Two things are paramount: Actions Have Consequences and Stupidity Kills.

The only other things I may include is what point in time the game occurs (especially if in an established setting, like Star Wars) and an advisement to keep the banter at a set rating (like in movies) if we are in public, depending on what public space (a game store with little kids running around playing pokemom will be rated G or PG while a bar will be rated R or NC17).

Quote from: jeff37923;957212Two things are paramount: Actions Have Consequences and Stupidity Kills.

It's more fun if the players discover this in play.

Quote from: Headless;957189I still wonder if "the talk" does any good.  I'm sure you all have stories of players who wete suprised by your game despite telling exactly what you were going for.   Or ended up in a game that ran pretty much the oppiste of what you were lead to believe.

On the DM side. Yes because it lessesn the chance of misunderstandings and anyone who cops an attitude thereafter doesnt have any backing for it.

On the player side. That has nothing to do with "the talk" being effective or not. Thats something else like a bad DM, a confused DM, or who knows what else.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;957213It's more fun if the players discover this in play.

Not really. Some just dont know it. Or have never experienced it. And thus have no idea whats right. Its best to say this stuff up front rather than look like a total dick as you gloat about killing off PCs simply because you didnt tell the players and they are supposed to use their psychic powers to guess it.

That can and probably will leave a bad impression of that style of play if done poorly and sometimes even if done well.

By that reasoning, Game of Thrones' first episode should have begun with a disclaimer that, "main characters can die, and bad guys can win." Otherwise nobody could possibly enjoy a show like that.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;957211. . . yo.

Alizé looks vile. I'll mix you something decent.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;957223By that reasoning, Game of Thrones' first episode should have begun with a disclaimer that, "main characters can die, and bad guys can win." Otherwise nobody could possibly enjoy a show like that.

Books and shows and movies have a different level of commitment and co-operation than role playing.

I started a gaming group a year and a half ago with a mix of friends and a Meetup I started. Some of the people I'd never met, many of them are young enough that that they'd never played anything older than D&D 3.5. Many had played other games (CP2020, Unknown Armies, Fate). But few had played anything from the 70s or early 80s.

I wanted to play Lamentations of the Flame Princess (B/X D&D) and so I wanted everyone on the same page in terms of expectations of play out of the gate. (Or at least as much as I could!)

So I sent out an email nailing down what I thought they should keep in mind -- with a special focus on how the game would be much different than recent game designs. By laying down rules everyone could approach the game in the proper spirit and point of view and not become frustrated with mismatched expectations as we played. It seems to have worked. Everyone has been enthusiastically playing.

The email:

QuoteLamenations of the Flame Princess is part of the Old School Renaissance of RPGs. A clean and sleek version of the early Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, the game focuses on exploration, danger, and weird fantasy. The setting will not be Tolkien-esque, but a warped 17th century Europe where the strange and magical is rare, inexplicable, and invasive.

OSR games in general, and Lamentations of the Flame Princess specifically, work from principles that are different than a lot of game in recent decades. In general…

• The Referee has environments and situations, not a pre-planned “story” of any kind
• Players drive things forward with their choices
• The game is dangerous. The Referee is not there to kill your characters, but neither is he there to protect them. Dice are rolled out in the open. Death is part of the game. (Luckily, new characters are easy to roll up!)
• The situations you encounter are not “balanced.” You might want to avoid encounters, you might want to flee encounters, and if you choose to engage them you’ll want to have the PCs manipulate the fiction toward your advantage (Short hand: Think of conflicts as asymmetrical warfare, not as engaging in a sport.)
• In this kind of play the Referee presents the players with an environment that is as solid as possible, that would continue existing if you weren’t there.

Come to think of it, a related question might be: what do you not tell your players of your GMing style ahead of time (possibly because you don't even think of it as part of your GMing style), that they invariably figure out on their own?

In my case, it's the following: "when in Baeraad's campaigns, do not look a gift horse in the mouth. If you do, it will bite your hand off. Instead, pretend that you left something in your car and walk, don't run, away from the gift horse until you're out of sight. Then start running and don't stop until you're in the next county."

Though I maintain that this just proves that I keep ending up with especially paranoid players. Come back here, you cowards! It might not be a trap! It's not always a trap!

Quote from: Baeraad;957270Though I maintain that this just proves that I keep ending up with especially paranoid players. Come back here, you cowards! It might not be a trap! It's not always a trap!

Was it a trap?

Quote from: Headless;957273Was it a trap?

Well.... "trap" is such an ugly word. I prefer to see it as a sadly-missed opportunity for interesting complications that would have made for a really good story to tell later.

Pretty much I start with...

I am chainsaw, your referee. From now on, you will speak only when spoken to, and the first and last words out of your filthy sewers will be "Sir!" Do you maggots understand that? If you losers leave my dungeon, if you survive level one ... you will be a weapon, you will be a minister of death, praying for war. But until that day you are pukes! You're the lowest form of life. You are not even human fucking beings! You are nothing but unorganized grabasstic pieces of amphibian shit! Because I am hard, you will not like me. But the more you hate me, the more you will learn. I am hard, but I am fair! There is no racial bigotry here! I do not look down on humans, elfs, dwarfs or even halfings or gnomes. Here you are all equally worthless! And my intent is to weed out all non-hackers who do not pack the gear to survive in my beloved dungeon! Do you maggots understand that?

Quote from: RPGPundit;957056I don't really tell them anything. They learn as they go along. Though a lot of people locally are pretty aware of the types of games I run.

Same here. I used to warn new players if I was DMing DCC or Dark Sun that it would be more deadly than what they might be used to, but so far this warning has been not necessary. After 3 different groups, most are fine with it.

I tend to read the players attitudes at the table, and adapt on the fly.

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.

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?

Generally, I tell them that the campaign is open and they can take it wherever they want. Don't be afraid to try things, don't be timid and overcautious. If you want to discuss something and work out whether it is worth trying then ask me. If you try something and I think it will be difficult, then I will apply a penalty, if it is especially hard them I will say "It had better be a good one" which almost certainly guarantees a critical roll from the player. Don't worry about failure, even a failure can open doors and brings new things to the game. Everything that has gone on before can affect what happens in the future, so pay attention to what is happening and what has happened. Above all, enjoy the game.

I tell them that:

I have a sandbox campaign. There are some adventure hooks that will come to you, but don't be shy about finding your own.
The monsters will probably eat you if you don't work together.
Do not assume that the encounter is balanced just for you. Things are as they are.
You usually don't need to roll a skill check unless something else is actively opposing you.

If there is active dickery among the players, I inform the player that such things are unwelcome.