A commonly proposed solution to problems between GMs and players is "just tell players what to expect ahead of time." Which makes a lot of sense in theory. If you're going to commit to dozens of hours of play at the very least, you should know what you're getting yourself into. And it should reasonably cut down on later drama if there is an agreed-upon expectation for what a group is sitting down at the table to do in the first place.

Of course, by the same token, every time you're introduced to someone for the first time, you should give them a full account of your religious and political beliefs, your personal peeves and berserk buttons, and what you do and do not consider "just common decency, really." Yet for some odd reason, people don't normally do that.

So, as a GM, what do you tell prospective players about how you go about things? Do you have a list of what you consider vital information that you make sure to inform them of? And do you find that that does, in fact, work well to head off future unpleasantness?


Personally, I must admit that I almost never do any such thing, and that I nonetheless rarely have any trouble. (I can remember exactly one player who actively seemed to expect a different style of play than he got, and who was frustrated by it) Somehow, the players always just seem to manage to get into the spirit of things without me telling them what that spirit is supposed to be.

Part of it may be that I try to match the intended playstyle of whatever game I'm intending to run. No one's surprised when most problems in a Savage Worlds campaign ultimately boil down to hitting mooks over the head. Likewise, if I propose a GURPS game, you don't need to be a genius to guess that thinking before you act is probably going to necessary, whereas if I suggest a Barbarians of Lemuria game, you can more or less assume that jumping in with both feet and a lot of splashing will usually be the way to go.

Another thing that I suspect helps is that I try to examplify what I'm after. For instance, I put a lot of work into giving my NPCs distinct personalities, which I think sends a pretty strong signal to the players that this is a frou-frou True Roleplayer campaign and that they are not supposed to hack and slash everything in sight. I prefer to play by the rules as much as possible, so I reference what rules I use when I use them, and tell the players what their characters are capable of based on what their skills are. And so on. Show, don't tell, basically. It won't help with a player who genuinely came in wanting something completely different, but most players are a little more flexible than that and are willing to take some cues as they go along.

And conversely, I also take some cues from the players as to what they seem to want and what interests them. If some part of my initial plans really seem to be boring them, I'll start downplaying that part and focusing on what they seem to want to engage with. If, by some strange accident, I manage to pitch a game of courtly intrigue to a group of players who all want to do dungeon-crawling, then within a few sessions, once I have figured out that that is the case, it will likely turn out that dungeoneering is the current fad among the court and that the best way to win the ear of the King is to impress him with how much loot you've acquired recently. I aim to please, folks. :cool:

I explain my style and what I hope to get from the game.

First, I do this to have fun. If you have any secret "land mines"; those personal experiences, dramas or potentially explosive situations that are going to blow up into some melodramatic fun-ruining outburst - please share all locations and deactivation codes. :-D I don't know what I don't know, so if there are taboo subjects, phrases, monsters, situations, whatever that will push your buttons and result in ANY kind of temper-tantrum, let's work it out before hand. You will find me considerably less empathetic DURING the temper-tantrum. Note: I don't throw temper-tantrums. Note: I DO however go on vitriol-laden razor-wit infused rage-a-tribes when provoked with unadulterated stupid. Let's meet somewhere in the middle so we can maintain reasonableness, sanity and most importantly - maximum fun.

Second, everybody plays, no body quits and if you don't have fun I'll shoot you. Maybe I stole that from Starship Troopers. Ok what I really should say is...

Second, tabletop roleplaying games are a group participation activity. No observers.

Third - Don't be a dick. Remember that everyone gets to have fun so your loner assassin orphan who can't be bothered to work with others and doesn't want to get into any adventures is just a manifestation of your dickness. So, make a character that works and then play with the me and the other players.

Fourth, I do NOT run published adventures, canned scenarios, or A-B-C style plots. I run a player-minded character-focused event-driven quasi-sandbox style where you are free to make choices and choose what is important to you. Also, you are free to suffer the consequences of those choices. Your destiny and (more importantly) your success or failure are up to you. Without this, it's just fucking story-time for sorry kind and I ain't old enough yet to be spinning tales from my blanket-covered wheelchair-bound legs to a mostly bored audience of trapped younglings trying to be nice to me.

Finally, all I want from this game is for you to have fun. Honestly, that is the MOST fun for me. I thrive off it. If we all walk away from the table YEARNING to get back to it next week? That's all the kudos I need.

P.S. I appreciate your paranoia and lament all the terrible GMs who abused you before you hit my table. However, I am not out to get you and I am NOT one of those GMs. So relax. Just play from the perspective of your character and "get into it". Stop worrying about shit you have no control over and instead get excited about how you're going to feel when you lop the head off that horrible Orc chieftain who desperately needed some blade-therapy from your barbarian.

Love,

Interesting thread. I offered a game recently (World War Cthulhu - Cold War) that dealt with spies in the 70's in Prague. I explained that (and wrote in the elevator pitch) that players should avoid too many fighty skills and concentrate on things like Tradecraft and the like (I even gave out a handout which said "These skills are important" and  listed them). I thought this would set the tone for he game as one that needed stealth and research skills. Boy was I wrong - one of the aspects of the mission involved getting an occult book out of a museum library. Their idea was to stage a fist fight as a distraction. So two PC's who had business man/book dealer as a cover in Cold War Prague start a fight, needless to say the game went downhill from there. I have dropped the group from my gaming and now go with on-line games where I can get interesting thoughtful players that want to do things other than hit mooks with an ax.

I work with my players, not against them, and I prefer the 'rule of cool' over nitty gritty details.  Other than that, I'll go along with just about anything, and stuff I don't I'll compromise with.

I aim for a three tier solution, based on my assessment of the new player's experience:

Total newbie to RPGs - "Here are some pre-made characters that cover the most common play styles. Don't worry about the rules yet, pick one that looks good to you, like Streetfighter II. You can always change later, I'll be lenient. I strongly recommend picking a pre-made, but if you want to go drown in the rulebook and the confusing babble of advice from the experienced players I can't stop you. Don't worry about the setting or table expectations, you'll get the gist of it quickly and can always ask for a sidebar."

Person who gets the basic principles already and can be trusted not to bolt when the learning curve starts up, but is still kind of casual - "Here's the book and a list of authorized character options (don't worry, most of them are still allowed and I've added a few if you really want to check those out). There's pre-mades too if you like. I advise you to take my advice above the well-intentioned babble of the experienced players. By the way, here's a brief summary of my campaign expectations. Actual house rules will be dealt with on a need-to-know basis."

Experienced player who clearly enjoys the nitty gritty - After a long conversation on the phone about our expectations before the first session, they are given my typed up house rules and setting summary.

Quote from: Baeraad;955467A commonly proposed solution to problems between GMs and players is "just tell players what to expect ahead of time." Which makes a lot of sense in theory. If you're going to commit to dozens of hours of play at the very least, you should know what you're getting yourself into. And it should reasonably cut down on later drama if there is an agreed-upon expectation for what a group is sitting down at the table to do in the first place.

Yes.

QuoteOf course, by the same token, every time you're introduced to someone for the first time, you should give them a full account of your religious and political beliefs, your personal peeves and berserk buttons, and what you do and do not consider "just common decency, really." Yet for some odd reason, people don't normally do that.

And if you expected to spend considerable time each week together, yes:).
You know, the way you introduce yourself to your co-workers the first time the manager introduces you...at least that's how it works in every office I've been in - I'm sure someone would tell me you don't do it this way in state X of the USA;).

QuoteSo, as a GM, what do you tell prospective players about how you go about things?

Well, depending on their level of experience, it might include "what is roleplaying" or not.
The rest is my list of things that vary between GMs;).

QuoteDo you have a list of what you consider vital information that you make sure to inform them of?

Yes - though I'm just going to give you a list, remember it's going to be couched in much kinder language.
I call it the highway to hell list. Parts of it obviously vary depending on campaign.

It's a sandbox. Deal with it...or take the highway.
No NPC has plot armour. PCs die, too. The systems usually have some way to prevent that, but it happens. If it's a deal-breaker...highway called, it's asking for you.
PCs need to be motivated (cue Crimson Exodus' list of things that PCs and GMs have to do). If you can't play one, you can either pick someone who can and follow a lead...or you're unfit for a sandbox and need to take the highway.
Mechanics need some love, too, it's courteous (though not mandatory) to engage them at least nominally. There will be someone to help, usually, but at least learn what you need to roll. Or try. It's no big deal in most games. OTOH, mechanics shall be amended to reflect setting. If you start to think mechanics first, better get the highway now, you're not going to be happy here.
Setting matters. The characters you create need ties, or the societies will grind your PCs to dust. As an exception, you don't need to leave if you want to play a murderhobo - but you'd wish you'd taken the highway, and you'd likely need many spare character sheets, I only provide the first character sheet. Of course, if you want to play a murderhobo struggling to gain acceptance, be my guest! But remember, most settings have hierarchy, culture and economics and religion - as well as prejudice, wars, crime, abuse and beliefs we might consider mistaken...but might well be objectively right in this setting for one reason or another. If you can't follow those or work around them, it's best to take the highway (fully democratic - everyone has the same chance for a speeding ticket).
NPCs are human (or aliens). This means they have goals, motivations and so on. They might, gasp, lie! If interacting with them is boring, go take the highway and amuse yourselves with the car, because doing so might be a non-insignificant part of the campaign.
GM has authority over the setting. You have authority over the characters. Don't overstep, but make the contact between the two fun - or take the highway before you bore us, too.
Love hurts - in some systems, literally. Wounds hurt. Pain lingers and might incapacitate you for days and weeks until you recover. There's also sickness and poison. If you think the system we're using doesn't account for those...well, you might be right, but you haven't read the houserules yet. And if you think heroes should be above that, go take the highway, there's many heroes there!
The rules can be amended by group consensus with the GM having veto rights. Even the GM is bound by them, though. If you expect me to bend them, I recommend the highway as a painless solution.



Oh, fuck. I typed all of the above and remembered that I'd written an intro for a forum game.
Here's what I wrote. Funny enough, you can see how the specific system has morphed my usual approach.

Game Description:
A Legends of the Wulin game, might well be the first to be run on MW! We're using the default setting, I'm just adding the Loresheet for Yun's Martial Arts Academy to it. (To anyone who caught it: yes, the name is an "Easter Egg").

What this game IS: A game where your decisions will matter.
Not only can your characters be awesome in every sense of the word, it's expected. (It's part of the advancement mechanics, for crying out loud!)
Not only will your actions determine the end results of what happens to the setting, they're guaranteed to...if you care at all.
Nothing is unimportant in this game. Words can kill, both literally and figuratively. Your actions can curse you, again literally...and not only. Who you fall in love with can sap your strength or nourish it. How you describe your attack or defence is potentially, though not always, more important to the outcome than all the bonuses you can stack. Trust me, I did the math.
All of that ends up not with the old-school attention to detail, but with your actions becoming more and more grandiose as you advance.
Ah, yes, I'm planning to have advancement in the game. In case you thought you'd be stuck at the starting level, that's not the case. Well, maybe not this year...but since it's December, that's not saying much, is it?

What this game ISN'T going to be:
A game where the GM will force-feed you a plot or follow some canned module.
A game where you can never reach the main NPCs in the setting, no matter what...it's quite clear that you can. It just might take a lot of time, and your character might have to become either a saint or a devil. Both are doable.
A game of travelling murderhoboing. You can start as one, but you have to develop connections to people. It's part of the game. "Only cares about other Ranked Fighters" is probably a very powerful Disadvantage!
A dungeoncrawl. If there is a dungeon in this game, it's probably the work of a twisted Scholar or Priest...and it's probably only got treasure no sane man or woman would use, and even some insane ones would burn.
A historical game. Shen Zhou is a fantasy version of China, we'll keep it that way.
A game where you can join and learn the rules later. Sorry, I like those games, too, and I've got 99 of them, but LotW ain't one. Legends of the Wulin doesn't reward lack of rules mastery, and the rules are too intricate for me to just explain if you haven't got your own copy. The best I can offer is help if you have access to them!
A game from zero to hero. A 5th Rank character is above 99,9% of the people in the setting, easily equal to a bandit gang lead by an ordinary bandit of superior skill! Remember how OD&D has your character's title as "Veteran" at first level? Well, it's similar. You start off as heroes, but you can use the practice. It's better to say the game is about going from hero to legend!
A game where you'll be kept off the mechanics. If it wasn't clear already, the game rewards you for actively using them, and cheering for other players when they manage to do so!

QuoteAnd do you find that that does, in fact, work well to head off future unpleasantness?

Yes - as soon as someone objects to something that follows the list, you can remind the group that this is expected. Then usually the next reaction is "well, this was unexpected".
My answer is shrugging and "you'll know next time, now what do you do?"

QuotePersonally, I must admit that I almost never do any such thing, and that I nonetheless rarely have any trouble. (I can remember exactly one player who actively seemed to expect a different style of play than he got, and who was frustrated by it) Somehow, the players always just seem to manage to get into the spirit of things without me telling them what that spirit is supposed to be.

Good for you, it's advice you don't need.
Other people might use it, though.

QuotePart of it may be that I try to match the intended playstyle of whatever game I'm intending to run. No one's surprised when most problems in a Savage Worlds campaign ultimately boil down to hitting mooks over the head. Likewise, if I propose a GURPS game, you don't need to be a genius to guess that thinking before you act is probably going to necessary, whereas if I suggest a Barbarians of Lemuria game, you can more or less assume that jumping in with both feet and a lot of splashing will usually be the way to go.

My intro before a new campaign usually varies according to the system.

QuoteAnother thing that I suspect helps is that I try to examplify what I'm after. For instance, I put a lot of work into giving my NPCs distinct personalities, which I think sends a pretty strong signal to the players that this is a frou-frou True Roleplayer campaign and that they are not supposed to hack and slash everything in sight. I prefer to play by the rules as much as possible, so I reference what rules I use when I use them, and tell the players what their characters are capable of based on what their skills are. And so on. Show, don't tell, basically. It won't help with a player who genuinely came in wanting something completely different, but most players are a little more flexible than that and are willing to take some cues as they go along

.
Best approach...but some people are better at adapting to rules than they are at following examples, I've found;).

QuoteAnd conversely, I also take some cues from the players as to what they seem to want and what interests them. If some part of my initial plans really seem to be boring them, I'll start downplaying that part and focusing on what they seem to want to engage with. If, by some strange accident, I manage to pitch a game of courtly intrigue to a group of players who all want to do dungeon-crawling, then within a few sessions, once I have figured out that that is the case, it will likely turn out that dungeoneering is the current fad among the court and that the best way to win the ear of the King is to impress him with how much loot you've acquired recently. I aim to please, folks. :cool:

I don't, and courtly intrigue ain't going to change if I pitched a game of courtly intrigue.
Of course, your aristocrats are free to go dungeoneering. It's putting your life on the line, so it's different from base, inappropriate stuff like trading.

Silliness is tolerated OOC (if you simply must toss out some Monty Python quotes), but IC my games are serious (no parties made up of long-haired bards who all paint their faces black and white named Paul, Gene, Peter, and Ace).

I take a cue from the old Fighting Fantasy style game books, i.e. I try to give players two or three clear choices when I describe a situation that needs input or a decision from them.  They are welcome to try other things, but I never want to leave them scratching their heads wondering what to do.

Just because I describe or mention something doesn't mean it is important.  If I describe a room as having a desk with some papers on it, a painting that is torn in the corner, and a bench next to an end table with a small statuette on it, it doesn't mean that any of those things are important or hold clues to solving whatever adventure they are on.  I'm just trying to create a living, believable world.  Plus, if I only mention/describe the things that are important to the plot, there's nothing for them to figure out; as soon as I mention the statuette they know it's important somehow.

No one has any narrative control over any character but their own.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;955475I work with my players, not against them, and I prefer the 'rule of cool' over nitty gritty details.  Other than that, I'll go along with just about anything, and stuff I don't I'll compromise with.

For my style this. Also, for the system I'm running, I (the GM) get to say no to munchkinism and min/max setups if they don't fit what the other players are doing.

One of my co-workers is going to start playing with us once a month on a sci-fi RPG. I actually spent most of the time explaining the existing players' play style and group dynamic, since that was more relevant and drives how I GM.

Wow, it's been a good while since I was GM (2 years?). Have to get  back into that.

Anyway, a couple of days before a game I generally give them a choice about the game world and tell them about things that might not be everyone's cup of tea: in Artesia, I let them know that this is a brutal world, where battles are lethal and things like assassinations and rape actually happen (although I don't rub these things in their faces for shock value). Oh and Artesia is supposed to be a bit sexy too, but again, I tell them I don't go overboard and turn it into a porn session or anything. I actually also tell them if romance might be part of the plot, because some people simply don't like romance. I wouldn't force this point anyway.

One typical alternative that I give is Tolkien's Middle-Earth, which is something I like and most people are familiar with. Of course, violence and romance etc. might happen there too, but I think that goes without saying.  

Finally, I usually tell any new players that I am kinda laid back about rules. For instance, I like The One Ring, but I simply can't remember all the rules off the top of my head (too many things going on in my life I suppose), so we use the basics, and sometimes expand it with rules that could be useful. This is one reason why I also like Basic Roleplaying as an alternative; it is so damn simple at its base. I actually used it for a Silmarillion game, and it wasn't bad at all (just make sure that characters are appropriately heroic, and think about how you will handle things like oaths and fate).

I tell my players  "Feel free to trash my setting but it won't be easy."

Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

It generally involves beer...

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;955479I aim for a three tier solution, based on my assessment of the new player's experience:

Total newbie to RPGs - "Here are some pre-made characters that cover the most common play styles. Don't worry about the rules yet, pick one that looks good to you, like Streetfighter II. You can always change later, I'll be lenient. I strongly recommend picking a pre-made, but if you want to go drown in the rulebook and the confusing babble of advice from the experienced players I can't stop you. Don't worry about the setting or table expectations, you'll get the gist of it quickly and can always ask for a sidebar."

Person who gets the basic principles already and can be trusted not to bolt when the learning curve starts up, but is still kind of casual - "Here's the book and a list of authorized character options (don't worry, most of them are still allowed and I've added a few if you really want to check those out). There's pre-mades too if you like. I advise you to take my advice above the well-intentioned babble of the experienced players. By the way, here's a brief summary of my campaign expectations. Actual house rules will be dealt with on a need-to-know basis."

QuotePretty much this, except:

New player - What do you want to be? Here's your options. Let's dive in and make something cool. Don't worry, it's easy.
Casual Player - I have this great campaign idea... you could do A,B,C... let's make a character.
Overly enthusiastic semi-armature know-it-all I appreciate your enthusiasm, this will be great. No, you can't do that, the setting is more like X,Y,Z. Here's why I constructed the rules the way I did.  if you buy in, great! Otherwise...
Experienced or serious player/GM I have a 12 pack, a new campaign idea, and a system.  Wanna go over it?

I'm a traditional style GM: I run the world and interpret the rules, players play their characters.  I am as neutral and impartial as I can be. I respect the creative ideas of my players and try to incorporate them where they fit, but PCs can only affect the world through IC PC action. .  My goal is for everyone to have fun through escapism and immersion into an imaginary world.  I don't explicitly state any of this. I don't have to.

New players will pick up my "style" in short order.  There is nothing more natural than playing a character IC in a GM controlled world. Casual players don't care as long as its fun. I have to feel out and sell the game to players who have come from other groups who believe that SW is the end all be all, or that "clerics are the best class," or whatever. Wherever they come from, they quickly adapt and learn to enjoy my style of game.  Before any campaign, I will discuss it with the grognards of the group in depth.  This isn't to appease them.  I genuinely seek their input and advice, and celebrate the launch of a new game with a meal, some cold beer, or a bottle of Jameson.

If a player doesn't already have experience playing with me, then there's:

* What they heard from whoever told them about me, or whatever I've written describing the game inviting new players.
* I'll have a conversation or email exchange with them where we both talking about our RPG experiences, interests and tastes. This is where I've seen most players who are going to have issue with my style flee.
* Then there are handouts which describe my current intro to my game, rules, and campaign setting.
* Even if they've skipped all of the above, random players who show up (e.g. someone's friend or cousin) seem to catch on well and get informed, prompted and/or corrected as need be.

What I don't do is use jargon.

I don't use the words or phrases OSR, gritty, realistic, or meta-gaming.

I'd give examples, but don't want to derail the thread.