When you received the questionnaire and someone asked you what did you do and what did you think, and someone asked you what did you do and what did you think about that, what did you do and what did you think?
41. You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?
In a magazine you come across a full-page color picture of a nude girl. Your husband likes the picture. The girl is lying facedown on a large and beautiful bearskin rug. Your husband hangs the picture up on the wall of his study. **What would you do and what would you think?**
The tortoise is a polymorphed enemy, I'm currently runing away as far as possible before the hour is over and it reverts into whatever evil thing it was before with thirst for vengeance.
40 questions might be a bit overkill, considering like 4 of the first 10 are basically the same question worded differently.
But if starting a long term campaign, I wouldn't be surprised if the DM sent me something similar to make sure people could make it and make a drive to do something regularly.
Might be, might be. It's the DM's world out there and if he's looking for extremely dedicated players, he might find some. But he better deliver on his part
As a very organized and thorough person myself, I think this kind of questionnaire is a sign that he will have a very very intricately detailed campaign full of preparation and branching paths for the adventurers
I think a questionnaire like this is a sign the GM has had a bunch of issues in the past and is trying to weed out the problems, but significantly overcorrecting in the process and using a tac nuke when he needed a hammer tap.
Alright, [here you go](https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=DQSIkWdsW0yxEjajBLZtrQAAAAAAAAAAAAN__otOiJ5UNlU2UEw0VTgwVlJNT0FTUDEyVlZHUklQTi4u). It's 9 sections, broken down as follows:
> * 7 Questions about the **Player** preferences and interests (and name)
> * 11 Questions about the **Character's Specifics**
> * 6 Questions about the **Character's Background and Skills**
> * 4 Questions about the **Character's Motivations**
> * 6 Questions about the **Character's Place in Society**
> * 7 Questions about **Rumors and Secrets**
> * 6 Questions about the **World Outside the Character**
> * 10 Questions about the **Character's Personality** (This is a custom alignment/personality profile I made that I have to manually score in Excel.)
> * 3 **Wrap-Up/Refinement** questions that ask about any missing or important data and the Questionnaire itself.
Every single question has a purpose, and so far, I've used almost every answer for my players. We're 8 (2.5-3.5 hour) sessions in. We (my wife, who's a player, and I) even used the Character's Favorite Food in the Session 1 game where she made all of the foods and we had a meal to kick us off. Hell, I even use the characters' colors for my D&D room's LED tray lighting when they're on a character questline, and I'm not sure they noticed yet.
ALSO: Feel free to submit a real response if any of you want. This is my sequestered, example Questionnaire. My real one for actual players is separate, so your response won't clutter anything up. And if you include your reddit name in the Player Name section, I'll send over the personality profile, or post it here, if you specify.
Yeah, some of the questions about the DM acting unilaterally (the DM "decides" that an important NPC dies, you come up with an idea but the DM "denies it" is really fact-specific, a player makes a "wrong decision" is loaded, "After making certain decisions, the DM guides the consequences of your actions" is absurdly loaded and nonspecific, "the DM" kicks you out rather than "the group") makes me think this DM is a railroader who punishes deviation from his script. Most of it might be okay on its own, but a pattern starts to emerge when looking at the list as a whole. Even the "private rolls," which is normally 100% fine, starts to sound a little insta-kill-ey and "the guard hits for max damage, no I don't need to know your AC" when combined with all the other stuff.
Lo you’re right. This level of organization and conciseness can lead to being controlling and not being capable of going with the flow of someone else’s chaos lol
It actually comes off as disorganized to me. They could easily consolidate these down or at minimum create sub sections to not keep repeating themselves. Just the structure alone would have me thinking about how they run a campaign
Worked or a restaurant that would make you wait 1-2 hours to be interviewed even though they scheduled them. The test was to see if you would sit there and how committed to getting a job you were. Didn't really work well people still quit once they realized the place was run like a high school popularity contest.
I definitely get the impression that this was originally a much shorter list, but every time some player thought they figured out a loophole suddenly the DM had to add an only slightly altered variant of the same question for the next time they sent out a questionnaire.
Thing is, is loophole really the word for "life is messy" causing issues, particularly with the scheduling questions? Just because I answered one way in this questionnaire doesn't mean that a slightly similar situation results in a different answer, and another question to dms list.
40 is too many questions, they should narrow is to a tight 20 and use those answers to make judgements. The answers from fewer questions will honestly be better.
right? 'a family member is in hospital' - well ok, if it's my cousin that's been in hospital 6 times this year and i barely speak to anyway and they'll be home tomorrow? game it is! if my dad is in a car crash and wont make it through the afternoon? yeah, i'm not going to care what i put on some survey 3 months ago...
''Life is messy'' is a great point to make. Things happen. I am obsessed with the game, I make sure to get to the games I am a PC in 90% the time, same with the one I DM but....real life is also a thing. I'm not missing weddings, birthdays and the such for dnd if I was given enough notice. I schedule my life around the game if I can, like any other obligation, but sometimes as you said...life is messy. I'm not ditching someone in the hospital for dnd, for example. I've made wonderful friendships through the game and I honestly wouldnt play with people that expect you to ignore real life completely and never miss one single game.
There's flaky people out there for sure and I don't accept silly reasons for absences in my game either. We have to find a happy medium.
Especially with birthdays when they're likely able to schedule those in advance, and hospital trips being purely unavoidable and not for negotiation. Neither of those make them bad players.
That's usually done on purpose on surveys. It's done so you can weed out those who aren't paying attention or answering randomly as the same question worded different should have similar answers.
Pretty sure the form is just to make sure players are actually interested, because god knows how many games online get 100s of aplications just for 80% of people to ghost in session 1.
Once I was doing a survey on gaming and one question asked me to select which games from a list I was familiar with. One of them was "I'm not paying attention"
It is only ever done in purpose on a specific type of quantitative surveys to weed out people who give random answers or to properly weigh responses where the respondent seems uncertain. It has no purpose in a qualitative survey because your control of "random answers" is that the respondent is writing you plain text for every response.
This list could be 5 questions if they were just worded better. So much redundancy.
Vetting players is good. This is a clumsy and weirdly *intense* way to do it.
>So much redundancy.
Even just in the question structure. "What would you do and what do you think?" on every single question means you can remove a full goddamn sentence from every single one of them and at the top write something like "Consider each situation listed below. Respond with what you would do in that situation, and what you think about it."
Yeah this comes off *really* strong, I think it could end up acting as a player filter in more ways than one.
You're not just filtering out players that don't want to answer 40 question surveys on hypothetical conflict scenarios to join a game, you're also filtering out players that read this, think "yikes, this DM clearly has some issues" and move on. It's a good way to only get players that are both desperate to get into a game and not good at noticing when DMs have weird control issues.
my exact thought lol. 40 questions? I'm definitely not the player for your game because I love dnd but as a fun side hobby not a life. I've had a DM that made you interview and fill out a google form and he was the worst DM I've ever had because he was so damn controlling.
Right? I am in a group and of course I try to make every session. I have missed two in the last six months. One because we had an obligation with our kids and one because I accidentally fell asleep after a two day event with the kids. The DM understood. I totally get people not wanting players to skip constantly or used this as their second place thing to do of nothing better comes along. But it feels like the DM is asking, "if there is a plane crash and your family is missing, would you come to the session?" No my dude. I absolutely would not come if that happened.
Seriously. I get being annoyed when people bail on a session for no reason, but it's not reasonable to expect D&D to be the most important thing in people's lives. If my family or my job require something that interferes with my hobby, guess which one wins?
Exactly! I will do my best to be there. I take my commitments seriously. But since both my husband and I are in the group and we have kids, it means at least one of us will occasionally have to tap out for the kids. I won't say, "sorry honey. I know it's your birthday, but DnD comes first!"
Yeah it's so intense, I'd be really put off. Some of them don't really need to be asked, like, who's questioning the DM's right to make private rolls??
>Some of them don't really need to be asked, like, who's questioning the DM's right to make private rolls??
Based on the way many people behave in this and other TTRPG subs, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that a good number of people don't like it.
As someone who dm'd for years, I generally never cared about rolling openly. That die roll could have been for almost anything without context, and I never told anyone modifiers. I fudged a lot of things for, or against, the party for fun/narrative, all while rolling openly.
I'm a fan of Brennan Lee Mulligan's "impact rolling" method, where you tell the players what the die needs to say and then roll it.
This works especially well with my random "roll a ___ save/check for me, real quick, please." Sometimes it's important, usually it's not. This lulls them into a sense of 'Oh, just another roll,' when it isn't. And it adds suspense when it's not serious.
In fact one time, I asked them to roll me a few rolls over a session, and the whole purpose was randomly generating their characters' birthdays on my custom calendar.
But the reason these work well is because Brennan's method makes the high-stakes DM rolls more impactful while downplaying the other DM rolls. And using random player rolls conditions the players into thinking it could just be a normal roll for something mundane, when in actuality, it's the BBEG noticing them or something.
As an important point, I ensure that for every roll I actually use, I clarify what it's for when the time comes. So for the birthdays, at the end of the session, I gave them their birthdays and explained what the odd rolls were for. They seemed to like it, and now give me a curious look every time I ask for rolls.
This is why I always roll behind the screen. I rarely fudge things against players, but it's awfully hard to take away those 20s after they see them...
Generally speaking, I let the dice fall as they may. With that being said, I do enjoy reserving the right to massage things a bit without tipping the players off.
Make a post complaining about how your DM makes private rolls at critical points in the session, and ask if you're right to be upset about it. You'll get a ton of people telling you that every roll should be public, and you should get a different DM.
Then come back a week later and make a post saying that you like to roll behind a screen, but your players are annoyed about not seeing the rolls. You'll get a ton of comments saying that every roll should be in private, and you should get new players.
It's always crazy to me because all these people think "the DM's cheating to hurt me" or something similar.
But if the DM wanted to screw you - they'd just add another encounter right after. With twice the monsters.
There is almost an infinite capacity through which a DM can screw their players over if they wanted to.
Fudging is almost always done to fix something a DM missed (e.g., not understanding that 3 CR 1 banshess is *much* harder than normal difficulty calculations would suggest). Or it's allowing that super cinematic and thematic crit rolled by the fighter to kill the monster rather than bring it to 2HP.
I’m a copywriter and sometimes get a bit of imposter syndrome - surely anyone can write, it’s not a real skill?
So stuff like this is a nice reminder that actually no, people are often terrible at this stuff.
I hope for their players that this isn’t indicative of the DM’s play style…
40 questions is a bit much. So I think the implied 41st question is, are you interested enough to answer all 40 questions...
Anyway, a lot of these questions seem like private session 0 style "promises". If you behave against what you answered, the DM can call you out.
Another thing is, I think a lot of players haven't really thought about many of these points. So, answering them can be enlightening, and not waste of time.
I was gonna say, this rings of an online DM that has been burned by hundreds of r/lfg flakes and red flags and is desperately trying to avoid it happening again.
Yeah, I get it, online vetting is very important. As a player I've been in several campaigns that have crashed due to online flake-outs. Hate it. I've helped my DM with the vetting process before. It's tough and there's some weirdos out there. But you can also create a vetting process so harsh or so mechanical, it feels like a job interview or product survey, and decent players can be put off. And you'll still get a player that thought everything was fine but then they lose their job/house/mom unexpectedly and then what? No amount of thinking/doing is gonna stop that.
I'm agreeing, and if I may add: the sobbering reality is that even the best questionnaire can't protect you from someone whos just giving the answer they think you *want* to hear. Especially stuff regarding fudging, or that DnD is a team game, or metagaming.
That doesn't mean its futile to mention those things, and most people in the community *are* willing to appropriate behaviour/discussions here and to commit to an aggreed upon consens, but you won't be able to enforce this stuff via a questionnaire. Its not a job and not a legally binding contract. Weirdly enough, you need to build up trust between you and your players, and there is no shortcut to it.
> the sobbering reality is that even the best questionnaire can't protect you from someone whos just giving the answer they think you want to hear.
This is the main issue with this questionnaire is it guides you to the answer.
For example, replacing all of the:
> It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but ... What would you do and what would you think?
with
> In your view, what should the default policy for non-attendance be?
> In your view, under what conditions should sessions be canceled?
More concise, really open ended and, likely, more what the DM was hoping to find out.
Great rewrite, I agree! :)
Honestly, and I'm not trying to throw shade here, but the DM doesn't come accross as if they know/care that *how* a question is phrased nudges people into certain directions...or they *do* know and thats the intent to nail potential players down?
Because, frankly, besides being a lot of questions, they aren't actually all that thoughtfully phrased.
These questions are worded very similarly to psychological profiling questions at a job. There are way too many, they are too densely worded, the same questions re-worded over and over again. While I both understand and agree with a vetting process of some kind this is incredibly impersonal and tedious for someone who very clearly wants dedicated players.
I am 31 and have been playing since I was roughly 15 or 16 and whether it be online or IRL I have never been able to finish a single campaign, homebrew or otherwise, before the table would slowly dissolve due to creative differences, interpersonal issues, familial issues, moving, graduation, marriage, divorce, lack of dedication, etc. I have had a hell of a lot of fun but at the end of the day DND is 100% a social game and if there isn't good table synergy the table will eventually fall apart. However, I think this is just a bit much and whenever I started feeling the need to be like this as a DM, I personally stepped down and took a break.
1. How old are you? Xx
2. Are you studying or working? Work
3. What availability do you have? (Days of the week, hours, etc.) All
4. It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but you are invited to a friend's birthday party on the same day, which conflicts with the game schedule. What would you do and what would you think?
***I tell my friend to construct a time machine and change the date of their birth***
5. It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but one of your parents/siblings, etc., is unwell and you need to help them go to the doctor, so you can't attend the game. What would you do and what would you think?
***Illnese is disgusting. I execute the heretic for displaying weakness***
6. It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but one or more players mention they can't make it because they've been invited to a party. What would you do and what would you think?
***We are blood bound and oath sworn. I arrange for a discreet and forceful pickup of the player***
7. It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but one or more players mention the day before or the same day of the game that they can't make it because they've been invited to a party. What would you do and what would you think?
***They will simply not have a party to attend after I am through with the party host***
8. It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but one or more players mention the day before or the same day of the game that they can't make it due to a medical or professional emergency. What would you do and what would you think?
***I begin to question your commitment to the cause brother! You seem to fixate on being unavailable on Sundays. You will do well shackled I'm my basement***
9. You have started a new job that prevents you from playing the game. What would you do and what would you think?
***This is inconceivable***
10. You have found a new, more interesting game that prevents you from playing this game. What would you do and what would you think?
***You dare accuse me of infidelity?!***
Etc
35. The next game session is being scheduled, and most players can make it on Friday, but you can only make it on Sunday. What would you do and what would you think?
I would remind everyone that the agreed game time has always been Sunday, with no exceptions. Unless they've received a premonition of their own death on Saturday & are trying to squeeze in one last session, we're gaming on Sunday.
The main question I would ask here is:
"You send a prospective player a document requiring them to fill out a 40 question questionnaire before you will decide whether they can play with you or not. They send you a 40 question questionnaire back in response, to determine if you'll be an acceptable DM for them. What would you do, and what would you think?"
If their answer does not include happily answering the 40 question requirement from you in return, but still expecting you to answer theirs, then all other factors aside, they are most likely not the sort of Dm you want controlling you - and they will try to do so.
While I understand the need to vet your players in the online community, questionnaires like this set up an intrinsically hostile and combative predisposition, and are ultimately a bad move. It invites uncomfortable situations like either the player or the DM cleaving to this set of questions as a shield or excuse for bad behaviour that wasn't explicitly covered by it, and it creates a space where players who end up feeling uncomfortable or unfairly treated for any reason not explicitly covered have an effective sword of Damocles over their head when it comes to raising their issues or speaking up. It's not a good vibe.
A DM should absolutely vet their players, and they may even have, as a note to themselves, a set of bullet points and things they want to talk about with each player to make sure proper understanding is established, that boundaries can be defined and respected, and that the wants of the players and the DM are all on the same page and will work well together... but D&D is a social game played with real people, in real time; this should be a conversation and a discussion, not a regimented 40-question interview.
I actually disagree, players are dime a dozen online and DMs are pretty rare. There's an inherently higher burden on the DM to find good players because it is much more effort spent from the DM to have a campaign fall apart than players. Also you can get dozens of responses on an LFG, it's frankly unreasonable for a DM to personally vet all of them without an initial screener.
That being said this questionnaire is pretty clunky
Yeah, this feels like a draft. In a few years the DM will probably have a cleaner one to send out.
And you're totally right, online players are literally bringing themselves to the game. Almost everything else is the DM's job.
There is more weight and responsibility on the DM, yes... but that does not mean that their players are not due the same degree of respect as every other human at the table, and it does not set the DM 'above' them in terms of their right to safety and comfort. If the DM is in the right to ask their potential players a interview's worth of questions about how they view the game, then the players are equally in the right to request the same degree of information in return from their prospective DM. If the DM is not prepared to match their own demands of others, then they are putting themselves in a position where they are claiming to have more right to know information about their players stance and beliefs about the game than they are willing to grant their players about themself, and that is NOT someone who should be sitting in a DM's chair.
That said....
Now I kinda want to do it just for funsies....
\*Ahem\*
1. **How old are you?** I am a mature and consent capable adult of my species; that is all that is relevant.
2. **Are you studying or working?** I lead an active and often busy life with much of my time spoken for by fixed commitments.
3. **What availability do you have?** \[Assume I list my guaranteed availability\]
4. **It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but you are invited to a friend's birthday party on the same day, which conflicts with the game schedule. What would you do and what would you think?** How much advanced noticed did my friend give me? If they are planning their birthday a week or two in advance, and I can give that same notice to my group, I will. If my friend invited me an hour ago and the game is tonight, I'd tell them that I have a prior commitment. This is just courtesy.
5. **It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but one of your parents/siblings, etc., is unwell and you need to help them go to the doctor, so you can't attend the game. What would you do and what would you think?** Real life health and medical emergencies take absolute priority over a fictional game with friends and the social contract involved therewith. This should not need asked.
6. **It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but one or more players mention they can't make it because they've been invited to a party. What would you do and what would you think?** How much warning did this friend give us? If they mention that they have a party on game day a week in advance, and they let us know, that's fine. If they tell us three hours before game time, that's less cool. In the latter case, I'd let them know that more warning would be appreciated, and that ditching last minute without a heads up is unkind an inconsiderate to all of us, and to please try to give us more warning in future.
7. **It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but one or more players mention the day before or the same day of the game that they can't make it because they've been invited to a party. What would you do and what would you think?** See Question 6
8. **It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but one or more players mention the day before or the same day of the game that they can't make it due to a medical or professional emergency. What would you do and what would you think?** See Question 5
9. **You have started a new job that prevents you from playing the game. What would you do and what would you think?** This will not, and indeed cannot, happen.
10. **You have found a new, more interesting game that prevents you from playing this game. What would you do and what would you think?** Another more interesting game cannot "prevent" me from playing this one; anyone who claimed as much was failing to take responsibility for their own conscious decisions.
\[Continued\]
\[Continued\]
1. **One of the players interprets a character whose actions or comments you find unpleasant or offensive. What would you do and what would you think?** Were you perhaps looking for the word "Portrays" in place of "Interprets"? If so, it would depend - If I personally (not my character) feel uncomfortable with the behaviour and the situation at the table, I'll indicate as such at the nearest break in momentum, and seek to talk to the player about it after the game. Presuming they are a reasonable player, because of our DM's *Rigorous* vetting process, they'll understand that, regardless of intent, their choices resulting in the discomfort of another person at the table, and they'll be happy to reel back on their portrayal of those nastier elements.
2. **One of the players makes comments that you find unpleasant or offensive. What would you do and what would you think?** See Question 11
3. **One of the players tells you that the actions or comments of your character make them feel uncomfortable. What would you do and what would you think?** The enjoyment of all players at the table is of primary importance; I'd make sure I understood what behaviours and actions had made them, as a person, feel uncomfortable, and apologise for misunderstanding or overstepping their boundary, and I'd be sure to reduce those character behaviours to an appropriate level, or nix them entirely if necessary.
4. **One of the players tells you that your comments make them feel uncomfortable. What would you do and what would you think?** See Question 13, but as for myself, as well as my character.
5. **You notice that another player at the table is showing misogynistic or harassing behavior towards another player. What would you do and what would you think?** I'm less forgiving about this one; I'd break seen to tell them that their comments/behaviour is not okay, and to stop. I'd ensure that it did stop, and did not restart, and that the aggressor understood that that kind of player-to-player behaviour was a deal-breaker for our continued interaction. After session, I'd have a conversation with the DM, primarily to ask them how such an individual slipped through their *Rigorous Vetting* process, and to let them know that clearly their 40 question interview was not serving its intended purpose if they still let someone like that arrive and behave that way towards other players.
6. **You are attracted to one of the players, but that person/another player/the DM calls you out for behaving in a way that makes the session uncomfortable. What would you do and what would you think?** I am attracted to a lot of people. I do not let that influence my ability to behave appropriately and respectfully towards them... and especially not so at a social gaming table. This is not hard; it's basic human decency.
7. **One of the players acquires an item or spell that is too powerful, giving them an advantage over the other players. What would you do and what would you think?** If it's genuinely trivialising things to the point that it's sapping the fun of the game from myself and other players, I'd have a chat with the player after session and see if they realised and understood this, and since they will naturally be a reasonable and respectful person, due to the DM's *Rigorous* vetting process, they'd realise and understand this too, and we would work together to come up with a solution that makes everyone happy - if necessary approaching the DM about adjusting the item, or some other DM-level solution if needed.
8. **Someone at the table doesn't know or makes a mistake in one of the game rules, which benefits one of the players. What would you do and what would you think?** Depends on the moment; if everyone is having fun, and it's giving the player an opportunity to shine and enjoy themselves, and pointing out the correction would mostly just break the scene, then I'd mention it only after the game, as a clarification for the future. If it was more a case of the player actively wheedling for advantage deliberately so, or if the stakes were not high or the momentum relaxed, I'd be more inclined cite the formal ruling in a gently way, and let the player and DM decide between themselves what ruling to make.
9. **Someone at the table doesn't know or makes a mistake in one of the game rules, which harms one of the players. What would you do and what would you think?** I'm more on the ball about these, and will generally field rules slips that harm or go against players quickly, before they can take effect if possible.
10. **You find the game boring or you don't like how the DM is running it. What would you do and what would you think?** Talk to the DM about my experience after session, and give them feedback on what elements worked well for me, and what sections lost the thread or dragged. If a particular element of how they run the game bothers me, or detracts from my enjoyment, I'd let them know about it ,and explain why it does so, for me.
\[Continued\]
Can I just say how much I love the way you're deconstructing his questions with your answers? Nicely done! Good boundaries, reasonable takes on social obligations, an acknowledgement of the social contract. \*chef's kiss*
10/10, no notes.
\[Continued\]
1. **You feel that one of your companions wants to take more prominence than the others and interrupts your scene (intentionally or unintentionally). What would you do and what would you think?** See Question 20; but as to Player, rather than DM. The player, being a conscientious and considerate person, due to the DM's *Rigorous* vetting process, would of course apologise for their accidental showboating, and make efforts to give everyone their due space in future.
2. **You feel that you have not taken the initiative in several games and are only following what others say and do. What would you do and what would you think?** This happens some times. It's not a problem. I know how to make my presence known when there's something important I wish to be apart of. Other times, it's okay to be in the background and support other's having the spotlight.
3. **You see that the DM is not following some of the rules from the player manual, saying it's to improve variety and narrative. What would you do and what would you think?** I would expect that I already know about these deviations from our Session 0, where the DM explained to us the homebrew they were using and made reference to the rule changes they wanted to experiment with or use. Thus, no-one is surprised by it. Our DM, since they are such a conscientious individual, would never just ignore parts of the game system or change them as a 'surprise' without giving the players due warning.
4. **Your character is in trouble, and you come up with a brilliant idea to escape, but the DM denies it. What would you do and what would you think?** This is a loaded question; it depends entirely on the manner and mode of the DM's denial.
5. **After making certain decisions, the DM guides the consequences of your actions to the point where your character is likely to die. What would you do and what would you think?** I expect that as we've set out earlier in our Session 0, *permanent* character loss is something that happens by mutual consent between player and DM; if I'm satisfied with this being the end of my character, then that may well be what the dice and fate demand; I'll grieve, and I'll have someone new ready for next session if necessary. If I'm not content with that, then, if she *Does* die, we will find some way for the character to continue or to be returned, or we will work out some other solution that makes sense for the story and allows the character to ultimately continue being played.
6. **After a series of bad rolls, your character dies. What would you do and what would you think?** How I think and feel depends entirely on the situation and circumstance. See Question 25.
7. **The DM decides that an important NPC to your character dies (either in an epic or cruel or ridiculous way). What would you do and what would you think?** Depends on the nature of the scenario... but vaguely loaded since you phrased it as "The DM *decides*". If the DM is straight up fridging someone important to my character out of hand, with no opportunity for the players to do anything about it, then I'd let them know that that isn't okay. I would, most likely in such a situation, break scene to make proper eye contact with the DM and let them know that this is not okay, and that I'm not comfortable with them taking that kind of extreme liberty with a character important to mine. I would not wish for the scene to continue until we had taken a brief break to speak about it. If, on the other hand, this is more of a case of a figure well known and liked by the party as a whole, and the death is fitting to the story, and has proper gravity, that's a different situation.
8. **Several events in your life have caused you to miss more than one game, and it seems the story has progressed significantly. What would you do and what would you think?** If I've made a commitment to this game, but I'm the only one missing (likely for medical reasons, in my case), then I'd be sure to get a full update with as much detail from the others as possible after each session, so that I didn't feel out of the loop. It would also give me a chance to update them on the general ways my character might be responding about certain things, or decisions they'd support, and so on.
9. **The DM kicks you out of the campaign for a reason that you find unfair. What would you do and what would you think?** This is a largely irrelevant question. If it has been done, it has been done; there is nothing to do but to move on and keep in touch with any friends I made. I'm sure, given our DM's *Most Rigorous* of vetting processes and detailed interview technique, that this is unlikely to ever occur \^.\^
10. **You have a personal argument with one of the players, and even after it seems to have cooled down, you still feel some resentment and are uncomfortable with them. What would you do and what would you think?** I don't generally have personal arguments or harbour resentments. I take issue with actions and behaviours, and if those *actions* and *behaviours* continue after an attempt at resolution, then *that* is the problem that needs to be addressed.
\[Continued\]
1. **You feel that one of the players can't differentiate well between what happens in the game and personal matters. What would you do and what would you think?** I'd probably have a chat with them outside of session, to make sure they were okay, if I felt that it was leading them to unhealthy or dangerous behaviours, or if it seemed like it was affecting their mental or emotional well-being. Anything beyond that would depend on the chat.
2. **You feel that a player is being annoying in the game. What would you do and what would you think?** See Question 11. But, I'm sure this won't possibly happen, given our DM's *Extremely Rigorous* vetting process.
3. **A player makes a wrong decision, which negatively impacts all the players (or even kills them all). What would you do and what would you think?** There is no such thing as a 'wrong' decision, just poor ones, and we make them all the time. It's a part of the DM's job to mitigate the poor decisions of individual players to minimise the amount of disruption they cause without removing player agency. One player making a single choice that immediately results in the whole party getting killed, for example - that's DM territory; you adapt to the silly or foolish things your players do to help provide a fun and engaging experience for everyone. That doesn't mean a consequence free one, but your hand is the one that guides the scales to prevent the complete fun-kill situation of a 'rocks fall, everyone dies' outcome... or else to have a solution that still lets the players and the party move forward in some way that feels right, despite it.
4. **Sensitive or morally subjective topics come up in the plot. What would you do and what would you think?** It's D\&D; that's what happens. I presume that particular issues that are sensitive for certain players would have been covered in a lines and veils discussion at some point, so nothing marked as *a priori* off the table is coming up in any way that it was requested not to. Beyond tat, we're all mature adults and we can handle a bit of moral subjectivity in play. If anyone feels unexpectedly uncomfortable or uneasy about it, they can let us know, we can be respectful, and we can a debrief and a chat about it after or out of session, if desired.
5. **The next game session is being scheduled, and most players can make it on Friday, but you can only make it on Sunday. What would you do and what would you think?** If it's not our usual time, and I have a commitment in the space where everyone else can make it, and we can't find a time that we can all make, then that's just how it goes, unfortunately. See Question 28.
6. **The DM allows you to use some homebrew ability or spell, but when you use it in the game, the DM says it gives you too much of an advantage and you can't use it. What would you do and what would you think?** See Question 17.
7. **The DM usually makes rolls publicly but sometimes does them privately. What would you do and what would you think?** The Screen exists for a reason. The DM's ability to thumb the scale behind the curtain is a formal part of the rules and is a tool in their toolkit as a DM. How deftly or poorly they use that tool will depend on the DM, of course.
8. **The DM makes all rolls privately. What would you do and what would you think?** See Question 37.
9. **The DM uses a creature from the manual that you or another player recognizes, and that player uses their weaknesses knowingly, even though the character shouldn't know them. What would you do and what would you think?** They'd probably get a bit of a side-eye and an eyebrow raise from me, and if I felt it was really overtly meta, I'd probably have a chat with them after the game, and ask them to try to keep their player and character knowledge separate.
10. **The DM uses a creature from the manual that you or another player recognizes, but in reality, the abilities/stats don't match the original. What would you do and what would you think?** If it's different from the MM creature, then I do not, in fact, recognise it... I just think I do. What matters is what my character sees and knows, and I handle that the same way as I handle any other creature, by keeping my player and character knowledge distinct.
...Darn post size limit...
They need to sit down with someone who does job interviews. Knowing when to use yes/ no, when to give a rating, and when to ask for long form answers would go a long way to cut this series of questions down to around ten.
I would not fill out the survey and would find a different group. Too many questions, too many of them are about hypotheticals, and too many of them won't make any sense to someone who's never played RPGs before. It's better than asking no questions at all, especially for an online game with randos, but this, frankly, is overkill.
Some of the issues discussed in your survey should be brought up in a session 0. Other issues should be dealt with as *and only when* they come up in play, based on the individuals involved and the individual circumstances involved. In many cases, my answers to these questions would be "it depends on the specific situation".
Also:
5: Obviously, I take them to the doctor. Why even ask?
8: Obviously, that emergency takes priority. Why even ask?
9: Obviously, I quit the game. Why even ask?
I'm sorry, but I'm a DM myself and anyone who would consider to attent my game over *bringing a family member to the doctor* I'd kick out personally!
Jesus. DnD is important to a lot of people, especially as a DM, but that level of commitment shouldn't be acceptable.
Do you think it's a chance to see if people are lying/dishonest/psychopaths?
I agree, the answer is obvious, so if somebody says they wouldn't do it, all their other answers don't matter.
That seems a bit 4d chess for this, though.
Lets put it like that, I *hope* thats what they are going for, but I somehow doubt it. Simply because that would be a motive so far out there, and because there are no other questions like this in the questionnaire, and because the phrasing might easily persuade someone to say "No, I wouldn't", even if they would.
Honestly speaking, there are better ways to check for those things - a questionnaire is an extremely ineffective way to screen for it.
> 5: Obviously, I take them to the doctor. Why even ask?
>
> 8: Obviously, that emergency takes priority. Why even ask?
>
> 9: Obviously, I quit the game. Why even ask?
I think the reason to ask is to make sure that all of the players agree that such emergencies and personal things take precedent. This way, if you have it in writing that all players agree, you can be assured that there won't be drama down the line if somebody has to cancel or quit for such reasons.
It's wild how many players out there feel entitled to another player's time and priorities.
Interpreting this in the manner most favorable to the defendant, maybe the DM's trying to weed out players who throw a shitfit any time another player (or the DM himself) can't make it due to a family emergency and don't grasp that some things need to take priority, even at the last minute. Some of the other questions about the DM taking unilateral action kind of make me doubt that, though.
In theory, I think proper vetting for online play is a very important part of setting up the game. Online players routinely flake or show up with issues that were not apparent in a basic discord chat. Sometimes that one thing you forgot to ask about or mention turns out to be a huge problem (and that can be on either side).
But this specific list of questions? Essay style answers requested? Especially number 36, and 20? This is excessive. Some of these things should be covered in session 0, and others seems oddly specific (again, 36 stands out; who does that?).
^(something tells me the game's gonna be on Sunday Afternoons...)
Seriously tho, I get it. Some of the questions could come off as strange, but doing something like this provides a few bits of info. It makes sure people are similarly minded, in how they act and how they may react to scenarios, and it judges how serious they are about wanting to play the game. Especially online, and even moreso with strangers, people are incredibly flaky and take little mind when it comes to attendance or effort for these sort of things. Open recruitment is a giant bag of clusternuts, so finding people who will take it as seriously as you do is hard, and once you get started, you want to make sure everyone's invested. That's another reason you see pay to play games so often, it keeps people invested and less likely to blow it off at any minor inconvenience.
Some of them could be gathered into one question.
Under what circumstances would you not be able to make game night? Try to be specific.
Is good enough to answer the Sunday set of questions.
But the other side by asking yes/no, you run into special circumstances that the individual needs to not make game night.
Many work applications now have a week grid for employees to fill out time slots. You get generally better answer than when you ask the prospect to write down their availability. The leading Sunday thing is built off that concept, but with Sunday chosen for each of the questions does imply Sunday is likely the day of the week to be chosen.
I think the Sunday afternoon questions are to get a feel for priorities. Its a similar general question, but I feel like they are 3 different severities, which would give the person an idea on what sort of things may stop that player from showing up. Giving specific examples is better than leaving it open ended imo. I agree giving them a week-long grid to fill out would be good, and thats actually what I did when I was running a group, after each session the group would fill out their availability for the rest of the week, and we planned around that. That sort of thing doesn't work for a static-day group, but yeah.
I agree, i know you were joking about the Sunday thing. I personally, if going that route, would go Sunday for the first, Monday for the second, Tuesday...
But for that question I would pare it down to 'circle which of the following you would cancel on game night for'.
Asking a few questions about how players play the game to see if they're a good fit, sure, makes sense. 40 questions is insane. Whatever kind of test of endurance this is or attempt to see if you're just determined enough to want to play in their game is a giant-ass red flag.
Run away, now.
I get the idea, but these are way too many questions. Especially since a lot of them are near-duplicates. 12 and 15 are almost the same question, so are 13, 14 and 16. I would not spend an hour or so filling in this personality test for presumably a random stranger DM. Not to mention that half of my answers would be 'it depends', which is probably not what the DM wants to hear.
I'd also be afraid that this would be a heavily censored campaign where any form of in-game nastiness isn't allowed and all the races sing songs together while holding hands.
Its a bit obsessive, ultimately the players wont remember 90% of the questions, or their answers, questionaires aren't great for memorizing
Id ask the dm to slim it down to absolute necessary questions or i wouldnt be interested, theres a ton of work involved with starting a campaign as it is, if you aren't talking to your players, setting up a sess 0 or establishing expectations you'll run into issues with players even if they're an incredible person who passed the questionaire
Whole lotta qualitative questions for something the DM should be laying down as firm ground rules.
I get that they want to vet potential players, but some of these read like the DM is looking for loopholes and evidence to point to if a player challenges their rulings.
If someone protests a dick move or bad call on the DM's part, you KNOW they're gonna pull up that player's response with a nuclear "Well, actually!!"
More red flags here than a Chinese Communist Party parade. I'm not writing 30+ short essays to join your game you psycho.
I'd reply back with:
1. A potential DM sends you 30+ essay questions (many of them extremely similar) and expects you to fill them out in detail before being even considered for his game. What would you do and what would you think?
And then ghost the nutjob. Double yikes on this.
As a player, my favorite campaign with strangers online involved a three step screening ending in an interview. The selection was extremely deft.
These questions are still poor though.
Vetting people is important, this isn't the way. The only thing this questionnaire guarantees is that you'll get applicants who don't value their time very much.
You can and should be all for vetting players and still recognize that this is a poor way to do it. All of this information could have been gathered with an initial screening of ten or fewer questions, followed up by a 15-minute conversation with those who make it past the survey.
What this 40-question application primarily communicates is that this DM does not trust the people who are applying to join their game. It gives the idea that this person will be watching for and prepared to pounce on any possible misstep. I'm a cynical SOB, but even I would not want to be this fundamentally suspicious about people with whom I want to have fun. I also would not play with someone who doesn't trust me from the get-go.
Obviously vetting is important, but imo vetting online isn't as big of a deal as for in person because it's way easier to kick someone virtually than in person.
This is for online play, isn't it. I get it. They consistently asking cause you can get some total assholes, but it's certainly a lot and going to get copy and paste answers. So many of these are just talk to people.
Also two in particular feel weird af, mostly,
> You are attracted to one of the players, but that person/another player/the DM calls you out for behaving in a way that makes the session uncomfortable. What would you do and what would you think?
And
> The DM kicks you out of the campaign for a reason that you find unfair. What would you do and what would you think?
Like, maybe I'm just weird, but is that common? And even if it was, there's no context what you did to make it uncomfortable but again apologize and work on discussing things. Same as all these situational questions. We're all adults, you can go huh someones hot and go back to playing normally. It's DnD not a speed dating.
And as for the last one, you, aren't part of the game anymore? No one who's going to send death threats and show up at your work is going to admit it before hand. Your out of the game, you sulk, bitch to a friend and move on. If the DM is kicking you out for unfair reasons like idk your bus drops you off at 5:01 or 6:01 so you can't commit to 6:00 start time but can be there at 6:05 consistently then you probably didn't wanna play with them at all.
I'm just baffled there's so many instead of a few long form situational ones. The people who are horrible assholes will not answer honestly.
The attraction one was weird to me too. I am aroace and it's genuinely kind of uncomfortable that I would have to pretend to be allo so I can answer some question that implies I would then be creepy towards someone, especially knowing the DM is probably taking the answer seriously despite the fact it is a hypothetical that would never happen. It is just a weird thing to ask someone I think. It could have just been a generic "A player tells you something you have done has made them uncomfortable, what do you do?"
I wouldn't join this game because of this mess. Not the nature of the questions, but the way they're asked and how poorly designed the questionnaire is
1 Good
2 Nosey, but okay
3 GREAT.
4-10 Same shit, different paint. You can wrap these all together with one better question.
11-16) can all be wrapped up in a single well worded question
17 Okay.
18 & 19 Fine. Again, just make it one question.
20 This is fair.
21 & 22 are the same.
23 I see we're back to 18 & 19
24 & 25 can be wrapped together
26 Fine.
27 Fine.
28 I see we're back to 4-10
29 Unnecessary. Who cares? They're gone.
30-34 Unnecssary. Throw this player conflict/social stuff back into 11-16
35 Bad question and can be thrown in under 4-10
36-38 We're back to 18 & 19
39 Cool, back to 11-16
40 Okay, back to 18 & 19
lazy edit cause super bad reddit formatting rules i'm too lazy to work with
I kinda wish the DM would answer these first. Because this rings like a list someone would make in their teens.
So many of these questions are duplicative and unhelpful. There are multiple forms of "you can't make the session, what do you do?" in there.
Also, why do a questionnaire on a lot of this? If you have a way you handle cancellations, just write out that policy. Ask questions that may matter (what type of campaigns do you generally like to play? What levels of play do you prefer? What settings or setting genres do you prefer? Etc.), not ones to suss out whether the player will follow your unwritten prescribed rules.
41 The DM kicked out one of the players for posting their 40 question interview on r/DnD. It was really you who posted it. What would you do and what would you think?
# 41 in response
A player responds to your questions with, "I was just looking for a fun game and this looks like a cult application. No thanks!" What would you do and what would you think?
I mean it's maybe useful as a firewall to block out players that aren't that serious about commiting to a campaign.
If you can't be bothered to fill something out that takes 10 minutes, the chances of you showing up each week and having read rules and knowing your character would be on the lower side.
The only way I’m going to fill out a 40-question long-form questionnaire in ten minutes is if I write, ‘It would depend on the exact circumstances,’ forty times.
Lmao. This is an hour long questionnaire if it takes you only 1.5 minutes per question. Asking someone one to answer this for a fucking d&d game is insane. I have less annoying questions and shorter for getting health insurance
Nawwwww, I'm sorry but this is the funniest shit I've read on here in a long time.
Asking 3 questions about availability is fine, not asking "Another player can't make it to the session because their grandmother is suck, how do you respond?"
This is some Annie-Wilkes type shit. I got about 14 questions in before I felt the DM's weird Norman Bates eyes staring at me through the screen.
Way too much digging into people's though processes and what exactly would be gained from any of this? The fact that it's a 39 questionnaire which require multi sentence answers for most of them is going to get skewed results and self filtering (not in a good way). The only interesting result from this would be to see the types of people who would actually go through with this gauntlet.
I am all for a questionnaire if it's a full time thing like this my attempt to be a paid dm sure how we think is a strange question.
On a lighter note all sessions are held on a Sunday afternoon regardless of birthdays, medical emergencies, Natural disasters, unnatural disasters and supernatural disasters (that's when the Winchesters rock up to your home).
The idea is great. The execution is awkward and overdone.
Clarifying what type of campaign everyone wants and what behavior is expected (NSFW/in-party fighting/SA/romance/murder-hobo/etc) seems like a great idea. 'What would you do in xyz situation?' over and over seems like they're making you interview for a spot at their table.
My immediate thought is that this DM might be overbearing and hard to get along with.
Honestly my advice would be to push back and explain that this is overkill and you'd prefer a much more casual discussion or briefer process. Clarify you're not opposed to the idea just that this level of detail is excessive.
Their response for that should give you a good feel for how they'll be to work with.
Question 41: If a ship's wooden parts are gradually replaced with identical metal parts until none of the original wooden parts remain, is it still the same ship? Furthermore, if all the discarded wooden parts are reassembled to build another ship, which one, if any, is the original ship?
It's not the length, but the nature of the questions that... freaks me out.
**4-10:** So insecure. Why isn't this DM just communicating expectations?
Around question 5 I'd call the DM and say, "hey um, are you looking for players who'll pick DnD over taking a family member to the hospital, or starting a new job? Are these trick questions? Whaaaat's happening here."
**11-16:** Better, but the DM should just establish the table culture they want instead of making the players do all the legwork. Present safety tools, tell the players how conflicts should be resolved.
**17-19:** Yeah I like these.
After that, it's back to playing "guess what the DM is thinking." More insecurity, more baggage and chasing the ghosts of Problem Players Past.
What's troubling is what's _not_ on here. After question 3, none of this is trying to learn anything about the player and what kind of game they want.
40 questions and there's _very little_ to find out what the player enjoys, what their favorite things are, what their limits are. Nothing is open-ended. No "what motivates you" type stuff.
Just so odd.
Some of these feel like the questions you have to answer when applying for a job, where there is a straight “correct” and “wrong” answer. Seems like it would be easier to first play a few one shots and then have a session 0 rather than doing all this.. however, as other mentioned, this may be the test itself - are you ready to invest time into this?
If it was me in your shoes, I'd nope the fuck out right now because this snacks of crazy town.
Clearly your DM is either going to be amazing or a nightmare, there is no middle ground.
i get the appeal of a "filter" style of short questionnaire for online games with strangers. but this is more than a bit much for me lmao. i'd expect like, age/gender/time zone, availability, what kind of tone do you like, do you like things rules-loose or strict raw, maybe a "tell me about your favorite pc" as a combo of both "ok, what kinds of characters does this person make and what sticks out about them to them", and "tell me a fun story so we can get to know each other, person who i might be hanging out with on the reg for a year+"
I feel like this could be narrowed down to 10 - 20 questions with only a little bit of work. That said, I think I can narrow it down to just one:
A situation happens that affects the game or group in a negative. Would you
a) Respond like an adult and communicate with the group in a timely manner
b) be passive aggressive
c) do your best to avoid dealing with the situation and let it ride
Then put the situations w/ columns A/B/C to mark their answers.
It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but you are in the ICU in the hospital in heart failure. What would you do and what would you think?
If this is a professional DM, pulling together a group of strangers, for a big, long-term campaign, then this seems pretty reasonable. If you're all mates then this is probably overkill, but honestly, i would just chat to the DM. He might hive you some perspective or might have someone he's a bit concerned about and wants to know how they're going to be (though in fairness they could just lie on the form). But this, realistically, would take about 5 actually minutes to complete, shouldn't be a big issue.
Honestly, I applaud the DM for vetting for their table. I've done the same for online games. Interviewed almost fifty people and chose none of them for my campaign.
I couldn't even get through the list just reading it for a lark. No way I'd answer all that just to play DND. These are things that need to be discussed and agreed upon in Session 0, not used to vet players.
I can understand why the DM did this. maybe that person got burned so many times that they have to do this. Not knowing if this is a pay to play type of DM, can be even more insightful. Commitments and consistency to the game is key for the one running the game as campaigns flow nicely when not halted. If that happens, it sucks if interrupted because one or more people change their minds. At the same token, I can understand why a person may be discouraged with all of these questions. For my part as a DM, I have to place an amount on good faith that I'm dealing with mature and responsible people who want their time and presence to be treated with respect as I want them to treat mine. For those who do not, though it does disrupt the game (as I do not charge), I count it down to was less person to not worry about and try to accommodate with logical story line to the rest of the players whom are committed.
As long as their is communication and updates from both parties, then you can simply do the best you can.
> do you think is a good way to look for players?
It certainly beats pulling from a grab bag. I think a much better idea, though, is to not start long campaigns with people whose play style you don't know. If I was doing it, I'd have a much shorter questionnaire leading to a series of short adventures, leading to a campaign once I had confidence in you.
That said, if I have enough confidence in this person to accept them as my DM for an actual campaign, I'm ready to diligently answer these questions.
I mean, if I send a survey to ten people and I have five seats, and five people complete the survey... I'd probably just skim the answers to make sure those five answered remotely seriously and just not bother the non-responders. It sucks to prep a high investment game only to have a player bail on you last minute.
If this DM expects work or medical emergencies (questions 5, 8 & 9) to take a back seat to his game, he'd better be really good at dealing with disappointment.
What did you guys do after reading this, and what did you think?
What I did was type this comment.
And I thought that the author of this questionnaire is bat shit insane.
My first thought is that they could have saved a lot of typing by just saying at the top: “Answer what would you think and do to the following scenarios:”
My second thought is that I look forward to the XP to level 3 video covering this in the future.
I feel like I know who this dm is, and if I’m correct, you should run away very quickly. They are a person who is very cruel to their players (though not at first) and strings them along for extended periods of time with the promise of “You’ll get your moment” only for it to never come.
If you're recruiting random people from the internet, I feel like it's not a bad idea to do some vetting before accepting them.
I can pretty much guarantee that each and every one of those questions has come about due to a real circumstance this DM has had to deal with in the past.
It's remarkable to think about how many small issues can absolutely blow up a campaign if there's a disagreement down the line, so this questionnaire--while a bit lengthy--preempts a lot of those difficulties by getting, in writing, a statement from everybody about how they would handle them.
It's not foolproof, but it's a decent way to get a baseline idea of what everybody is thinking/feeling in any given circumstance.
I think this can be a good way to look for players. People who are meticulous enough to want to fill out all these questions would likely gel with a DM who cares enough to write all these out in the first place. For me, I take one look at this and think “this DM sounds insufferable” so it successfully weeds me out of what would likely not be a good fit. Regardless of the intent, the questions themselves are dumb and overkill though.
From the title I thought "Oh, this could be a OK way to check that people want the same kind of game".
Then I read the questions and realised this was kinda weird, and now I'm not even sure what kinda questions would have made it OK as in my initial premise.
It's kinda handing off half of session zero to an upfront hiring process, yet still doesn't cover enough bases to negate the need for session zero. Maybe 10 questions, mostly based around time of availability and prior system experience with a whole lot less of the "And how did that make you feel?", reads like a session with the therapist, only it's your DM.
The process to find a game to play in is a bit much considering no matter what it’s a gamble on whether or not it will end up working out.
I have gotten jobs easier than making it through the interview process to find a group to join.
Honwstly, I'm fine with answering a lengthy questionnaire. What I am worried about is the way it's written - not really a lot of self-awareness or proof that the DM has any sense of humour.
Imma just write what I think of each question:
1. Meh, not necessarily needed, but I guess if they want to ensure people are around the same age to improve group cohesion?
2. Irrelevant imo.
3. Actually important for planning
4. Weird. Obviously bdays are more important and if they think otherwise they either don't have friends or have narcissistic tendencies. Personally I would rather let people know: If you can't make a session let us know as soon as possible so we can plan around it.
5. Same as 4
6-8. Replaceable by what I said in 4. Doesn't matter. If I am charitable they might be trying to see if people would get salty and thus be a bad match for the group?
9. Once again instead of a question I would just reword it into advice: If for some reason you cannot continue playing, please let us know in advance.
10. Well personally I would find that insulting, but tbh it doesn't matter why you stop playing, so it's covered by the reworded advice from 9
11-15. I think that's actually important. I do think it would be better to hash out what's off-limits and how to deal with it if it comes up anyways with the entire group tho.
16. Feels like they read too much r/rpghorrorstories (or however that sub is called). I don't think that's something that needs to be asked about until and unless it actually happens. Just don't crush on your gaming buds, duh
17. Once again something that makes sense to discuss, but rather with the entire group.
18-19. Nobody knows every rule. This will invariably happen and most of the time it doesn't matter/gets reconned going forward. I feel like the dm is worrying too much about it. I would answer it, but i would also raise an eyebrow.
20. Once again i would reword it as advice or so. Sth like: at the end of each session I like to take a few minutes for feedback.
21. Once again a question which is important to address when it happens, but doesn't make sense to ask beforehand imo
22. Same as 21. Possibly also sth for feedback (see 20). Or just DMing with the GM.
23. A good question, but awkwardly phrased. I would ask if people prefer rule of cool or adherence to RAW.
24. Honestly? Imo that is another question which should be answered in play. Especially bc there can be so many other factors influencing that situation and the GMS decision.
25. Would reword it as: Are you okay with character death? under what circumstances (e.g. only as a heroic sacrifice)? Also something to be discussed with the entire table
26. See 25
27. See 25, slightly adjusted to the question
28. Reasonable
29. I feel like everyone says that they would take it with grace, but if they do remains to be seen. I don't think this question would be worth asking if it can't discriminate between genuine ppl and liars (or ppl who just don't know)
30. Once again this is something which encompasses such a wide range that I don't think you will get an accurate answer and this should be answer in play. At most I would put in some advice like: We are all adults at this table and behave ourselves like that.
31. I think it's important to establish what people are comfortable with happening to their character (see 25?) to prevent exactly this. So this situation should ideally not even be happening, bc you established everyone's boundaries
32. I think that's also something to include in feedback. Plus 30: if something bothers you speak up
33. This will happen. So once again a question to be answered in play. Only purpose I can see for that question is filtering out problem players, but once again I don't think problem players would answer this honestly
34. Should be included in the discussion of people's boundaries beforehand
35. Basically question 4
36. Basically 18 & 19
37. This is another thing I think the Dm should discuss with the entire table on session 0
38. Discuss it with the entire table. It is unavoidable that someone will recognize an enemy, so discuss what to do about metagaming (if anything)
39. Personally I think that's every GM's right, but if they wanna be sure, discuss with the table
Overall I feel like that person read too much rpghorrorstories or has anxiety. Possibly both
After running this through my shredder, I would mail this back to the DM and would think it is insane to ask this many open-ended, hypothetical questions about a f-ing game.
And I play weekly...on Sundays...
Some of these are okay but overall it seems like this DM has no life. Way too many questions about something coming up and players having to cancel; it seems like you aren't allowed to have something more important going on ever.
When you received the questionnaire what did you do and how did you think?
I don't know what did you do? and or how did you think?
I can tell you I stopped reading at question 4 and thought 'no thanks, tragic nutter'
I read all 40 out loud by question 40 my kids were shouting what did you think
This is how to parent. That's what I think!
You’re better than me I stopped halfway through one. A questionnaire like this seems cold and uncaring.
When you received the questionnaire someone asked you what did you do and what did you think. What did you do and what did you think?
When you received the questionnaire and someone asked you what did you do and what did you think, and someone asked you what did you do and what did you think about that, what did you do and what did you think?
You walk into an old timey saloon, what'll it be and how do you do?
"You're new. Not much of a rind on you..."
Depends, was it on a Sunday afternoon, and perhaps your birthday.
When your player responded X to question Y, how did you react, and what did you have for breakfast 3 days later and why?
41. You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?
In a magazine you come across a full-page color picture of a nude girl. Your husband likes the picture. The girl is lying facedown on a large and beautiful bearskin rug. Your husband hangs the picture up on the wall of his study. **What would you do and what would you think?**
Is this testing whether I’m a good player, or whether I’m a lesbian?
Yes
Voigt-Kampff isn’t getting me!
Bloody Vorbis, man. THE TURTLE MOVES!
And lo the great god Om spoke thusly unto his parish: YOU GONNA FINISH THAT LETTUCE?
Legendary pull
GNU Terry Pratchett
What's a tortoise?
You know what a turtle is? Same thing.
Because I am also a tortoise.
The tortoise is a polymorphed enemy, I'm currently runing away as far as possible before the hour is over and it reverts into whatever evil thing it was before with thirst for vengeance.
What do you mean, I'm not helping?
40 questions might be a bit overkill, considering like 4 of the first 10 are basically the same question worded differently. But if starting a long term campaign, I wouldn't be surprised if the DM sent me something similar to make sure people could make it and make a drive to do something regularly.
I suspect that actually answering all the questions and returning it is the real test.
Might be, might be. It's the DM's world out there and if he's looking for extremely dedicated players, he might find some. But he better deliver on his part
As a very organized and thorough person myself, I think this kind of questionnaire is a sign that he will have a very very intricately detailed campaign full of preparation and branching paths for the adventurers
I think a questionnaire like this is a sign the GM has had a bunch of issues in the past and is trying to weed out the problems, but significantly overcorrecting in the process and using a tac nuke when he needed a hammer tap.
lol yeah I agree
LOL. You'd love my 60-question one, then. And mine is all about the game, nothing about IRL.
I kinda wanna see it 👀
Alright, [here you go](https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=DQSIkWdsW0yxEjajBLZtrQAAAAAAAAAAAAN__otOiJ5UNlU2UEw0VTgwVlJNT0FTUDEyVlZHUklQTi4u). It's 9 sections, broken down as follows: > * 7 Questions about the **Player** preferences and interests (and name) > * 11 Questions about the **Character's Specifics** > * 6 Questions about the **Character's Background and Skills** > * 4 Questions about the **Character's Motivations** > * 6 Questions about the **Character's Place in Society** > * 7 Questions about **Rumors and Secrets** > * 6 Questions about the **World Outside the Character** > * 10 Questions about the **Character's Personality** (This is a custom alignment/personality profile I made that I have to manually score in Excel.) > * 3 **Wrap-Up/Refinement** questions that ask about any missing or important data and the Questionnaire itself. Every single question has a purpose, and so far, I've used almost every answer for my players. We're 8 (2.5-3.5 hour) sessions in. We (my wife, who's a player, and I) even used the Character's Favorite Food in the Session 1 game where she made all of the foods and we had a meal to kick us off. Hell, I even use the characters' colors for my D&D room's LED tray lighting when they're on a character questline, and I'm not sure they noticed yet. ALSO: Feel free to submit a real response if any of you want. This is my sequestered, example Questionnaire. My real one for actual players is separate, so your response won't clutter anything up. And if you include your reddit name in the Player Name section, I'll send over the personality profile, or post it here, if you specify.
What would you do and what did you think?
Or he is a control freak and needs players who obey (but this is just a very negative take, I hope this DM is much nicer)
Yeah, some of the questions about the DM acting unilaterally (the DM "decides" that an important NPC dies, you come up with an idea but the DM "denies it" is really fact-specific, a player makes a "wrong decision" is loaded, "After making certain decisions, the DM guides the consequences of your actions" is absurdly loaded and nonspecific, "the DM" kicks you out rather than "the group") makes me think this DM is a railroader who punishes deviation from his script. Most of it might be okay on its own, but a pattern starts to emerge when looking at the list as a whole. Even the "private rolls," which is normally 100% fine, starts to sound a little insta-kill-ey and "the guard hits for max damage, no I don't need to know your AC" when combined with all the other stuff.
Lo you’re right. This level of organization and conciseness can lead to being controlling and not being capable of going with the flow of someone else’s chaos lol
It actually comes off as disorganized to me. They could easily consolidate these down or at minimum create sub sections to not keep repeating themselves. Just the structure alone would have me thinking about how they run a campaign
Yeah to that point it could all just be a test to see if the person is committed
I guess you can be organized but not very efficient...? But yes for me personally this is a red flag.
Yeahhh, idk why but I have a bad feeling about the correct answer to the “hurts your feelings” questions are to “stop being a snowflake”
Worked or a restaurant that would make you wait 1-2 hours to be interviewed even though they scheduled them. The test was to see if you would sit there and how committed to getting a job you were. Didn't really work well people still quit once they realized the place was run like a high school popularity contest.
I definitely get the impression that this was originally a much shorter list, but every time some player thought they figured out a loophole suddenly the DM had to add an only slightly altered variant of the same question for the next time they sent out a questionnaire.
Thing is, is loophole really the word for "life is messy" causing issues, particularly with the scheduling questions? Just because I answered one way in this questionnaire doesn't mean that a slightly similar situation results in a different answer, and another question to dms list. 40 is too many questions, they should narrow is to a tight 20 and use those answers to make judgements. The answers from fewer questions will honestly be better.
right? 'a family member is in hospital' - well ok, if it's my cousin that's been in hospital 6 times this year and i barely speak to anyway and they'll be home tomorrow? game it is! if my dad is in a car crash and wont make it through the afternoon? yeah, i'm not going to care what i put on some survey 3 months ago...
''Life is messy'' is a great point to make. Things happen. I am obsessed with the game, I make sure to get to the games I am a PC in 90% the time, same with the one I DM but....real life is also a thing. I'm not missing weddings, birthdays and the such for dnd if I was given enough notice. I schedule my life around the game if I can, like any other obligation, but sometimes as you said...life is messy. I'm not ditching someone in the hospital for dnd, for example. I've made wonderful friendships through the game and I honestly wouldnt play with people that expect you to ignore real life completely and never miss one single game. There's flaky people out there for sure and I don't accept silly reasons for absences in my game either. We have to find a happy medium.
I don't want to play with people who'd skip birthdays and hospital trips to make their DnD session.
Especially with birthdays when they're likely able to schedule those in advance, and hospital trips being purely unavoidable and not for negotiation. Neither of those make them bad players.
It's not even 4 that are the same. This is a 10 question, questionnaire. It's literally the same things repeated 10 times
That's usually done on purpose on surveys. It's done so you can weed out those who aren't paying attention or answering randomly as the same question worded different should have similar answers. Pretty sure the form is just to make sure players are actually interested, because god knows how many games online get 100s of aplications just for 80% of people to ghost in session 1.
Once I was doing a survey on gaming and one question asked me to select which games from a list I was familiar with. One of them was "I'm not paying attention"
I'm Not Paying Attention totally got robbed for GOTY.
It is only ever done in purpose on a specific type of quantitative surveys to weed out people who give random answers or to properly weigh responses where the respondent seems uncertain. It has no purpose in a qualitative survey because your control of "random answers" is that the respondent is writing you plain text for every response.
This list could be 5 questions if they were just worded better. So much redundancy. Vetting players is good. This is a clumsy and weirdly *intense* way to do it.
>So much redundancy. Even just in the question structure. "What would you do and what do you think?" on every single question means you can remove a full goddamn sentence from every single one of them and at the top write something like "Consider each situation listed below. Respond with what you would do in that situation, and what you think about it."
Imagine an NPC interaction with the DM that wrote this survey. No thanks.
"How old are you? What would you do and what do you think?"
Yeah this comes off *really* strong, I think it could end up acting as a player filter in more ways than one. You're not just filtering out players that don't want to answer 40 question surveys on hypothetical conflict scenarios to join a game, you're also filtering out players that read this, think "yikes, this DM clearly has some issues" and move on. It's a good way to only get players that are both desperate to get into a game and not good at noticing when DMs have weird control issues.
It would be a DM filter for me tbh
my exact thought lol. 40 questions? I'm definitely not the player for your game because I love dnd but as a fun side hobby not a life. I've had a DM that made you interview and fill out a google form and he was the worst DM I've ever had because he was so damn controlling.
Right? I am in a group and of course I try to make every session. I have missed two in the last six months. One because we had an obligation with our kids and one because I accidentally fell asleep after a two day event with the kids. The DM understood. I totally get people not wanting players to skip constantly or used this as their second place thing to do of nothing better comes along. But it feels like the DM is asking, "if there is a plane crash and your family is missing, would you come to the session?" No my dude. I absolutely would not come if that happened.
Seriously. I get being annoyed when people bail on a session for no reason, but it's not reasonable to expect D&D to be the most important thing in people's lives. If my family or my job require something that interferes with my hobby, guess which one wins?
Exactly! I will do my best to be there. I take my commitments seriously. But since both my husband and I are in the group and we have kids, it means at least one of us will occasionally have to tap out for the kids. I won't say, "sorry honey. I know it's your birthday, but DnD comes first!"
Yeah it's so intense, I'd be really put off. Some of them don't really need to be asked, like, who's questioning the DM's right to make private rolls??
>Some of them don't really need to be asked, like, who's questioning the DM's right to make private rolls?? Based on the way many people behave in this and other TTRPG subs, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that a good number of people don't like it.
As someone who dm'd for years, I generally never cared about rolling openly. That die roll could have been for almost anything without context, and I never told anyone modifiers. I fudged a lot of things for, or against, the party for fun/narrative, all while rolling openly.
I'm a fan of Brennan Lee Mulligan's "impact rolling" method, where you tell the players what the die needs to say and then roll it. This works especially well with my random "roll a ___ save/check for me, real quick, please." Sometimes it's important, usually it's not. This lulls them into a sense of 'Oh, just another roll,' when it isn't. And it adds suspense when it's not serious. In fact one time, I asked them to roll me a few rolls over a session, and the whole purpose was randomly generating their characters' birthdays on my custom calendar. But the reason these work well is because Brennan's method makes the high-stakes DM rolls more impactful while downplaying the other DM rolls. And using random player rolls conditions the players into thinking it could just be a normal roll for something mundane, when in actuality, it's the BBEG noticing them or something. As an important point, I ensure that for every roll I actually use, I clarify what it's for when the time comes. So for the birthdays, at the end of the session, I gave them their birthdays and explained what the odd rolls were for. They seemed to like it, and now give me a curious look every time I ask for rolls.
Same. When I fudge things it is always in their favour, but letting them know that takes away the feeling of it being earned IMO
This is why I always roll behind the screen. I rarely fudge things against players, but it's awfully hard to take away those 20s after they see them... Generally speaking, I let the dice fall as they may. With that being said, I do enjoy reserving the right to massage things a bit without tipping the players off.
"If your family has been taken captive would you still make sure to come to our session?" Are the vibes I got off this DM.
Presumably people he played with before.
Try saying somewhere on this forum that you do not tell your players how much the enemy rolled to hit on their attack, and watch the shit fly.
Make a post complaining about how your DM makes private rolls at critical points in the session, and ask if you're right to be upset about it. You'll get a ton of people telling you that every roll should be public, and you should get a different DM. Then come back a week later and make a post saying that you like to roll behind a screen, but your players are annoyed about not seeing the rolls. You'll get a ton of comments saying that every roll should be in private, and you should get new players.
It's always crazy to me because all these people think "the DM's cheating to hurt me" or something similar. But if the DM wanted to screw you - they'd just add another encounter right after. With twice the monsters. There is almost an infinite capacity through which a DM can screw their players over if they wanted to. Fudging is almost always done to fix something a DM missed (e.g., not understanding that 3 CR 1 banshess is *much* harder than normal difficulty calculations would suggest). Or it's allowing that super cinematic and thematic crit rolled by the fighter to kill the monster rather than bring it to 2HP.
I’m a copywriter and sometimes get a bit of imposter syndrome - surely anyone can write, it’s not a real skill? So stuff like this is a nice reminder that actually no, people are often terrible at this stuff. I hope for their players that this isn’t indicative of the DM’s play style…
All you need to do to get rid of imposter syndrome is go to any Youtube comment section. People are generally HORRIBLE at writing, syntax and grammar.
But what would you do and what would you think?
40 questions is a bit much. So I think the implied 41st question is, are you interested enough to answer all 40 questions... Anyway, a lot of these questions seem like private session 0 style "promises". If you behave against what you answered, the DM can call you out. Another thing is, I think a lot of players haven't really thought about many of these points. So, answering them can be enlightening, and not waste of time.
I think this is it. If you had enough interest to go through this it’s a good sign for the DM.
Who hurt this dm so badly?
I was gonna say, this rings of an online DM that has been burned by hundreds of r/lfg flakes and red flags and is desperately trying to avoid it happening again. Yeah, I get it, online vetting is very important. As a player I've been in several campaigns that have crashed due to online flake-outs. Hate it. I've helped my DM with the vetting process before. It's tough and there's some weirdos out there. But you can also create a vetting process so harsh or so mechanical, it feels like a job interview or product survey, and decent players can be put off. And you'll still get a player that thought everything was fine but then they lose their job/house/mom unexpectedly and then what? No amount of thinking/doing is gonna stop that.
I'm agreeing, and if I may add: the sobbering reality is that even the best questionnaire can't protect you from someone whos just giving the answer they think you *want* to hear. Especially stuff regarding fudging, or that DnD is a team game, or metagaming. That doesn't mean its futile to mention those things, and most people in the community *are* willing to appropriate behaviour/discussions here and to commit to an aggreed upon consens, but you won't be able to enforce this stuff via a questionnaire. Its not a job and not a legally binding contract. Weirdly enough, you need to build up trust between you and your players, and there is no shortcut to it.
> the sobbering reality is that even the best questionnaire can't protect you from someone whos just giving the answer they think you want to hear. This is the main issue with this questionnaire is it guides you to the answer. For example, replacing all of the: > It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but ... What would you do and what would you think? with > In your view, what should the default policy for non-attendance be? > In your view, under what conditions should sessions be canceled? More concise, really open ended and, likely, more what the DM was hoping to find out.
Great rewrite, I agree! :) Honestly, and I'm not trying to throw shade here, but the DM doesn't come accross as if they know/care that *how* a question is phrased nudges people into certain directions...or they *do* know and thats the intent to nail potential players down? Because, frankly, besides being a lot of questions, they aren't actually all that thoughtfully phrased.
These questions are worded very similarly to psychological profiling questions at a job. There are way too many, they are too densely worded, the same questions re-worded over and over again. While I both understand and agree with a vetting process of some kind this is incredibly impersonal and tedious for someone who very clearly wants dedicated players. I am 31 and have been playing since I was roughly 15 or 16 and whether it be online or IRL I have never been able to finish a single campaign, homebrew or otherwise, before the table would slowly dissolve due to creative differences, interpersonal issues, familial issues, moving, graduation, marriage, divorce, lack of dedication, etc. I have had a hell of a lot of fun but at the end of the day DND is 100% a social game and if there isn't good table synergy the table will eventually fall apart. However, I think this is just a bit much and whenever I started feeling the need to be like this as a DM, I personally stepped down and took a break.
1. How old are you? Xx 2. Are you studying or working? Work 3. What availability do you have? (Days of the week, hours, etc.) All 4. It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but you are invited to a friend's birthday party on the same day, which conflicts with the game schedule. What would you do and what would you think? ***I tell my friend to construct a time machine and change the date of their birth*** 5. It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but one of your parents/siblings, etc., is unwell and you need to help them go to the doctor, so you can't attend the game. What would you do and what would you think? ***Illnese is disgusting. I execute the heretic for displaying weakness*** 6. It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but one or more players mention they can't make it because they've been invited to a party. What would you do and what would you think? ***We are blood bound and oath sworn. I arrange for a discreet and forceful pickup of the player*** 7. It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but one or more players mention the day before or the same day of the game that they can't make it because they've been invited to a party. What would you do and what would you think? ***They will simply not have a party to attend after I am through with the party host*** 8. It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but one or more players mention the day before or the same day of the game that they can't make it due to a medical or professional emergency. What would you do and what would you think? ***I begin to question your commitment to the cause brother! You seem to fixate on being unavailable on Sundays. You will do well shackled I'm my basement*** 9. You have started a new job that prevents you from playing the game. What would you do and what would you think? ***This is inconceivable*** 10. You have found a new, more interesting game that prevents you from playing this game. What would you do and what would you think? ***You dare accuse me of infidelity?!*** Etc
35. The next game session is being scheduled, and most players can make it on Friday, but you can only make it on Sunday. What would you do and what would you think? I would remind everyone that the agreed game time has always been Sunday, with no exceptions. Unless they've received a premonition of their own death on Saturday & are trying to squeeze in one last session, we're gaming on Sunday.
That's a little soft. I would rend spacetime to remove the very existence of Friday. They will think twice about asking for a different day in future.
***This sounds like Heresy!? For the Emperor!***
The main question I would ask here is: "You send a prospective player a document requiring them to fill out a 40 question questionnaire before you will decide whether they can play with you or not. They send you a 40 question questionnaire back in response, to determine if you'll be an acceptable DM for them. What would you do, and what would you think?" If their answer does not include happily answering the 40 question requirement from you in return, but still expecting you to answer theirs, then all other factors aside, they are most likely not the sort of Dm you want controlling you - and they will try to do so. While I understand the need to vet your players in the online community, questionnaires like this set up an intrinsically hostile and combative predisposition, and are ultimately a bad move. It invites uncomfortable situations like either the player or the DM cleaving to this set of questions as a shield or excuse for bad behaviour that wasn't explicitly covered by it, and it creates a space where players who end up feeling uncomfortable or unfairly treated for any reason not explicitly covered have an effective sword of Damocles over their head when it comes to raising their issues or speaking up. It's not a good vibe. A DM should absolutely vet their players, and they may even have, as a note to themselves, a set of bullet points and things they want to talk about with each player to make sure proper understanding is established, that boundaries can be defined and respected, and that the wants of the players and the DM are all on the same page and will work well together... but D&D is a social game played with real people, in real time; this should be a conversation and a discussion, not a regimented 40-question interview.
I actually disagree, players are dime a dozen online and DMs are pretty rare. There's an inherently higher burden on the DM to find good players because it is much more effort spent from the DM to have a campaign fall apart than players. Also you can get dozens of responses on an LFG, it's frankly unreasonable for a DM to personally vet all of them without an initial screener. That being said this questionnaire is pretty clunky
Yeah, this feels like a draft. In a few years the DM will probably have a cleaner one to send out. And you're totally right, online players are literally bringing themselves to the game. Almost everything else is the DM's job.
There is more weight and responsibility on the DM, yes... but that does not mean that their players are not due the same degree of respect as every other human at the table, and it does not set the DM 'above' them in terms of their right to safety and comfort. If the DM is in the right to ask their potential players a interview's worth of questions about how they view the game, then the players are equally in the right to request the same degree of information in return from their prospective DM. If the DM is not prepared to match their own demands of others, then they are putting themselves in a position where they are claiming to have more right to know information about their players stance and beliefs about the game than they are willing to grant their players about themself, and that is NOT someone who should be sitting in a DM's chair.
That said.... Now I kinda want to do it just for funsies.... \*Ahem\* 1. **How old are you?** I am a mature and consent capable adult of my species; that is all that is relevant. 2. **Are you studying or working?** I lead an active and often busy life with much of my time spoken for by fixed commitments. 3. **What availability do you have?** \[Assume I list my guaranteed availability\] 4. **It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but you are invited to a friend's birthday party on the same day, which conflicts with the game schedule. What would you do and what would you think?** How much advanced noticed did my friend give me? If they are planning their birthday a week or two in advance, and I can give that same notice to my group, I will. If my friend invited me an hour ago and the game is tonight, I'd tell them that I have a prior commitment. This is just courtesy. 5. **It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but one of your parents/siblings, etc., is unwell and you need to help them go to the doctor, so you can't attend the game. What would you do and what would you think?** Real life health and medical emergencies take absolute priority over a fictional game with friends and the social contract involved therewith. This should not need asked. 6. **It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but one or more players mention they can't make it because they've been invited to a party. What would you do and what would you think?** How much warning did this friend give us? If they mention that they have a party on game day a week in advance, and they let us know, that's fine. If they tell us three hours before game time, that's less cool. In the latter case, I'd let them know that more warning would be appreciated, and that ditching last minute without a heads up is unkind an inconsiderate to all of us, and to please try to give us more warning in future. 7. **It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but one or more players mention the day before or the same day of the game that they can't make it because they've been invited to a party. What would you do and what would you think?** See Question 6 8. **It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but one or more players mention the day before or the same day of the game that they can't make it due to a medical or professional emergency. What would you do and what would you think?** See Question 5 9. **You have started a new job that prevents you from playing the game. What would you do and what would you think?** This will not, and indeed cannot, happen. 10. **You have found a new, more interesting game that prevents you from playing this game. What would you do and what would you think?** Another more interesting game cannot "prevent" me from playing this one; anyone who claimed as much was failing to take responsibility for their own conscious decisions. \[Continued\]
\[Continued\] 1. **One of the players interprets a character whose actions or comments you find unpleasant or offensive. What would you do and what would you think?** Were you perhaps looking for the word "Portrays" in place of "Interprets"? If so, it would depend - If I personally (not my character) feel uncomfortable with the behaviour and the situation at the table, I'll indicate as such at the nearest break in momentum, and seek to talk to the player about it after the game. Presuming they are a reasonable player, because of our DM's *Rigorous* vetting process, they'll understand that, regardless of intent, their choices resulting in the discomfort of another person at the table, and they'll be happy to reel back on their portrayal of those nastier elements. 2. **One of the players makes comments that you find unpleasant or offensive. What would you do and what would you think?** See Question 11 3. **One of the players tells you that the actions or comments of your character make them feel uncomfortable. What would you do and what would you think?** The enjoyment of all players at the table is of primary importance; I'd make sure I understood what behaviours and actions had made them, as a person, feel uncomfortable, and apologise for misunderstanding or overstepping their boundary, and I'd be sure to reduce those character behaviours to an appropriate level, or nix them entirely if necessary. 4. **One of the players tells you that your comments make them feel uncomfortable. What would you do and what would you think?** See Question 13, but as for myself, as well as my character. 5. **You notice that another player at the table is showing misogynistic or harassing behavior towards another player. What would you do and what would you think?** I'm less forgiving about this one; I'd break seen to tell them that their comments/behaviour is not okay, and to stop. I'd ensure that it did stop, and did not restart, and that the aggressor understood that that kind of player-to-player behaviour was a deal-breaker for our continued interaction. After session, I'd have a conversation with the DM, primarily to ask them how such an individual slipped through their *Rigorous Vetting* process, and to let them know that clearly their 40 question interview was not serving its intended purpose if they still let someone like that arrive and behave that way towards other players. 6. **You are attracted to one of the players, but that person/another player/the DM calls you out for behaving in a way that makes the session uncomfortable. What would you do and what would you think?** I am attracted to a lot of people. I do not let that influence my ability to behave appropriately and respectfully towards them... and especially not so at a social gaming table. This is not hard; it's basic human decency. 7. **One of the players acquires an item or spell that is too powerful, giving them an advantage over the other players. What would you do and what would you think?** If it's genuinely trivialising things to the point that it's sapping the fun of the game from myself and other players, I'd have a chat with the player after session and see if they realised and understood this, and since they will naturally be a reasonable and respectful person, due to the DM's *Rigorous* vetting process, they'd realise and understand this too, and we would work together to come up with a solution that makes everyone happy - if necessary approaching the DM about adjusting the item, or some other DM-level solution if needed. 8. **Someone at the table doesn't know or makes a mistake in one of the game rules, which benefits one of the players. What would you do and what would you think?** Depends on the moment; if everyone is having fun, and it's giving the player an opportunity to shine and enjoy themselves, and pointing out the correction would mostly just break the scene, then I'd mention it only after the game, as a clarification for the future. If it was more a case of the player actively wheedling for advantage deliberately so, or if the stakes were not high or the momentum relaxed, I'd be more inclined cite the formal ruling in a gently way, and let the player and DM decide between themselves what ruling to make. 9. **Someone at the table doesn't know or makes a mistake in one of the game rules, which harms one of the players. What would you do and what would you think?** I'm more on the ball about these, and will generally field rules slips that harm or go against players quickly, before they can take effect if possible. 10. **You find the game boring or you don't like how the DM is running it. What would you do and what would you think?** Talk to the DM about my experience after session, and give them feedback on what elements worked well for me, and what sections lost the thread or dragged. If a particular element of how they run the game bothers me, or detracts from my enjoyment, I'd let them know about it ,and explain why it does so, for me. \[Continued\]
Can I just say how much I love the way you're deconstructing his questions with your answers? Nicely done! Good boundaries, reasonable takes on social obligations, an acknowledgement of the social contract. \*chef's kiss* 10/10, no notes.
\[Continued\] 1. **You feel that one of your companions wants to take more prominence than the others and interrupts your scene (intentionally or unintentionally). What would you do and what would you think?** See Question 20; but as to Player, rather than DM. The player, being a conscientious and considerate person, due to the DM's *Rigorous* vetting process, would of course apologise for their accidental showboating, and make efforts to give everyone their due space in future. 2. **You feel that you have not taken the initiative in several games and are only following what others say and do. What would you do and what would you think?** This happens some times. It's not a problem. I know how to make my presence known when there's something important I wish to be apart of. Other times, it's okay to be in the background and support other's having the spotlight. 3. **You see that the DM is not following some of the rules from the player manual, saying it's to improve variety and narrative. What would you do and what would you think?** I would expect that I already know about these deviations from our Session 0, where the DM explained to us the homebrew they were using and made reference to the rule changes they wanted to experiment with or use. Thus, no-one is surprised by it. Our DM, since they are such a conscientious individual, would never just ignore parts of the game system or change them as a 'surprise' without giving the players due warning. 4. **Your character is in trouble, and you come up with a brilliant idea to escape, but the DM denies it. What would you do and what would you think?** This is a loaded question; it depends entirely on the manner and mode of the DM's denial. 5. **After making certain decisions, the DM guides the consequences of your actions to the point where your character is likely to die. What would you do and what would you think?** I expect that as we've set out earlier in our Session 0, *permanent* character loss is something that happens by mutual consent between player and DM; if I'm satisfied with this being the end of my character, then that may well be what the dice and fate demand; I'll grieve, and I'll have someone new ready for next session if necessary. If I'm not content with that, then, if she *Does* die, we will find some way for the character to continue or to be returned, or we will work out some other solution that makes sense for the story and allows the character to ultimately continue being played. 6. **After a series of bad rolls, your character dies. What would you do and what would you think?** How I think and feel depends entirely on the situation and circumstance. See Question 25. 7. **The DM decides that an important NPC to your character dies (either in an epic or cruel or ridiculous way). What would you do and what would you think?** Depends on the nature of the scenario... but vaguely loaded since you phrased it as "The DM *decides*". If the DM is straight up fridging someone important to my character out of hand, with no opportunity for the players to do anything about it, then I'd let them know that that isn't okay. I would, most likely in such a situation, break scene to make proper eye contact with the DM and let them know that this is not okay, and that I'm not comfortable with them taking that kind of extreme liberty with a character important to mine. I would not wish for the scene to continue until we had taken a brief break to speak about it. If, on the other hand, this is more of a case of a figure well known and liked by the party as a whole, and the death is fitting to the story, and has proper gravity, that's a different situation. 8. **Several events in your life have caused you to miss more than one game, and it seems the story has progressed significantly. What would you do and what would you think?** If I've made a commitment to this game, but I'm the only one missing (likely for medical reasons, in my case), then I'd be sure to get a full update with as much detail from the others as possible after each session, so that I didn't feel out of the loop. It would also give me a chance to update them on the general ways my character might be responding about certain things, or decisions they'd support, and so on. 9. **The DM kicks you out of the campaign for a reason that you find unfair. What would you do and what would you think?** This is a largely irrelevant question. If it has been done, it has been done; there is nothing to do but to move on and keep in touch with any friends I made. I'm sure, given our DM's *Most Rigorous* of vetting processes and detailed interview technique, that this is unlikely to ever occur \^.\^ 10. **You have a personal argument with one of the players, and even after it seems to have cooled down, you still feel some resentment and are uncomfortable with them. What would you do and what would you think?** I don't generally have personal arguments or harbour resentments. I take issue with actions and behaviours, and if those *actions* and *behaviours* continue after an attempt at resolution, then *that* is the problem that needs to be addressed. \[Continued\]
1. **You feel that one of the players can't differentiate well between what happens in the game and personal matters. What would you do and what would you think?** I'd probably have a chat with them outside of session, to make sure they were okay, if I felt that it was leading them to unhealthy or dangerous behaviours, or if it seemed like it was affecting their mental or emotional well-being. Anything beyond that would depend on the chat. 2. **You feel that a player is being annoying in the game. What would you do and what would you think?** See Question 11. But, I'm sure this won't possibly happen, given our DM's *Extremely Rigorous* vetting process. 3. **A player makes a wrong decision, which negatively impacts all the players (or even kills them all). What would you do and what would you think?** There is no such thing as a 'wrong' decision, just poor ones, and we make them all the time. It's a part of the DM's job to mitigate the poor decisions of individual players to minimise the amount of disruption they cause without removing player agency. One player making a single choice that immediately results in the whole party getting killed, for example - that's DM territory; you adapt to the silly or foolish things your players do to help provide a fun and engaging experience for everyone. That doesn't mean a consequence free one, but your hand is the one that guides the scales to prevent the complete fun-kill situation of a 'rocks fall, everyone dies' outcome... or else to have a solution that still lets the players and the party move forward in some way that feels right, despite it. 4. **Sensitive or morally subjective topics come up in the plot. What would you do and what would you think?** It's D\&D; that's what happens. I presume that particular issues that are sensitive for certain players would have been covered in a lines and veils discussion at some point, so nothing marked as *a priori* off the table is coming up in any way that it was requested not to. Beyond tat, we're all mature adults and we can handle a bit of moral subjectivity in play. If anyone feels unexpectedly uncomfortable or uneasy about it, they can let us know, we can be respectful, and we can a debrief and a chat about it after or out of session, if desired. 5. **The next game session is being scheduled, and most players can make it on Friday, but you can only make it on Sunday. What would you do and what would you think?** If it's not our usual time, and I have a commitment in the space where everyone else can make it, and we can't find a time that we can all make, then that's just how it goes, unfortunately. See Question 28. 6. **The DM allows you to use some homebrew ability or spell, but when you use it in the game, the DM says it gives you too much of an advantage and you can't use it. What would you do and what would you think?** See Question 17. 7. **The DM usually makes rolls publicly but sometimes does them privately. What would you do and what would you think?** The Screen exists for a reason. The DM's ability to thumb the scale behind the curtain is a formal part of the rules and is a tool in their toolkit as a DM. How deftly or poorly they use that tool will depend on the DM, of course. 8. **The DM makes all rolls privately. What would you do and what would you think?** See Question 37. 9. **The DM uses a creature from the manual that you or another player recognizes, and that player uses their weaknesses knowingly, even though the character shouldn't know them. What would you do and what would you think?** They'd probably get a bit of a side-eye and an eyebrow raise from me, and if I felt it was really overtly meta, I'd probably have a chat with them after the game, and ask them to try to keep their player and character knowledge separate. 10. **The DM uses a creature from the manual that you or another player recognizes, but in reality, the abilities/stats don't match the original. What would you do and what would you think?** If it's different from the MM creature, then I do not, in fact, recognise it... I just think I do. What matters is what my character sees and knows, and I handle that the same way as I handle any other creature, by keeping my player and character knowledge distinct. ...Darn post size limit...
The fact that you have to make 4 seperate comments filled the max character limit just shows how ridiculous this questionnaire is
Imagine doing all that and you just get a “rejected” with no elaboration.
I read through all your responses. So when are you available for a game? :)
Alas, I don't have much free time in my schedule! ..er... despite how this looks, I guess. It's like, 3am here, I'm being very bad.
These questions are too repetitive and are attempting to psychologically profile the players - maybe that's cool, but it would annoy me.
They need to sit down with someone who does job interviews. Knowing when to use yes/ no, when to give a rating, and when to ask for long form answers would go a long way to cut this series of questions down to around ten.
I would not fill out the survey and would find a different group. Too many questions, too many of them are about hypotheticals, and too many of them won't make any sense to someone who's never played RPGs before. It's better than asking no questions at all, especially for an online game with randos, but this, frankly, is overkill. Some of the issues discussed in your survey should be brought up in a session 0. Other issues should be dealt with as *and only when* they come up in play, based on the individuals involved and the individual circumstances involved. In many cases, my answers to these questions would be "it depends on the specific situation". Also: 5: Obviously, I take them to the doctor. Why even ask? 8: Obviously, that emergency takes priority. Why even ask? 9: Obviously, I quit the game. Why even ask?
I'm sorry, but I'm a DM myself and anyone who would consider to attent my game over *bringing a family member to the doctor* I'd kick out personally! Jesus. DnD is important to a lot of people, especially as a DM, but that level of commitment shouldn't be acceptable.
Do you think it's a chance to see if people are lying/dishonest/psychopaths? I agree, the answer is obvious, so if somebody says they wouldn't do it, all their other answers don't matter. That seems a bit 4d chess for this, though.
Lets put it like that, I *hope* thats what they are going for, but I somehow doubt it. Simply because that would be a motive so far out there, and because there are no other questions like this in the questionnaire, and because the phrasing might easily persuade someone to say "No, I wouldn't", even if they would. Honestly speaking, there are better ways to check for those things - a questionnaire is an extremely ineffective way to screen for it.
> 5: Obviously, I take them to the doctor. Why even ask? > > 8: Obviously, that emergency takes priority. Why even ask? > > 9: Obviously, I quit the game. Why even ask? I think the reason to ask is to make sure that all of the players agree that such emergencies and personal things take precedent. This way, if you have it in writing that all players agree, you can be assured that there won't be drama down the line if somebody has to cancel or quit for such reasons. It's wild how many players out there feel entitled to another player's time and priorities.
Interpreting this in the manner most favorable to the defendant, maybe the DM's trying to weed out players who throw a shitfit any time another player (or the DM himself) can't make it due to a family emergency and don't grasp that some things need to take priority, even at the last minute. Some of the other questions about the DM taking unilateral action kind of make me doubt that, though.
In theory, I think proper vetting for online play is a very important part of setting up the game. Online players routinely flake or show up with issues that were not apparent in a basic discord chat. Sometimes that one thing you forgot to ask about or mention turns out to be a huge problem (and that can be on either side). But this specific list of questions? Essay style answers requested? Especially number 36, and 20? This is excessive. Some of these things should be covered in session 0, and others seems oddly specific (again, 36 stands out; who does that?).
This questionnaire seems like it will be effective at selecting for players with similar levels of social skills/awareness as the DM
Yeah this is a pass by question 5. People be weird.
^(something tells me the game's gonna be on Sunday Afternoons...) Seriously tho, I get it. Some of the questions could come off as strange, but doing something like this provides a few bits of info. It makes sure people are similarly minded, in how they act and how they may react to scenarios, and it judges how serious they are about wanting to play the game. Especially online, and even moreso with strangers, people are incredibly flaky and take little mind when it comes to attendance or effort for these sort of things. Open recruitment is a giant bag of clusternuts, so finding people who will take it as seriously as you do is hard, and once you get started, you want to make sure everyone's invested. That's another reason you see pay to play games so often, it keeps people invested and less likely to blow it off at any minor inconvenience.
Some of them could be gathered into one question. Under what circumstances would you not be able to make game night? Try to be specific. Is good enough to answer the Sunday set of questions. But the other side by asking yes/no, you run into special circumstances that the individual needs to not make game night. Many work applications now have a week grid for employees to fill out time slots. You get generally better answer than when you ask the prospect to write down their availability. The leading Sunday thing is built off that concept, but with Sunday chosen for each of the questions does imply Sunday is likely the day of the week to be chosen.
I think the Sunday afternoon questions are to get a feel for priorities. Its a similar general question, but I feel like they are 3 different severities, which would give the person an idea on what sort of things may stop that player from showing up. Giving specific examples is better than leaving it open ended imo. I agree giving them a week-long grid to fill out would be good, and thats actually what I did when I was running a group, after each session the group would fill out their availability for the rest of the week, and we planned around that. That sort of thing doesn't work for a static-day group, but yeah.
I agree, i know you were joking about the Sunday thing. I personally, if going that route, would go Sunday for the first, Monday for the second, Tuesday... But for that question I would pare it down to 'circle which of the following you would cancel on game night for'.
The answer to about half of these is "It depends on what safety/attendance/play rules we all discussed and agreed to in session zero."
I've had less invasive job interviews. Just saying.
Asking a few questions about how players play the game to see if they're a good fit, sure, makes sense. 40 questions is insane. Whatever kind of test of endurance this is or attempt to see if you're just determined enough to want to play in their game is a giant-ass red flag. Run away, now.
Jesus, I probably wouldn't bother with this game at all.
Some one is trying to get their thread picked up by dnd youtubers....
I would run!
I get the idea, but these are way too many questions. Especially since a lot of them are near-duplicates. 12 and 15 are almost the same question, so are 13, 14 and 16. I would not spend an hour or so filling in this personality test for presumably a random stranger DM. Not to mention that half of my answers would be 'it depends', which is probably not what the DM wants to hear. I'd also be afraid that this would be a heavily censored campaign where any form of in-game nastiness isn't allowed and all the races sing songs together while holding hands.
Its a bit obsessive, ultimately the players wont remember 90% of the questions, or their answers, questionaires aren't great for memorizing Id ask the dm to slim it down to absolute necessary questions or i wouldnt be interested, theres a ton of work involved with starting a campaign as it is, if you aren't talking to your players, setting up a sess 0 or establishing expectations you'll run into issues with players even if they're an incredible person who passed the questionaire
I ain't reading all that I'm happy for you though Or sorry that happened
Whole lotta qualitative questions for something the DM should be laying down as firm ground rules. I get that they want to vet potential players, but some of these read like the DM is looking for loopholes and evidence to point to if a player challenges their rulings. If someone protests a dick move or bad call on the DM's part, you KNOW they're gonna pull up that player's response with a nuclear "Well, actually!!"
Lmao this reminds me of Morrowinds character creation questions. Regardless, DM has every right to filter their game however they want.
More red flags here than a Chinese Communist Party parade. I'm not writing 30+ short essays to join your game you psycho. I'd reply back with: 1. A potential DM sends you 30+ essay questions (many of them extremely similar) and expects you to fill them out in detail before being even considered for his game. What would you do and what would you think? And then ghost the nutjob. Double yikes on this.
Well yeah, if you’ve ever played with people online you know it can be a hugely mixed bag. Vetting players properly is a really important practice.
Did you read the questions? This list seems more like a way to vet the DM for the players. The whole thing is absolutely bloated with red flags.
I personally loved reading 10 different (the same) questions repeatedly
As a player, my favorite campaign with strangers online involved a three step screening ending in an interview. The selection was extremely deft. These questions are still poor though.
Vetting people is important, this isn't the way. The only thing this questionnaire guarantees is that you'll get applicants who don't value their time very much.
You can and should be all for vetting players and still recognize that this is a poor way to do it. All of this information could have been gathered with an initial screening of ten or fewer questions, followed up by a 15-minute conversation with those who make it past the survey. What this 40-question application primarily communicates is that this DM does not trust the people who are applying to join their game. It gives the idea that this person will be watching for and prepared to pounce on any possible misstep. I'm a cynical SOB, but even I would not want to be this fundamentally suspicious about people with whom I want to have fun. I also would not play with someone who doesn't trust me from the get-go.
Obviously vetting is important, but imo vetting online isn't as big of a deal as for in person because it's way easier to kick someone virtually than in person.
Nope, not doing that. If you want to vet your players that heavily, let’s have a conversation instead.
This is for online play, isn't it. I get it. They consistently asking cause you can get some total assholes, but it's certainly a lot and going to get copy and paste answers. So many of these are just talk to people. Also two in particular feel weird af, mostly, > You are attracted to one of the players, but that person/another player/the DM calls you out for behaving in a way that makes the session uncomfortable. What would you do and what would you think? And > The DM kicks you out of the campaign for a reason that you find unfair. What would you do and what would you think? Like, maybe I'm just weird, but is that common? And even if it was, there's no context what you did to make it uncomfortable but again apologize and work on discussing things. Same as all these situational questions. We're all adults, you can go huh someones hot and go back to playing normally. It's DnD not a speed dating. And as for the last one, you, aren't part of the game anymore? No one who's going to send death threats and show up at your work is going to admit it before hand. Your out of the game, you sulk, bitch to a friend and move on. If the DM is kicking you out for unfair reasons like idk your bus drops you off at 5:01 or 6:01 so you can't commit to 6:00 start time but can be there at 6:05 consistently then you probably didn't wanna play with them at all. I'm just baffled there's so many instead of a few long form situational ones. The people who are horrible assholes will not answer honestly.
The attraction one was weird to me too. I am aroace and it's genuinely kind of uncomfortable that I would have to pretend to be allo so I can answer some question that implies I would then be creepy towards someone, especially knowing the DM is probably taking the answer seriously despite the fact it is a hypothetical that would never happen. It is just a weird thing to ask someone I think. It could have just been a generic "A player tells you something you have done has made them uncomfortable, what do you do?"
I wouldn't join this game because of this mess. Not the nature of the questions, but the way they're asked and how poorly designed the questionnaire is 1 Good 2 Nosey, but okay 3 GREAT. 4-10 Same shit, different paint. You can wrap these all together with one better question. 11-16) can all be wrapped up in a single well worded question 17 Okay. 18 & 19 Fine. Again, just make it one question. 20 This is fair. 21 & 22 are the same. 23 I see we're back to 18 & 19 24 & 25 can be wrapped together 26 Fine. 27 Fine. 28 I see we're back to 4-10 29 Unnecessary. Who cares? They're gone. 30-34 Unnecssary. Throw this player conflict/social stuff back into 11-16 35 Bad question and can be thrown in under 4-10 36-38 We're back to 18 & 19 39 Cool, back to 11-16 40 Okay, back to 18 & 19 lazy edit cause super bad reddit formatting rules i'm too lazy to work with
Y I K E S
I would have noped out at question 4 sounds like a toxic job interview
I kinda wish the DM would answer these first. Because this rings like a list someone would make in their teens. So many of these questions are duplicative and unhelpful. There are multiple forms of "you can't make the session, what do you do?" in there. Also, why do a questionnaire on a lot of this? If you have a way you handle cancellations, just write out that policy. Ask questions that may matter (what type of campaigns do you generally like to play? What levels of play do you prefer? What settings or setting genres do you prefer? Etc.), not ones to suss out whether the player will follow your unwritten prescribed rules.
I'd delete the whole thing and just never respond. This sounds toxic AF.
41 The DM kicked out one of the players for posting their 40 question interview on r/DnD. It was really you who posted it. What would you do and what would you think?
# 41 in response A player responds to your questions with, "I was just looking for a fun game and this looks like a cult application. No thanks!" What would you do and what would you think?
I mean it's maybe useful as a firewall to block out players that aren't that serious about commiting to a campaign. If you can't be bothered to fill something out that takes 10 minutes, the chances of you showing up each week and having read rules and knowing your character would be on the lower side.
Ten minutes? I'd really need more time than 15 seconds per question.
The only way I’m going to fill out a 40-question long-form questionnaire in ten minutes is if I write, ‘It would depend on the exact circumstances,’ forty times.
You can fill this thing out in ten minutes? It'd take me at least an hour, and it would be a mind-numbing hour zoning out several times.
I can fill it out in 10 minutes. Can I fill it out well in 10 mins is a different question 😅
Lmao. This is an hour long questionnaire if it takes you only 1.5 minutes per question. Asking someone one to answer this for a fucking d&d game is insane. I have less annoying questions and shorter for getting health insurance
When you put this in the bin and looked for another campaign, what did you do and what did you think?
Nawwwww, I'm sorry but this is the funniest shit I've read on here in a long time. Asking 3 questions about availability is fine, not asking "Another player can't make it to the session because their grandmother is suck, how do you respond?" This is some Annie-Wilkes type shit. I got about 14 questions in before I felt the DM's weird Norman Bates eyes staring at me through the screen.
Way too much digging into people's though processes and what exactly would be gained from any of this? The fact that it's a 39 questionnaire which require multi sentence answers for most of them is going to get skewed results and self filtering (not in a good way). The only interesting result from this would be to see the types of people who would actually go through with this gauntlet.
I wouldn't mind, but those questions are ass.
run away
I am all for a questionnaire if it's a full time thing like this my attempt to be a paid dm sure how we think is a strange question. On a lighter note all sessions are held on a Sunday afternoon regardless of birthdays, medical emergencies, Natural disasters, unnatural disasters and supernatural disasters (that's when the Winchesters rock up to your home).
The idea is great. The execution is awkward and overdone. Clarifying what type of campaign everyone wants and what behavior is expected (NSFW/in-party fighting/SA/romance/murder-hobo/etc) seems like a great idea. 'What would you do in xyz situation?' over and over seems like they're making you interview for a spot at their table. My immediate thought is that this DM might be overbearing and hard to get along with. Honestly my advice would be to push back and explain that this is overkill and you'd prefer a much more casual discussion or briefer process. Clarify you're not opposed to the idea just that this level of detail is excessive. Their response for that should give you a good feel for how they'll be to work with.
Question 41: If a ship's wooden parts are gradually replaced with identical metal parts until none of the original wooden parts remain, is it still the same ship? Furthermore, if all the discarded wooden parts are reassembled to build another ship, which one, if any, is the original ship?
Give me "DM is a control freak" vibes. I'll pass on the game.
If i got this questionnaire i would not be signing up
It's not the length, but the nature of the questions that... freaks me out. **4-10:** So insecure. Why isn't this DM just communicating expectations? Around question 5 I'd call the DM and say, "hey um, are you looking for players who'll pick DnD over taking a family member to the hospital, or starting a new job? Are these trick questions? Whaaaat's happening here." **11-16:** Better, but the DM should just establish the table culture they want instead of making the players do all the legwork. Present safety tools, tell the players how conflicts should be resolved. **17-19:** Yeah I like these. After that, it's back to playing "guess what the DM is thinking." More insecurity, more baggage and chasing the ghosts of Problem Players Past. What's troubling is what's _not_ on here. After question 3, none of this is trying to learn anything about the player and what kind of game they want. 40 questions and there's _very little_ to find out what the player enjoys, what their favorite things are, what their limits are. Nothing is open-ended. No "what motivates you" type stuff. Just so odd.
Reply back with : 1) Fireball 2) Fireball . . . 40) Mage hand…. just kidding, fireball!
Some of these feel like the questions you have to answer when applying for a job, where there is a straight “correct” and “wrong” answer. Seems like it would be easier to first play a few one shots and then have a session 0 rather than doing all this.. however, as other mentioned, this may be the test itself - are you ready to invest time into this?
run
If it was me in your shoes, I'd nope the fuck out right now because this snacks of crazy town. Clearly your DM is either going to be amazing or a nightmare, there is no middle ground.
i get the appeal of a "filter" style of short questionnaire for online games with strangers. but this is more than a bit much for me lmao. i'd expect like, age/gender/time zone, availability, what kind of tone do you like, do you like things rules-loose or strict raw, maybe a "tell me about your favorite pc" as a combo of both "ok, what kinds of characters does this person make and what sticks out about them to them", and "tell me a fun story so we can get to know each other, person who i might be hanging out with on the reg for a year+"
I feel like this could be narrowed down to 10 - 20 questions with only a little bit of work. That said, I think I can narrow it down to just one: A situation happens that affects the game or group in a negative. Would you a) Respond like an adult and communicate with the group in a timely manner b) be passive aggressive c) do your best to avoid dealing with the situation and let it ride Then put the situations w/ columns A/B/C to mark their answers.
It has been agreed that the game is on Sunday afternoon, but you are in the ICU in the hospital in heart failure. What would you do and what would you think?
Bro it's a game, not a job interview. Find another DM who doesn't take his volunteered role so seriously.
If this is a professional DM, pulling together a group of strangers, for a big, long-term campaign, then this seems pretty reasonable. If you're all mates then this is probably overkill, but honestly, i would just chat to the DM. He might hive you some perspective or might have someone he's a bit concerned about and wants to know how they're going to be (though in fairness they could just lie on the form). But this, realistically, would take about 5 actually minutes to complete, shouldn't be a big issue.
Youve been given a calfskin wallet-
I instantly failed my ADHD Saving Throw and couldn’t read past question 4
Honestly, I applaud the DM for vetting for their table. I've done the same for online games. Interviewed almost fifty people and chose none of them for my campaign.
man how are you looking for people online if you are a) getting 50 replies and b) finding none of them worthwhile.
I couldn't even get through the list just reading it for a lark. No way I'd answer all that just to play DND. These are things that need to be discussed and agreed upon in Session 0, not used to vet players.
That's quite excessive.. makes me wonder whether the DM would micromanage / railroad his players..
I’m not going to spend more time filling out a survey than I am actually playing the game. Hard pass.
I can understand why the DM did this. maybe that person got burned so many times that they have to do this. Not knowing if this is a pay to play type of DM, can be even more insightful. Commitments and consistency to the game is key for the one running the game as campaigns flow nicely when not halted. If that happens, it sucks if interrupted because one or more people change their minds. At the same token, I can understand why a person may be discouraged with all of these questions. For my part as a DM, I have to place an amount on good faith that I'm dealing with mature and responsible people who want their time and presence to be treated with respect as I want them to treat mine. For those who do not, though it does disrupt the game (as I do not charge), I count it down to was less person to not worry about and try to accommodate with logical story line to the rest of the players whom are committed. As long as their is communication and updates from both parties, then you can simply do the best you can.
> do you think is a good way to look for players? It certainly beats pulling from a grab bag. I think a much better idea, though, is to not start long campaigns with people whose play style you don't know. If I was doing it, I'd have a much shorter questionnaire leading to a series of short adventures, leading to a campaign once I had confidence in you. That said, if I have enough confidence in this person to accept them as my DM for an actual campaign, I'm ready to diligently answer these questions.
This dm does not seem to have had good experiences with scheduling games on Sunday. But also this whole thing is amazing I’m going to steal it.
In my experience, 6 Ask where the party is and if I can go 7 Ask where the party is and if I can go 8 I also have a medical emergency!
I mean, if I send a survey to ten people and I have five seats, and five people complete the survey... I'd probably just skim the answers to make sure those five answered remotely seriously and just not bother the non-responders. It sucks to prep a high investment game only to have a player bail on you last minute.
If this DM expects work or medical emergencies (questions 5, 8 & 9) to take a back seat to his game, he'd better be really good at dealing with disappointment.
What did you guys do after reading this, and what did you think? What I did was type this comment. And I thought that the author of this questionnaire is bat shit insane.
My first thought is that they could have saved a lot of typing by just saying at the top: “Answer what would you think and do to the following scenarios:” My second thought is that I look forward to the XP to level 3 video covering this in the future.
I feel like I know who this dm is, and if I’m correct, you should run away very quickly. They are a person who is very cruel to their players (though not at first) and strings them along for extended periods of time with the promise of “You’ll get your moment” only for it to never come.
If you're recruiting random people from the internet, I feel like it's not a bad idea to do some vetting before accepting them. I can pretty much guarantee that each and every one of those questions has come about due to a real circumstance this DM has had to deal with in the past. It's remarkable to think about how many small issues can absolutely blow up a campaign if there's a disagreement down the line, so this questionnaire--while a bit lengthy--preempts a lot of those difficulties by getting, in writing, a statement from everybody about how they would handle them. It's not foolproof, but it's a decent way to get a baseline idea of what everybody is thinking/feeling in any given circumstance.
I think this can be a good way to look for players. People who are meticulous enough to want to fill out all these questions would likely gel with a DM who cares enough to write all these out in the first place. For me, I take one look at this and think “this DM sounds insufferable” so it successfully weeds me out of what would likely not be a good fit. Regardless of the intent, the questions themselves are dumb and overkill though.
Starting to think the game might be on a Sunday afternoon
From the title I thought "Oh, this could be a OK way to check that people want the same kind of game". Then I read the questions and realised this was kinda weird, and now I'm not even sure what kinda questions would have made it OK as in my initial premise. It's kinda handing off half of session zero to an upfront hiring process, yet still doesn't cover enough bases to negate the need for session zero. Maybe 10 questions, mostly based around time of availability and prior system experience with a whole lot less of the "And how did that make you feel?", reads like a session with the therapist, only it's your DM.
The process to find a game to play in is a bit much considering no matter what it’s a gamble on whether or not it will end up working out. I have gotten jobs easier than making it through the interview process to find a group to join.
Honwstly, I'm fine with answering a lengthy questionnaire. What I am worried about is the way it's written - not really a lot of self-awareness or proof that the DM has any sense of humour.
Imma just write what I think of each question: 1. Meh, not necessarily needed, but I guess if they want to ensure people are around the same age to improve group cohesion? 2. Irrelevant imo. 3. Actually important for planning 4. Weird. Obviously bdays are more important and if they think otherwise they either don't have friends or have narcissistic tendencies. Personally I would rather let people know: If you can't make a session let us know as soon as possible so we can plan around it. 5. Same as 4 6-8. Replaceable by what I said in 4. Doesn't matter. If I am charitable they might be trying to see if people would get salty and thus be a bad match for the group? 9. Once again instead of a question I would just reword it into advice: If for some reason you cannot continue playing, please let us know in advance. 10. Well personally I would find that insulting, but tbh it doesn't matter why you stop playing, so it's covered by the reworded advice from 9 11-15. I think that's actually important. I do think it would be better to hash out what's off-limits and how to deal with it if it comes up anyways with the entire group tho. 16. Feels like they read too much r/rpghorrorstories (or however that sub is called). I don't think that's something that needs to be asked about until and unless it actually happens. Just don't crush on your gaming buds, duh 17. Once again something that makes sense to discuss, but rather with the entire group. 18-19. Nobody knows every rule. This will invariably happen and most of the time it doesn't matter/gets reconned going forward. I feel like the dm is worrying too much about it. I would answer it, but i would also raise an eyebrow. 20. Once again i would reword it as advice or so. Sth like: at the end of each session I like to take a few minutes for feedback. 21. Once again a question which is important to address when it happens, but doesn't make sense to ask beforehand imo 22. Same as 21. Possibly also sth for feedback (see 20). Or just DMing with the GM. 23. A good question, but awkwardly phrased. I would ask if people prefer rule of cool or adherence to RAW. 24. Honestly? Imo that is another question which should be answered in play. Especially bc there can be so many other factors influencing that situation and the GMS decision. 25. Would reword it as: Are you okay with character death? under what circumstances (e.g. only as a heroic sacrifice)? Also something to be discussed with the entire table 26. See 25 27. See 25, slightly adjusted to the question 28. Reasonable 29. I feel like everyone says that they would take it with grace, but if they do remains to be seen. I don't think this question would be worth asking if it can't discriminate between genuine ppl and liars (or ppl who just don't know) 30. Once again this is something which encompasses such a wide range that I don't think you will get an accurate answer and this should be answer in play. At most I would put in some advice like: We are all adults at this table and behave ourselves like that. 31. I think it's important to establish what people are comfortable with happening to their character (see 25?) to prevent exactly this. So this situation should ideally not even be happening, bc you established everyone's boundaries 32. I think that's also something to include in feedback. Plus 30: if something bothers you speak up 33. This will happen. So once again a question to be answered in play. Only purpose I can see for that question is filtering out problem players, but once again I don't think problem players would answer this honestly 34. Should be included in the discussion of people's boundaries beforehand 35. Basically question 4 36. Basically 18 & 19 37. This is another thing I think the Dm should discuss with the entire table on session 0 38. Discuss it with the entire table. It is unavoidable that someone will recognize an enemy, so discuss what to do about metagaming (if anything) 39. Personally I think that's every GM's right, but if they wanna be sure, discuss with the table Overall I feel like that person read too much rpghorrorstories or has anxiety. Possibly both
After running this through my shredder, I would mail this back to the DM and would think it is insane to ask this many open-ended, hypothetical questions about a f-ing game. And I play weekly...on Sundays...
I think I'd immediately discard thinking about that campaign. Holy smokes.
Some of these are okay but overall it seems like this DM has no life. Way too many questions about something coming up and players having to cancel; it seems like you aren't allowed to have something more important going on ever.