities. If you've never played in a game where a PC has died before, you might thus conclude that if it ever does happen, it must be extremely rare. That does not mean you automatically conclude it's impossible. Only a fool makes that leap. And a player that finds PC death intolerable who doesn't prioritize possibility over probability by making sure to get a verbal commit before he sits down to play is a damned fool. And, yes, I can spot a damned fool from a mile away.

QuoteI'm not aware of ever encountering anyone who goes into a game with a new GM or new group thinking "I wonder if PC death can happen in this game?", although it's not something that is often talked about, so I suppose it could be more common than I expect it to be.

While again I can't speak to what's absolutely the case with the majority, I suspect most players have a good, healthy attitude towards gaming. They don't go into a new GM or new group wondering such things. They go in with a certain awareness that they don't know what to expect so they're going to feel things out as they go. Once they get the hang of it, their emergent expectations will more closely match the reality than any expectations that might have been discussed before hand.

QuoteIndeed they wouldn't.  They wouldn't be expecting to play pirates at all, with or without gunpowder, because that's not in-genre for the generic AD&D campaign that you implied would be played when you chose not to set any expectations beyond "AD&D1".

The DMG has a section on waterborne adventures. The magic items list has a few items specific (or at least at their best) either on or under water. The monster manual includes monsters you'd only encounter at sea. The players handbook includes seagoing vessels in the equipment section and a few spell provisions geared towards that play. If the players want to play pirates, the generic AD&D campaign can do that. There are even a few good modules that will work great.

QuoteI don't recall anyone saying expectations should be discussed at the table.  I find the pitch for the game (whether an open invitation or inviting an individual) to be the most efficient place to deal with them.

The original post for this thread quotes me on expectations from the social encounters thread. In that thread, I was accused of not doing "discovery" on what the players want because I won't sit around hashing out such things before starting up the game. Even though my contributions to that thread was specifically about persuasion in the real world and the steps I use in a real life pitch. It probably ought to have been assumed then and there that's how I was gathering a group if I needed to recruit total strangers. But even failing that, I wrote in post #30 from this thread:

I think there's an analogy to be drawn to selling a product. The customer does not get to muck around with the product. Typically, the customer has no expertise to even do so anyway. That's why the customer is buying a product. Whatever it is he gets out of it is something he can't get on his own.

It falls upon the sales person to understand the customer, to know what the customer needs or wants, and then demonstrate how the product can deliver those things. The sales person does not change the product to suit the customer. The sales person educates the customer on how the product works.

If you translate this to RPGs, the GM is typically both wears two hats, as both producer and salesman. The GM puts together something that reflects what SHE wants and in HER style without player input. Then the GM switches to salesperson mode to assemble a group. If it isn't a match for a particular player, the player just doesn't join the group. So getting a group may entail finding out what various players are hoping to find in the game and then explaining how her idea provides that.

I guess this goes to show even when you do spell out exactly how things work in advance, belligerent people are still going to swap in their own version of things. I'm sure even you allowed XP and gear to transfer over to a replacement PC, your 20 minute rant player would have found something else to bitch about. Someone who's going to disrupt play like that has issues that have nothing to do with how you choose to play a game.

QuotePrior to that, I had a guy who had expected a very social campaign which ended up being more of a hexcrawl, so, one night, he told me, "Hey, your game is great for what it is, but that's not what I want, so, nothing personal, but I think I'm gonna bail."  Mismatched expectations can lead to players leaving in a mature fashion without a disaster, too.

One time I was a player in a game where the up-front expectation was that this was going to be exploration & commerce. So we go off and find some uncharted island where we come upon a slaver camp that had set up a mining operation. So far so good, right. Exploring and commerce.

Then the murdergrind player decides to go about murdergrinding to free the slaves. Since the rest of us are good players, we adapt and roll with it. Once the slaver band is dispatched, we're thinking two things. 1, we need material rewards from this "quest" because obviously an exploration & commerce campaign is going to track resources and provisions--even some murdergrind/dungeoncrawl styles demand that. 2, the elephant in the room, the greatest source of wealth, was the mine itself.

So, we decided to get the mine operational again. With paid labor this time to appease Murdergrind. Now this is still exploration & commerce. After all, we did need to explore the surrounding area still. It's just a little heavier on the commerce side. Murdergrind quits, complaining he didn't sign up to play "Papers & Paychecks." Two points. 1, we were clearly willing to adapt to his idiotic playstyle but he's not willing to adapt just a hair off from what he agreed to play, and 2, we were only in this position because of his actions.

The problem isn't preferences of expectations. The problem is he doesn't even think through his own actions or have a clear idea of what he wants. He'd quit with a 20 minute rant midway through masturbating.

QuoteAnd how does it "educate" him?  By telling him what to expect in the game?  I'd call that "setting expectations" and is exactly the kind of thing I've been advocating all along.

It educates him by telling him how to get what he wants. Not telling him what to expect. Or even that we'll accommodate his playstyle.

QuoteThe point is to come to a shared understanding of what is to be expected, then see whether that shared expectation includes any dealbreakers and, if so, decide on how to deal with it.

Again, we're using the word "expectation" to mean what we think will happen, or a belief about the future. The game that actually emerges may differ from what we expected. I'm not sure what the advantage is, if the expectations prove to be off, for the entire group to be wrong together. If one guy believes PC death is possible and is always advising the group on prudent action while another guy believes PC death is impossible and is always advising the group on taking a chance, to me that's a great party dynamic of balance/counter-balance. And whoever ends up wrong, it's not like they didn't have the fair warning of the guy who was right.

QuoteIn any case, if the player's preference is such that he finds PC death intolerable, my preference is that he knows up front that, in my game, PCs can die, thus allowing him to choose whether he wants to find a way to tolerate that possibility or if he'd prefer not to participate.  Your apparent preference to allow him to play without realizing that, in your game, his expectation is incorrect seems to me like a recipe for bad feelings when that expectation is proven to be in error.

Here's what your missing. Whether or not PCs can die in the game is a feature. Not a benefit. The trick is to find out why they prefer that feature, discover what benefit they derive, and then see if your game can deliver that benefit.

Your 20 minute rant guy, assuming I'm wrong and he's not just a broken human being, in another life he might have been anti-PC death? Why? Because he wants to keep his XP and his stuff. So maybe your game doesn't suit him after all. But what about a dynastic campaign, where he can come back playing the child of his original PC, inhering his stuff, maybe not all the XP (he doesn't have to start at 0 either) but I believe 1E Oriental Adventures and Hackmaster for sure allows some transfer of special benefits according to the honor of your original character. Maybe that would suffice to make him happy. Maybe not. But if so, we've discovered it's not really PC death, or losing his XP and stuff that truly matters to him.

So I don't address features or set expectations based on them. I focus on benefits. What players really want, and I don't set them up to expect to get them, I try to show them how they get them. It's up to them to take the ball and run with it. This is where the "give and take" mentioned way up thread comes into play.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877507If 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 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.

How would everyone already know before play that gunpowder isn't anywhere in the AD&D rules?

Assuming that everyone knows the AD&D rules in minute detail is not at all logical. Most players don't. Many, probably most, know very little. And unless you ask them about gunpowder you don't know what expectation they have. They may well expect gunpowder since it appeared in Chainmail and in OD&D. Thus, according to you, no gunpowder in D&D cannot be the dominant expectation because it is illogical to believe it. Players who expect "no gunpowder" because of AD&D are as illogical (or logical) as players who expect no death because that's all they've experienced in other games.

Also, is it even true that gunpowder isn't in the AD&D rules? Anywhere? Because OD&D included gunpowder in setting and by reference in the rules. I ran AD&D way back when and I don't remember that gunpowder was excluded. Did AD&D totally drop all references to bombards and such?

Quote from: nDervish;877701Is this the "explanation" of "dominant" that you're referring to: "What is meant by "natural" or "dominant" is that they don't require general agreement."?

Lunamancer claims to mean dominant in a game theoretic sense, e.g. in a classic prisoner's dilemma the dominant strategy is one where each player loses.

EDIT: Though now I see he is prattling about Mendelian genetics. He has no idea what dominant means other than dominant expectations are what Lunamancer expects people should expect.

He doesn't understand that communication, side agreements, and collusion between the prisoners is prohibited in the artificial constraints of game theory. Whereas what everyone else is talking about is the simple ability to communicate preferences and adjust expectations before play starts and to collude or make side agreements about expectations in play. All of which is disallowed in the prisoner's dilemma. Or to put it another way, in the context under discussion "dominant" isn't an applicable term to use.

Quote from: Lunamancer;877740I have a pretty solid track record on fudging completely undetected.

Of course you do you manipulative genius, you. Players are just putty in your fudgy little hands.

Quote from: Bren;877754Also, is it even true that gunpowder isn't in the AD&D rules? Anywhere? Because OD&D included gunpowder in setting and by reference in the rules. I ran AD&D way back when and I don't remember that gunpowder was excluded. Did AD&D totally drop all references to bombards and such?

Off 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.

Quote from: Bren;877754How would everyone already know before play that gunpowder isn't anywhere in the AD&D rules?

Not to mention, "pirates" existed almost from the first moment cargo traveled by water, and in many cultures WITHOUT gunpowder.  So why does "playing pirates" necessitate gunpowder?  Gee, if only the players had talked about it...

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877808Not to mention, "pirates" existed almost from the first moment cargo traveled by water, and in many cultures WITHOUT gunpowder.  So why does "playing pirates" necessitate gunpowder?  Gee, if only the players had talked about it...

No different from how just about every treatment of nautical matters in "medieval" fantasy games looks pretty much like 19th century Age of Sail.

Quote from: Ravenswing;877923No different from how just about every treatment of nautical matters in "medieval" fantasy games looks pretty much like 19th century Age of Sail.

Pilot's Almanac for Harn actually seemed pretty solidly rooted in early Atlantic/Baltic seafaring, maybe Hanseatic.

Quote from: Ravenswing;877923No different from how just about every treatment of nautical matters in "medieval" fantasy games looks pretty much like 19th century Age of Sail.

No gunpowder or cannons in my Red Shetland RPG book. All catapults, rams, ballistia, archers if close enough, and a few weird science mechanical devices as well as any magical backup might be had.

Even after Spelljammer most D&D ship battles were still conventional and not a sight of cannons.

Quote from: Naburimannu;877928Pilot's Almanac for Harn actually seemed pretty solidly rooted in early Atlantic/Baltic seafaring, maybe Hanseatic.

No 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.

Quote from: Omega;877995No gunpowder or cannons in my Red Shetland RPG book. All catapults, rams, ballistia, archers if close enough, and a few weird science mechanical devices as well as any magical backup might be had.

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.

Quote from: Ravenswing;878134Do 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.

[/COLOR]
Medieval 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. Though they might have a right angled tiller arm. Honestly I don't think I ever drew an anchor. If I did it would likely be rock.

EDIT: Or maybe like this:

Spoiler

(https://vaemihi.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/dsc00310.jpg)

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... :o

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

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.  :D

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.

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? :D

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? :D

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 (http://www.brepettis.com/blog/2009/3/3/the-cult-of-done-manifesto.html%5B/url), 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 (http://www.brepettis.com/blog/2009/3/3/the-cult-of-done-manifesto.html%5B/url), 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.

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

I was going to say "learn to do it, it gets you more games and more dates"...but the Cult of Done is a good start;).

Quote from: S'mon;879764...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.

People seem to follow two methodologies. One method, the one you describe, is to look for gamers* to game with and then see if you like them as people or can at least tolerate them while gaming. The other is to start with people you already like or the friends of people who you already like and can at least tolerate and then see if those friends or friends of friends enjoy gaming. Some people use both methods more or less equally, but I think most of us tend to use one method more than the other. And some folks seem blind to the fact that there actually is another approach.


* By gamers here, I mean people who are already familiar with the game in question or familiar with similar games and who are likely to frequent game stores, game groups, or gaming internet forums or sites and to self-identify as "gamers."