Assessing my group w/ survey

[Matt Snyder]

 This Message was edited by: chimera on 2001-11-05 22:18 ]

[Mike Holmes]

Not bad. Someone (was it MJ Young, or Gentry or somebody?) put together a GNS survey a while back. It generated a lot of controversey, but had some of the same ideas in it. I, too, have given out a similar survey. I hope yours stands you in good stead. Beware, however. Some players seem to not want to reveal their actual likes and dislikes. This may lead to the survey providing a bad analysis. It would be better if you discussed your players answers with them to see why they put what they put. For example, some players may indicate that they don't like a particular style solely because of one bad incident in that style. This might not mean that they wouldn't like it if you ran it. See what I mean?

Good luck,
Mike

[kwill]

good points about the bad points of surveys; I think that a survey is a good starting point for discussion, though (wherein you can hopefully clarify those kind of issues)

I'll try and russle up a survey our GM gave us in my first long-term campaign; personally, I found it useful in terms of getting me thinking about the game rather than just pitching up to play every week (and there it began...)

has anyone else used surveys? to what purpose? in any type of game I think that seeing what the players forsee/hope for in the future is incredibly useful

[Matt Snyder]

Mike --

I will absolutely discuss with my players all of this and more when we meet soon. The reason I sent 'em a survey is that we're now a far-flung bunch, so it saves some time. But I have little fear, nay none, in them being not-completely-honest with me or themselves. I know them VERY well. One's my brother, and the other two are best friends (as in best-man-in-each-other's-weddings kind of best friends)

David --

On 2001-11-05 18:29, kwill wrote:
good points about the bad points of surveys; I think that a survey is a good starting point for discussion, though (wherein you can hopefully clarify those kind of issues)

Yep, precisely why I'll be discussing survey "results" w/ my close-knit group.

has anyone else used surveys? to what purpose? in any type of game I think that seeing what the players forsee/hope for in the future is incredibly useful

I've used surveys before with some success. One interesting survey I did was a character survey posing as an FBI background check for a modern day Cthulhu campaign I ran. I asked the characters all kinds of questions, including some far-out "New Agey" questions. The result was 1) players who understood their investigators better and 2) a plan to create for the characters Dreamland alter-egos based on their answers. I even went as far as basing their Dreamland-fantasy character's stats on how they answered questions. It was a big hit -- one of my favorite moments as a GM was the night I revealed to them their Dreamland character sheets, complete with Major Arcana Tarot card descriptors and unique artifacts for each player.

[Matt Snyder]

You know, I kinda figured a survey like this might stir up some muck (as that earlier survey apparently did). To put the kibosh on that straight away, please understand this survey was meant for my group. I posted it with some reluctance, sensing that I'm probably straying from the GNS path proper. My reasoning was to see if people had some guidance for me in terms of improving my groups role-playing. It is not meant as any kind of widly applicable or comprehensive assessment for role-players and the GNS model.

[Ron Edwards]

Matt,

I getcha on the "survey" concept, and I'm a big fan of feedback and ongoing talk of this sort within a single role-playing group. As everyone else is carefully not saying, I am a Horrible Troll regarding generalized GNS "classify yourself" surveys, as I consider them wrongheaded from the git-go. Your group letter does not fall into this category and stays focused, mainly, on accessible and concrete elements of play.

Here's what I want to know. How many people? What games have the pack of you played in the past? Why, exactly, those games? How often do you intend or want to play? What game or range of games is up for the candidate? Why those, specifically? Most importantly, WHY do you, personally, want to play at all?

Best,
Ron

[Matt Snyder]

Here's what I want to know. How many people? What games have the pack of you played in the past? Why, exactly, those games? How often do you intend or want to play? What game or range of games is up for the candidate? Why those, specifically? Most importantly, WHY do you, personally, want to play at all?

Currently, our close-knit group only numbers four (soon to be five again, perhaps). In the past, this same core of folks numbered as many as 8. We're all hometown chums who managed to stay together through college and beyond despite being far-flung in some cases.

We've played D&D primarily for years and years, but we've managed to sneak in games of Warhammer FRP, Call of Cthulhu, and a very short stint of Star Wars D20.

We play weekly for about 3-4 hours, and that seems to work pretty well. Occasionally we have to postpone a week, so they're all usually fiesty to play a week or two later. In years past we used to get together less often (monthy, usually), but for far-longer periods of time (all-nighters, of course).

Right now we are playing D&D 3E. The players really enjoy the current campaign, but we all agree that we need to improve game play. So, this survey is already helping shape those changes (got one back from a player this morning, and it was VERY informative). We'll discuss the results tomorrow before our regular session.

(Interestingly, two of my fellow players have "other" groups with whom they play fairly regularly. One plays a lot of White Wolf games, particularly Werewolf, as well as the occasional Earthdawn session. The other GMs a group that has played Werewolf, 7th Sea and currently plays D&D.)

However, in the future, other games are certainly a possibility. The group has its own biases, of course, about a host of games, but we've considered in the past the following: Tribe 8, Fading Suns, Mage, Werewolf, Earthdawn, 7th Sea, Call of Cthulhu, and a couple homebrew game possibilities.

Why those is a good quesion. Why we always just pick D&D is a better question. First, the group has a strong affection for fantasy, whether it's good old Tolkien derivatives or something stranger like Tribe 8 or even Fading Suns. Most of those games, if not all, fit the fantasy bill. I think we often turn to D&D because it's familiar and because it has a strong emotive pull for us. We've enjoyed the game for years, so why stop now, right? Well, we're beginning to acknowledge that's not a sufficient reason to continue.

I'm not saying D&D is all wrong for us. It may be "just right" with fundamental changes we make about our role-playing. But, I'm not sure we know that just yet. My gut tells me we need something new to help encourage our agreed-upon role-playing style, but I know that would be a tough sell right now. Might not be the right sell either.

Finally, why I personally want to play is something I've been thinking very hard about over the last week or so. I've taken my own survey to help identify that (oh, and to share the results on an even footing with my players, too).

I want to play because I most enjoy building what I call a "shared mythology" with all my fellow players. While I enjoy the moment of role-playing, I most savor the memorable session that has meaning and value to me.

Now, to me that sounds very much a narrative outlook. However, I seem to identify with Simulationism, too. I enjoy world-building greatly, and when I'm playing (rather than GMing) I seem to fall into the mode of staying in character, rather than propelling the story. That's part of why I've had a hell of a time figuring out where I fit between narrativism and simulationism. Any observations that might help clarify?

In the end, I don't really care whether I'm narrative or simulationist or whatever. As Popeye says, I yam what I yam. I just want to have fun. The labels shouldn't confuse the issue for me, and I think I'm letting that happen. Still, I want to identify where I fall, so to speak, so I can begin to construct a better method of playing, particularly GMing. I also want to identify myself so I can make the most difficult decisions of what "needs to go" in order to improve play. Adding or altering our style of play should be far easier than excising an aspect that unconsciously hampers our role-playing.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Well, as long as we're getting GNS-y about stuff ...

I suggest that you consider the distinction between (1) Simulationism with a strong Setting/Situation emphasis and (2) Narrativism with a Premise arising from Setting. People are ALWAYS getting these mixed up. Both of them rely heavily on "world-building," and then the baggage of the original Threefold discussion comes into it as people identify "world" with Simulationism (which is NOT the case in my construction).

When you say "mythology," the thing that strikes me is that myths have POINTS. Usually, real myths are a lot more "point-y" than childish bowdlerized myths. For instance, Loki's hate-filled rant at the other gods just before Ragnarok carries much more than a villainous mustache-twirl; I, for one, feel a great deal of outsider-based sympathy for him when reading it, and I don't think that's a modern or postmodern reading, but that it has probably been accessible to nearly anyone in all the centuries that the myth has existed. (Whereas the watered-down versions of the Greek myths, or the African ones retold for children, often have a kind of dishonest, "So that's why the mosquito buzzes," feel to them; the pointiness is missing. In the few cases for which I tracked down original tellings, the pointiness was really there.)

If that's the mythic quality that you're after, then I might be smelling a bit of Narrativism. Of course, as you say, classifying yourself isn't the issue here. I do think that the distinction I'm drawing between two things that superficially LOOK alike might be interesting to you.

Best,
Ron

[Matt Snyder]

I'm happy to say that the survey has gone over quite well with my fellow players. The results have been quite insightful on the part of my players. By and large, there's aren't any huge surprises regarding the role-playing preferences. However, there are some eye-openers -- just things I had taken for granted because we all know each other so well.

Tonight we'll be discussing the results before our regular session, and the one person I haven't heard from yet will bring his survey back then. I can already see the kinds of changes my group (including myself) wants to see in our regular gaming. this is going to be a big help.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Matt,

I just realized that we never got a look at the RESULTS of this survey in your group. Any chance you could post them? (Maybe asking permission first ...)

Best,
Ron