The Right Fit

[Barastrondo]

A way that's worked well for me of late is to come up with as many ideas as I'm willing to run, then put them together into a list, and send it around to the players. The list might be 30 or so items long, and in very broad strokes, so something like:

1: Dynastic China inspiration, potentially kingmaking, potentially just adventures in a Chinese-inspired setting
2: Viking adventures in the frozen North
3: Gothic Fantasy; think Ravenloft with elaborate plate mail, halberds and greatswords
4: Divine intrigues in an Ancient Egypt-motif culture with D&D tech and sensibilities; a bit Hamunaptra, a bit other stuff
5: Arm of the Faith: character group in employ of a temple, monster-hunting and spreading the light
6: Old School-inspired "Classics": new takes on old tropes
7: Etc....

Once I've got a sufficiently large list, full of settings and other themes (some of which are setting-agnostic), I send it around to the potential players, telling them to point out any ideas that are particularly interesting and any that they'd want to veto. From there I can usually pick out three to five campaign ideas that the group seems to mostly agree upon. I flesh out each of those with a longer pitch, about a paragraph or so, and then send those three-to-five around, asking people to rank them accordingly. And that gives me enough room to pick one.

I find that selecting items that sound neat from a big list tends to be easier on players; they don't have to articulate specifics (which suits many), and at least in round one, they can pick as many as they like, so they don't have to worry too much about prioritization. It also gets me to establish ahead of time the things I'm most enthusiastic about running, so everyone's expectations are all on the same page.

 

[karlindel]

Barastrondo has an excellent point. Sometimes it can be helpful to start with specifics and work from there to determine what the players want. If there is discussion over which options to choose, that will also help to inform you of other things the players may be interested in.

Vague questions can lead to interesting discussion, but can also lead to meandering, as well as arguments over the meanings of terms in the questions. Specific examples to choose from can be very helpful. I would recommend for any question you ask to be prepared to provide a few examples if the players ask. Here are some useful questions to ask, and some example answer choices:

Personally, I generally start off the conversation with some broad questions, such as:
What genre or genres are people most interested in? Fantasy (High, Medium, or Low Magic), Horror, Sci-Fi, Alternate History, Steampunk, Western

What systems are we interested in? Systems can determine a lot about the flow of the game, and knowing what systems the players are interested in can also direct the discussion towards the tropes they want to see in the game. Examples depend on what systems you and the players are familiar with.

What themse/elements do you most want to see in the game? For example, exploration, political intrigue, uncharted lands, wilderness or urban, extreme environments, zany fun, religious battles, culture clashes, etc.

Do we want to use an established setting, a modified but established setting, or a personalized setting? If modified or personalized, how much say (if any) do you want in the world building process?

 

[pogre]

I make a sales pitch for the campaign. Nine times out of ten if I come at them with enthusiasm, they are anxious to play. If my enthusiasm does not sway them I abandon the idea.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I try to work with pairs of opposites like:

episodic - continuous plot

character driven - plot adherence

known playing field - explorative

This gives some structure to the discussion. If the general parameters are nailed down, one can talk about things like thematic monster groups, background world, and stuff like this.

 

[Rel]

Perhaps this is something that you very clearly know already but I find that it is very important to understand your player's "player type". Knowing this may specifically suggest or rule out certain genres of game or certain methods of implementing a given genre. I'll use my group along with the Robin Laws player type categories from his Laws of Good Gamemastering book (similar concepts by the same author using different names can be found in the modern D&D DMG's):

Buttkicker/Powergamer - This guy likes it when there is a lot of combat and he likes his character to be good at combat. He doesn't ignore the roleplaying aspects completely in favor of those but they are his primary focus.

Storyteller - This guy is the other major GM in our group and he loves a good story that feels like something from a movie or novel above all else.

Super Coolness - This guy wants his character to be acknowledged as very good within his specialty. I note this as being different from a powergamer because he has a roleplay focus on this desire rather than a mechanical one. He likes it when NPC's observe his character as being important or highly competent at their job.

Casual Gamer/Tactician - This guy is a fairly brilliant tactician and usually grasps the rules very well. But he also doesn't like to be the center of attention in the group at all. He never ever plays leader type characters and doesn't want the main plot points to center on his character.

I could (and have) run a wide variety of successful games for this group of players. But I've also run a few flops, typically because I ignored (or was unaware of) their player types. And I can see a few right off the bat that would be non-starters.

For example the idea of a game centered on courtly intrigue and the various machinations between a group of nobles where each player was a minor noble and they had to ally themselves with the other players while maintaining a secret agenda of their own is cool...and would be a terrible idea for these guys. The Storyteller would probably love it. And the Super Coolness guy would like it a lot. But the Buttkicker/Powergamer would probably feel like there wasn't enough action and the Casual Gamer would HATE being forced to be the head of his faction and make all the attendant decisions.

I could potentially modify such an idea where the PC's were all part of a single faction and suggest certain roles to some of the players like having the Super Coolness guy be the head of the faction, the Storyteller be his trusted advisor/chief schemer, the Buttkicker/Powergamer could be their royal assassin and the Casual Gamer might be the bodyguard. That's a much better fit but I still think it would be a tough game to run and keep everybody interested for most of every session. And I don't like to work that hard when I'm GMing.

Instead I'd want a system/setting combo where I could imagine all of their desires being met during most sessions and most adventures without having to reach too far for ideas. I'm currently running a Deadlands: Reloaded game for this group and they seem to be really enjoying it. It's easy to come up with stories that appeal to the Storyteller, which also have plenty of combat for the Buttkicker, a few chances for the Super Coolness guy to do High Noon showdowns with his gunslinger (kind of the ultimate expression of his preferred playstyle) and the Casual Gamer/Tactician is sussing out some of the neat combat rules from Savage Worlds and otherwise sitting back, plinking away at bad guys with his rifle.

Anyway, long story short is consider your player types when selecting a system/setting combo and choose one that makes it easy to come up with adventure ideas for your particular group.