What issues should a new group settle up front?

[Kahuna Burger]

It occurs to me that a lot of threads about "group contracts" end up bogged down in play style disputes, and a lot of arguments about play style end up boiling down to DM and players needing to be on the same page for everyone to have fun. So I thought I'd try to come into both questions at a more meta level - without taking a side on the questions raised, what sort of issues, either practical or play style, do you think a new group should hash out before they start playing?

For me:

Death Level - how hard do players want to have to work for their characters to die? Do they prefer the risk of death from any random encounter, or a bit more of a safety cushion? Perhaps more importantly, if they want that cushion should it be mechanical (action points and automatic stabalization) or narrative (limited plot immunity)?

Expressed vs Implied evil - Should the villian be known to be an evil puppy kicker, but never have to deal with specific incidents? Should the PCs see a puppy get kicked? Should the PC's puppy actually be kicked in front of them? What if a player wants a puppy character?

Time commitment - how many hours are going to go into the game? every week games vs every other?

PC relations - are the PCs going to work together or else? Or would everyone be happy with occasional PVP? How about nigh constant PVP?

Acceptable and unacceptable allignment/personality types - connected to the above but maybe worth pulling out. If as a player or a DM you have a type of character you don't want to be in a group with, get it out there in advance.

I have strong feelings on the answers to many of these, but for the purposes of this thread they are just some of the things I'd like to be on the same page as my group with, be I player or DM.

 

[Crothian]

What do the players want from the campaign? That's always my first question and I swear if I can actually get a player to answer that with out the need for qualifiers and dancing on egg shells or just not havignt a clue I'm going to be pleased.

 

[WayneLigon]

What do the players want from the campaign? That's always my first question and I swear if I can actually get a player to answer that with out the need for qualifiers and dancing on egg shells or just not havignt a clue I'm going to be pleased.

I doubt you ever will because most people think it comes down to what the GM wants rather than the player. They've probably had people ask them that type of question before and it always goes like this:

GM: "What would you like to do?"

Player: "I'd like to do an Age of Sail thing where..."

GM: "Man, that sucks. Really, that's what you'd like to do? I hate that stuff."

Player: "OK, then, what do you want to do?"

GM: "You all start out as tomato farmers...."

Player: "OK..."

Not to say that you specifically do that, but usually people like that have a habit of going through that type of conversation. They cave to whatever the GM wants because otherwise they don't get to play. Frequently that means, they don't get to play anything at all. Now of course the GM can't run a game without players, but in general it's easier to find players than GMs.

Qualifiers, I can more easily see. There are several things I'd like to do in a game, but only if I know a few things beforehand. A 'Robin Hood' game is good, but do we actually have a chance of defeating the Sheriff?. That sort of thing.

=================================================================

A lot of our agreements are mutually agreed upon and have been for years: we assume there will be a regular weekly game. People who cannot commit to a regular weekly game and place that high on the list of commitments don't get invited. We assume the party will work together. Treasure will be shared equally and magic items will be generally distributed to those who can make the best use of them. I don't think we've ever done a game where those things have not been assumed.

I don't think we've ever discussed lethality unless we were talking about a superhero game. The idea of implied vs expressed evil has never come up, though I'm kinda fuzzy on just what you mean about that.

 

[DarrenGMiller]

Good stuff already. I would also add:


- Depth of character immersion

- Humor level (in-game/out-of-game)

- Playable Races/Classes, etc.

- Rating (G, PG, R, NC17, X, etc.)

- Genre/Style

DM

 

[your father is]

^I think just being aware of these issues -- that what people are investing in is a game, and that each player/DM may have different goals -- is a great first step. What people are looking to get out of an RPG experience can be very basic: companionship, adventure, accomplishment, etc.

It's important to remember that this is a game -- it's supposed to be fun -- and it is perfectly okay (without making things too easy for them) to give people exactly what they want.

 

[scourger]

I'll go even more fundamental. All the players, especially the GM, have to agree on the game and the rules; and stick to it. These 2 issues have really been at the root of our group's problems for the past several years. We've had the best results when the group picks a game from those offered and it's run with the rules as written. Even so, there is inevitable squabbling and disinterest. But it's much worse if things change mid-game, especially with house rules and conversions. I don't like house rules because I think the players like to play by a certain set of published rules. I intend never to convert another game--there are too many comparisons (never favorable). Those 2 factors alone have wrecked several games for us. Buy-in to the game and the rules is critical.

 

[pogre]

I'm blessed with a group I've had for a long time, but if it were new folks I would start by trying to ascertain their styles.

A simple survey using the play styles described by Robin Law in the DMG II or the SJG book would help.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I don't think we've ever discussed lethality unless we were talking about a superhero game. The idea of implied vs expressed evil has never come up, though I'm kinda fuzzy on just what you mean about that.

basicly its a less judgemental way of talking about "rating" and plot immunity for PCs. Take Firefly - in the pilot, when describing the reavers, Zoe says "They'll rape us to death, eat our flesh and sew our skins into their clothes." In a rpg I think the players should know (and help decide) : is this scarey flavor text to make the escape from this enemy more dramatic? Are they ever going to have to deal with the aftermath of this happening? Be "present" for something like this? Will this actually happen to a character in a conceivable adventure gone wrong? Thats the sort of thing I'd like to see settled before the "reaver encounter".

 

[Shadowslayer]

GM: "Man, that sucks. Really, that's what you'd like to do? I hate that stuff."

Player: "OK, then, what do you want to do?"

GM: "You all start out as tomato farmers...."

I know that DM!

As a player, I'd first want to look at how well you'll adhere to the rules. particularly with regards to diplomacy/bluff/fast talking etc. skill resolution. Will you go by the rules and use the dice, or are you inventing your own arbitrary way of resolving that stuff.

I'd also want to know how closely you would play to the core idea of the game (gain xp, treasure, buy resources, power up etc.)

The Player vs player issue is a good one to bring up too. Your decision there will give you your answer to the "acceptable alignment" question.

I guess I'd also want to know how open a game is going to be. Will you have story arcs established at the start, or will story arcs come out of what the PCs do? (I've been involved with a DM who had the story set from the get-go, and no matter what we the PCs want to do, we can't escape his pet story. )

Thats all from me.

 

[billd91]

Stuff to hash out beforehand:

Campaign style and tone

Acceptible source materials

Meaning of the alignments

Paladins - what their codes mean and what gets them into trouble, if anyone is likely to play a paladin