It still amazes me that anyone wants anything as formal as a "group questionnaire". There used to be things called "conversation" and "discussion" - are they against the rules now?
I sympathize with that line of thought, but not everyone is able to express themselves adequately or will remember to touch on things that they will find important once play begins... the purpose of the questionnaire is create a common ground for talking, get it out in the open and on paper so it can be worked over.
I don't use them all the time, but if I expect my players to take more narrative control I need to be certain that we know what we want from each other and the game.
If you've ever had to run a meeting, you know the value of preparatory notes. A questionnaire may be overkill, but a bullet list of topics that need to be addressed is pure gold.
(The modern corporate model has tremendous applicability now, which it lacked a few decades ago. In the Olden Times, the DM was God and all His angels. In these latter days, we take a more collaborative approach. Much of our current corporate culture is structured around just that sort of consensus-building.)
A group questionnaire can be useful if used as an intro into the world, I think - a decent springboard. It's not my preference.
Something like what Robin's describing here, a project that requires joint decision, is very fun in my opinion. It does let you focus the collaboration on something very in genre.
Something which I think character generation systems should strive to do well, and which more involved systems often fumble, is making it hard or impossible to create an ineffective character.
Choice is nice, but if half of the options are rubbish then it's not so much choice as a series of traps for the unwary. That's something I always thought Feng Shui did well- it's actually quite difficult to create a character without potential to shine.
I'll look forward to this project though, as Mutant City Blues got a lot of play and I've always been searching for the perfect 'spaceships and lasers' sci-fi system.
Choice is nice, but if half of the options are rubbish then it's not so much choice as a series of traps for the unwary. I'm not sure there are any games intentionally designed that way...
I am running a Space Opera game with Heroquest 2, and the lack of "crunchy bits" around the tech and ship has been an interesting phenomenon. My players are fine with it, but many other people I've talked to about the game can't understand how it is missing.
(The general lack of tactical possibilities in HQ2 is a stumbling point for lots of people.)
However. I also made them decide what the ship does together, what kind of crew they were, what the FTL drive was like and why, and that gave them both a degree of narrative control but also that collaborative effort that I find binds groups together.
I think that latter stage is very big. I can still appreciate the "everyone makes their own person and we bring them together" games, but I've found the results of some level of cooperation up front to be far more enjoyable, personally.
"in space GUMSHOE you pick a ship type from a list of eight with various features and drawbacks. This seems like practical crunchiness at its height, but it also requires the group to agree on what kind of crew they want to be. The choice achieves collaboration by means of a genre cornerstone, the starship."
I really like that idea as I'm a fan of the "You know each other. Now explain how/why you do, and why you're (still) willing to work together."
With space games: I like how Diaspora handles it with the Moment of Crisis (include the player to your right) and Turning Point (revisit the player-to-the-left's inclusion of you from your own perspective).
I didn't dig the direct intervention of the other players in my character's creation. At all. Truth is, it felt like an unforgivable breach of my sovereignty as a player.
That said, I do enjoy figuring out the connections between characters, both before the initial game and afterward. Referring to past events that we made up on the spot has been the highlight of several intra-party in-character interactions.
Selecting the party card for our 3rd edition Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay campaign had a huge positive impact on our player group. Putting the "you are a team" thing front and centre is, in my estimation, a Good Thing.
Comments 16
Reply
I don't use them all the time, but if I expect my players to take more narrative control I need to be certain that we know what we want from each other and the game.
Reply
(The modern corporate model has tremendous applicability now, which it lacked a few decades ago. In the Olden Times, the DM was God and all His angels. In these latter days, we take a more collaborative approach. Much of our current corporate culture is structured around just that sort of consensus-building.)
Reply
A group questionnaire can be useful if used as an intro into the world, I think - a decent springboard. It's not my preference.
Something like what Robin's describing here, a project that requires joint decision, is very fun in my opinion. It does let you focus the collaboration on something very in genre.
Reply
Choice is nice, but if half of the options are rubbish then it's not so much choice as a series of traps for the unwary. That's something I always thought Feng Shui did well- it's actually quite difficult to create a character without potential to shine.
I'll look forward to this project though, as Mutant City Blues got a lot of play and I've always been searching for the perfect 'spaceships and lasers' sci-fi system.
Reply
I'm not sure there are any games intentionally designed that way...
Reply
Reply
Reply
I am running a Space Opera game with Heroquest 2, and the lack of "crunchy bits" around the tech and ship has been an interesting phenomenon. My players are fine with it, but many other people I've talked to about the game can't understand how it is missing.
(The general lack of tactical possibilities in HQ2 is a stumbling point for lots of people.)
However. I also made them decide what the ship does together, what kind of crew they were, what the FTL drive was like and why, and that gave them both a degree of narrative control but also that collaborative effort that I find binds groups together.
I think that latter stage is very big. I can still appreciate the "everyone makes their own person and we bring them together" games, but I've found the results of some level of cooperation up front to be far more enjoyable, personally.
Reply
I really like that idea as I'm a fan of the "You know each other. Now explain how/why you do, and why you're (still) willing to work together."
With space games: I like how Diaspora handles it with the Moment of Crisis (include the player to your right) and Turning Point (revisit the player-to-the-left's inclusion of you from your own perspective).
Reply
That said, I do enjoy figuring out the connections between characters, both before the initial game and afterward. Referring to past events that we made up on the spot has been the highlight of several intra-party in-character interactions.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment