The same page tool has been mentioned on this site and I would like to use it if needed. The problem is that I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of the tool is. My first impression was that this was to be filled out by the group so that people could vote on what type of game we all want to play and compromise for any split votes. However the website specifically says not to do this ("DO NOT use this as a survey").
Confused by this I looked at some examples he gives. I've played Mouse Guard once so I know that the answers he gives for it are the only correct answers for Mouse Guard. He then uses Primetime Adventures stating that it is a flexible system and has multiple answers to most questions.
Then there's this paragraph:
Be aware that different games will have different answers. Different campaigns will have different answers. For example, I've personally played D&D with all but one of the answers below.
Based on this quote and his examples my understanding is that a system has a fixed set of correct answers (deviating from these would be homebrew/house rules but potentially possible), more universal systems may have every answer to every question. Additionally he mentions "a lot of game texts leave crucial things out" which indicates that ideally a game system would tell you in the rule books what the answers are (which is also supported by this answer).
The thing that really confuses me is the "Choose the Ideal Options for Play" section which seems to contradict the "this is not a survey" instruction.
So what is this tool supposed to be used for?
- This tool is intended to examine a system. There are a fixed set of answers. If a question has multiple answers then do not choose one of them even if the question doesn't allow multiple answers: multiple answers must be accepted. These answered can't be changed by your GM, campaign, or circumstances. Any deviation from these answers means that you are not playing the system as it was intended.
- This tool is intended to help a group decide on what they want from the game they will play. It is to be used as a survey, people will look at the possible answers and vote on which one they want. After all answers have been picked and the GM agrees to run a game accordingly, a system will be picked (ignoring what the system was intended for), a campaign will be made, and the game can get started.
- Something else… Since the other options (although dedicated to a specific purpose) are both contradicted by the website.
Best Answer
How you use it
The Same Page Tool is designed to help avoid social conflict. It does so by setting players' expectations about the game.
The Same Page Tool advocates that you answer the questions in the context of a particular game that you or the group chooses ahead of time. (Note that "group" includes the GM.) You answer the questions based on the play style that the game/campaign/etc. is designed for. You can do this as a group discussion, or the GM can do it ahead of time. Either way, the answers are put before the group before play starts. This discussion with the group is the crucial stage: it's at this point that you find out whether your players' expectations match the game or not. Your aim is to find out if any players are uncomfortable with the basic elements of how this game is supposed to be played, and if everyone is reasonably comfortable with the elements, then to get agreement within the group about what the basics are.
When a game supports multiple play styles, a single one needs to be selected for this play through. This gives members of the group a chance to raise concerns or discomfort with the idea before play starts. It's fine to change an answer based on your groups' feedback, as long as the group can come to an agreement.
For example, you might find out that your most inexperienced player is extremely uncomfortable with the idea that there may be conflict within the party. Or you might find out that one person so badly wants intra-party conflict that they don't want to play a game that doesn't foster it. These expectations may or may not match the game in question.
Once you have a better understanding of whether your group's expectations match what the game is designed for and whether they are comfortable with it, the group can make decisions based off that information. Some possible outcomes:
This is not an exhaustive list, but all of these outcomes are perfectly acceptable.
The point of doing all this is so that you don't get halfway through the game and get into an argument about whether the GM is allowed to override RAW for a particular situation. Or worse yet, a friendship ends because one player decides to backstab another in an "every man for himself" style game. By going through this tool, everyone knows before the game starts whether that's expected or whether it's out of the question for this game. Its purpose is to serve as an aid in keeping the peace at the table or prevent the game from ever starting if it's going to create social conflict.
As a side benefit, it also helps us be understanding that not everyone has the same preferences in their games, and it helps us accept that that's okay and people with different tastes don't have to play together.
Should you use it?
That's up to you and your group. Has the make up of your group changed (newly formed, new members, members left)? Do different members of the group like different play styles? Does the group want to try new play styles? Does your group argue about GM decisions? Do in game conflicts result in real life resentment? "Yes"es to the preceding questions might be good reasons to try it out, but only you and your group can determine if you experience social conflicts or if it actually helps with them. It's perfectly fine if you just want to try it out to see what the effect in your group is, of course.