PDA

View Full Version : Behind the Sheet?



Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-03-31, 09:22 AM
Of late, I've been working (slowly, as I periodically get more sourcebooks and revamp my ideas) toward the inception of a campaign.

While considering various methods of recruiting players, I realized that, quite seperate from the problem of finding someone, once I'd found them, I would have (if one utilizes the 'normal' system as I understand it) at best, a very poor approximation of my player's true capabilities, inclinations, and motivations at the gaming table.

This is a problem for me even if I'm recruting people I know personally- characters are, after all, not thier players, and it's hard to know whether the shy bookworm is going to take levels in Loremaster or gnash his teeth in Berserker rage. When considering recruiting players online, people I do not- in fact, almost always cannot- know more or less anything about, the issue is compounded.

Thence, my idea; a sort of "Player Questionarre" that allows me, as a DM, to easily, effectively, and extensively tailor my adventure designs to the likely decisions and the known capabilities of my players, thus ensuring they have the greatest possible potential for exciting heroism.

My questions to you, the forum, are as follows: is this a good idea? Is it something you already routinely make use of in your career as a DM? Have you tried it and hated it?

How extensive should such a survey be? What sort of information should it request? Presently, I'm mostly concerned with character motivation, party role preferences/leadership tendencies, at-the-table personality, tactical preferences, and experience/optimization capability, but there may well be other areas I need to consider.

Should I allow such information to serve as a litmus test for potential players? For instance, if I'm plotting an intrigue campaign and recieve a questionnare that clearly sets forth a kick-in-the-door persona, should I/can I ethically reject the player, or adapt?
Is it ethical to request this information, as a DM, since it gives me some degree of greater control/influence over the player's fate (through superior planning)? Do you, as a player, trust your DM enough to give information about your capabilities and tactics over in the expectation it'll be used to give you a chance to shine?

Jannex
2007-03-31, 10:00 AM
I'm inclined to think there's some merit in the idea of using a questionnaire of sorts; at the very least, it'll make sure that whatever players you get have a certain degree of commitment and enthusiasm for the game. I don't know to what extent you'd want to use it as a criterion for whether or not you let someone into your campaign, but it would at least give you an idea of what your players are expecting/looking for, and what they would enjoy. I find that the best games are the ones tailored to the PCs.

Things you might consider asking:

Rate, from 0-10, how much combat your ideal game session would contain (0 = no combat, 10 = the entire session is combat) __

In combat situations, I am most comfortable:
a) taking a leadership role, directing other characters
b) following orders and contributing my character's skills to the team effort
c) taking care of my own actions, and letting other characters worry about theirs
d) hiding and keeping the heck out of the way of the swords and spells
e) other, please specify: _____

I enjoy the following themes and plot elements in campaigns (select all that apply):
* exploration/exotic locales
* problem-solving/puzzles
* mystery
* action
* horror
* romance
* humor
* drama
* good/evil struggle
* etc...
* other (please specify): _____

Rate, on a scale of 1-10, how gritty or epic your ideal campaign would be (1 = very gritty and realistic, the world is a harsh and unforgiving place for PC and NPC alike; 10 = very epic--"We're the heroes, we're going to save the world!") __

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-03-31, 10:20 AM
Tailoring is pretty much my whole intent; I have no intention of putting in as much work as a real campaign takes only to have people decide it's boring becuase I don't have enough of X motivation.

Combat density is definitely making it in; matching action expectations is key, in my view.
That combat-role/leadership analysis might actually be included in the final product as-is, it's pretty well-worded, and it addresses pretty much everything I want to know. Of course, I might also include a 'two of the above' option, since some aren't mutually exclusive.
I might also include a similar question about roles outside of combat- after all, a party Bard might well be an out-of-combat leader, convincing others to follow his plans and investigating NPCs, but hang back during the fighting, while a fighter might be a doughty combatant but unsure outside of the fray.

Plot-theme analysis is one area I hadn't considered, since I've got a pretty clear idea of what I want my world to "Feel" like, but a little influence on how things are played could go a long way to creating a better experience for players.

I like the idea of a gritty/realistic scenario- the 'high-death' end of the spectrum- versus a heroic/epic scenario, the 'low-death' end of the spectrum. Some idea of player expectations could definitely influence prescence or absence of back-from-the-dead magic, and maybe other aspects as well.

I think I'm also going to expand on the 'plot elements' question with a 'motives' question; though some of those elements could easily be motives, too.

Of the following, which most strongly motivates you/your character?
A. Curiosity, the thrill of the unknown and the hidden.
B. Greed, the acquisition of wealth, and perhaps power.
C. Glory, the desire to achieve something to be sung of.
D. Honor, the need to keep promises and hold to your creed.
E. Loyalty, the bonds of friendship and allegiance.
F. Survival, the necessity of staying alive.
G. Heroism, the need to do the right thing.
H. Vendetta, the desire to avenge slights and fallen comrades.
I. Other (Please Specify).

storybookknight
2007-03-31, 01:55 PM
I find that if you require elaborate enough character backgrounds, often that reveals some insight into the person themself - especially if you work on revisions. Varen_Tai's questionnaire (which has since been cheerfully ganked by Nighteyes and myself, to mention a few) is a pretty good one.

That said, as a player I wouldn't mind filling out a player questionnaire too badly...

Another option is to read a player's previous games. I've found a few good people that way.

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-03-31, 04:21 PM
I find that if you require elaborate enough character backgrounds, often that reveals some insight into the person themself - especially if you work on revisions. Varen_Tai's questionnaire (which has since been cheerfully ganked by Nighteyes and myself, to mention a few) is a pretty good one.

That said, as a player I wouldn't mind filling out a player questionnaire too badly...

Another option is to read a player's previous games. I've found a few good people that way.
True, but requiring over-extensive background chafes some people; if they wanted to do it, they would anyway, and if they don't, well...I did consider that approach, but ultimately what I'm looking for is...a sort of "Character Sheet" that contains not game statistics, but role-playing-relevant information.

At any rate.
Any chance of a link to said questionnaire?

And I'm glad to hear it wouldn't be too onerous (for you at least).

And yes, that's certainly a good idea- but when you're dealing with players off-line, who are unlikely to give you any hints as to the flaws they displayed in previous games...problem.

Eighth_Seraph
2007-03-31, 05:27 PM
It seems to me that the idea of a questionnare for the player is a good one, and one I should have done in my last online session, when I DMed for a ranger with a Con penalty and the notion that running away and firing from two hundred feet away so he can abandon the party if need be is some form of viable strategy. And he wanted to be the party leader.

Which leads me to the following suggested addition the questionnare: How much experience do you have in the area of [insert game you're playing here]

1. This is my first time playing
2. I've played before, but not all that much
3. I play every once in a while, when time allows
4. I'm a pretty seasoned player, knowing my way around the gaming table
5. I've been playing for a while, and can play a game without checking the rulebooks for my actions.

Could be worded better and likely won't get many honest answers, but it makes life a bit easier.

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-03-31, 07:47 PM
That's a good point; one might suppose that experience leads to better play (though not always).

I think a lot of the other queries should screen out a good many pitfalls...but just in case, I'm thinking of adding both a direct question about experience and a sort of 'litmus test' query, for instance:

1. Explain, as succinctly but completely as possible, the strengths and weaknesses of the traditional wizard per RAW; in your opinion, how does the wizard's power scale, and is it more or less powerful than other standard classes?

2. Many examiners of the Dungeons and Dragons game are inclined to regard the Paladin as an unwise investment at later levels. Explain why this claim is valid or invalid.

3. Similarly, there are many adherents to the theory that the Cleric and Druid are exceptionally powerful classes. What character options make the druid powerful? What aspects of the class make the cleric relatively powerful?

Good questions? Bad questions?

Inyssius Tor
2007-03-31, 09:15 PM
Excellent questions...
If you're looking for the serious players, of course. Those three questions would probably intimidate the hell out of a number of people.

headwarpage
2007-03-31, 09:33 PM
That's a good point; one might suppose that experience leads to better play (though not always).

I think a lot of the other queries should screen out a good many pitfalls...but just in case, I'm thinking of adding both a direct question about experience and a sort of 'litmus test' query, for instance:

1. Explain, as succinctly but completely as possible, the strengths and weaknesses of the traditional wizard per RAW; in your opinion, how does the wizard's power scale, and is it more or less powerful than other standard classes?

2. Many examiners of the Dungeons and Dragons game are inclined to regard the Paladin as an unwise investment at later levels. Explain why this claim is valid or invalid.

3. Similarly, there are many adherents to the theory that the Cleric and Druid are exceptionally powerful classes. What character options make the druid powerful? What aspects of the class make the cleric relatively powerful?

Good questions? Bad questions?

Potentially good questions, but it's important to remember that those of us who frequent these boards tend to know a lot about balance issues. It's easy to imagine that a very experienced roleplayer could avoid familiarity with these issues by not spending a lot of time on message boards. Conversely, an inexperienced player could produce some convincing-sounding answers to these questions just by parroting various opinions as expressed on these boards.

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-03-31, 09:46 PM
Potentially good questions, but it's important to remember that those of us who frequent these boards tend to know a lot about balance issues. It's easy to imagine that a very experienced roleplayer could avoid familiarity with these issues by not spending a lot of time on message boards. Conversely, an inexperienced player could produce some convincing-sounding answers to these questions just by parroting various opinions as expressed on these boards.
You and Tor both make excellent points; I am looking for serious players, so I'd say that's not a problem. If you're intimidated by that, you aren't thinking in a mindset that can deal with the volume of houseruling and homebrew I include.

As to the question of experienced player/non-balance-conscious player, taht does run into somewhat of the same issue as above, but...
I'd readily consider adding some questions that address experience not with game balance, but with the game itself...for instance, maybe a reasonably generic 'favorite character' question. That should be somewhat revealing...

Similarly, a question about tactical variety should smoke out people who haven't actually played the game- any player with reasonable experience should have something to say about it.

As to the parrots- hopefully I'll be able to tell, and if I suspect parroting I'll be asking follow-ups. Most people who've played the game and know the rules will be able to provide a detailed, idiosyncratic answer, rather than a rote recitation in someone else's words.

headwarpage
2007-03-31, 10:01 PM
A question about favorite character would definitely be good. If somebody describes their character in purely mechanical terms, you know something about them. If they describe the character's personality and attitude, you know something else, and you can judge their roleplaying ability somewhat.

As for parroting, you're probably right - but I didn't go through five years of college to not be able to fake knowledge. :smallbiggrin:

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-03-31, 10:08 PM
A question about favorite character would definitely be good. If somebody describes their character in purely mechanical terms, you know something about them. If they describe the character's personality and attitude, you know something else, and you can judge their roleplaying ability somewhat.

As for parroting, you're probably right - but I didn't go through five years of college to not be able to fake knowledge. :smallbiggrin:
True, but if you can fake it well enough to fool me you'll be okay until you can really learn.

And that's the idea, yes; the open nature of the query allows me to interpret the nature as well as the substance of the response.

Yahzi
2007-04-01, 05:29 PM
a sort of 'litmus test' query, for instance:
Are you interviewing players, or conducting an examination of a PHD thesis? :smallbiggrin:

In any case, the correct answer to all of your questions is, "It depends on the DM's world."

1. A world in which anti-magic fields are as common as castle walls, since said fields are generated by rocks that can be carried around in wagons or built into walls.

2. A world in which the gates of Hades have opened, and the epic battle is all living things vs. an invasion of the dead.

3. Ok... this one isn't relative. CoDzilla is just broken, period. :smallbiggrin:

smellie_hippie
2007-04-01, 05:41 PM
The only flaw I have ever had with formulating a campaign around the players is this: once your characters are crucial to the progress of the game and campaign, you become too afraid to kill them.

What I mean by this is, the story if so inter-woven with the backgrounds you have developed with your players, the NPC interactions that have grown, the reasons for your antagonists, etc... I know that you're not out to intentionally kill you players as "part of the game", but it does tend to make you fudge some rolls and bend some rules from time to time.

Yes I realize that this is not in the same theme as the other replies to this thread, but that's what I thought of when I read the first post. :smallamused:

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-04-01, 10:36 PM
The only flaw I have ever had with formulating a campaign around the players is this: once your characters are crucial to the progress of the game and campaign, you become too afraid to kill them.

What I mean by this is, the story if so inter-woven with the backgrounds you have developed with your players, the NPC interactions that have grown, the reasons for your antagonists, etc... I know that you're not out to intentionally kill you players as "part of the game", but it does tend to make you fudge some rolls and bend some rules from time to time.

Yes I realize that this is not in the same theme as the other replies to this thread, but that's what I thought of when I read the first post. :smallamused:
Hey, if you can't handle multiple themes, what are you doing DMing?

But yes; that's entirley true, for the most part.
This is where DM's ruthlessness comes in. If I give you a survey to tailor the game to your tastes, that means certain things, and emphatically does not mean others.

If you say you prefer talk encounters, less combat, etc., does that mean I'll weight things that way? Could be. Does it mean you won't be fighting? Not a chance. And if you die, you die.

Basically...I want to tweak relative encounter-type balance a bit, and tailor quest motivations to the PCs, but...the motivations for their antagonists, and the methods those antagonists use, are likely to remain unscathed.

For instance, let's say the Antagonist's plan is to complete an evil ritual for which he needs the shards of blah blah blaaaah.

Essentially, he's going to carry out his plan (and try and kill the PCs when necessary). How the players interact with this, however, might change:

If they're greedy roleplayers, they'll get involved with the noble houses of wherever in exchange for gold, and root out the villain's conspiracy through clever investigation and finagling.

If they're heroic martial crusaders, they'll slaughter bands of savage humanoids who'll drop clues to the villain's plan.

If they're loyal friends who mutually delight in their skills, they'll likely receive word that a malevolent force has moved in on their NPC friend's business....and is most likely willing to kill to keep him out; but mayhaps he could be stopped, if his trap-laden tower can be circumvented.

In each case, they could have followed any of the above threads- they're all there. The investigation, the fighting, or the dungeon-delving can all lead to the end of the adventure.
What the survey influences is where I point the players, where I start them out, what I do to influence their actions.

They're central to the plot, but the plot is still deadly.

I'm not sure if I'm getting my point across, but I'm trying.
Also, integral or not, I dig on death. :3

Yahzi, since this would likely be presented after/with an explanation of the campaign world (including magic level)...and since it's intended as a question about the baseline D&D game...I don't see that being a problem.

Starsinger
2007-04-02, 01:32 AM
I like the questionnaire idea! An idea though, maybe you should add, "Which of these least appeal to you?" with the same options as the "Which appeals to you the most?" type questions. Since my saying I prefer to "take care of my own actions, and let other characters worry about theirs" just means that that's what I prefer, it doesn't mean that I don't like taking charge or following orders.

Jannex
2007-04-02, 03:00 AM
I like the questionnaire idea! An idea though, maybe you should add, "Which of these least appeal to you?" with the same options as the "Which appeals to you the most?" type questions. Since my saying I prefer to "take care of my own actions, and let other characters worry about theirs" just means that that's what I prefer, it doesn't mean that I don't like taking charge or following orders.

Hmm, good thought. I agree.

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-04-02, 07:59 AM
Hmm, good thought. I agree.
Funnily enough, so do I. Consider it done.

Do you think I should ask about linearity, or just assume everybody loathes the railroad as much as I do?

smellie_hippie
2007-04-02, 08:17 AM
Hey, if you can't handle multiple themes, what are you doing DMing?

But yes; that's entirley true, for the most part.

*edited for brevity*


Oh I have no problem with multiple plotlines. I also have no problem with fatal encounters. If there's no risk, the players can try and take on entire armies wielding nothing but chopsticks (I'm currently referring to an Exalted campaign).

I frequently check back in with my players to make sure they are appreciating the current flow and direction of the game. Simple things like, more or less combat, background flaws being utilized, more urban or wilderness, etc etc.

Maybe rather than a hard set "questionairre", you could check in with them after every few sessions and see what direction they are wanting your campaign to go? You might also be able to tell after a few sessions which themes they get into and which scenarioes they muddle through...

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-04-02, 08:34 AM
Oh I have no problem with multiple plotlines. I also have no problem with fatal encounters. If there's no risk, the players can try and take on entire armies wielding nothing but chopsticks (I'm currently referring to an Exalted campaign).

I frequently check back in with my players to make sure they are appreciating the current flow and direction of the game. Simple things like, more or less combat, background flaws being utilized, more urban or wilderness, etc etc.

Maybe rather than a hard set "questionairre", you could check in with them after every few sessions and see what direction they are wanting your campaign to go? You might also be able to tell after a few sessions which themes they get into and which scenarioes they muddle through...
Me, either. >.<;
And oish, oh, Exalted.

I think the latter points are pretty much just common courtesy for a DM; because if you don't ask your players if they like things, they're probably going to tell you. Loudly. At length.

I think the questionnare is helpful in addition to, but not in place of, periodic check-ins; the former because it helps me plan, and the latter because it helps me adjust/throw out those plans.

Of course, given the scale my campaigns frequently take, if you want a different setting, or a differing playstyle, most of the time you just have to wait a few adventures.

alchemy.freak
2007-04-02, 10:17 AM
My advice from recruiting players is this, talk to them, ask them. and tell them what your game is about. a questionnaire seems to institutional to me. unless you have more than 5 players you have never met before, a questionnaire should not be necessary.

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-04-02, 10:45 AM
My advice from recruiting players is this, talk to them, ask them. and tell them what your game is about. a questionnaire seems to institutional to me. unless you have more than 5 players you have never met before, a questionnaire should not be necessary.
Hey, man, I can't help my lawful alignment; archon and all that.

Anyways; it's possible I will have players I don't know, so it could be necessary there.

But furthermore; of course, I do intend to talk to people, but the thing is...institutional as it may be, that 'one remove' may be what it takes to get my dear-friends-and-compatriots to give me an honest and forthright representation of their table personality.
People don't always behave the same way they normally would while roleplaying, even out of character; so even people I know well, I don't necessarily know well as players.
Players I know well as players, obviously, I don't need this for, but I honestly don't have many/any of those.

Jannex
2007-04-02, 12:55 PM
Do you think I should ask about linearity, or just assume everybody loathes the railroad as much as I do?

That's a complicated question, I think; there's a difference between "railroading" and railroading. For instance:

a) Mysterious, powerful NPC strongly suggests to the PCs that they should go investigate a set of caves, where Strange Things have been happening. It's understood out-of-game that the caves contain the plot. The PCs might wander around and shop for a while, but the plot is still going to be waiting for them at the caves, and nothing else terribly interesting will happen to them until they go find it.

b) The PCs head to a tavern after a successful mission. There's some carousing going on, and the PCs are invited, coaxed, cajoled, to join in the fun. Any of them that drink end up drugged into unconsciousness. Any who don't end up knocked over the back of the head. They wake up in cells, bound and shackled. Taking 20 on an Escape Artist check gets them nowhere, and neither do any of the other ideas they come up with to try to free themselves. All semblance of agency is removed. The kidnappers drop them off at the next plot point.

Both of these have happened to me. I'm fine with A, but I objected rather strenuously to B.

Starsinger
2007-04-02, 03:04 PM
I allow, once in a great while, a DM to option B me, because I think alot of GMs secretly enjoy that sort of "date-rape" railroading. As for your question Shiny, maybe a "How do you feel about railroading." and give them a scale between "loathe it" and "love it"? Cuz personally, I don't mind an entire railroaded campaign if it's done with competance

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-04-02, 08:55 PM
I think there's a difference between "A well-crafted, but linear plot" and "railroading".

For instance, the road/quest adventure, in its classic form, or the dungeon itself, is a form of railroading, but not usually one that is objected to too strenuously.

But the aforementioned "Oops, you just got suckered into my plot HAHAHA" gets old so fast it makes my head spin.

Honestly, I'm only asking them that to make sure they're okay with the fact that I'm designing most of the campaign as node-based.

Starsinger
2007-04-02, 09:07 PM
Oh.. where I come from a railroad is anytime the DM tells you what you're doing, in one way or another. I'm sorry for the confusion. I like well crafted but linear plots as you call them. Infact, I sort of prefer them since I like to have a goal other than "ransack, loot, repeat".

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-04-02, 09:43 PM
Oh.. where I come from a railroad is anytime the DM tells you what you're doing, in one way or another. I'm sorry for the confusion. I like well crafted but linear plots as you call them. Infact, I sort of prefer them since I like to have a goal other than "ransack, loot, repeat".
Non-linear doesn't mean sandbox; the player's actions should always have consequences, and a plot that's flexible is still, ultimately, a plot, with goals.

Essentially, non-linear adventure design and storytelling means you get one of many possible views into the landscape of an adventure: that's all. It's the same vista, but it looks different based on where you are.

Starsinger
2007-04-02, 09:49 PM
I've heard about games like that.. a question on linearity would be good though.