Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6005272" data-attributes="member: 1465">I presume that this sort of questions will be mostly handed out by the DM to the players in order to setup a game, or even brought at the table by a player. In such case, the "genre" of the game is probably already decided, so this question may be moot within a specific gaming group.This is rather a question to ask gamers in general to collect some statistics, for example a FLGS may ask these questions if they're going to organize some games in their premises.   Absolutely important question! I would even expand this question to assigning two different levels of empasis, so that each gamer can say e.g. Action = major emphasis, Tactics and Story = reasonable emphasis. Just so that you get a better understanding about which are "must have" and which "nice to have".Also I would make an effort of including as many as I can think about (I would add resource management, historical realism, mass scale battles, political affairs...) to help players not to forget any.Should be separate questions...Maybe a question about willing to get to know the rules and willing to get to know the settings & world (could be one or two questions). Also might be spelled out better to distinguish whether these will be possible or required.The other question should focus on how much the players are willing to work on their own and to work together with the GM outside of gaming sessions.   Ok, but might be a little hard to answer from the casual gamer, if they need to first read and understand the GNS theory.This is hard... it's quite a lot generic. But probably good to force the player to think about it.Ok, but I wonder how the DM is going to adjust that... might not always be possible.   Ok.   Probably these can be combined, they are both about lethality. This is a very important question anyway!! Must always ask everyone before starting a campaign!       Ok.Very good question, better to set this before it happens.   Ok.   Ok. Can also be expanded to ask how they feel about railroading, and what do they think about a sandbox campaign. While we're at it, it can also ask if they prefer a linear & simple plot, or an intricate plot with side-quests and dead-ends.   Another good question. Could be expanded to ask how much the player is interested in detailing downtime vs just going straight into adventures.   Good, and should also mention if the players want these discussion to happen remotely (e.g. email), or at the table, and in the latter case if they think the game should stop for discussion or if instead all discussions should be avoided and delayed until the end of the session.Additional questions that could be asked (here just drafts, need some elaboration):16- how much do you want the DM to enforce the RAW vs adjudicating on the fly?17- how much do you want the DM to stay faithful to the dice vs fudging them to save your sorry bottoms?18- are you willing to accept some randomness in character creation or not?19- how do you think the game should handle the case of a player becoming dissatisfied with his PC?20- what are the sensitive topics that you are not willing to accept in the fiction of the game? (here suggest topics such as detailed violence, ambiguity in the morals of religious characters, rape, violence against children, torture...)21- how much presence should ethical issues and discussions have in the game? do you want the game to present clear & simple good vs evil scenarios, or do you accept/prefer shades of gray?22- how much do you want the rule to enforce your PC's ethical behaviour after you have chosen his alignment? do you prefer an alignment system to provide hard constraints (i.e. DM will tell you "you can't do that"), soft constraints (i.e. DM will tell you "if you do that, there will be rules-defined penalties"), or guidelines (i.e. DM will tell you "if you do that, there will be story penalties, and you probably should consider shifting your alignment")?</blockquote>

Verification