I'm a Casting Bitch, aka What Your Questionnaire Tells Me About You

[hazliya]

So, with me, a large percentage of how a player gets cast is how they respond to the questionnaire.

As in, how much of an answer they give and the tone.

I am entirely serious.

I was thinking it over today as I sent out one-week reminder emails and looking over the ones I'd already gotten, as well as putting another one or two into my spreadsheet.

Actually, that's something I should mention. They way I store most of the base information I get from players is slapped into a spreadsheet with their answers in the corresponding columns. It's easier to answer big questions that way, like "Have they responded to me yet?" or "Do they want to play an E-pho?" or "Do they like romance plots?" Those are things that are simple and easy to look up. They tend to be straightforward yes/no or number value answers. Anything further than that, and we can refer back to the e-mail they sent for more details. (More details! I'll come to that later.)



Anyway, once I put their number into the spreadsheet, I color-code the highlights. Anything that received a very emphatic "yes" ( a 9 or 10, or "I can do this very well!") is dark green, while less emphatic yes answers (8, or "I like doing this") are in lighter green. The opposite is true as well; emphatic no (1 or 2, "I really don't feel comfortable") is in red, less emphatic no (3, "depends on the circumstances, maybe") is in orange. Those tend to be the ones we look up.

As it fills out, the spreadsheet starts looking like this:



You can already see a discrepancy in the players here. There are several whose answers are almost entirely in shades of green, some who have dark green and dark red peppered throughout, and some who have almost no color at all. This tells me a lot about the players. Or rather, I perceive that it does.

The first of this set who are enthusiastically "Yes!" about most of the aspects presented in the characters are players that make me happy. Not because they're easy to cast (they're not!) but because I feel like they're so happy about so much, they're bound to enjoy the game.

The second of this set, the polar types, make me a little happy for a different reason. They tend to be very clear on what they do and do not like. For example, take the set of answers below the first big three-row gap. This player has given me better guidelines with which to cast him/her. This player loves romance plots and costuming, but hates politics and being out of the loop. This narrows prospects down considerably, which may eliminate a few characters this person may have enjoyed playing, but will ultimately leave me with a few good options right off the bat.

The last of this set makes me distinctly unhappy. The players who are ambivalent toward almost everything about the characters. This drives me absolutely bonkers, and as soon as I see a sheet full of fives, I start to prickle with irritation. Take, for example, the player immediately above the first three-line gap. There are only four (out of maybe 35) answers with color, and three of them are red. So, essentially, the only sort of answer I've really gotten out of this person is "eh" or "no." Not exactly promising. My thought process goes from "Hey, with these answers, I can match them up well!" to "They'll either be unhappy or apathetic with their character. Why did they have to sign up for my game if they don't like the concept?" There are a bunch of those scattered throughout, and many don't even have either of the two extremes, just light colors (if any at all).

That covers my paint-by-numbers section, or where their answers fell on the scale. Now, moving on to the second part: how they answer.

This metric is a little more complicated, and on more of a scale. The easiest way to break it down was look at the responses and average the number of words per response (on the open-answer part of the questionnaire).



(SHUT UP I WANTED TO MAKE A PIE CHART IT WAS FUN)

Pretty much as expected. But what that chart doesn't tell you is that there were people who:
-answered every (even the scale of 1-10) question with nearly a paragraph
-gave entirely one-word answers
-gave entirely numerical answers
-neglected to answer half of the questionnaire

Most people fell into the 5-10 category, which is totally expected. It allows for sentences like "I think I'm pretty good at that stuff" or "I've never done it, but I'd like to try!" It seems like the optimal range for giving information, but not too much. Of course, with me, there really isn't a "too much" when it comes to questionnaires.

I like it when people give me detailed responses. They're informative - to a point. Some people can ramble on for a paragraph and still not give you an answer to the question. Most of my players were really good about this. Some offered a lot of useful insight into what they like, which is totally for my benefit and more than necessary. I do appreciate in-depth answers. The people who give in-depth answers tend to also express an enthusiasm for the game and a real interest in getting a good character matchup, which makes me want to cast them first. After all, I'd rather have people who are excited about the game cast first.

The one-word answer group I'm a little torn on. Maybe you're a little pressed for time. Maybe you're not the most verbose person. But there are definitely times that you can tell a person really just doesn't care too terribly much.

Like when they leave a chunk of the questionnaire blank.

Yes, someone did this.

I e-mailed to ask if there was some mistake, but no. It was intentionally done; the player didn't care much about those aspects and didn't feel it necessary to communicate that to me.

Awesome.

I have nothing against being able to go either way on a certain attribute. Everyone has different preferences. Five is a legitimate answer. But when you don't show interest in much that's involved with playing in my game (fives or "no" on goddamn everything?!), how am I going to think that you're going to enjoy it?

If you give me the message of "Here's my info, want to play!" then I'm going to cast you first, and probably make sure to get you the best match possible. You're enthusiastic? Great! I'm going to give you the difficult, energizing, drama-fueled characters that get your adrenaline going!

If your answers show no preference for characters, then I'm going to assume that you really don't care and give you whatever's left. Really. That's how it works.

Give me something to work with, people.

That's all I'm gonna say.


That was longer than I expected. But at least I'm understanding my casting MO a little better now.

I'll leave it up to elenuial to keep me from casting the... less than informational... players as Eeyore.

Comments

[shogunhb.livejournal.com]

I know I owe you a questionnaire.

One of these days I'll start keeping copies of my own answers in a folder so over time I can create my own metric for myself and be able to answer quickly and accurately.

[hazliya.livejournal.com]

That's an awesome idea. Something similar occurred to me, too, but then I was afraid I'd end up playing the same type of character all the time and not knowing if I'd like something new. =/

But a casting robot program would be awesome. "Robo-haz has computed that she would like to play a robot. A robot princess."

[mneme]

*nod* I'd try to keep my "usual" answers to questionnaires around, except that I like changing things up based on mood. I have a lot of "types", but very much no single type (and, of course, how I fill out a given q will depend a lot on what I want out of that particular game).

Your process is pretty similar to ours -- except that we so don't do the color coding thing, which is pretty; we just cast from the numbers. I hadn't though about the fact that while a mostly-tens sheet tends to be harder to cast than a tens-and-fives sheet (which is what I try to submit, mostly -- I'd rather be enthusiastic -and- express preferences as long as I have them), that it's still much better than a mostly-fives sheet (or worse, a mostly-2s sheet. Ok, so I get that you are blah on most things and hate some things, but...), that it gives you a much better feeling about the player, but of course it does.

My temptation for players you don't trust (which includes players you don't know who fill out ambivalent questionnaires) is to put them somewhere non-essential where they can't mess up anyone else's fun. which isn't necessarily a bad plan -- except that "non-essential" roles tend to be worse written. It's actually useful to have non-essential roles, as you can have players who might flake, might wander off, might potato for the entire game, etc, and if you can tell this when casting, you can avoid turning a small problem into a big problem -- but it's -hard- to make said roles also full and critical if the player's actually playing the game properly.

[hazliya.livejournal.com]

It's actually useful to have non-essential roles, as you can have players who might flake, might wander off, might potato for the entire game, etc, and if you can tell this when casting, you can avoid turning a small problem into a big problem -- but it's -hard- to make said roles also full and critical if the player's actually playing the game properly.

But the trouble is that I really don't have non-essential roles. Everyone has connections. Everyone has a big picture. Everyone gets a story that's charged with other characters. It's what takes me forever to write the damn things, but it also ensures that no one's ever bored.

[mneme]

Oh, sure. The trick (and one that's easier to say than do) is to also make the game resilient against individual player failure -- one player having a bad time, or dropping out mid-game, ignoring a plot or two that they find uncomfortable or otherwise avoid, or any of the more or less normal things that will happen sometimes -- such that that player doesn't necessarily drag large parts of the game down with them.

To a large degree, I think this gets done by adding -more- connections, more plots, etc -- with enough density, every character is to a degree non-essential.

The way of things, though, is that even if you do this, some characters will be more central than others -- or that's my experience, anyway.

[crash-mccormick.livejournal.com]

I have to agree with Josh (big supprise as we have written together). My most successfully resiliant game I deliberatly gave people 5 serious plot threads in a game whre I expected them to handle 3. specifically so they have lots of alternatives. So information is not all doubled but htere are subsitutues but if someone is substituted out of a plot they can concentrate on their alternatives.

Of course this entire thread now leaves me pondering my questionaire and if I included enough useful information.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

My metric is that you have to give them at least five:

the one you forget about
the one that resolves itself
the one you never get around to
the one you spend most of the game working on
the one that someone else prevents from ever resolving

(Edited to fit Haz's sytlesheet better)

[shadowravyn.livejournal.com]

Robo-Nuance would like to play a princesstitute. You know, just saying.

And yes, I totally pulled up my questionnaire to see where I fell. BECAUSE I AM CRAZY.

ALSO, I STAND BY MY GENDER!

[darkoni]

You are totally crazy. Just sayin'.

[ultimatepsi.livejournal.com]

No real comments, just wanted to let you know that I read this and found it interesting.

[hazliya.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[lucasthegray.livejournal.com]

I've looked back over my app, and noted a bunch of 4s and 6s, and hope that I'm not one of those problem questionnaires. For those questions I honestly feel I would have fun either way, with only a slight preference for either extreme and was trying to answer honestly. I could re-submit with my preferences exaggerated, if it would make things easier ;)

[hazliya.livejournal.com]

Even a slight preference was fine. You're all set. =)

[darkoni]

I will agree that people who are enthusiastic about the game are the ones that grab my attention first. They are players that I feel will help drive the game and inspire others around them. Even people who fill out an app with blah responses will get sucked up in their energy when they play the game.

Not always, of course, but it does happen.

People who give me little to work with are the ones who get slotted into whatever's left. I don't know that it gives them what they wanted, but there's little you can do about that.

Also, that's a lot of charts. I know I did a chart for Story Wars, but it was more of a list of names with hash marks next to them. That's some crazy charts.

[hazliya.livejournal.com]

I will agree that people who are enthusiastic about the game are the ones that grab my attention first. They are players that I feel will help drive the game and inspire others around them. Even people who fill out an app with blah responses will get sucked up in their energy when they play the game.

That's a really good point, and what I'm hoping will happen in the game. Most of the players who submitted the "GAME GAME GAME" responses are people I know as enthusiastic players who could probably pull that off, if put in a position to do so.

[darkoni]

Being put in the right position is key. If you put an enthusiastic player in a quiet role, you get a quietly enthusiastic player.

I know that's how it works for me. If my role feels like it is subdued, then I act subdued, which doesn't always feed to other people. If my role is more proactive, then I go out of my way to engage others.

[buddhagrrl.livejournal.com]

Well I gave you almost nothing, and after the deadline, and I got what looks to be a great match.

Though I guess all I really needed to say was "No, I don't have to be Kaylee"

[hazliya.livejournal.com]

xD Who'd you get?

[buddhagrrl.livejournal.com]

Vala

:-)



[edited for better icon]

[darkoni]

The verbal response you gave at New Year's gave me ideas to work from.

And yes, not asking for Kaylee does help. :)

[hntrpyanfar.livejournal.com]

Hrrm. I'm one of those people who tends to avoid extremes in questionnaires. So you'd get lots of 2-3s and 8-9s from me, since I'm a second-guesser. ;) (Wait... I don't really feel *that* strongly about this? Maybe I'd better downgrade from a 10. ;))

However, being told that more info on the questionnaire is good. :D

I'm all for more specific answers, btw. It took me a few tries to figure out how to answer those sorts of questions for games. The newbie response was 'OMG I don't know... uhhhh 5.'... which makes it hard for GM and player alike.

Random blather because I'm interested in your opinion. For example, one question I usually had trouble with is 'honesty'. I do well when I only have one 'official' story to remember, because that way I don't have to remember who I've told what. It can be an utter fiction that I'm bilking the rest of the world with (aka a party line), and I'm TOTALLY OKAY with that in terms of game. I just know I have trouble telling different stories to multiple people in a sincere and believable manner. ;) So do I prefer to be 'honest'? Sorta. Depends on how you define honesty! XD

[mneme]

And this...is why most well-written questionairres (eg, every single one except maybe some "cast at the game qs") have at least one free text field that you can use to tell the GMs what they need to know and didn't ask.

[hazliya.livejournal.com]

I sometimes hate that kind of open-ended question, which is why I made it optional on my questionnaire. "What do you like?" is a little broad.

[mneme]

Oh, sure. And I sometimes answer the truly open ended question, eg "what's the really important thing we didn't ask you?" with "no, you're good."

But it's a useful thing to have on the form, in that while some players will remember to put their buttons on every single game, some won't unless prompted, so when a player has features of their playing they know about, having a "tell us the important thing we need to know" may get them to, well, tell you. It should clearly be an optional question in that form, though.

[zombie-dog.livejournal.com]

OH HI THERE CASTING QUESTIONNAIRE

WHAT? TALK ABOUT MYSELF FOR SEVERAL PAGES?

[hazliya.livejournal.com]

xD

[oakenguy.livejournal.com]

I wonder how many people immediately went to re-check their questionnaires when they read this. :)

I feel sheepish now--for me, an 8 signifies WILD enthusiasm. (I've probably spent too much time around teachers who regard a top score as something they only give out once a year at best...the bell curve around here is *steep*.)

[hazliya.livejournal.com]

I was actually thinking of putting questionnaires on curves/scales, but then I realized HOW MUCH FREAKING WORK that is. Nothx. Face value it is.

[shadowravyn.livejournal.com]

I wonder how many people immediately went to re-check their questionnaires when they read this. :)

Me! Me!

[darkoni]

I didn't at first, but did later. I couldn't remember what I put in for numbers. The most important part for me wasn't in the numbers.

When I fill out numbers, I consider 5s to be indifference. I'm fine with it and have no preference. Moving up from there, I use the rest of the numbers mostly to compare versus each other, to indicate which of the various traits I might have a higher preference for.

Admittedly, I always hate the numbers section on apps, even though I use them myself. Sometimes they tell you things, but I get more out of what people say themselves.

[buddhagrrl.livejournal.com]

I don't fill these things out the same way you seem to think about them.

It would be pretty normal for me to, based on your scales, have a handful of dark reds and the rest totally colorless.

I'm seldom pre-excited about a particular type of character. I plan to do my duty and make the game fun for myself and others no matter what I get. The dark reds are to tell the GMs under what circumstances I will have an especially hard time making whatever I get into Really Awesome, either due to self-consciousness about skill at a type of characterization or activity, or (less often) actual dislike of a type of role or activity.

I don't like to give "dark green" responses because to me that feels exactly like saying "dark red" to not getting what I marked green, and I don't want to make myself into an uncastable paradox.

Speaking of which, I will fill this thing out eventually, and if you don't get it right and cast me Perfectly and guarantee 100% fun awesome time, I will stop being your friend and consider you a horrible uncreative failure of a person. And I expect you to do that even if I leave half the answers blank just to test you.

[hazliya.livejournal.com]

I feel like you see these questions as "Will you do this? Y/N" instead of "Do you like this? 1-10" which changes my metric. That's not bad, just an outlier in the collected points. It just means that I'll have to scale accordingly. After all, you're not saying "I hate everything and will be unhappy," you're saying "these are things that I dislike." So you're simply not providing me with any upper guidelines for casting, which is fine, but doesn't give me an idea of what you do like. =)

omg if you don't have an awesome time I will bake you a cake and serve it on a copy of your character sheet ;_;

[buddhagrrl.livejournal.com]

Not good enough.

I want a cake in the form of my character so that it can be ritually destroyed/cannibalized.

Then maybe I will forgive you.

[hazliya.livejournal.com]

cake in the form of my character so that it can be ritually destroyed/cannibalized

Are you thinking of a piñata? I think you're thinking of a piñata.

[darkoni]

I think she's thinking of a cake made from soylent green.

[mindways]

Kind of like this?

[mllelaurel.livejournal.com]

This is fascinating to me, as both a player and a GM. I love that you're putting this much thought into casting. It makes me look forward even more to having you as a GM. Also, spreadsheets make my inner dork happy.

Obviously, I hope the way I filled out my questionnaire was helpful to you. I tend to rarely put down hard preferences, because I'm neurotic about locking down myself or the GM. Generally, anything 7+ is an extremely enthused 'yes!' Anything that does get a 10 makes me drool (though I'm still comfortable around the general ranges.)

I really look forward to this game.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

Hm, like buddhagrrl I never really look at 1-10 questions as asking about enthusiasm, only what I want to play. A 10 in something indicates I will be unhappy if I don't get it just as much as a 1 indicates I will be unhappy if I do. I could love a game and be perfectly happy with any character in it and I could be ambivalent about a game and have really strong opinions about where I stand on some character axis. In fact, the less enthusiasm I have for a game the more likely I am to be really specific with what I want in a character.

In my brief experience with casting I can't stand the people who give everything the same number. Middle isn't quite as bad because they have only themselves to blame if they actually cared about something and didn't express it. Universal lows and highs however tend to indicate that they care very passionately about something in that set, but I have no idea what really matters. I'd much rather see a questionnaire with half 1's and half 4's than 9-10's throughout.

[hazliya.livejournal.com]

Well, to be fair, my wording wasn't "How much do you enjoy x?" but I did leave it more ambiguous.

That being said, I see 10s as being "I enjoy this" not "I'm asking for this" because many of the things that I ask in that category directly contradict one another. For example, I had a few people answer highly for both "knowing everything" and "knowing nothing" as well as high marks for both "subservient" and "defiant."

So, unless this person really expects me to create a character who subserviently defies in a clueless yet well-informed way while having nebulous-but-very-clear goals while following their well-costumed love interest around showing both total adoration and total contempt in their angst-ridden, stoic-but-zany oozing sexuality, I'm going to have to stick to my interpretation.

People aren't creating their own character with their questionnaires, so they're not going to get exactly what they put down. They know this. They're letting me know what they like so I can match them up with an already-written character.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

Ah, well in that case I would use 10's to indicate traits I would really like to have and leave any dislikes to their appropriate question. What would have been a 7 in the subservient/defiant axis can become a 5 and a 10. And you're right, everyone goes into casting knowing that they're unlikely to get a perfect match. In a single-axis questionnaire, I wouldn't be unhappy to not receive my 10's, but I would be displeased if I actually got the reverse for a meaningful percentage of them (especially since I try to be sparing with extremes).

I think for me that the "really likes" don't actually impact my enjoyment all that much, but the "really dislikes" do. If I really don't want a love plot, having a role that requires it (because not pursuing something will hurt another player's fun) can make me quite unhappy with casting, but getting a love plot when I really want one probably won't have a really strong impact on my enjoyment. It'll be nice to get the play experience I want/expect, but I likely won't notice if I don't get it, and the thing that will ultimately determine my enjoyment and enthusiasm will be general character and LARP quality. I wonder if others feel the same.

Since the one thing that's definitely clear with this is that people have perceptions on the meaning of casting questionnaires, it'd probably be good to have some explanation of how the GMs of a LARP perceive answers, or if that's not present experienced players should make sure to communicate what their answers are supposed to mean.

[darkoni]

>>So, unless this person really expects me to create a character who subserviently defies in a clueless yet well-informed way while having nebulous-but-very-clear goals while following their well-costumed love interest around showing both total adoration and total contempt in their angst-ridden, stoic-but-zany oozing sexuality, I'm going to have to stick to my interpretation. <<

My dream character, gone forver. *sniff* :(

[laurion]

Awesome! You should run a panel at the Pre-con panels on casting questionnaires and GM interpretations. I'm guessing a lot of players have this notion that they send off their info, and then magic happens. And that they have no idea what GMs want from questionnaires. And a raft of other points that can easily fill an hour of chat...

[hazliya.livejournal.com]

That might be fun. Who do I talk to about that?

[laurion]

http://www.interactiveliterature.org/J/Thursday.php

There's an event bidform there.

[hazliya.livejournal.com]

How long are the panels, typically? And why is there no schedule?

[laurion]

Typically an hour. The form/schedule -just- went up this past week, so there haven't been any submissions/additions yet. One of the reasons I've been subtly poking a few people.

< subtle > poke < /subtle >

[crash-mccormick.livejournal.com]

Schedule is pretty open, plus as a bonus most of us can be on most panels. :)