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".