I drafted the questionnaire below in 2006 when on the verge of launching a new campaign. I continue to use this as a filter for finding players whose tastes and expectations match what I feel I am best at providing.
Note that I don't think there are any "right or wrong" answers; I simply know what sort of game I am best at running, and making sure that all the players have similar expectations is essential to prevent the game from morphing into some format or style that no one enjoys.
Examples, clarifications, or my personal suggestions that are not part of the questionnaire are formatted in yellow. For the impatient, a cleaned copy of the questionnaire without my comments can be found at the tl;dr below.
Feel free to use as is or adapt to your game and taste.
How would you prefer to handle narrative portions of the campaign?
1. I would like to cover them during the game session.
2. I would prefer to have them covered outside the session with input via email, etc.
3. I would prefer to have them covered outside the session without the players' input.
An example of a "narrative portion" would be: the party has just finished a successful dungeon delve and have arrived safely back at their base village as the game session ends.
Some prefer to submit a list of equipment to purchase for the next delve (either right then and there, or submit via email in a day or so) and have the referee handle the logistics of making purchases, dividing loot, and summarizing interactions so that the group is "ready to roll" when the next game starts.
Others may break for the night with the caller declaring "Ogre-Bane and Genna will be in charge of purchasing gear, while Erin and Megan get gems and jewelry appraised. The two halflings can hang at the tavern and drop some coin in hopes of getting some decent rumors or leads" and then the referee and each separate group can text/call/video chat to resolve those actions before the next full group session.
One of my groups, which was heavily comprised of fellow actors and people working in the entertainment industry, preferred to role play everything at the table, and while we all enjoyed the improvisational entertainment such nights provided, many reading this may not be on board with this option. A small hourglass timer (my version of the light on the back wall of an open mic night) can easily indicate when the next group has the spotlight to prevent "attention hogs" from monopolizing the session should this be the preference.
How much "freedom of choice" would you like to have?
1. I would prefer to have total freedom, even if our choices result in our going way off what the GM (game-master) has prepared.
2. I would prefer to have some freedom, with major GM nudging if we are going way off what the GM has prepared.
3. I would prefer to have the path pretty much laid out before us, with minimal choices.
"Railroading" is a term used to describe a situation where the players are forced into a scenario that the referee has unilaterally decided must occur. I think the general consensus among most players is that railroading sucks; "If I wanted to be railroaded I'd just play a video game" is a perfectly understandable response, but there are those who prefer the path to be laid before them with little to no chance of straying from the objective, thus giving birth to this particular question.
I would point out that it is "bad form" for a group of players being presented with three juicy rumors to ignore them all under the guise of "player fiat." If the referee has gone to the effort to prep something for the session, it may offend the referee if the players ignore all of that preparatory work, and unless the referee is comfortable improvising, the spirit of cooperation should guide the players on their next course of action.
I do remember one game where "player fiat" took center stage; our group decided to "head off to see what trouble we could get into." Everything was handled by random rolls of the DM, all made in the open in the name of transparency. The game moved smoothly thanks to the DM's mastery of the rules and our willingness to abide by the rolls as they landed.
The night ended with a TPK (Total Party Killed) thanks to a series of bad rolls and failed saving throws (which were generously granted by the DM even though technically 'sleep' doesn't allow a save) and while we the players enjoyed that session, which ended with the DM announcing "Her laughter rings thru the hills as she slits your throat" I noticed our reluctance to pursue "the lightly trodden path of randomness" after that.
How would you prefer each game session to be balanced?
1. Primarily roleplaying with little action.
2. An equal balance of role playing and action, with the understanding some sessions may be all action or all roleplay.
3. Primarily action with little roleplaying.
Here again, the composition and expectation of the players is important; some simply aren't happy unless dice are rolling, in which case they would be a poor fit for a group where everyone voted for #1.
What type of adventures would you prefer the campaign to be comprised of?
1. Epic quests
2. Primarily dungeon crawls
3. Political intrigue/mystery/lots of role-playing based adventure
4. No preference
That player who dreams of playing a Tyrion Lannister based courtier in a high political intrigue based game might be quite disappointed playing in a group wanting dungeon crawls.
How important are character skills, feats, attributes and background history to you?
1. Very Important - I'd like to see them heavily utilized each game.
2. Important- I like to have them and occasionally use them in each session.
3. Slightly Important - I like them to make my character unique or for role playing.
4. Not Important - I wouldn't miss them if they were done away with.
These little "personalized details" may serve as a hook for future adventures, or individualize two characters who, on paper, may seem almost identical. Something as innocuous as declaring one's father had a bad gambling habit could easily serve as an adventure hook when a former gambling friend of the player's father shows up looking to settle an old bet, while granting a small adjustment to reaction rolls for the character when interacting with gamblers at local taverns.
What degree of magic availability do you prefer?
1. High - Magic is an everyday thing and no one is surprised to see it.
2. Moderate - Everyone knows about magic, but it is limited to those with $$.
3. Low - Magic is pretty rare, and those who can wield it are even rarer.
4. Very low - Anyone who can cast anything is considered to be some sort of deity.
If everyone above 2nd level is walking around with a +1 sword, the novelty of enchanted items is diluted, and if all the local merchants use continual light balls to provide light in their shop then the "awe factor" of magic is similarly diminished.
The mechanics of magic should be discussed with new player(s) who plan on playing a magic user, as I don't think I have ever meet anyone who has fallen madly in love with the Vancian-based system of magic employed by D&D, and new players may be disappointed to learn a 1st level magic user can cast only one spell for the day.
What is your opinion on player character (PC) death?
1. It should never happen unless the player wants to roll up a new character.
2. It should only happen if the player is being REALLY stupid or suicidal.
3. It should be allowed to happen if the dice so dictate; living on the edge has its dangers.
4. It should be expected that there will be a death every game - life is a tragedy.
High lethality is a trademark of the OSR philosophy, and players should realize that foolish choices carry potentially deadly consequences.
What is your opinion on DM "fudging" of the dice rolls?
1. It should never happen. In fact, the DM should roll in the open where all can see.
2. It should only happen when it's needed to progress the campaign.
3. The DM should roll only for effect; results should be based on what makes a good game.
Some rolls need to be made behind the screen to prevent players from gleaning out of character knowledge (is there really no secret door, or did the elf just miss finding it?) so keep that in mind for those who like #1.
Many new players today aren't used to the idea that failure can and will occur, to which I would explain using a mixed reference to War Games and Monopoly: "Just because you don't want to land on my hotel on Boardwalk doesn't mean you won't; the only way to guarantee that is not to play."
How detailed do you like the rule set to be?
1. I like a very complete set so that I know exactly what it will take to perform any task.
2. I like a mid range set which may result in inconsistencies in resolution, combat, etc.
3. I like a loosely organized but fast paced set of rules which may mean inconsistent rule resolution.
The amount of time a group can dedicate to the game and how frequently the group plays are big factors in how complex and detailed the rules used should be. It is frustrating to only meet once a month and then spend half of that session flipping through books to find obscure rules on the effects of sleeping in one's armor or characteristics of one's campfire (Wilderness Survival Guide by Mohan, pg 65 for those who are curious.)
What is your preference on combat?
1. I like having lots of advanced combat options and detail (full attack mode, parrying mode, defensive withdrawals, grapple, aim, charge, parry, dodge, standard attack with movement, etc.) with the understanding such options may slow combat resolution.
2. I like having basic combat options and some detail, but not so many that I'm spending 5 minutes reviewing my options.
3. I like having no options: I simply roll to hit and if I hit I roll damage. Done.
Some really enjoy getting down to the "nitty gritty" details when it comes to combat, while others prefer a more cinematic presentation with less concern on the differences between crushing damage and slashing damage. A HEMA (Historical European Martial Art) fanatic may be completely disgusted by the allowances a lighter treatment of combat may present.
What is your preference on the tone of the game?
1. Gritty realism (ala Lord of the Rings trilogy / Excalibur)
2. Medieval fantasy (ala Ladyhawke /Dragonslayer)
3. Lightly comedic medieval fantasy (ala Legend / Willow)
4. Other (specify: e.g. Sword & sorcery (ala Conan the Barbarian))
The player who wants to play a "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" type of game is a poor match for a group playing a serious "Lord of the Rings" flavored game.
What is your opinion on the "tech based" display (MapTool) that we currently use in lieu of miniatures and tabletop sets?
1. I love it.
2. It's perfect for the space we play in, but if were in a large conference room I'd prefer miniatures on the table.
3. I don't like it. I'd rather use cardboard cutouts if no miniatures are available.
4. I don't think we really need to see what's going on; theater of the mind works for me and only the DM needs to track locations and other data.
This could be modified to address preferences of online or in person; my last group played in person but I ran "Map Tools" and provided a large monitor for the players to view instead of using tabletop miniatures. It has been useful as the program's "Fog Of War" feature does an excellent job revealing only what light sources will illuminate.
----------------------------
Questionnaire
How would you prefer to handle narrative portions of the campaign?
1. I would like to cover them during the game session.
2. I would prefer to have them covered outside the session with input via email, etc.
3. I would prefer to have them covered outside the session without the players' input.
How much "freedom of choice" would you like to have?
1. I would prefer to have total freedom, even if our choices result in our going way off what the GM (game-master) has prepared.
2. I would prefer to have some freedom, with major GM nudging if we are going way off what the GM has prepared.
3. I would prefer to have the path pretty much laid out before us, with minimal choices.
How would you prefer each game session to be balanced?
1. Primarily roleplaying with little action.
2. An equal balance of role playing and action, with the understanding some sessions may be all action or all roleplay.
3. Primarily action with little roleplaying.
What type of adventures would you prefer the campaign to be comprised of?
1. Epic quests
2. Primarily dungeon crawls
3. Political intrigue / mystery / lots of role-playing based adventure
4. No preference
How important are character skills, feats, attributes and background history to you?
1. Very Important - I'd like to see them heavily utilized each game.
2. Important- I like to have them and occasionally use them in each session.
3. Slightly Important - I like them to make my character unique or for roleplaying.
4. Not Important - I wouldn't miss them if they were done away with.
What degree of magic availability do you prefer?
1. High - Magic is an everyday thing and no one is surprised to see it.
2. Moderate - Everyone knows about magic, but it is limited in its availability.
3. Low - Magic is pretty rare, and those who can wield it are even rarer.
4. Very low - Anyone who can cast anything is considered to be some sort of deity.
What is your opinion on player character (PC) death?
1. It should never happen unless the player wants to roll up a new character.
2. It should only happen if the player is being REALLY stupid or suicidal.
3. It should be allowed to happen if the dice so dictate; living on the edge has its dangers.
4. It should be expected that there will be a death every game - life is a tragedy.
What is your opinion on DM "fudging" of the dice rolls?
1. It should never happen. In fact, the DM should roll in the open where all can see.
2. It should only happen when it's needed to progress the campaign.
3. The DM should roll only for effect; results should be based on what makes a good game.
How detailed do you like the rule set to be?
1. I like a very complete set so that I know exactly what it will take to perform any task.
2. I like a mid range set which may result in inconsistencies in resolution, combat, etc.
3. I like a loosely organized but fast paced set of rules which may mean inconsistent rule resolution.
What is your preference on combat?
1. I like having lots of advanced combat options and detail (full attack mode, parrying mode, defensive withdrawals, grapple, aim, charge, parry, dodge, standard attack with movement, etc.) with the understanding such options may slow combat resolution.
2. I like having basic combat options and some detail, but not so many that I'm spending 5 minutes reviewing my options.
3. I like having no options: I simply roll to hit and if I hit I roll damage. Done.
What is your preference on the tone of the game?
1. Gritty realism (ala Lord of the Rings trilogy / Excalibur)
2. Medieval fantasy (ala Ladyhawke /Dragonslayer)
3. Lightly comedic medieval fantasy (ala Legend / Willow)
4. Other (specify: e.g. Sword & sorcery (ala Conan the Barbarian))
What is your opinion on the "tech based" display (MapTool) that we currently use in lieu of miniatures and tabletop sets?
1. I love it.
2. It's perfect for the space we play in, but if were in a large conference room I'd prefer miniatures on the table.
3. I don't like it. I'd rather use cardboard cutouts if no miniatures are available.
4. I don't think we really need to see what's going on; theater of the mind works for me and only the DM needs to track locations and other data.
No comments:
Post a Comment