Expectations unstated or out of sync are rarely going to be satisfied.

When I sat down this summer to try a new system as a player, I thought I'd internalized the system differences and type of game the gamemaster was going for. I believed I was ready for that difference. It didn't take long for me to find friction between myself, the system, and the game the GM wanted. I found myself feeling like our customization options had been stripped away and I disliked the limited ways I could influence the fiction mechanically. I should have foreseen it; it's not the first time I've tried a game where you expressly start at effectively 'Level 0' and I didn't like it last time either.

The gamemaster was 'game' to hear my feedback on mechanics, we sorted through some misunderstandings on both sides and even made some changes specifically designed to give us ways to interact with parts of the system that weren't really interact-with-able otherwise.

Ultimately, when - for the second session in a row - my character went down in a single attack from a single bad guy and was destined to spend the next 24 in-game hours unconscious due to the 'gritty' style, I was ready to leave. Mid game.

I ended up finishing that session after the GM realized a mistake on his end (using an ability a second time in a round when it should be limited). We talked offline over the next couple weeks and met in person to chat. Ultimately it was my position - and he consented - that I should leave the game. I felt like I was a net-negative to the table based on my experiences and friction with the rules, and I don't want to be that.

I don't want my future Draw Steel! table to have the same experience—especially when I'm the one at the helm.

Draw Steel! Tactical Heroic Cinematic Fantasy

One thing I've always loved about Matt Colville's perspective on TTRPGs and rules is his focus on what things are about. I think the moment his YouTube channel went from Great to Epic was this video from Nov 8, 2022:

The very first thing he says is: "What, if anything, is Dungeons and Dragons about? And how is it about it?" It wasn't new for him to talk about, but it was a clarity of the thesis I loved. If you've listened to his videos you probably know some of what he thinks is the answer.

One of those bits is (summarizing heavily) that a major weakness of D&D is that it isn't about anything! Over time and in an effort to please many people, it has become this generic, default, placeholder game. People will say 'you can do anything in this system!' but as Matt points out - the system doesn't help you do any of those things.

It's also beholden to the history of D&D in a way that kneecaps it badly. He holds up the list of equipment from the PHB and asks what it's for? Who has actually used it?

I haven't been playing as long as Matt, but I felt this take in my bones. 'Back in the day' the game played differently. You needed that hand mirror to look around corners and fight medusas. You needed a 10 foot pole to search for traps in the floor and vault over gaps. The game at that time was more about those things. That isn't true of the modern game, but if they remove the table, people will get angry.

So when MCDM announced they were working on their (at the time unnnamed) new game, I was excited. Matt was going to take all this wisdom and experience, and make a game that was about something, with mechanics to make it about that thing.

They landed on these 4 topline descriptors, which they announced early on and which are intact, on the lovely covers of the books I received yesterday:

Needless to say, that means Step One (or more than one) of readying my players actually comes from Matt and the MCDM team directly. I'll have my players start here:

(Aside - another thing I love about Matt/MCDM that's apparent in that video and in the Draw Steel! books is that they will happy recommend other games that are about other things. They are not trying to be everything for everyone. That means it won't be for some people! And that's OK.)

The Field of Dreams strategy

If I wanted to outline things that Draw Steel! isn't, I could spend time on that - but I don't think that's the right way overall. Rather, I think we need two things:

1. See the above, on what this game is about.
2. This isn't D&D with a moustache.

My simple theory is that with the excellent MCDM resources focused on what the game is about and a strong emphasis not to import assumptions from D&D, I think we can build it, and the players will come.

My Job is to Deliver on the Promise

For that theory to work, we have to build it. A few videos beforehand isn't enough. I need to ensure that the game - from the get-go - focuses on those 4 key elements, underlining them. That way, when a mechanic seems odd to the players, instead of feeling totally disconnected from it, they can pin it to the core assumptions and see how it makes the game about that.

Acknowledging Failure

Despite all this planning and idealism, I'm well aware this might not work. Getting everyone on the same page is hard. From my own recent experience, I know it's easy to think you're ready for something different, and then find the difference between what you wanted or expected and what you got too disparate to reconcile.

So, the last thing I will make clear to my players is that we're trying something new, and its 100% OK if they decide - at any point - that it isn't for them. Hopefully we don't need to do that.

I'm appreciative for the gamemaster in my failed attempt at playing in a new system, who is a good friend. We could sit down and talk honestly about who expected what, whether there was a way to reconcile it or not. It wasn't about ego or being right. It was sad to leave that game, but what I've learned is that - especially for a new game that is expressly about something - that must be made as transparent and forward as possible from the get-go, so players can make the best decision they can as to whether it's the game for them.