The Assumption of Shared Assumptions

Note: I don't have any solutions here. I'm just riffing and maybe someone else can help fill in the blanks with some wisdom.

Like this, but with more flopping

Making Assumptions

When you put together a new ad hoc gaming group, nobody has any idea what the tone of the game will be. Maybe not even the Ref knows.

 Tone

Will it be high fantasy, like gonzo Planescape or the excesses of late second edition? Will it be dreadfully bare like the games we grognards often imagine to each other? Even if the Ref knows, nobody else does. But each person will have an expectation.

Cooperation

What level of treachery both in the party and against the party should players expect? Most of the time we try to be good to each other and expect the good guys to be good and bad guys to be bad. We expect it to look like Westerns on TV even. But not everyone wants this or expects it. One of the ways a self-directed player might shake things up is to play power politics when it comes to his goals.  In Mystara, the designers make it clear that everyone in Thyatis is out for himself, and woe to the player who doesn't protect his character like-ways! Gary himself delighted in offering his players bargains secretly weighted in favor of the NPCs and the Fates. These are called Gygaxian Bargains!

The Gods

What about piety? How powerful are the gods, how close to Men are they, what effects do they have upon the Realm, and how serious do the players have to take religion? Religion is out of vogue in the OSR right now. You can see this when people eschew Clerics or treat them like alternate Wizard types.  It's a way to bury difficult decisions about a topic that can cause hurt feelings and confusion. But guess what? Almost everything in D&D can cause hurt feelings and confusion! Some folks will want to play deeply and specifically religious characters. Some refs will have deeply religious countries or worlds. The central conflict of the Realm and its enemies might be of a religious nature. What then?

When it comes to tone, treachery, piety, and other assumptions, people don't even know what they don't know. They make assumptions about what the game will be like, just assume the other players are making similar assumptions to theirs. Do you ever stop to think about such things?

At the Table

When these questions are philosophical and hypothetical in nature, the right answer is, "Do it the way you want it." But when it comes to table time, it's so important for everyone to get on the same page. And the best way to get on the same page is to have a dialogue about what everyone expects from the game long before it starts. That's not always feasible. In fact, it's almost never feasible.

Usually we plonk down and play and learn about the game while we begin to learn about each other. That's really hard. But it should not preclude talking and sharing as the campaign goes along.

One of the things that a really prepared Ref does (maybe over-prepared?) is he has a well thought out one page handout explaining his expectations about the game world and tone. Or he has a link to a wiki or a blog post or an email blast. Whatever. This is a one-way communication. It's better than nothing but a dialogue is probably better.

Away From the Table

Since everyone has a smart phone or email, I think it's a really good idea for everyone to give the Ref his own contact info, and then the Ref can share that out to everyone. That way any group of the players can talk to each other away from the table to solve any issues or scheme together or whatever they want.  This is a necessity in a West Marches game, but it should be considered important to any gaming group!

So this post, it hasn't ended as much as it's run out of steam. It's a bunch of ideas I'm thinking about and maybe you have thought about too. What have you got to say in response?