Quote from: CRKrueger;899642In what talk is someone going to say "I'm an action junkie who can't sit still for an hour without bloodshed, I only play at Action Hero level, I expect to win and have phat loots."  [...]
But no amount of talk has showed me how someone is going to play live, at the table. Ever.

This, this, a million times this. As (I think) I mentioned upthread, people lie about what they want, whether out of embarassment, malice or lack of self-awareness.

Quote from: CRKrueger;899642Not really, the whole "talk it out" thing is ridiculously overblown practically to the level of submitting a business plan to investors.  Too much of a good thing.

Talking doesn't solve everything. But not talking doesn't solve anything. It's just, not doing something.

There are three reasons people don't do what you want them to do.

1. They don't know what you want.
2. They don't know how to do what you want.
3. They don't want to do what you want.

• Talking can fix #1. It doesn't always fix it, but talking usually works better and faster than charades or the other person just guessing about what it is you want.

• Just talking to people can't fix #2. You can talk about what you want all day long. If the other person doesn't know how to do what you want, talking about what you want is unproductive. You may both agree that they should do that thing, but if they aren't a skilled brain surgeon, talking about what sort of surgery you need, want, expect isn't going to get the job done. Not knowing how to do stuff is fixed by training/learning. Of course training often involves some talking.

• As a first step, talking can help to figure out that the problem isn't #1 or #2, and thus by elimination, it is #3. Once you know the problem is #3, you can stop wasting your time and effort explaining what you want or training the person in how to do what you want. You might try talking to negotiate with the other person to get them to want to do what you want. Often in return for them getting something they want from you. Sometimes that works. If it doesn’t, then your best alternative is either to accept the other person is going to keep not doing what you want (i.e. you decide you’ll put up with them as they are) or you find someone else who wants to do what you want.

Quote from: CRKrueger;899642So basically it's like everything else.  A good idea to have some form of pre-game discussion, but online it becomes the extreme of no talking (which never happens) or the required mandatory Social Contract that not having is the source of all bad gaming.

But no amount of talk has showed me how someone is going to play live, at the table. Ever.

Yeah, I find people that actually write out their "social contracts" to be rather silly, personally.

And all of the things you're talking about doing are good things, to me.  So is talking.

My bigger point is that saying something like "old school" is often worse than saying *nothing*, because it means very different things to different people, and so can set expectations where they shouldn't be set.

Quote from: CRKrueger;899642Not really, the whole "talk it out" thing is ridiculously overblown practically to the level of submitting a business plan to investors.  Too much of a good thing.

And, again, you're assuming I'm talking about taking it to that level.  I'm not.

Quote from: CRKrueger;899642As far as your friend goes, was that expectations?  Sounds like your friend was simply a bad GM, I mean whose expectations would have matched that game?  Also sounds like he's just not into roleplaying, he wants to Diablo all over the place with dice.  In what talk is someone going to say "I'm an action junkie who can't sit still for an hour without bloodshed, I only play at Action Hero level, I expect to win and have phat loots."

Nobody will ever say that, because it's a horribly insulting way of putting that.  They might talk about how they like epic fights, they might talk about how much they like having 'epic' fights, or different types of monsters, or being heroic, or whatever.

Quote from: Bren;899670Talking doesn't solve everything. But not talking doesn't solve anything. It's just, not doing something.

There are three reasons people don't do what you want them to do.

1. They don't know what you want.
2. They don't know how to do what you want.
3. They don't want to do what you want.

This is a good breakdown to me.

I think talking is generally *necessary*, however it's usually not *sufficient*.  So, no, I don't think that talking alone will solve all of society's ills.  But it's a good place to start.

Quote from: robiswrong;899673Yeah, I find people that actually write out their "social contracts" to be rather silly, personally.

And all of the things you're talking about doing are good things, to me.  So is talking.

My bigger point is that saying something like "old school" is often worse than saying *nothing*, because it means very different things to different people, and so can set expectations where they shouldn't be set.

Exactly. Some terms set different, often clashing expectations without further resolution. "Supers" and "Pulp" for example. I do like to discuss tone and mood among other things though. Its gives players both an idea of what to expect and how to design their characters mechanically and fluffwise.

QuoteThis is a good breakdown to me.

I think talking is generally *necessary*, however it's usually not *sufficient*.  So, no, I don't think that talking alone will solve all of society's ills.  But it's a good place to start.

Even if no battle plan survives contact with the enemy intact its probably not better to have no plan at all.

The funny part is that I've been equally slammed on other boards for stating that you should watch people and observe them in play to figure out what they really want.

Quote from: Nexus;899674Exactly. Some terms set different, often clashing expectations without further resolution. "Supers" and "Pulp" for example. I do like to discuss tone and mood among other things though. Its gives players both an idea of what to expect and how to design their characters mechanically and fluffwise.

Dear god, "pulp" and its opposite "gritty".  Ugh.  I hate those terms.  Soooooo much - and for exactly that reason.  People think they're actually saying something when they say they like "pulpy" or "gritty", but they're not, because you have to figure out what they mean by those terms.  You cut out *some* of the problem space, but not much.

Supers isn't quite as bad, because most supers fans are into the genre enough that they can talk about 'street level' or 'four color' or 'silver age' and have at least a reasonably consistent idea of what that means.

Quote from: robiswrong;899677Supers isn't quite as bad, because most supers fans are into the genre enough that they can talk about 'street level' or 'four color' or 'silver age' and have at least a reasonably consistent idea of what that means.

I was more referring to people that just say its a "supers" game which can mean anything from Superfriends to The Authority and then some. Even quantifiers like Street Level merit some additional discussion: Batman, Daredevil and The Punisher are all street level but have some very different aspects. I've run allot of supers game and really learned this the hard way.

I am not sure I get the distinction either. Some people seem to think FATE is the story game around. It has some minor elements of a story game, I think, but it is fairly traditional overall.

RPGs consist of a bit of a mix of factors. The most basic thing is some sort of task resolution system (or systems) so that PCs can interact with the world in a way that hopefully makes sense. On top of that, many RPGs introduce war-game like rules to handle combat, which often is a bit more complex than normal actions (though some games authors might disagree). There are also some that include features from other types of games, such as including rules on how your estate is doing over the next few months of buying and selling land and goods etc (some of these rules resemble Monopoly more than war games). Some RPGs also include ways for the players (not just the GM) to shape the world around them, beyond what the characters could do, and I suspect that these are what most people call "story games" or narrativist games.

And, if you ask me, it's all cool. Houses of the Blooded is probably the most far out there game I have tried, with rules covering most of the above (except not resembling war games very much), and it is a great game. On the other hand many games have little beyond a task resolution system, where few GMs feel the need to use miniatures and boards, and I have had great fun with that too when it is done well (BRP comes pretty close to this ideal, though I know some people use it with some wargame features added).

Quote from: CRKrueger;899642But no amount of talk has showed me how someone is going to play live, at the table. Ever.

Same. But I have found that explaining the campaign and the tone I as the DM am aiming for tends to weed out a few problems right out the gate. Like the pitch just doesnt interest the player and they decline. Or in making the pitch, they sound interested. But their commentary sets off the little warning bells. I also like to ask players what styles of play they are used to. Things they expect.

After that its a matter of learning if a players style or table personality meshes. And whoooeee have I had some NOT mesh types. Partially because apparently several of the local DMs are of the bad sort and its ingrained in the players certain negative traits or outlooks.

But before session talk helps. Its not the cure-all some tout it to be. But its pretty much a must have to at least communicate to the player what game is being played, what setting, scope, my particular style, etc.

Example: I warn players that I tend to run D&D with "Raise Dead" type recovery few and far between. Or at least requiring effort to pull off. Some players really dont like that and want a raise temple in every town.

Quote from: Trond;899727I am not sure I get the distinction either. Some people seem to think FATE is the story game around. It has some minor elements of a story game, I think, but it is fairly traditional overall.

I allways wondered about that too.

I think the FATE series of games have simply replaced the WoD games as those most often read and talked about online by people who have never played.

Quote from: TristramEvans;899734I think the FATE series of games have simply replaced the WoD games as those most often read and talked about online by people who have never played.

Nah, that honor goes to Burning Wheel.  I can't tell you how many Burning Wheel "fans" I know that have never played it.

Quote from: Trond;899727I am not sure I get the distinction either. Some people seem to think FATE is the story game around. It has some minor elements of a story game, I think, but it is fairly traditional overall.

RPGs consist of a bit of a mix of factors. The most basic thing is some sort of task resolution system (or systems) so that PCs can interact with the world in a way that hopefully makes sense. On top of that, many RPGs introduce war-game like rules to handle combat, which often is a bit more complex than normal actions (though some games authors might disagree). There are also some that include features from other types of games, such as including rules on how your estate is doing over the next few months of buying and selling land and goods etc (some of these rules resemble Monopoly more than war games). Some RPGs also include ways for the players (not just the GM) to shape the world around them, beyond what the characters could do, and I suspect that these are what most people call "story games" or narrativist games.

And, if you ask me, it's all cool. Houses of the Blooded is probably the most far out there game I have tried, with rules covering most of the above (except not resembling war games very much), and it is a great game. On the other hand many games have little beyond a task resolution system, where few GMs feel the need to use miniatures and boards, and I have had great fun with that too when it is done well (BRP comes pretty close to this ideal, though I know some people use it with some wargame features added).

I think the difference isn't so much a distinct bright line as a spectrum were most games and most people preferences lay somewhere between the two extremes.

Quote from: Nexus;899763I think the difference is as much a distinct bright line as a spectrum were most games and most people preferences lay somewhere between the two extremes.

Sure. But either way it's cool to try things on the extremes. Some people might find that they like "story games", AND "old school". There are others who seem to think that if they do try story games or whatever, then they have joined some sort of brain washed cult

Quote from: Trond;899769Sure. But either way it's cool to try things on the extremes. Some people might find that they like "story games", AND "old school". There are others who seem to think that if they do try story games or whatever, then they have joined some sort of brain washed cult

Some of the narrative games operate fairly differently, to the point where it's very jarring for someone used to more traditional systems.  Like getting into a car and realizing that the gas pedal is on the stereo knobs and the brake is the steering wheel.  That can cause quite a bit of backlash.

I went through that a bunch myself.

Quote from: Trond;899769Sure. But either way it's cool to try things on the extremes. Some people might find that they like "story games", AND "old school". There are others who seem to think that if they do try story games or whatever, then they have joined some sort of brain washed cult

I don't have a problem with people liking whatever they want and I've tried some so called "Story games" (occasionally unknowingly as I found out there were story games later). I've said before I don't get the intense hostility that seems directed at the "other side" before. Try whatever interests you.