TotallyGuy

I've been working to publish a game which uses an Approach Interaction Resolution system. What's that? It's a system where the GM thinks of a complication, something that could go wrong and selects the failure theme, and the player chooses a manner, an attitude that they undertake the task with. The pair interact a bit like rock paper scissors to resolve the test but taking into account more options, the ratings of your character's stats and character descriptors.

The amazing thing about it? You describe your action and your description resolves it. No randomness. Just a simple, brief and binding narrative.

The advancement system builds on this so that you improve the things you do and manners in which you do them. Developing your character is both surprising and totally under your control!

The game I've put out is a free zero-budget game called Mannerism and is about becoming a wizard to escape oppression.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/484010/mannerism

Has anybody else ever had people show up to your convention games expecting to be playing a completely different game based on a sloppy reading of the description?

I had a group expecting Apocalypse World because I used the word Apocalypse in the scenario name even though the game description was clearly something else.

I had someone expecting 5 Torches Deep come to a game of Torchbearer.

There was another time that GURPS Transhuman Space got mixed up with Eclipse Phase.

These sessions were by far the worst convention games I've ever been in. The players quickly disengaged, dicked about, fell asleep or left the game when it wasn't what they thought it was.

How can a GM stop this from happening? Or if it does what can you do if this is clearly happening at your table?