So...what type of game do you guys want to play?

[VictorTheVictorious]

Really you could just give me option #2 on all those. For question #10, none of them really stand out as being particularly more important than the others. Moderation in all things I guess, including in moderation.

This sounds like a GM's dream. Everything in moderation - even moderation.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm gonna change some of the descriptions to make them more applicable to what interests me.

1. What sort of tone do you like?

1. Gritty and realistic with local details. Where are we going and how should we get there? What will we eat on the way? Where do we sleep on the way?
2. I like a balanced tone. Sometimes get into the details - sometimes let’s not worry about it.
3. Cinematic. Let’s play out the big things and gloss over the details. Teleport me to the dungeon where I can start killing things. I have no interest in the three days it takes for us to get there.
4. I don’t care. I’d have fun with any approach

3 is the closest. I want cinematic. I want crazy adventures and action and intrigue. I don't want to have to count arrows or bullets. I don't want to worry about catching the local disease as I pass through the unsanitary pauper village unless the disease is important in some way. I don't care about random encounters.

2. How do you feel about the world or setting you play in?

1. I want to interact with a world that feels real. Give me any background stuff to read so I know how my character fits in and I will make it happen.
2. I appreciate a deep setting but do not want to be burdened with learning it outside of game time.
3. I don’t care who the king is. My character might but I don’t need to know. Settings are for GMs to navigate but boring for players.
4. I don’t care. I’d have fun with any approach

Not sure where to go with this. I like player involvement in setting building. I like it when players invest in the setting themselves, through creating locations specific to their PCs or by filling in gaps that the GM leaves in order to build up player involvement. I like lots of improvisation in this. I don't want setting to be a chore or homework for the players to learn outside the game, and I don't want to overly detail things that aren't important to the game as it is being played right now.

3. How historically accurate would you like the setting you play in to be?

1. As realistic and historically accurate as possible. I hate the idea of stagecoaches in something that looks like it took place in 1368 AD.
2. I’d like it to have some grounding so I know what, generally, to expect.
3. This is fantasy - why does it have to look like anything historical?
4. I don’t care. I’d have fun with any approach

My leaning is toward #3 when dealing with fantasy. I don't really care if its historical. If I'm playing Call of Cthulhu set in the '20s, though, I like some historical accuracy. If I'm playing a pulp adventure set during WWII with aliens and giant robots, less so. So it really depends.

4. How serious should the game experience be?

1. Completely serious. Our characters are fighting for their lives.
2. Somewhat - but even the Fellowship had time for some levity on their journey.
3. Inside jokes and silly names make the game more enjoyable.
4. I don’t care. I’d have fun with any approach

I think #2 here is pretty good. My Fallout game is an example of that. There are silly robots with pop culture references, but the game can also tackle more subtle social issues at the same time.

5. Should continuous boldness be rewarded or punished?

1. Rewarded. This is our game and we should be able to attack and kill anything in our way
2. Balanced. Sometimes we should face things so powerful the smart thing is to move on or hide and wait for another day.
3. Punished. The world should be dangerous and we should respect that.
4. I don’t care. I’d have fun with any approach

This question seems confused in what its asking. The question is asking if character should be bold. The answer is whether the world should be tailored to the PCs level. I'll just leave this one alone.

6. How much freedom should the characters have in choosing their adventures?

1. Total. We should be able to move wherever we please and a good GM should be ready and willing to improvise.
2. Some. The GM should have some things prepared but roll with the punches if we stray.
3. None. The best adventures are when the GM plans and adventure and sets us up to take it on.
4. I don’t care. I’d have fun with any approach

#1, no reservations.

7. Should players be heroes of light in a dark world (or vice versa)?

1. Absolutely. The game world should be black and white and we are the good guys. Like Frodo vs Mordor (or maybe once in a while we are on the bad guys)
2. Somewhat. A good vs evil backdrop is helpful but everything should not be about that.
3. No. The real world has no real good vs evil and the game world should have the same shades of grey.
4. I don’t care. I’d have fun with any approach

Depends on the game. Are you playing a Doctor Who game? Are you playing an assassin guild game? Something in between? I like 'em all!

8. How much actual role playing do you like in a session?

1. Lots. I’d prefer most interactions were done via in-character role playing?
2. Some. Now and again is fine but I don’t want an entire night of people talking in-character to each other.
3. Little. I like to solve puzzles and/or fight monsters. I am not really interested in speaking in-character.
4. I don’t care. I’d have fun with any approach

Everything is roleplaying.

9. How important is it that players make in-game decisions as a group?

1. Very important. We should all make decisions that maximizes the team as a whole.
2. Somewhat important. People should play how they want as long as we don’t have a group of 8 elven wizards.
3. Not important. Everyone should play how they want without worrying about what is best for the group and we will muddle through together.
4. I don’t care. I’d have fun with any approach

#3. PCs can have different goals, and that's fine. They have to work together, but they don't have to agree with each other!

10. Which of the above the above questions is the most important to you?

The first question, probably. I don't want to roleplay the fantasy equivalent of Cubicles and Co-Workers.

 

[howandwhy99]

1. What sort of tone do you like?
Tone is irrelevant to game design. What it sounds like you are asking is "How detailed do you like your games?" And I like D&D because it has a roughly simple level of detail that grows as large as you want when you start digging deeper into it.

2. How do you feel about the world or setting you play in?
D. but I do care about each. I think D&D includes all these approaches because they aren't setting design features, but player strategies in how they play the game. Anyone can focus on the setting or ignore as they choose.

3. How historically accurate would you like the setting you play in to be?
D. I think D&D doesn't limit itself unless the players elect a limited setting. Anything can be added at any time really.

4. How serious should the game experience be?
D. but again, it matters each time. No game needs to dictate mood to its players. Again, that's personal strategy and up to them.

5. Should continuous boldness be rewarded or punished?
B. Games meant to challenge players are balanced. Games that are weak obviously lack challenge. Games that are death spirals are antagonistic to player growth. You master those games by not playing them. What's great about D&D is that no challenge is uniform, but instead relatively balanced with the players having the ability to seek it or avoid it.

6. How much freedom should the characters have in choosing their adventures?
A. Total, but you mean the players right?

7. Should players be heroes of light in a dark world (or vice versa)?
D. Again, but it matters to each player. They can define good and evil for themselves if they want or look at it as all grey. The great thing about D&D is that it accommodates both at the same table.

8. How much actual role playing do you like in a session?
D. Again. Actual role playing isn't performing a fictional character, but if anyone wants to do that they can.

9. How important is it that players make in-game decisions as a group?
D. Again, but this is one of the most important elements of D&D's game design. At every point in the game each and every player is making the decision on whether to compete with others, cooperate, or go it alone. Even traditionally shared actions (like initiative) don't have to be done as a group. At core, each player is playing their own separate game.

10. Which of the above the above questions is the most important to you?
I guess 5 or 9. There's a lot of false assumptions here about games.

 

[Zhaleskra]

5. Should continuous boldness be rewarded or punished?
B. Games meant to challenge players are balanced. Games that are weak obviously lack challenge. Games that are death spirals are antagonistic to player growth. You master those games by not playing them. What's great about D&D is that no challenge is uniform, but instead relatively balanced with the players having the ability to seek it or avoid it.

And yet your profile lists that you enjoy Rolemaster, a system that many avoid because of its death spiral combat system.