Players establishing facts about the world impromptu during play

[kenada]

On the other hand while this is a point it is a point that doesn't make an entire sword. The other lesson I've learned (and one of the big problems 4e had) is that different people in the group are different and look for different things. Without the ability to handle at least some incoherence at the table you're going to have problems finding and keeping groups for anything other than one-shots. Some coherence is good, purity isn't.

That’s true, but I’m talking about incoherence more generally than just as applied to GNS or the big model. I expect those theories would view neo-trad/OC play as incoherent, but people enjoy that style and make it work. What would actually be incoherent is introducing OSR elements into a neo-trad game (because you’re putting pitting competing principles against each other). I look at it as a tool to check whether what I’m doing is what I think I’m doing.

For a long time, I’ve incorporated PbtA-style agenda and principles in the games I run. The list is mostly just cribbed from Apocalypse World with a few tweaks. However, if I’m trying to run a campaign as a science experiment (i.e., what comes to my mind re: the Right to Dream), some of those principles are going to screw things up. If the idea is we have an initial premise and then see where things go, then asking provocative questions and building on the answers will screw things up.

To give a concrete example, my players apparently love exploration-based games. For the last several campaigns, when we sit down to do a session zero and talk about what we want to play, they say they want to do an exploration-based game. The first few I tried, I would dial in on things they found interesting. One player’s character was really into crystals, so that became a thing, and another thread lead them into a plot on crystals. In another, we ended up focusing on the lives of the characters as explorers rather than on exploration itself. The feedback was consistent: that was fun, but there wasn’t much exploration. I’m concerned about incoherence here because I want that to stop happening (I want both fun and to do the thing they want).

 

[Emerikol]

And if I was expecting a Paizo-style Adventure Path style game and got OSR dungeon crawling I'd be surprised and I know people who'd be thrown for a huge loop. And that's just within the D&D family. Most of the Blades players I know would be more comfortable with an OSR game than most of the Pathfinder players due to the expectation of agency and that the story will be driven by the players, and the comparative mechanical simplicity.

Agree. Pure adventure path gaming is a different category.

I think Tabletop Roleplaying Game already is the broader category, and that that is its traditional meaning. And that subcategories such as OSR and Storygames already exist and are used usefully. ("Roleplaying" without the Tabletop descriptor has Tabletop in at best third place behind "Bedroom" and "Video Game" with video games also dominating the term RPG).

I think CRPG should have been their name but I get it.

I think there are scattered terms out there but it wouldn't hurt to try and formalize them a bit and approach it in a scientific way. Companies use these terms willy nilly. I realize Story Now is perhaps one that hasn't been messed up as some of the others but it would be interesting to analyze and expose the styles of play to help players get what they really want. It would make most tables better I think and if you live in the middle of nowhere with three friends you at least know they have different agendas and maybe you can feed each of them a little of what they want.

 

[Emerikol]

One thing I did like from watching the Story Now game replay on youtube was the initial discussion around who they were and who their friends were. I think I could make that work as a session 0.

In my games a session 0 might go like this....
Player 1: I screwed up and made a local crime lord angry
GM: Oh I bet it is X
Player 1: Yeah, X is really pissed because I got a little too friendly with his ....
GM: daughter? girlfriend? wife?
Player 1: His daughter.

Now I probably have a conversation with each player separately because everything known to player 1 is not known to player 2 etc...

It's still a useful exercise I think at fleshing out backgrounds if you have a player willing to do that sort of analysis. The reality is ... I'm a rogue that is on the run from the mob is about all I'll get from a player. So then I have to figure out how that fits into the world and then write up a more detailed set of notes and give them to the player.

 

[Neonchameleon]

One thing I did like from watching the Story Now game replay on youtube was the initial discussion around who they were and who their friends were. I think I could make that work as a session 0.

In my games a session 0 might go like this....
Player 1: I screwed up and made a local crime lord angry
GM: Oh I bet it is X
Player 1: Yeah, X is really pissed because I got a little too friendly with his ....
GM: daughter? girlfriend? wife?
Player 1: His daughter.

Now I probably have a conversation with each player separately because everything known to player 1 is not known to player 2 etc...

It's still a useful exercise I think at fleshing out backgrounds if you have a player willing to do that sort of analysis. The reality is ... I'm a rogue that is on the run from the mob is about all I'll get from a player. So then I have to figure out how that fits into the world and then write up a more detailed set of notes and give them to the player.

Even if you aren't having a full session zero one of the variations I've seen is to ask all the PCs to answer the question "I want revenge on [Malphador the Dark] because..."

 

[rmcoen]

(Apologies, I skipped the previous 11 pages of comments)

Answering the original question: I think players should (and are encouraged to) participate in populating the world with their relationships, in cooperation with the GM. I think some players are very capable of unbiasedly contributing places and organizations to a game world, and others are not. And they can choose to participate, or not. Sometimes what results from their input is vastly larger than their kernel, as I build and design and go crazy with it; sometimes it's "sure, Aunt Mary lives two hours south."

I have seen some hose rules around that specifically encourage such participation by giving PCs a token, plus an additional for each point of CHA bonus; players can turn in a token at any time in the game to say "Hey, I know this person!" Like the bouncer at the bar, or the guard at the Count's front gate, or the armorer in this town, whatever.

In my current campaign, I told the players "You're all children of the Frontier Barons, each from a different family. You can't be the heir. Tell me the name of your barony (and family, if different), the name of the barony's capital, and what your barony is known for." I got
1) dwarven cleric, second son, mom's a druid and big brother is a druid; the barony produces metal goods and crafts, but also herbal remedies and healing potions. They are mining across the River, in goblin-held territory.
2) human bard, black sheep, wants nothing to do with his family - wants to make it on his own. Three older brothers are tired of fetching him back, so as long as he doesn't use the family name, he's left alone. Their barony supplies the North Fort, and trades with the aloof elves whose forest is technically within their barony.
3) changeling rogue, switched in a fire, parents don't know. Main city so detailed, I (DM) made it the main setting of the campaign. Personal details so numerous (and drawn) that I also created a roving band of adventurer/tinker/merchants that are the PC's actual family, and rumors pop up every so often. Three older "brothers", all skilled military men.
4) half-sea-elf warlock, thrown out of wizard school, barony provides best ranger types due to policing the Tainted swamp that borders their lands (and grows), produces herbal remedies from the strange mutant plants in the swamps. [I made them friendly competitors to the dwarven clan's druidic-influenced herbs.] No siblings... and mom (the sea elf) isn't the Baroness!
and...
5) "Nope, I'm not a baron's kid. I'm a marine from the empire to the south, discharged, acting as a military consultant in the main river town." This PC has a monk sidekick (read: "if my PC dies, I have a backup built already") who is "off-camera" doing other things, and an Ancient Artifact (non-magical wondrous item).

So from my players' participation, I got 4 baronies, a merchant clan of changelings, a start on a military org to the south, a mercantile competition (and created house rules for the herbal remedies available), a Wizard school (and reasons why they would have thrown out a baron's kid), some political options, a set of plot hooks (the Tainted swamp - what is Taint, how is it created/removed - what lives there, why was the marine discharged, what's the monk sidekick doing, how do the goblins feel about the dwarven mining colony? Why don't the elves trade with anyone else?), an additional dwarven clan (who makes the Empire Navy's "cannons"?), and a good dozen interesting NPCs (like a druid-dwarf in a world where generally only the goblinoids have druidic magic, an estranged sea-elf mistress, who switched out the changeling baby and where's the Baron's original daughter, etc.)

Participation is a wonderful thing!

 

[rmcoen]

Even if you aren't having a full session zero one of the variations I've seen is to ask all the PCs to answer the question "I want revenge on [Malphador the Dark] because..."

My current 5e character's background is basically this! Okay, a little different -- but I ticked off the local mob by not knuckling under, got my shop burned down, and was left for dead in the flames... "Lord Silver" has quite the surprise coming when the Aberrant Sorcerer he created comes to collect on that! [And thus did I create for my GM a badguy (Lord Silver), an org (Silver Coins, the new Thieves' Guild / mob), a town (Stonespire), several plot hooks (my revenge, him finding out I'm still alive, his interference in our party's activities, his mob's infiltration of Stonespire, etc.), other connections (my fellow shopkeepers, the merchant guild I was a member of, my mom's elven relatives, my dad's human friends/contacts in the Guild and the surrounding towns), etc.

 

[Emerikol]

Even if you aren't having a full session zero one of the variations I've seen is to ask all the PCs to answer the question "I want revenge on [Malphador the Dark] because..."

That could be fun but I prefer to let the characters come up with their own starting points. If they kind of don't say much then I might prod them with ideas like this one. I don't want to be seen as railroading them with an idea. But there are the reluctant so your suggestion still likely gets a chance because at least some of the group won't really have a set idea in mind.

If the group wanted to have a lot of shared knowledge in a well known location, which is not generally how I start a campaign, then a session zero exactly like the one shown might work. The presumption is that the group is made up of close friends if you are going to do something like that where the shared knowledge would be great. I could also layer on the secrets later in separate session 0.5's of course. For example, this might be a good way to start a Ptolus campaign for example if someone were running that.

 

[Campbell]

Not when I talk about my personal desire for a coherent play agenda I'm not necessarily talking about one of the big 3 creative agendas. Those are just 3 agendas out of untold number. I do think for play to be functional we need a shared purpose or play starts drifting into this thing where everyone is in it to get their personal satisfaction. I personally might be a little weird in that having a shared purpose at the table is way more important to me than what that purpose is (although I would generally prefer to avoid traditional and especially neotraditional play). I mostly just want a game that I can learn how to play well.

I don't really think you need perfect unity of desires to reach a shared purpose. You just have to agree to play the game in front of you. My home group has all sorts of different tastes and we play different games sometimes swapping out a player or two, but we all agree to play the game in front of us. It's not exactly rocket science. We all do this for pretty much any other type of game. It's only with RPGs that we somehow try to make every game into our preferred game.

 

[pemerton]

barely more than a theoretical concern (the Right to Dream).

I don't agree with this.

Understanding how a game like Rolemaster or RuneQuest works is not just a theoretical concern if you're playing it! And Edwards' own deep interest in BRP and Champions shows that it's more than just a theoretical concern for him.

 

[Campbell]

I don't agree with this.

Understanding how a game like Rolemaster or RuneQuest works is not just a theoretical concern if you're playing it! And Edwards' own deep interest in BRP and Champions shows that it's more than just a theoretical concern for him.

For me as well. This is where we part ways though. RuneQuest for life!