[Wild Talents] Same page survey for Aberrant game

[watergoesred]

Folks show up with different expectations for a game. And functional play depends on everyone playing the same game. Sadly, many people don’t even know or negotiate what that means, and a lot of game texts leave crucial things out.

So I put out this survey to our fledging Superhero's game. It's just a starting point for working what game EVERYONE at the table wants to play. It's a communication tool. When answering each question, I asked each player to pick the choice that best fits the game they want.

In the end, the group will need to decide ONE answer for each category. This will likely involve some kind of negotiation. Different games will have different answers. Different campaigns will have different answers.

So I thought I'd put the questions up here, for discussion among the players as well as to stimulate comments from our community. O, and I didn't make this up. It all came from http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/03/27 ... page-tool/ If you have any ideas on how to improve the survey or other bits, awesome. Let me know. This is a work in progress!

Find each survey question response below (I'm putting up each separately and sporadically)
Question 1: Do you play to win?
Question 2: Player characters are...
Question 3: What's the GM's role?
Question 4: The player's roles are...
Question 5: Doing the smartest things for your character's survival...
Question 6: The GM's role to the rules is...
Question 7: After many sessions of play, during one session, a player decides to have her character side with an enemy. This is...

[watergoesred]

Question 1.png

(37.73 KiB) Downloaded 207 times

The results for the first question show that the majority of players think the point of play isn't to win or lose. This only provides a limited amount of information. One thing that it suggests to me is that most players feel that character's failing, or even dying, is not something to avoid. Indeed, it may possible that aiming for your character to fail miserably could be a fair way to play.

But one game player thinks otherwise, and that is important. There's no wrong answer. This difference is a good heads up for everyone. Talking about our expectations may help avoid disappointment and confusion later on down the track. Remember, this isn't about making the game what the majority wants. It's about starting a conversation and helping us align what we are expecting to see in our game. It's about playing the same game.

[Seacore]

Do you do this anonymously? While maybe not doing it in a group, it's probably important for the GM to know which player is aiming at winning. This would help the GM to teach this player that he is incorrect.. uh, I mean, to better interact with that player's needs.

[watergoesred]

Do you do this anonymously? While maybe not doing it in a group, it's probably important for the GM to know which player is aiming at winning. This would help the GM to teach this player that he is incorrect.. uh, I mean, to better interact with that player's needs.

Yeah, anonymously. And no, I don't agree. I can't tell if you are just joking so I must say playing to win is a fair approach and certainly does not demand correction. I have played plenty of roleplaying games that you can play to win, even that you should play to win, and have got a lot of playing them like that.

Of course, it doesn't work real well if nobody else has that agenda, but neither does playing fish when everyone else is playing poker.

[Narayan]

Thanks for posting this, Oli. I agree that this survey is an excellent talking point for the group, and I intended to discuss the results at the next session of Aberrant.

However, I found this first question to be a little problematic. "Playing to win" can mean different things to different players. For one player, playing to win might mean collecting as much XP in the session as possible. For another player, it might playing a pivotal role in the group that turns a bad situation around. To yet another player, it might mean the betterment of their character at the expense of the other PCs in the game - considered to be a dickish move in most games, but a valid one in certain systems, such as Contenders. I think all interpretations of "winning" here are valid ones in the context of roleplaying games in general.

Perhaps this is meant to be deliberate - answering the survey prompts a discussion on what "playing to win" means.

The other factor to consider is what the intention of the system is. The system might expect the players to "play to win" or not. It might encourage the players to make character sacrifices for the good of the story. Playing against the intentions of the system can sometimes lead to lackluster gaming experience, depending on how tight the system is.

[Seacore]

I was certainly joking when I said that playing to win is wrong.
I definitely prefer playing in games in which it's not the goal, but often D&D and other hack n slash games are more like a boardgame than strict rp and winning is all good.
And I'll agree loudly that that's purely my opinion.

But my question is, if it's anonymous, how do you interact with the results.
In this case in which you have one player who wants to play to win and 5 that don't, what the next step?

[Narayan]

I definitely prefer playing in games in which it's not the goal, but often D&D and other hack n slash games are more like a boardgame than strict rp and winning is all good.

I think a lot of games try to define what "playing to win" means within the context of a specific system. In D&D4, there is a strong emphasis on keeping the party together so they can overcome whatever challenges the DM throws at them. If you interpret "playing to win" as betraying your party members to get the most loot, then you might be playing counter to what the system intends (and generally being a dick).

I also don't think "playing to win" and "strict roleplaying" are mutually exclusive. When I play Contenders, I play to win in the sense that I try and overcome all opposition, including other player characters. But, in doing so, I have to decide how badly I want to win - is it worth accumulating more Pain and thereby sliding perilously closer to my PC's worst fear? Or should I back down and take a loss in the hopes that I can come out on top next time (assuming there will be a next time)? The choice I make is not just restricted to tactical concerns - it could have (severe) roleplaying repercussions upon my character. I think this nails the roleplaying aspect, for me.

But my question is, if it's anonymous, how do you interact with the results.
In this case in which you have one player who wants to play to win and 5 that don't, what the next step?

What do you do whenever you have a difference of opinion at the gaming table? Discuss! I have always found such conversations interesting. There is a risk that an "out of game" conversation could bring the game to a grinding halt, yes, but I think it is much better to address any concerns about a game rather than to ignore them or sweep them under the carpet. Of course, it is better to set aside a discussion for later where it risks boring the rest of the group though. If the discussion is getting counter-productive then I think the best thing is to shelve it for later and focus back on the game. But I think you should always come back to it.

For me, the game doesn't stop at what happens "in the story". It is what is happening around the table as well. A frank and constructive discussion about the mechanics of a game stimulates me as much as an exciting combat scene - they are both enjoyable.

[Seacore]

But my question is, if it's anonymous, how do you interact with the results.
In this case in which you have one player who wants to play to win and 5 that don't, what the next step?

What do you do whenever you have a difference of opinion at the gaming table? Discuss! I have always found such conversations interesting. There is a risk that an "out of game" conversation could bring the game to a grinding halt, yes, but I think it is much better to address any concerns about a game rather than to ignore them or sweep them under the carpet. Of course, it is better to set aside a discussion for later where it risks boring the rest of the group though. If the discussion is getting counter-productive then I think the best thing is to shelve it for later and focus back on the game. But I think you should always come back to it.

For me, the game doesn't stop at what happens "in the story". It is what is happening around the table as well. A frank and constructive discussion about the mechanics of a game stimulates me as much as an exciting combat scene - they are both enjoyable.

Yep, I agree with that, but you're missing my point slightly.
This information has been gathered without knowing which player at your table disagrees with the other 5.

I often have these kinds of conversations about mood, theme, setting and goals with players before I start to run my games, and also revisit the issue throughout the campaign. But watergoesred specifically mentioned that the information is captured anonymously, and that's what I'm curious about.

As for the other points, I agree that you need to define what "winning" means. But at a certain point if you're saying "winning" means "having fun" , then the questions has slipped out of context.
I've designed characters to be main characters, with their destiny that they are hoping to fulfil and for that, winning is an important aspect, and it's also appropriate for the character.
But I've also designed characters to be supporting characters, occassionally with the hope of having them die tragically or become corrupted by something. From that character's pont of view, they've probably "lost" and that's how I've read the questions.
And I absolutely agree that systems have a big effect on it. Like I said, D&D (3rd Ed from my experience) is very much like a board game and thus 'winning' is more important than in something like GURPS, in which you've literally designed your characters fatal flaw into the character.

[watergoesred]

Yep, I agree with that, but you're missing my point slightly.
This information has been gathered without knowing which player at your table disagrees with the other 5.

I often have these kinds of conversations about mood, theme, setting and goals with players before I start to run my games, and also revisit the issue throughout the campaign. But watergoesred specifically mentioned that the information is captured anonymously, and that's what I'm curious about.

I'm not sure I understand why Narayan's reply didn't answer this for you. Nevertheless, here's my take.

The anonymity of the survey came from using SurveyMonkey to collect the responses. I didn't think about it too much, except that it might perhaps help players be more frank.

And while the survey doesn't tell us WHO disagrees, it does tell us THAT there is disagreement. As Narayan says, that indicates players have something to talk about.

Of course, the different responses could just be due to the question being flawed or just limited in usefulness. That is always a problem with surveys, even moreso for surveys that having been used before. Also, as has been pointed out, what constitutes winning is difficult to pin down. Again though, I think of the survey as a spark for discussion more than anything else. Others may not find that to be as useful an exercise as I do.

[Trithemius]

Interesting exercise!

Winning could mean "beating the monsters, getting the treasure, marrying the princess, and inheriting the county" or it could be "beating the other players" - I guess that the purpose of the survey would be to flag this as an issue and then talk about it.

I'm really about the "what next" - the conversation that happened after this result was made known to the group. Did the one outlier out themselves? Did the discussion identify what was meant by "playing to win"? Did the group pick an answer (I guess you did, you guys are playing right?) and what was that answer?

[watergoesred]

I'm really about the "what next" - the conversation that happened after this result was made known to the group. Did the one outlier out themselves? Did the discussion identify what was meant by "playing to win"? Did the group pick an answer (I guess you did, you guys are playing right?) and what was that answer?

Actually, we did the survey online and this is first time the group has seen the results. We're going to talk about them when next we meet but I suggested we post them up here to spice our discussion with others commentary.

[watergoesred]

Question 2.png

(60.03 KiB) Downloaded 127 times

The responses show everyone's expectations align over the short term but not necessarily over a longer term. The main issue is about whether the PCs will always reconcile their differences, always end up working together.

I think this an important issue to bring out. It concerns the tone of the game, how far the PCs can trust each other, and where the overall direction of the game might go. Differences here could lead to a whole variety of discord between the players. For example, some players might think that the game is falling apart because what was keeping the PCs working together has been lost. On the other hand, for example, the game could feel forced because the relationships between the PCs is never really tested.

[Narayan]

Yep, I agree with that, but you're missing my point slightly.
This information has been gathered without knowing which player at your table disagrees with the other 5.

I often have these kinds of conversations about mood, theme, setting and goals with players before I start to run my games, and also revisit the issue throughout the campaign. But watergoesred specifically mentioned that the information is captured anonymously, and that's what I'm curious about.

I don't think I missed your point at all, actually. But I'm happy to clarify. If I get the impression that a player in my game has a different idea about what the game is about than everyone else, then I'll bring it up at the table for discussion. I doesn't really matter if it is anonymous or not - a player thought it was important enough to raise (albeit unwittingly in a survey) and I like to respond to things like this by throwing it open to group discussion.

I must stress this isn't about "schooling" the player about how they think about the game. It is more about investigating what issues this raises in the context of the game. Should there be more of a "play to win" approach in the game? Does the system support such an approach? What do we mean when we say "play to win" in the context of this game anyway? I think these sort of questions can lead to very fruitful discussions about the nature of the game we are playing. I also see it as an opportunity to take the game in new directions.

As for the other points, I agree that you need to define what "winning" means. But at a certain point if you're saying "winning" means "having fun" , then the questions has slipped out of context.
I've designed characters to be main characters, with their destiny that they are hoping to fulfil and for that, winning is an important aspect, and it's also appropriate for the character.
But I've also designed characters to be supporting characters, occassionally with the hope of having them die tragically or become corrupted by something. From that character's pont of view, they've probably "lost" and that's how I've read the questions.

I think that player characters in a roleplaying game always need to be protagonists for a game to work. Even if you create a character that has a support role and is likely to die a horrible death, such as in a horror genre, the player still wants that character to struggle to achieve something. The PC might be doomed, but she might be able to save a loved one from a similar fate.

So yes, I agree that you can play a PC to lose rather than to win, but ultimately they should still be fighting for something.

And I absolutely agree that systems have a big effect on it. Like I said, D&D (3rd Ed from my experience) is very much like a board game and thus 'winning' is more important than in something like GURPS, in which you've literally designed your characters fatal flaw into the character.

My limited understanding of D&D is that winning is about resource management. Can you get past the current obstacle without losing precious resources? Or will you have to expend some to overcome the obstacle and retreat to a safer position?

My experience with GURPS is that you "win" by building a min-maxed character that excels at specific things. There's nothing wrong with this - I've had quite a lot of fun building characters in GURPS with all sorts of permutations. If you've built your PC correctly, you should be able to handle whatever obstacles come up in the adventure. If you've built your PC poorly, then you won't do as well as others. While Disadvantages can be "fatal flaws", they are mostly just annoying.

[Trithemius]

I'm really about the "what next" - the conversation that happened after this result was made known to the group. Did the one outlier out themselves? Did the discussion identify what was meant by "playing to win"? Did the group pick an answer (I guess you did, you guys are playing right?) and what was that answer?

Actually, we did the survey online and this is first time the group has seen the results. We're going to talk about them when next we meet but I suggested we post them up here to spice our discussion with others commentary.

Oh wow, a live exercise is way more exciting! Sorry for the misunderstanding!

[Seacore]

So yes, I agree that you can play a PC to lose rather than to win, but ultimately they should still be fighting for something.

Ah yes. To me there is a huge difference between the character's goal and the player's goal. My character usually wants to achieve his goals, whether that is save the day, find his next fix or whatever. I however, sometimes have more dramatic ideas in mind.

My experience with GURPS is that you "win" by building a min-maxed character that excels at specific things. There's nothing wrong with this - I've had quite a lot of fun building characters in GURPS with all sorts of permutations. If you've built your PC correctly, you should be able to handle whatever obstacles come up in the adventure. If you've built your PC poorly, then you won't do as well as others. While Disadvantages can be "fatal flaws", they are mostly just annoying.

And I massively agree with this, which was my point. GURPS is a terrible game to play with players who are trying to "win" because character build becomes so much more significant, which punishes some players.