I was out with one of my buddies last night, and he mentioned that we hadn't gamed in a while (which is true, for assorted reasons that i won't get into here).

I mentioned that perhaps we should get those we want to game with together and have a discussion of what we all want from our gaming sessions, since i'm pretty sure we're not all on the same page when it comes to gaming. Then i asked him the question in the topic title. He replied "I don't know." at first, then said "I like really cool, nail biting combat scenes" and we went off on a tangent about how he didn't like hack'n'slash, Feng Shui and how boring it gets to hear "I attack" every round of combat.

I know that once we get together and have the discussion, there will be a lot of answers of "I don't know", then silence.

What i'm looking for is perhaps a road map to facilitate this kind of talk, maybe insightful questions that i could lead off with, or whatever.

What do you folks think?

You've hit upon one of the big problems with discussing this sort of thing with people. When we go out for lunch, the wife & I have the typical "What do you want?" "I don't know. What do you want?" discussion. Usually with one of us sayinf something like "Not Chinese. I don't want Chinese."

What you need to do is ask probing questions. Okay, so not hack'n'slash or Feng Shui and "I attack" every round is boring. Okay, that's what he doesn't want. Now ask him what he does want. What does "really cool, nail biting combat scenes" mean? Get him to be specific or to put up examples from past experience. And be patient. Your friend really hasn't got a clue what he really wants, hence why you have to ask the probing questions to clarify it, so don't think you'll be able to get it peg in four questions, either. Be prepare for him to talk himself into a corner and offer him an out. You're not trying to trap him into his own word but figure out his preference so you can play a fun game.

I think your best bet is to draw from shared, common experience and ask what people did and didn't like about that experience. Asking the question "what do you want from gaming?" without referencing specific experiences is like giving someone a blank sheet of paper and saying "write a story, right now". You'll run into a lot of writer's block that way. Bringing commentary on experience into the picture turns it from "write a story right now" to "review this text", which is a bit more managable.

What happened recently was this:

One mini-campaign ended. Another, my own (we swap GMs every once in a while) was about to begin.

Two of the guys I game with are roommates. They talked for a while outside the gaming table, then over online chat brought up a couple big issues that they had with my GMing style, or at least things that they wanted to see, and we made a comprimise. Then, at the next gaming session, we all went around and everyone said maybe One Big Thing that they wanted (or didn't want) in my game.

I've just begun a new campaign, and because of their feedback, people have been really interested and involved.

====
btw, just for shits, here's a list of what they wanted:

First, they threw out that they wanted me to GM for a while, because "I've got the skillz". Heh. Having said that, though:

* Some of the players felt like their characters were never in danger of dying. I wouldn't save them at the last minute or anything, it's just that my challenges in combat weren't ever deadly (this was probably due to me underestimating the challenge level of various foes and monsters, not adding enough HP, backups, numbers, etc).

* Two of them REALLY don't like mini-campaigns or one shots. They're fine and all every blue moon, but didn't like my "introduce the game of the week" style. For me, gaming night was all about trying new things, just as if we were playing German Board games or whatever ("Hey guys, I just bought Tigris and Euphrates! Let's play that!" "Hey, this week let's try this new German card game from Mayfair" "Hey, I just picked up the Dune Tabletop game. Let's give that a shot", etc)- This is common for a boardgame group, but they said that they want their RPGs to be longer, maybe a little more epic in scope, etc.

* One player said "No more Kung Fu all the time". I said NO. :)
Actually, what I said was, "OK, not every enemy and PC will have kung fu like abilities. But combat WILL be cinematic." And we both agreed to that.

Those were the main concerns. It improved the gaming, I think, because:
1) They got to air what they wanted in their gaming sessions, and I was very receptive.
2) I now have a clear idea of what they want, so I can include those as goals when I think up adventures.
3) It got me into thinking about my own GMing style, and I realized that I didn't put their characters into jeopardy enough. While I hate the GM style (which I never did) of basically putting the PCs in a horrible situation, then saving them all by having the GM's favorite NPC show up and save the day, or other such nonesense, I DID end up realizing that I really didn't have a feel enough for many of the systems I was running to make an effective challenge for the players that wouldn't outright kill them without blinking.

Anyway, hope that helped a bit. Round-robin, everyone blurts out one thing they do or do not want to see. Chat a little. Take notes as the GM. Promise to make some of those appear, and comprimise on others. Address. Every. Point.

-Andy

Great stuff so far.

I'd point out that semantics can get in the way of discussion; "hack 'n' slash" may mean something different to two different players.

Andy's One Big Thing approach is great, but can be refined. With my latest group, I focused strictly on negative gameplay experiences from previous campaigns, so that mine could bring the players to a "safe" level free from earlier dysfunctional play. It's the approach of "Show us on the doll where the Dungeon Master touched you."

Once you're past that point, then you can engage in the kind of "no kung fu," "okay, cinematic combat is all right" kind of wrangling that I see as a set of dials and switches: "realism," deadliness, magic levels, inclusion/non-inclusion of Jar-Jar, and the like that try to produce concensus about the various Explorations of the game.

Our group also had one of these discussions a while back after about a month of missed gaming, etc. For some reason, EVERY person in our group showed up, including myself, late perhaps, but they were all there.

It was great! A lot of energy and chatting, just BS'ing and drinking. When we got around to talking about what sort of games we wanted to play, we all got some words in. I learned (actually earlier that day) that the reason one of the players disliked short or one-shot games was the lack of PC continuity. So, I offered a game where he would never have to make a new PC, and so on.

Worth the time and effort, and now we are engaged and excited about 2 parallel games.

Andy and Dave: The one Big Thing idea is great. I really like the concept of saying "What didn't you like?" People find it easier to focus on negative things, for some reason.

But what if they say "I liked everything."....but they still seem partially disengaged from the game while we are playing, as if they were merely phoning it in.

Perhaps this is a failing on my part?....I don't know what engages the interest of my players.

Hi there,

This really interests me:

I don't know what engages the interest of my players.

I usually tease out play preferences by asking people to describe a campaign or game session they really liked. In almost all cases, I can figure out what people liked by how they described it. If you're not sure from their description, you can always ask about what made them like it.

I also find it to be more useful than asking about what people didn't like - sometimes those memories get tainted by other things. For example, the player might not mind kung fu, but he decided he hated it because every kung fu person the GM introduced was practically invincible. He might hate fantasy setting just because he disliked D&D.

But when people like something enough to describe it as their favorite, you can be pretty sure you're getting at what they really want without worrying about whether other details are coloring it. Of course, you do have to keep in mind that sometimes what they really want is their old group from college or the ability to play nonstop every weekend like they did in high school. Not much you can do about those... but at least that will come out during their descriptions of it.

And, as Ron said... some people just have different tastes. You should be open to the fact that some members of the group may simply not be compatible with each other without a lot of communication and compromise (it at all).

jdagna wrote: I usually tease out play preferences by asking people to describe a campaign or game session they really liked.

jdagna wrote:
And, as Ron said... some people just have different tastes. You should be open to the fact that some members of the group may simply not be compatible with each other without a lot of communication.....

We finished out old longstanding (2 years) campaign last night, and then proceeded to discuss what we wanted from the next campaign, kind of like what you're talking about.

It was really refreshing, we've never done it in quite this way before, and so now we really know what each other person expects out of it. The format was just a round table, with each person offering suggestions and then the group discussing each one etc until we were done.

As an example of what you might end up with, here was our list:

* Open Ended as opposed to "overriding GM plot based"
* Character Based plots, characters pursue their own agendas and desires, GM throws other stuff into the mix.
* "alive" world that goes on outside the group
* Plenty of exploration, both character and world
* Advancement not linked to combat
* Constant small advancement, occasional larger handouts
* Relationship map based character creation
* It's nice to start off competent, not Joe Average, but with plenty of room
to advance
* Internally consistent world
* No character Death unless the player wants or is happy for it to happen - PC deaths should be heroic, meaningful and/or poignant as opposed to flubbing a combat roll against a rabid alley cat.
* Trust between players and GM, i.e. plans are not an attempt to outwit the GM, but instead a way to come up with the coolest/most fun/sensible plan of action, and accepting that complications will arise whatever the eventual plan is because it's a RPG and that's more fun.
* "Medieval" 1300's-1600's type era
* Low Fantasy, magic and "supernatural" present but low key or uncommon - Magic is very much feared and certainly only evil people ever practice it. Witch hunts known to happen on occasion.
* "Magic weapons", if they exist at all, are ancient artifacts, not common
items found in magic stores.
* No PC mages
* Human-centric world, no D&Dish multiple sentient races
* From all the criteria, Riddle of Steel or a low magic adaptation of 7th
Sea seem to be good picks, with Riddle of Steel the winner as the GM (i.e. me) knows it better.

Brian.

A useful thing in discussions of charged preferences is to formulate questions that take advantage of a Usenet principle, namely, that it is much easier to say something wrong and then get a zillion corrections than it is to ask a question and listen to the crickets chirp.

So:

"Well, I don't like all that kung fu crap."

"So you'd prefer a game without combat?" (This is not delivered in a sneering, "what are you, stupid" tone. Put it forth in all innocence.)

"No, I don't mean that--I like strategizing and planning and having that make a real difference in a battle."

"It sounds like you would like a military campaign."

"It doesn't have to be that--I just like the planning, and want a smart character who can do that."

Rinse; repeat.

--JB

A useful thing in discussions of charged preferences is to formulate questions that take advantage of a Usenet principle, namely, that it is much easier to say something wrong and then get a zillion corrections than it is to ask a question and listen to the crickets chirp.

So:

"Well, I don't like all that kung fu crap."

"So you'd prefer a game without combat?" (This is not delivered in a sneering, "what are you, stupid" tone. Put it forth in all innocence.)

"No, I don't mean that--I like strategizing and planning and having that make a real difference in a battle."

"It sounds like you would like a military campaign."

"It doesn't have to be that--I just like the planning, and want a smart character who can do that."

Rinse; repeat.

--JB