Last night I ran the second session of a Feng Shui game. It's mostly been a blast - helped a lot, I think, by getting a forth player involved - but there's been a few problems getting the party together and a few problems with two of the players not involving themselves in the activities overly much (although they seem to be having fun and answer positively when asked).

The other day I saw on RPG.net (I think) a post in which someone suggested a method whereby they ask three questions at the end of a session: Name one thing you liked that happened this session. Name one thing you didn't like that happened this session. Name one thing you'd like to see more of in future sessions. I liked the idea and thought I'd see how it worked out in play.

Adam, one of the inactive players, is playing a Killer character - an Assassin who has lost his memory and has been working as a chef but is starting to get flashbacks of his former life. The answer he gave to the third question surprised me no end - he wanted me, as GM and the other players to give details of what his former life as an Assassin was. I didn't expect that at all, I thought he was interested in playing out that side of his character without interference (he certainly seemed to enjoy himself most when playing out moments of disconnect between the two persona).

Other than that the answers weren't terribly helpful but I'm hoping if I carry on asking the same three questions, they'll get more used to the idea and be able to give better answers.

I've been doing this same kind of thing with my Adventure! game, but very, very informally. As in, I'll just chat with whoever's hanging out after the game and get them talking about it. It's pretty damn helpful, and a very positive experience for me, as I enjoy talking about games. So, my input for you here would be, try talking about the game informally from time to time, and see if you can get some good input from those conversations as well. Some people respond better to informality then to stuff thats part of game-time.

I've always done (and will continue to do) it on an informal level; but it's the formal side of things I'm experimenting with. On first blush, I'm very pleased.

Hi there,

Jack, here are some thoughts from the days when I used questions like this in running Champions.

1. I found that they worked best when they weren't constant, i.e. not every session. We played frequently with short sessions, and every ten or twelve sessions seemed right, in that context.

2. You could go open-ended, like you just did, or more concrete. I tended to go more concrete, as in, "which villain would you like to see make a comeback," or similar. "Most favorite NPC, least favorite NPC." Wild thought, totally not justified: maybe the open-ended ones are good to start with and the concrete ones are better for a group which is very solidly committed and imaginatively invested in that specific game.

3. If your group is anything like mine was, then some people will leap right into answering the questions, and others will hang back a bit until they see whether you respond to the questionnaires at all. That's another reason to wait a few sessions before the next round of questions, so people can see that their input actually sees some expression and acknowledgment from you in the game.

(It's especially fun when, after a new character or set of events has been introduced, and after a conflict arises out of that and turns into something cool ... someone goes, "Hey! That was from my answers, wasn't it!")

Best,
Ron

We had the next session of the Feng game last night having missed a week due to two of the players have problems with their Landlord trying to scam them. The last session had ended with the party being captured, so this session began with exposition and negotiation. Riffing off Adam's request for more stuff about his character background I had the villian use his 'real' name that had been mentioned earlier rather than the name his character usually goes by. Adam responded positively by asking for a private conversation with the villian (which Kev's techie character cleverly bugged) and seemed to get quite enthusiastic about this side of things although he still is taking few chances to put his character into the action and instead often choosing to take an uninvolved role. Something I find somewhat puzzling.

Our last session had suffered somewhat from people shouting over one another and Dave had flagged that as something that had annoyed him so I brought it up at the start of the session and we managed to be considerably more orderly this session which helped things run more smoothly.

At the end of the session I asked the same three questions as last time and this time the players were much more forthcoming with ideas and answers. This time the issue most bought up was that the plot seemed to be progressing too slowly and the clues they were getting weren't getting them very far. Next session I'll see if I can move things along faster and allow a smoother 'clue chain' (Clue Chain is, incidently, how Feng's GMing section suggests you run which is why I'm trying to arrange things that way).

Overall, I think the questions have been a significant success so far. After a couple more sessions using the current set of questions, I'll try out some variations - like the ones Ron suggested.

I'm strongly tempted to go off what I think the topic of this post is, and address some of your group's particular concerns. But as the topic is questioning, I'll stick to that. Maybe you ought to start another thread to talk about things like the Clue Chain (and why it doesn't work in a lot of cases).

But what you're talking about is what's often referred to in industry and the military as an After Action Review (AAR). In fact the questions that you've cited are the precise ones used as the standard AAR format by the military. Now, ask yourself, how often does the military get anything right (having been a member for a long time I feel that I can say this with confidence: they don't)? What's bad about this format is just what Ron said. Often the questions are not really going to get you the sort of feedback you want or need, and, worse, they become dull after a while. It's amazing how hard these are to answer after your 3000th AAR.

So do ask questions, but mix them up. The "advantage" to the AAR questions is that they're presentation is balanced - "neutral." You have to watch for bias in your questions. That is, if you ask a question in a certain manner, you'll tend to get certain answers. So when you do mix things up, in coming up with your questions, try to make them neutral such that they'll elicit honest and effective answers. Instead of just what you want to hear (which is all too easy to produce).

Anyhow, just trying to make it known that you're open to feedback is very important. Because then players will give it when it's most important - when they're thinking of it. Otherwise you loose this critical on the spot feedback to the innaccuracy of memory.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Hadn't realised you were a military man.

If you want to spin off a thread with your comments on Clue Chains and the like I'd be interested to hear your comments. For my part, I've got a bit of a bugbear at the moment about trying to run games as close to how their designer explains as possible - to be honest though, I've not done a great job of sticking to that; the described method doesn't really click with me all that well. I figure the best way to improve is to try different things and see what you can learn.

I can see your point about running out of comments but I think I'll perservere with them a little longer before mixing things up. I'm inclined to think that the end of every session is probably the best time to ask, not only because things are fresh in peoples minds but because it means the question-answer-reward cycle is as short as possible; my experience with companies doing a similar thing on a yearly basis leads me to believe that unless there's a pretty immediate feedback-cycle the whole exercise will be pretty pointless.

Cheers,

Jack.

I like this idea and will use it in Icar next Tuesday. I appreciate that the questions you ask are very much system dependent but I was wondering what sort of questions do you ask? Is there anything in particular that receives an interesting response? Are there any question pitfalls I might want to avoid?

I shall post my results up here next Wednesday.

Rob, Jack's questions are the standard AAR ones. So are you addressing somebody else here (Ron perhaps)?

To recap:
What did you like?
What didn't you like?
How could we do things better?

Again, Jack, these get old real quick... Just sayin'

Mike