I didn’t actually use the whole survey for my group, this was the expanded version from a brainstorming session. I also started with people already committed to day and time which allowed me to eliminate a lot of the early questions. I decided to declare game system instead of asking players about their interests so that I would be interested in GMing the system. From there I started with slightly modified versions of #7 and #8. I went with #33 next to add clear communication about what I’m looking for. Then I used 13, 17, 18, 20, and 34. I ended with a quick open ended question about what else they want me to know. I was pretty satisfied with the results because I’m using Fudge, I can alter the lethality easily so the questions helped me do that. Also, I had good player feedback about which motivations they would like for the campaign and which flavor of campaign they would like. I was flexible about all those pieces.

@Alan: Good feedback. I *hope* I’m not as full of myself as it may seem. I think that my context determined a lot about this survey. For example, I live in a large metro area with a lot of gamers and have seen a lot of responses to game offerings before. Also, as mentioned above this was the large brainstorm version not what I actually used. Finally, after more thought I left out most of the preamble about evaluating answers; you’re right it was pretty snooty. And the survey system I used allowed more than one response to multiple choice questions (e.g., #34)

I issue a campaign primer and social contract myself at the start of each campaign and it works fairly well in getting the players on the same page.

@Will – good tip about revisiting group preferences, thanks.

@Mike – to avoid the feel of interrogation, you would put things in proper context with a little conversation beforehand. I would not recommend offering answers ahead of time – too easy for people to gloss over or not truly think about their views and preferences. I agree the process does not scale and would look at a different method if I received a large response.

@Alan – Good feedback. However, I would not advise doing the write-up exclusively without additional screening methods in place.

Thanks for the comments everyone.

The survey’s very non-specific tone suggests you’re spamming it out to people you don’t even know. It’s a recreational activity, not a job application.

“I’ll be evaluating responses to these questions according to the degree to which your answers suggest you will have fun in a game that I run.” That suggests there are “right” answers. Which is fine, that’s the point. But as a result, I’m prone to over analyzing my answers because I don’t want to be disqualified because of a misinterpretation. For example, “6. Please name some of the systems that you are most interested in playing:” What if I answer “Fiasco, Shock, Penny for My Thoughts, Burning Empires?” If the GM is thinking D&D, will that answer get me disqualified, even though I enjoy playing D&D? A number of the multiple choice questions has similar problems; maybe I’d enjoy several of the options.

The best question is #33. It takes the right tone: “This is what I plan on running, do you want that.

Instead of a survey, write up what you want from a game. Take questions like “Can you commit to only playing good characters?” and turn them into statements like “Characters will be good.” Then end with, “If this sounds like a fun game, let me know!”

Then there is the problem of players replying facetiously and not taking the survey seriously, and of players who simply resent such things – I’ve had both.

Of course, the big problem with the survey concept is that once you’ve asked the questions, you have to aggregate and interpret the answers. With one player responding, that’s not too hard; with several, its not very easy. Is the majority always right? Or should the GM go with the lowest common denomenator? Are there certain players whose opinions are to be weighted more heavily? Should the GM have filled out one of these and given those answers to the players before the players get to complete the survey – so that they have some idea of what answers the GM is proposing for the campaign, and simply have to decide whether or not those parameters are tolerable?

Worse still, such a survey raises expectations that the views expressed will be taken into account and make a manifest difference to the campaign. If those expectations are not met, it poisons the whole campaign, and can cause lasting damage between players and GM.

Hopefully, you have a followup in the pipeline to address these questions…