Streaming Games and New Player Expectations - Session Zero

[jjordan]

My intention is to talk about how streaming games are attracting new players with preconceptions about how the game should be played. I brought this up in another thread a little while ago and was very properly taken to task for poorly forming the discussion.

So we have people who are watching/listening to streaming games and seeking out live games in which to play. Some of those players are expressing disappointment when the game doesn't live up to their expectations. DM/GMs are also expressing disappointment with the players. I had sought to address my perception of the issue by asking what players could learn from those streams and bring to the table to help make the game more like what they want. I'd like to expand that a little and solicit your opinions on session zero and determining/setting expectations.

I think, in general, we've tended to separate player/DM desires along a single axis. At one end is the focus on wargaming/tactical combat which is often referred to (and sometimes in a derogatory fasion) as gamism. At the other end of the axis is a focus on character interaction/roleplaying which can be referred to as narrativism. This single axis analysis isn't really a good tool for analysis because it ignores factors like short-term or long-term games, directed story-line or sandbox, and etc... There's a good article by Sean Reynolds which takes the player survey conducted by WotC back in 1999 and examines using two axes: strategic vs tactical and combat vs story. Which does a better, but still incomplete, job of analyzing game styles/desires. I don't know if Mr. Reynolds holds strong opinions about one type of gaming being superior to the other as Ron Edwards, the creator of GNS Theory, did. But I really don't care. The theories can stand alone, outside of any conclusions or value judgements the creators/interpreters may have assigned, for the purposes of discussion. And I thought Mr. Reynolds did a good job of emphasizing that desires are not binary solution sets where players want 100% of one thing and 0% of another.

BUT... all of these analyses are largely useless for the type of session zero I'm looking at. I'm looking at new players coming in with minimal experience. They have no clue about the terminology or the concepts they denote. Min-Maxing? Might as well be an obscure ancient language so far as they are concerned. So we can't fall back on asking questions that use any of this terminology. But we can use these analyses to inform ourselves about what players might be looking for and we can use them as a way to analyse what we, as a DM/GM are looking for.

So, if you're holding your session zero, what are good ways to quickly express what you're looking for? What are good ways to elicit from the players what they are looking for?

[Vorpal Glaive]

People mostly play games for fun. Doesn't require a lot of analysis to know that. Session 0 imo would be the GM explaining the game, player actions, the availability of strategy, and worst-case scenarios of failed actions or poor strategy.

Any expectation aside from having fun can be a set-up for disappointment.

[gkathellar]

Maybe watch some Critical Role/AcqInc/whatever the kids are into these days? It would probably be a good starting point, so that when you're wondering what said kids are expecting, you can think back and say, "that."

Having not watched them, I don't feel I can really speculate about what that is.

[Florian]

My intention is to talk about how streaming games are attracting new players with preconceptions about how the game should be played. I brought this up in another thread a little while ago and was very properly taken to task for poorly forming the discussion.

So we have people who are watching/listening to streaming games and seeking out live games in which to play. Some of those players are expressing disappointment when the game doesn't live up to their expectations. DM/GMs are also expressing disappointment with the players. I had sought to address my perception of the issue by asking what players could learn from those streams and bring to the table to help make the game more like what they want. I'd like to expand that a little and solicit your opinions on session zero and determining/setting expectations.

I think, in general, we've tended to separate player/DM desires along a single axis. At one end is the focus on wargaming/tactical combat which is often referred to (and sometimes in a derogatory fasion) as gamism. At the other end of the axis is a focus on character interaction/roleplaying which can be referred to as narrativism. This single axis analysis isn't really a good tool for analysis because it ignores factors like short-term or long-term games, directed story-line or sandbox, and etc... There's a good article by Sean Reynolds which takes the player survey conducted by WotC back in 1999 and examines using two axes: strategic vs tactical and combat vs story. Which does a better, but still incomplete, job of analyzing game styles/desires. I don't know if Mr. Reynolds holds strong opinions about one type of gaming being superior to the other as Ron Edwards, the creator of GNS Theory, did. But I really don't care. The theories can stand alone, outside of any conclusions or value judgements the creators/interpreters may have assigned, for the purposes of discussion. And I thought Mr. Reynolds did a good job of emphasizing that desires are not binary solution sets where players want 100% of one thing and 0% of another.

BUT... all of these analyses are largely useless for the type of session zero I'm looking at. I'm looking at new players coming in with minimal experience. They have no clue about the terminology or the concepts they denote. Min-Maxing? Might as well be an obscure ancient language so far as they are concerned. So we can't fall back on asking questions that use any of this terminology. But we can use these analyses to inform ourselves about what players might be looking for and we can use them as a way to analyse what we, as a DM/GM are looking for.

So, if you're holding your session zero, what are good ways to quickly express what you're looking for? What are good ways to elicit from the players what they are looking for?

I get the feeling that you are overanalyzing stuff at that point.

Session zero is there because this hobby is pretty splintered and it´s not a bad idea to talk about the actual nature of the game when including multiple persons with different understanding of what the actual game is or could be.

Game theory mostly exists to quantify the differences in approaching the hobby and pointing out why certain combination will lead to a dysfunction.

This only really matters when it comes to veterans of the hobby who actually understand the nuances and to help the participants to engage the game on a wasted level.

This is quite a bit different from what you are talking about. New players to the hobby that have been socialized to it via things like CR, WoW, the Witcher or Fallout series come to the table with a settled understanding of how the game is going to play out.

For those, in session zero, the only thing you can do is being honest about how you set up the game and what your are capable of, it´s more important to have a session X+1, when you honestly talk about was was good or bad in an actual game session.

[jjordan]

People mostly play games for fun. Doesn't require a lot of analysis to know that. Session 0 imo would be the GM explaining the game, player actions, the availability of strategy, and worst-case scenarios of failed actions or poor strategy.

Any expectation aside from having fun can be a set-up for disappointment.

I think a discussion of what constitutes fun seems like a good idea.

[jjordan]

I get the feeling that you are overanalyzing stuff at that point.

You are almost certainly correct on that point. But thinking about things is one of the things I do.

Session zero is there because this hobby is pretty splintered and it´s not a bad idea to talk about the actual nature of the game when including multiple persons with different understanding of what the actual game is or could be.

Game theory mostly exists to quantify the differences in approaching the hobby and pointing out why certain combination will lead to a dysfunction.

I reject the idea that certain combinations inherently lead to dysfunction. I believe dysfunction occurs when the participants have different ideas of what will make the game fun.

This only really matters when it comes to veterans of the hobby who actually understand the nuances and to help the participants to engage the game on a wasted level.

This is quite a bit different from what you are talking about. New players to the hobby that have been socialized to it via things like CR, WoW, the Witcher or Fallout series come to the table with a settled understanding of how the game is going to play out.

For those, in session zero, the only thing you can do is being honest about how you set up the game and what your are capable of, it´s more important to have a session X+1, when you honestly talk about was was good or bad in an actual game session.

I think gathering information from the players in session zero is just as important as presenting them with information. I really like the idea of doing a feedback session after the first session.