Do you use C.A.TS. in your game?

[RenleyRenfield]

You should.

Ok, so lots of talk on here about this or that game not working well with players. Or games failing because GM set up X and players ended doing Y and never caring about X. There are discussion about GMs making plots or setting areas that didn't work well with players. And talks of players who did things that were not bad, but not compatible with other players' characters. And the list goes on.

So why aren't you using C.A.T.S.?

C.A.T.S.
This can be used for any RPG of any type...
Before playing a game, there needs to be a conversation at the table to set expectations.
A game runs smoothly when all players (including the GM) understand what the group is striving for.

This guided set of questions will allow the facilitator to hit four essential topics quickly and easily, and eliminate almost all issues of group or game incompatibility. Just start from the top.

Concept
At a high-level, what’s it about? What is the system? What are the most common things character do in this game? Be honest. (for example: Some groups are made up of players who never read the rules, and so systems that require players to dig into the rules are not a good fit!)

Aim
Explain what the players are trying to accomplish. Can someone win? Can everyone lose? Are we trying to tell a specific type of story? Again, be honest. (for example: D&D and OSR is mostly combat. Sure they can have roleplay, but it's not the same as Vampire the Masquerade, so talk about that...)

Tone
Have a quick conversation about the tone of the game. What is the default? Are there different options for gameplay? Come to a consensus on what the group wants. ( for example: Serious vs. Gonzo, Action vs. Drama, driven adventure or sandbox city, etc, etc.).

Subject matter
Explain what ideas might be explored during gameplay. Is there a lot of bookkeeping? Does the game require players to "buy into" certain plots? Does any of the subjects of the game make anyone uncomfortable? Discuss what boundaries need to be set, if any. (for example: Call of Cthulhu investigators are often assumed to be always willing to investigate deeper despite the dangers.)


My own 2c
- Don't try and force the system or the game. If it seems like the group is more interested in something the system does not provide out of the box easily, then look at other game systems. Same for settings... same for characters...

- Don't think of just the one character and double down on it, despite how poorly it fits the others. Have two or three ideas that excite you and tweak the one that best fits to be even better for group play.

.......

Now this is a discussion, so I am interested to hear what people think about this. Cheers!

source: original article here = (link)

 

[Laurefindel]

No way! Cats jump on the table and knock minis over and throw dice all over the place!

But more seriously, I’ve been trying to be more me more upfront about the themes and tones of the games I’m proposing to play, and clear about what I expect from players (and what they expect of me). It’s been paying off.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I do to an extent. But honestly, I could be clearer about these things.

Nice post!

 

[damiller]

i like this, I'll have to nab it. I like to have a direction for my campaign, and this will help.

@Laurefindel I've found it very successful to write up my campaign pitches (I mostly play online with mostly new groups each campaign) as want ads. Basically I am looking for players who: (and then I list a couple of things I want in a new player) its worked really well for me.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

No way! Cats jump on the table and knock minis over and throw dice all over the place!

Every time the cat jumped on the table to play with the dice, the DM rolled a random encounter.

You should.

Ok, so lots of talk on here about this or that game not working well with players. Or games failing because GM set up X and players ended doing Y and never caring about X. There are discussion about GMs making plots or setting areas that didn't work well with players. And talks of players who did things that were not bad, but not compatible with other players' characters. And the list goes on.

So why aren't you using C.A.T.S.?

C.A.T.S.
This can be used for any RPG of any type...
Before playing a game, there needs to be a conversation at the table to set expectations.
A game runs smoothly when all players (including the GM) understand what the group is striving for.

This guided set of questions will allow the facilitator to hit four essential topics quickly and easily, and eliminate almost all issues of group or game incompatibility. Just start from the top.

Concept
At a high-level, what’s it about? What is the system? What are the most common things character do in this game? Be honest. (for example: Some groups are made up of players who never read the rules, and so systems that require players to dig into the rules are not a good fit!)

Aim
Explain what the players are trying to accomplish. Can someone win? Can everyone lose? Are we trying to tell a specific type of story? Again, be honest. (for example: D&D and OSR is mostly combat. Sure they can have roleplay, but it's not the same as Vampire the Masquerade, so talk about that...)

Tone
Have a quick conversation about the tone of the game. What is the default? Are there different options for gameplay? Come to a consensus on what the group wants. ( for example: Serious vs. Gonzo, Action vs. Drama, driven adventure or sandbox city, etc, etc.).

Subject matter
Explain what ideas might be explored during gameplay. Is there a lot of bookkeeping? Does the game require players to "buy into" certain plots? Does any of the subjects of the game make anyone uncomfortable? Discuss what boundaries need to be set, if any. (for example: Call of Cthulhu investigators are often assumed to be always willing to investigate deeper despite the dangers.)


My own 2c
- Don't try and force the system or the game. If it seems like the group is more interested in something the system does not provide out of the box easily, then look at other game systems. Same for settings... same for characters...

- Don't think of just the one character and double down on it, despite how poorly it fits the others. Have two or three ideas that excite you and tweak the one that best fits to be even better for group play.

.......

Now this is a discussion, so I am interested to hear what people think about this. Cheers!

source: original article here = (link)

That's the session 0 that everyone talks about. I'm not sure it's as well laid out as this for most people. I usually have a system I want to GM and have a session 0 to set out the expectations and see who is in and who is out.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Every time the cat jumped on the table to play with the dice, the DM rolled a random encounter.


That's the session 0 that everyone talks about. I'm not sure it's as well laid out as this for most people. I usually have a system I want to GM and have a session 0 to set out the expectations and see who is in and who is out.

From my experience, this ISN'T the Session Zero everyone talks about. To me, in my experience, what OP is writing about is before Session Zero - it's deeper than the elevator-pitch, but not something that can be conveyed in like five minutes.

Session Zero, in my experience, has been once people have agreed to the system, the concept, what themes will be present or absent. Once that framework is laid out, and pencil and dice are broken out, and people begin pitching their characters - that's when Session Zero happens.

YMMV

 

[payn]

Players campaign guides answers all of this. Publishers should make them, GMs should use/make them, players should read/use them.

 

[haakon1]

This is a strange world to me. Are DM’s competing for strangers to play with them in some competitive marketplace?

When I ask someone if they want to join my campaign the question I ask is: “Do you want to play D&D?”

When I joined my pal Ron’s game, his recruiting spiel was: “I’m running a VTT D&D game with Graham and Glenn and some other guys you don’t know. I’ll send links if you’re interested.”

 

[RenleyRenfield]

For us, the biggest benefit of C.A.T.S was actually, like for real real - talking as a group about what we wanted to do with characters and the types of things we wanted to accomplish with them.

So many times players would spam an idea, and then a few games down the road be a little unhappy with their choices or not really like the way they were interacting with other player characters, or the biggest one - not feeling like the plot or setting had anything to do with them.

CATS 100% solved those issues for us. Like, gone, no longer an issue. As long as we have the full honest talk about what we expect from the character and interactions and world, it was night and day difference for us. I have also noticed more buy-in from my players for plots. They know the plot is in regards to their desires at CATS talk, so they tend to dig into plots even more now.

 

[Mannahnin]

This is a strange world to me. Are DM’s competing for strangers to play with them in some competitive marketplace?

When I ask someone if they want to join my campaign the question I ask is: “Do you want to play D&D?”

When I joined my pal Ron’s game, his recruiting spiel was: “I’m running a VTT D&D game with Graham and Glenn and some other guys you don’t know. I’ll send links if you’re interested.”

Do you and your group always play D&D?

Are your Aim, Tone, and Subject matter generally consistent from campaign to campaign? Or did Ron have campaign documents at those links which you were able to review that told you what his game was about in terms of ATS?

If so, it seems like you've already discussed and established mutual understanding of the stuff talked about here.

If your group were playing a variety of games and trying out new stuff on a regular basis, CATS might be more useful to you.