Quote from: daniel_ream;899039Once of the strengths of narrative control games, or dirty hippie storygames in general, is that since they often don't specify a setting, tone or style in favour of letting the group evolve it during play they don't have the problem of player failure to buy in to the setting, consciously or un-.

I have trouble buying into a world we all just brainstormed.

• I like to explore the setting, which isn't very interesting or mysterious if I helped create it.
• Seeing (and participating) in the making of the world is a bit like watching sausage get made. Either can spoil my appetite.
• When the world exists before I start play that makes the world feel more real to me. So co-creating the world detracts from my ability to suspend disbelief and thus my ability to buy into the world.

For the record, I was in the same boat as Bren until I tried Houses of the Blooded. It's not a perfect game, but it really clicked with my gaming group in Montreal. I think the buy-in comes from the same place as authors getting involved in their own creation, or similarly, people just daydreaming and loving it, plus the fact that others might come up with something you did not foresee.

Quote from: daniel_ream;899039I think this is predicated on everyone knowing what it is they personally want to play, which in my experience is rarely the case.  No malice or subterfuge need be intended; lots of players will say and even believe that they want to play game type X, but when they sit down to the table end up playing game type Y because that's what's actually fun for them.

Once of the strengths of narrative control games, or dirty hippie storygames in general, is that since they often don't specify a setting, tone or style in favour of letting the group evolve it during play they don't have the problem of player failure to buy in to the setting, consciously or un-.

First, I agree with your premise that people often don't know what they like. Or rather, the variation of that I find to most often be the case, gamers (at least the forum variety) are especially bad (worse than the general public) at differentiating "feature" from "benefit." They latch onto the features, thinking that's what they want, when it's really the benefit that matters.

This is key. Name any characteristic of a particular RPG you can think of. Like, does it have one player specially designated in some GM-type capacity. Yes or no? Players who tether themselves to features may insist on one or the other. Since it can't be both, they can't play together. However, a skilled communicator dealing with worthy (as in open-minded) players can get to the bottom of the benefits each seek. The game can't provide the preferred feature. But it may be able to provide each with the benefits they derive from the preferred feature.

It also helps to realize there are four levels: the stated goal of play (creative agenda), the methods for determining the best system to handle that (theory), the system itself (game), and the results the system produces (actual play). It's possible to agree on any of the four levels while disagreeing with any or all of the others. For instance, I am sympathetic to the goals of narrativist play, I just think forge theory is dead from the neck up, so "narrativist" games are actually among the very worst at delivering on the goals. But it's also possible to be in complete agreement on creative agenda, theory, and game and still not play well with one another. Ultimately, though, the only one of these four levels that really counts, where we really have to "get along" is actual play.

Is it possible to have mutually gratifying actual play while having very different ideas of what the system should be doing? Technically, yes. But it's highly unlikely. So to facilitate the only thing that actually matters, it is important to consider system. The other two levels, theory and creative agenda, are essentially meaningless. They're too far removed from actual play. So the focus needs to be on the system facilitating actual play. Not the system facilitating a creative agenda. And by facilitating actual play, I mean I don't care who you are or what kind of gamer you fancy yourself, there's some way to accommodate you. IF you are a worthy (open-minded) player.

I don't worry about whether or not the game can handle douche bags. I don't want to play with them anyway.

Lunamancer, that is a very astute analysis. What I have to say is similar.

First, I think it's odd to say that hippy games don't try to enforce tone or style since that's most often what they say on the tin, and it's what Forge theory says is necessary to prevent conflict and incoherence.

If there's ever a kind of game that leaves it up the group when it comes to setting the tone & style, its traditional games. Some indie games also do this but the mark of an indie (loosely Narrativist) approach to this is explicit mechanics for negotiating tone and style, while traditional games depend more on purely social and cultural mechanisms. And since traditional games also have a cultural tradition of the GM setting the tone, that isn't conducive to compromise. That doesn't mean it can't happen, though, either through explicit discussion or through natural social dynamics.

Obviously you can have social failure with either a domineering GM or simply one who isn't sensitive to players' interest and fun, but the mechanical approach also has problems. My experiences there have been mixed at best, with annoying descents into silliness--a "too many cooks" effect--and also sham collaboration where a GM still found ways to screw around with the player.

Lunamancer, good post.

I totally agree with the point on people getting stuck between "what they actually want" and "the things that in the past have gotten them what they want."

Probably the biggest issue I see in most cases is that people assume that the way they learned to play is the way that everyone plays, and so getting stuck into another group that plays a different way causes a break.  A good example of this might be someone that's played primarily hack'n'slash being told "oh, this game is going to focus on intrigue" and thinking that it means hack'n'slashing spies, when it actually means walking around and sneaking and talking to people.  Both are reasonable interpretations of the term, and yet they're not the same.

I normally rely on the GM to have enough experience that they're aware of the different styles of gameplay and can reasonably communicate with potential players.  So, saying "intrigue" is insufficient.  Saying "most of what you'll be doing is gathering information, talking to people, and building and betraying alliances.  I'd expect combat maybe one in four games, and even that will probably be fairly perfunctory" is a lot closer.  Giving specific examples of how situations might resolve out is a good technique, too.  "Yeah, so if you need to get into somewhere and just kill everyone?  That leaves bodies, which will raise tension, and there's a good chance you'll leave some sort of trail leading back to you - so the straightforward approach is not recommended."

Quote from: robiswrong;899485Probably the biggest issue I see in most cases is that people assume that the way they learned to play is the way that everyone plays, and so getting stuck into another group that plays a different way causes a break.  A good example of this might be someone that's played primarily hack'n'slash being told "oh, this game is going to focus on intrigue" and thinking that it means hack'n'slashing spies, when it actually means walking around and sneaking and talking to people.  Both are reasonable interpretations of the term, and yet they're not the same.

I take a bit of a different approach to this. "Communication" is all well and good. As you point out, it can be problematic, even counter-productive, when communication is done using terms like "intrigue" which can mean different things to different people. But sometimes adapting to a different play style is not just simply a matter of communicating. Sometimes it requires building a bit of a skill set. Whether your thing is hack-n-slash, role-play, problem-solving, or anything else, we do observe that some players seem to be better at it than others. So it's not just enough to be told "Oh, our style of play is thus and such." You might actually have to know how.

Obviously we're not going to be doing things like, "Hey, your campaign sounds awesome. So I'm just going to spend the next two years developing my skills to play it. Hope you're still running then." The skills have to be developed far, far in advance where it's not even possible to know what "style" of game you're going to be playing. Discussing expectations just isn't possible that far out.

So the question becomes, well how the hell can I develop a good skill set in advance if everyone plays a little differently and there's no way of knowing what to expect? And my answer to this is "meta-expectations."

Meta-expectations are expectations you SHOULD hold when you DON'T know what to expect. And this is determined by just examining what you have to lose vs gain. If your character dies randomly from an extremely unlucky roll and you didn't expect that sort of thing to be possible, for most people that's a lot worse than if you expected PC death IS possible in a campaign where it really isn't. So for those players, the meta-expectation would be "Always expect character death is possible." If having your character killed randomly is never a big deal to you, then I guess you don't have to sweat this one. As to the hack-n-slash guy in the intrigue game, if the problem there is he's stacking up corpses before the party can get any information out of the NPCs, then the meta-expectation should be, "Always expect monsters/NPCs have a purpose other than to present you with the challenge of killing them."

You can figure out meta-expectations without knowing anything about the games you will be playing in. This allows you to develop them over a long period of time so that when you do get into a new game, whether you discuss expectations or not, you can quickly adapt to the game and play it well.

Quote from: robiswrong;899485Probably the biggest issue I see in most cases is that people assume that the way they learned to play is the way that everyone plays, and so getting stuck into another group that plays a different way causes a break.  A good example of this might be someone that's played primarily hack'n'slash being told "oh, this game is going to focus on intrigue" and thinking that it means hack'n'slashing spies, when it actually means walking around and sneaking and talking to people.  Both are reasonable interpretations of the term, and yet they're not the same.

I normally rely on the GM to have enough experience that they're aware of the different styles of gameplay and can reasonably communicate with potential players.  So, saying "intrigue" is insufficient.  Saying "most of what you'll be doing is gathering information, talking to people, and building and betraying alliances.  I'd expect combat maybe one in four games, and even that will probably be fairly perfunctory" is a lot closer.  Giving specific examples of how situations might resolve out is a good technique, too.  "Yeah, so if you need to get into somewhere and just kill everyone?  That leaves bodies, which will raise tension, and there's a good chance you'll leave some sort of trail leading back to you - so the straightforward approach is not recommended."

Great post.

Quote from: robiswrong;899485I normally rely on the GM to have enough experience that they're aware of the different styles of gameplay and can reasonably communicate with potential players.  So, saying "intrigue" is insufficient.  Saying "most of what you'll be doing is gathering information, talking to people, and building and betraying alliances.  I'd expect combat maybe one in four games, and even that will probably be fairly perfunctory" is a lot closer.  Giving specific examples of how situations might resolve out is a good technique, too.  "Yeah, so if you need to get into somewhere and just kill everyone?  That leaves bodies, which will raise tension, and there's a good chance you'll leave some sort of trail leading back to you - so the straightforward approach is not recommended."

I realize that this is just an example, but as a GM, what game are you running when you tell the players "most of what you'll be doing is gathering information, talking to people, and building and betraying alliances.  I'd expect combat maybe one in four games, and even that will probably be fairly perfunctory"?  A deep cover spy game like "The Americans" or perhaps playing lords at the court of Henry VIII?

That example you gave seems awfully specific.  Combat always depends on what the PCs decide to do.  WFRP is famous for players plying the waterways of the Empire as merchants, and spies might decide to take it upon themselves to eliminate a target rather than calling for a wetworker.  Level of combat is always up to the players, even in B2.  Setting expectations to a degree you're talking about (like "perfunctory" combat every 1 in 4 games) is counterproductive I think.  You have a combat two sessions in a row, due to player's own actions and BOOM! you've broken the social contract.  I think players who are so uptight they need that specific a setting of expectations are exactly the kind of players that are going to call you on it.

Quote from: robiswrong;899485"Yeah, so if you need to get into somewhere and just kill everyone?  That leaves bodies, which will raise tension, and there's a good chance you'll leave some sort of trail leading back to you - so the straightforward approach is not recommended."

A player I actually have to tell this to (unless they are literally a child) is most likely not a player worth having.

Quote from: CRKrueger;899541I realize that this is just an example, but as a GM, what game are you running when you tell the players "most of what you'll be doing is gathering information, talking to people, and building and betraying alliances.  I'd expect combat maybe one in four games, and even that will probably be fairly perfunctory"?  A deep cover spy game like "The Americans" or perhaps playing lords at the court of Henry VIII?

Gee, maybe in a real conversation I'd cover that first, as opposed to an example for a BBS?

Quote from: CRKrueger;899541That example you gave seems awfully specific.  Combat always depends on what the PCs decide to do.  WFRP is famous for players plying the waterways of the Empire as merchants, and spies might decide to take it upon themselves to eliminate a target rather than calling for a wetworker.  Level of combat is always up to the players, even in B2.  Setting expectations to a degree you're talking about (like "perfunctory" combat every 1 in 4 games) is counterproductive I think.  You have a combat two sessions in a row, due to player's own actions and BOOM! you've broken the social contract.  I think players who are so uptight they need that specific a setting of expectations are exactly the kind of players that are going to call you on it.

Oh, come on, you're just looking for things to be contrary about.  Yes, things will happen based on the actions of the PCs, and yes, there will be variances from whatever is stated.  The point is to get an understanding of the ballpark of the style of the game.  No more, no less.

Quote from: CRKrueger;899541A player I actually have to tell this to (unless they are literally a child) is most likely not a player worth having.

Or is expecting a more action-oriented game.

Quote from: robiswrong;899550Gee, maybe in a real conversation I'd cover that first, as opposed to an example for a BBS?
Oh, come on, you're just looking for things to be contrary about.  Yes, things will happen based on the actions of the PCs, and yes, there will be variances from whatever is stated.  The point is to get an understanding of the ballpark of the style of the game.  No more, no less.

Well, I can't comment on what you're actually going to say, I can comment on the example...and that's the problem with this whole "setting expectations" stuff you see slathered everywhere online.  It's all the social equivalent of White Room Bullshit.  It's things taken to the extreme on both sides.  Online it comes off like if we aren't all hand in hand skipping down a very narrow Yellow Brick Road then the players are "Fuck this, I'm out!".

Quote from: robiswrong;899550Or is expecting a more action-oriented game.

"Action-Oriented", now, means leaving bodies every where you go won't have any consequences?  Forget Four-Color, that's One-Color.

I don't mean to come at you specifically Rob, but most examples run this way - far too simplistic, far too strict and narrow, far too specifically detailed, ie. not what I think anyone might say outside of a very small but vocal Indie crowd.

Now granted, I come from a very IC, non-story based perspective.  If you are playing a system with more OOC control, and players have more decisions to make then just character action, then now you're dealing with creating story, so everyone being on the same page as far as what story we're making, what the boundaries are, etc. can be a lot more important than a game in which the world is the world and things that can happen...may happen, so take steps to make sure they don't.

So, lemme tell you a story.

I have a friend.  He's still a friend.  We talked about running a game in a shared world.  We talked about freedom of player choice, about actual lethality, integrity of the game world, etc.  About what old-school meant.  About the twin evils of Drizzt and DragonLance.

When we sat down to play?  He railroaded the shit out of everything.  Denied it too, using every illusionism trick in the book.  When I ran a game?  He was pissed that he wasn't getting his levels and loot because we went through a tourney and his character decided not to enter, even though the party could have done totally different stuff.

Nasty emails flew, insulting each other, accusing each other of wasting time, etc.

Now, that's two guys coming from reasonably similar backgrounds, using the same words, and still completely fucking misunderstanding each other.  In the context of D&D.

This has nothing to do with Forge bullshit.  This has to do with people having very different ideas of what a game is about, and getting pissed when those expectations aren't met.

So, how do you solve that problem, without discussing it, and fairly explicitly?

Are my examples simplistic?  Yeah.  Because I'm writing a forum post and expect people to apply a little "most reasonble interpretation" and not just assume the worst, because we're not face-to-face and so don't have the ability to iterate rapidly on our meaning.  If we were face-to-face, I'd say something, you'd go "whoa there, you can't mean X?" and I'd respond "no, that would be dumb."  But we're not face-to-face, so a little bias towards the reasonable interpretation goes a long, long way.

I'm not going to write five pages just to make sure someone doesn't find a way to take my post the wrong way, because guess what?  If someone wants to, they will no matter what.

Real life examples are helpful, though.

Quote from: robiswrong;899576Are my examples simplistic?  Yeah.  Because I'm writing a forum post and expect people to apply a little "most reasonble interpretation" and not just assume the worst, because we're not face-to-face and so don't have the ability to iterate rapidly on our meaning.  If we were face-to-face, I'd say something, you'd go "whoa there, you can't mean X?" and I'd respond "no, that would be dumb."  But we're not face-to-face, so a little bias towards the reasonable interpretation goes a long, long way.

Amen to that.

Here's the thing, in an effort to appear "smart" or "right", some people--extremely common on forums--set their focus to finding errors and in so doing they are not focused on comprehending meaning. Of course, without correctly comprehending meaning, it's impossible to accurately evaluate whether or not something is an error. They find things they believe are errors that are truly not. And, of course, any attempt to correct them is fruitless on two counts; one, they're not in a place where they can understand the clarification anyway; two, since they are focused on finding fault, they merely parse your explanation as your inability to admit when you're wrong.

You can't reason with them. And it's sad because they may just have one or two great ideas that are lost to their lack of basic manners. You've got three options. Out them. Ignore them. Or use them as objects for your entertainment.

QuoteSo, lemme tell you a story.

I have a friend.  He's still a friend.  We talked about running a game in a shared world.  We talked about freedom of player choice, about actual lethality, integrity of the game world, etc.  About what old-school meant.  About the twin evils of Drizzt and DragonLance.

When we sat down to play?  He railroaded the shit out of everything.  Denied it too, using every illusionism trick in the book.  When I ran a game?  He was pissed that he wasn't getting his levels and loot because we went through a tourney and his character decided not to enter, even though the party could have done totally different stuff.

I could tell you a similar story of about 5 years ago when my cousin had landed a great job that he had to move for, and I had a good job and was looking to upgrade to a nicer apartment, so we decided to go in together to get a really nice apartment and be able to bank mad money at the same time. We discussed the sort of things we wanted and were on the same page about everything. It was a long search, but we finally found the perfect place. A large apartment, good wiring, high ceilings, appliances included, efficient heating, you name it. And then within a year and a half he had managed to turn the place into a shit hole. And he lost his job.

My take on it? It's not that we were misunderstanding each other despite having grown up in the same family, using the same words, and discussing things. It's that he was just telling me what I wanted to hear so I'd go in on the apartment with him, because he wanted to live like a big shot but he knew he couldn't balance out the responsibilities that come with it. He literally ordered out for lunch every day. And our doorstep was an endless stream of Amazon deliveries. Which, of course, he ran out of space to put things. He bought a pet which he neither house trained nor adequately cared for, and it was a pet particularly destructive to nice apartments. We'd discussed that, too, about getting this pet, and after I'd done my research I was against the idea. He went out one day and just came home with it anyway. He got to post pictures of it on social media. Who cares if it chewed the furniture? He'd already taken pictures of the really nice furniture we'd gotten and posted them on social media.

So my question is, could it be a similar thing here?

Maybe he wanted the kind of campaign the two of you discussed but he lacked the ability to pull it together. Maybe he lacked the skills as a GM to actually be prepared without knowing what the players would do, and wasn't very good at improvising when they threw him curve balls. So he resorted to railroading, and then to illusionism and denial to cover up his incompetence. Likewise, maybe he lacked skills as a player to earn the XP and treasure at a rate to keep pace with the rest of the group, and maybe he was insecure about that. I'd imagine if that was the case, he might still not be ready to admit it.

QuoteSo, how do you solve that problem, without discussing it, and fairly explicitly?

Three important things here:

1) What if, as in my story and quite possibly yours, it was never a communication problem to begin with? What if it was something else? What if it's a matter of lack of know-how?

2) Just as people on a message forum can find some way to misunderstand you know matter how carefully you word things, so too can gamers at the table. So whereas #1 I'm saying "It's a skill problem, not a communication problem," here I'm saying, "It's a problem of intentions, not a communication problem."

3) Maybe it is a communication problem. But, just like you correctly observe, a little bit of communication leaves open the possibility for massive misunderstanding on the details. And as maybe CRKreuger's point is that adding more communication still leaves room for vagueries. Actually, I indeed posed this theory months ago on this site, was derided for it, only now to have seen example after example of people posting problems that fit the exact form I predicted. Still, no retraction from the "talk it over" cult.

The point is this: there ARE ways to communicate other than words. Like actions or choices. And they communicate important information that we often don't think about. I could listen to a former co-worker talk 'til he's blue in the face how we gotta vote for the right people, for someone who actually cares about helping the poor. But when it comes right down to it, he won't buy a homeless man a sandwich out of his own pocket. Yeah, he cares about poverty. Right up to the point where it costs him 5 bucks. If you listen to his words, poverty is a very important issue. If you listen to his actions, it's less important than his Netflix subscription.

Your above friend? Maybe he wanted to run an old-school game. But not bad enough to want to cede his own control over to respecting player choices.

Quote from: Lunamancer;899605I could tell you a similar story of about 5 years ago when my cousin had landed a great job that he had to move for, and I had a good job and was looking to upgrade to a nicer apartment, so we decided to go in together to get a really nice apartment and be able to bank mad money at the same time. We discussed the sort of things we wanted and were on the same page about everything. It was a long search, but we finally found the perfect place. A large apartment, good wiring, high ceilings, appliances included, efficient heating, you name it. And then within a year and a half he had managed to turn the place into a shit hole. And he lost his job.

My take on it? It's not that we were misunderstanding each other despite having grown up in the same family, using the same words, and discussing things. It's that he was just telling me what I wanted to hear so I'd go in on the apartment with him, because he wanted to live like a big shot but he knew he couldn't balance out the responsibilities that come with it. He literally ordered out for lunch every day. And our doorstep was an endless stream of Amazon deliveries. Which, of course, he ran out of space to put things. He bought a pet which he neither house trained nor adequately cared for, and it was a pet particularly destructive to nice apartments. We'd discussed that, too, about getting this pet, and after I'd done my research I was against the idea. He went out one day and just came home with it anyway. He got to post pictures of it on social media. Who cares if it chewed the furniture? He'd already taken pictures of the really nice furniture we'd gotten and posted them on social media.

So my question is, could it be a similar thing here?

My ex-wife had Borderline Personality Disorder.  I'm very, *very* familiar with this type of behavior.

It's possible, of course.  But I think that's also why it's important to make sure there is clear communication about expectations - that way, you can start to tell when you're dealing with this situation and not simply miscommunication.

In cases like you're describing, to me it's about setting expectations (which was done), then delineating clear consequences for behavior, and then enforcing those consequences.  As soon as he had bought the pet, I'd have been relatively quick to exit.  Not because of the animal, but because of the way he went about it.

Quote from: Lunamancer;899605Maybe he wanted the kind of campaign the two of you discussed but he lacked the ability to pull it together. Maybe he lacked the skills as a GM to actually be prepared without knowing what the players would do, and wasn't very good at improvising when they threw him curve balls. So he resorted to railroading, and then to illusionism and denial to cover up his incompetence.

So, what should be done in this case?  Personally, when dealing with the types of personality issues I've found above, the only thing I've found to work is to set and enforce fairly rigid boundaries, or to just avoid either the person or the problem areas.

Quote from: Lunamancer;899605Likewise, maybe he lacked skills as a player to earn the XP and treasure at a rate to keep pace with the rest of the group, and maybe he was insecure about that. I'd imagine if that was the case, he might still not be ready to admit it.

Nah, nobody really got much xp/treasure that day, if any.  He's very much in the "gimme levels and lewt" mode of gameplay - won't play a video game if he can't get all the achievements, can't play MMOs because the lure of More Achievement is always there, etc.

Quote from: Lunamancer;899605Three important things here:

1) What if, as in my story and quite possibly yours, it was never a communication problem to begin with? What if it was something else? What if it's a matter of lack of know-how?

Then figure that out, and either decide if you're going to assist them, or bail out.  But I think you have to have clear communication to even detect that.

Quote from: Lunamancer;8996052) Just as people on a message forum can find some way to misunderstand you know matter how carefully you word things, so too can gamers at the table. So whereas #1 I'm saying "It's a skill problem, not a communication problem," here I'm saying, "It's a problem of intentions, not a communication problem."

Sure, and in cases where it's truly an intention problem, *run like hell*.

(I may be biased)

Quote from: Lunamancer;8996053) Maybe it is a communication problem. But, just like you correctly observe, a little bit of communication leaves open the possibility for massive misunderstanding on the details. And as maybe CRKreuger's point is that adding more communication still leaves room for vagueries. Actually, I indeed posed this theory months ago on this site, was derided for it, only now to have seen example after example of people posting problems that fit the exact form I predicted. Still, no retraction from the "talk it over" cult.

I think 'cult' is unnecessary?

More communication is not necessarily better.  The *right* communication is.  I've found that *specific examples* are a much better way of communicating than generalized statements.  "Old-school" means *nothing*.  "Each session will be a delve into the megadungeon near the characters' town.  Each session will end when they return.  Players may have multiple characters.  You'll decide which characters you're playing when people show up.  PC death should be expected, but can be avoided through good play."  That's imperfect, but it has a lot more information in it than "old-school".

Quote from: Lunamancer;899605The point is this: there ARE ways to communicate other than words. Like actions or choices. And they communicate important information that we often don't think about. I could listen to a former co-worker talk 'til he's blue in the face how we gotta vote for the right people, for someone who actually cares about helping the poor. But when it comes right down to it, he won't buy a homeless man a sandwich out of his own pocket. Yeah, he cares about poverty. Right up to the point where it costs him 5 bucks. If you listen to his words, poverty is a very important issue. If you listen to his actions, it's less important than his Netflix subscription.

Absolutely.  I couldn't agree with you more.

But in the context of starting a game and getting on the same page, *what do you propose* that's better?  If you're saying that no amount of talking can prevent miscommunication or misalignment of expectations, then I utterly agree.  But it seems like a good starting place.  And then watch what people actually do, and when it's obvious there's a misalignment, again, figure out what the issue is.  Whether that's by talking, or observation, or (probably) a combination of the above.

Quote from: Lunamancer;899605Your above friend? Maybe he wanted to run an old-school game. But not bad enough to want to cede his own control over to respecting player choices.

This is, of course, possible.  But frankly at that point he should simply be honest about things.  If he can't, then there's clearly some weird stuff going on.

Quote from: robiswrong;899611I think 'cult' is unnecessary?

Not 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.

As 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."  Maybe if you handed him out a interview sheet with 20 aspects of roleplaying and had him rank them 1-10.  But instead of the gaming version of the MMPI, I just play a game.

When I have a bunch of new players, or we're trying a new game, there's always a "shakedown tour".  The first session is something light and fun, trying to highlight the basic areas of the system, so maybe a break-in/heist, or a bar brawl/city chase, A Rough Night at the Four Feathers kind of thing.  Dropping them In Media Res also works, then it takes the pressure off the whole "meet-up" thing.  It will be dangerous, but not Blow Up the Death Star dangerous.

After that first game, we'll all know each other a lot better.  They'll know how I GM, not how I say I GM, and I'll know how they play, not how they say they play.  They may find out that things not on their Player's Rider are actually fun.  In any case, if someone blows their top over death, can't stand talking to NPCs, hates combat, can't sit still if they're not in the spotlight, or anything else that really has little to do with expectations other than "I expect to be a useless shitbag of a player and for everyone to take it." it will show up.

I basically do High Concept then Elevator Pitch versions of my setting, system, table.  That's it.  If they ask specific things about the system, I tell them, but if they ask things like "What's the combat level going to be?" or "Is there going to be a lot of talking and social interaction?"  I just say "That's up to you, not me."  Scheme for the crown, be a bandit, open a brothel, spend all your time exploring, whatever the players want to do, they'll do, within the limits of the reality of the setting.  Sure I may have some structure in mind, if so, that's all in the Elevator Pitch, which takes a couple minutes.

So 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.