NO

It's not overkill, it's awesome.

I just used the SPT to kick off a new group. Most (4 of 7) had never played before, and one thought that D&D was some sort of board game.

We had a get-together before the first session where we just hung out and talked about media - what games, tv shows, books, etc., we liked and what kind of stuff we would want to see in a game. At that session, I floated a number of games and we ended up choosing Apocalypse World.

So I went home and printed out the SPT and filled it out. At the next session we went over the answers I had chosen and I explained what I meant and why I had chosen those answers.

Then we started the 1st session. In AW, that means making characters, and they knew it was more important to make interesting choices than optimal ones. It didn't take long and it was very valuable. The game is going strong so far and I think everyone benefitted from a solid foundation of shared expectations.

Next time, I would bring unfilled copies of the form for everyone just to avoid reading all the un-chosen answers out loud again.

I didn't ask what they thought, I didn't poll and choose the top answer. The SPT is not a survey. It's a way to clearly state what a game is going to be like, what it is going to be about. If there had been significant objections to an answer, we could have talked about it and possibly adjusted it.

But they're brand new players, that's the heart of the question. How can they have such strong opinions about playstyle when they've never played?

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:

• You all decide you would like to try the game, given that it's designed for this certain play style.
• You all decide you want a different game with a play style that more matches the group's expectations. (You should go through the Same Page Tool again with whatever new game you choose.)
• One player decides they don't want to try the play style of this game and decides to sit it out.
• One or two players are hesitant, and the group as a whole decides to play a different game more in line with their expectations.
• You find out that the entire group has such different expectations and doesn't actually want to play the same type of game. So you give up on playing as a group to avoid the social conflicts that will most likely result.

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.