What issues should a new group settle up front?

[Aikuchi]

I have 'insurance' for new characters that join an existing gaming group.

---

 

[DragonLancer]

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..."

My players are all experienced bods, having been gaming for over 15 years, but when I do ask them what they would like to do for a campaign I get responses like "you shouldn't be asking us, thats for you to decide." Not all that helpful, but at least I get the impression that they will be happy with whatever I throw at them.

As for your example, I have to agree in some respect to the GM. If one of my players came forward and said that they wanted to play in (insert whatever) and it was something I had no interest in I'd have to say that I wouldn't want to do that. I know I couldn't do it justice due to a lack of interest.

 

[GQuail]

As for your example, I have to agree in some respect to the GM. If one of my players came forward and said that they wanted to play in (insert whatever) and it was something I had no interest in I'd have to say that I wouldn't want to do that. I know I couldn't do it justice due to a lack of interest.

Very true. I've had times when a player has asked if I'd consider running something in a pre-existing universe, for example The Wheel Of Time, that they're fond of. But if I know sod-all about it, or don't like it much, then if I did try to run it no-one would really have much fun.

Of course, I would also say "Do you want to run it?", because if you really want to play a paticular game that bad, sometimes it's the only way. That's just the way it goes, though for some players it's apparently an inconceivable idea, because they're the players and you're the GM!

At heart, a GM needs to have fun too, so they shouldn't run something they don't enjoy. That doesn't mean the groups sole reason to run something should be "The GM likes it", of course.

(Tangent: I also have not run games because, despite being keen on them, I had players who were more so. My girlfriend is quite the Discworld geek and as much as I'd like to try out a game there, I dunno if her obsessive-compulsive nature would permit her to ignore me if I say the wrong two watchmen are patroling Sator Square or whatever. Similarly, despite being a huge Transformers fan, the first person who wanted to play was also a huge fan, and I knew from the kind of people we were it would only degenerate into arguments about if the comic death of Megatron took place before X cartoon episode, and what about the UK comics, blah blah blah the other five players don't care a monkeys about this geekfest. )

Back on topic: I think everyone has hit th emajor points. If I started a new game I knew something about the rules for, I'd probably ask a few key questions, i.e. "Does X feat stack with Y in your game?" or "What's your policy on using non-core spells?" or suchlike. But as long as they're clear on me exactly what kind of game to expect, I'd be fine with that. As long as you tell me it's a totally serious, dice-fall-as-they-may, psychological horror where we can never succeed in defeating the Dread Emperor of Remusia, then we're on even ground: just don't assume anything is "obvious" about your game.

 

[diaglo]

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 can tell you. i always tell.

beer & pretzels.

save or die.

0hp = dead


typical OD&D(1974)

 

[el-remmen]

So very, very, sad - but also very, very, true. The old 'DM owns the table' paradigm should have died years ago, but a large number of self-obsessed individuals keep it very much alive, caring only about satisfying their own wants rather than catering to those of their players. I quit playing for a good, long, while because of GMs like this. I didn't get involved with RPGs to act out somebody else's pre-scripted fantasy.

While not "pre-scripted" by any means, as the person who spends the most time preparing for the game and coming up with determining the consequences of all actions, as DM I feel I have final say on what style of game is going to be played and what the basic idea behind it is.

Players can choose to play or not play, but as DM it has to be something I am willing to immerse myself in for a long time and spend a lot of time on - so while I will compromise and take ideas from the players, I let them know the final choice is mine.

That being said, it is very important to me for the players to know what to expect and I try to do that as best as possible.

 

[GQuail]

In this connection, I'd be asking whether it's factual or mechanical. I have no problem speaking in character as much as possible, but if a group I'm playing with expects me, the player, to "inhabit" the character in any sense, to pretend I am the character, then I want to know about it so I can bow out immediately.

Different people mean different things by "immersion" - it's important to establish common terms. In fact, a lot of these different suggestions resolve as "find commond ground and stick to it".

I remember a thread I read waaaaay back, either here or on the Wizards board, about a guy who went to a convention and played in three" core rules" games.

In each of them, the DMs had changed the game with house rules, but they were totally sensible, everyone else should use them, basically this is what 4th ed should be like, etc.

The first had percentile strength back in, and was a musclemans paradise where fighters combat prowess was immense compared to all others. The second had magic using up the whazoo with basically limitless spellcasting all over the shop, making wizards nigh on indestructable. The last was a game where Dwarves gained enough powers to kick them into at least LA +5 (including "Diplomacy bonus, because everyone liked Dwarves and wishes they were one") but remained LA +0.

You absolutely should make sure you and the other players are speaking the same language when you talk about phrases like "immersive", "role-playing, not roll-playing", "munchkins" or what have you. Don't presume that the correct answer is "obvious" and use these catchphrases: give your players examples of the kind of encounters you'll give them, the sort of behaviour you think it unacceptable, etc.

 

[Hitokiri]

Well, while I can see where the idea of not wanting the GM totally dictate the game, I do think it is the GM's prerogative to decide on a campaign style/world. why should I, as a GM, be required to run a game I don't like anymore than a player play in a game that doesn't suit them. Don't forget, the GM should be having fun too, and letting the players dictate the game is just as bad as letting the GM make all the calls.

Now, once I've decided what type of game I'd like to run as a GM, I make sure that all of my players know exactly what the game is going to be like. I lay out, when I invite someone to the game, exactly what I am expecting out of the campaign. Is it a gritty realistic game or epic high fantasy? What type of power curve are we talking about. Roleplaying or roll playing? What house rules, if any, are being used. I do my best to share how I envision the game being played and then ask that only those that would enjoy such a game join it. This way, when we start playing, everyone is on the same page and knows what to expect from the game.

 

[Odysseus]

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.

When i've tried that. I get one player answering, and the rest saying I dunno. So we go with the one players choice, and leaves after a couple of months. And i'm left running a game that nobody choose. Since then, all the players input or none.

The other aspect that always seems difficult is. What does your character do when the player isn't there. I think its important to know upfront if a player is only going to attend 2 out of 3 sessions etc.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

[Include explanations and reasons for any/all of the following to avoid having your game seem like a prison camp.]

Obligations OF the host of the location of the game, obligations TO the host.
Obligations OF the DM to the players, obligations TO the DM BY the players.
Basic game session information and such not covered by the above if deemed necessary. Things like when the game starts, obsessions about promptness, how to communicate with the DM/other players between game sessions, who will be allowed as players, what behavior will get you booted from the group, etc.
Allowed classes, races, and rules supplements.
DM's intended approach to the game in general (high fantasy, gritty, hack-and-slash, heavy roleplaying...)
Alignment - what it does/doesn't mean/do as far as the _DM_ is concerned; no bringing evil characters into a good party, no use of alignment as an excuse to play a character that is an annoying ass.
Paladins - what they are/aren't obligated to do and when/if the DM will give them warning before stripping them of powers for "being bad paladins".
Other restrictions on play such as "Death to players for speaking OOC", "Death to players that insist on their characters being annoying, uncooperative, or outright antagonistic and attempting to excuse it as "honestly roleplaying my character", etc...
Most likely to be encountered house rules that a new player might otherwise expect NOT to have to deal with or that most significantly impact play (e.g., not using AOO, or "I make Raise Dead EXTREMELY difficult to get so either have new characters ready to play or don't ever have your character do something dangerous if you can help it."
Basics of the campaign setting that the players won't already know.

Remember always that this is NOT a means to DICTATE to players - it should be a means to COMMUNICATE between all participants. Anything graven in stone and utterly non-negotiable should be indicated as such along with reasons WHY. Otherwise, it should (IMO must) be allowed that players can ask for exceptions, additions, deletions or other alterations to anything presented.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Game themes is one of the ones I'd add to the list. In a superhero game, for example, you could have a "Things just keep going wrong, and being a hero has costs" game (spider man), or a "No one likes you because you're different" game (X-men), or a "People look up to you for guidance" game (superman). Each one, despite being the same genre feels very different. My current superhero game has "The world loves those who love it" (acting like a hero gets rewards) and "We're stronger as a team". Those two helped hammer in what's going to be important to the game, but also helps the players fit in with how the world works in a larger scale.

Another I'd add is a brief discussion of what all is going to be occupying game time. Is it mostly dungeon crawls? Is there a lot of mystery and socialization? Desert survival? Do you have contacts or allies? D&D is sorta problematic in that it does have a wider range of games that are run in it than say, CoC. Hammering those out helps a bunch.