Various ways of setting up and starting RPG play

[pemerton]

I like your taxonomy. Some thoughts:

* I think your (otherwise good) taxonomy might be missing (though it might not…C might be sufficient) another entry that captures games like AW and Blades (I think you can also slot My Life With Master here, including “create the Master/Mistress as session 1):

E) The game itself creates a premise and, within that premise, PCs are made. Initial play is centered around developing threats, conflicts, opportunities. The GM frames loose scenes, follows the PCs around, and this process firms up a pregnant-with-conflict nexus that spark subsequent play.

This is similar to C in key ways, but might be sufficiently different that it needs its own entry.

<snip>

Dogs in the Vineyard is A and C with your backstory initiation scene being PC kicker and then your C kicks into high gear.

<snip>

If the “collectively create a map and leave blanks” initial phase of play is included in DW, then it falls into A and then B (just like Burning Wheel or Shadows of Yesterday with Bonds and Alignment doing the heavy lifting).

My incomplete knowledge of DitV is showing. Agon does it differently - in the transition phase (called The Voyage) after each island, each PC asks a question of another, which can feed into backstory, attitude towards the gods, hopes for the homecoming, etc. But this isn't a kicker, being primarily reflective rather than driving of the action.

Your candidate (E) I thought might get close to (A) in my reply to @niklinna upthread. To me it seems different from (C) because the players are contributing more to the content of the situation, not just their response to it. Especially if there is a lot of AW-style asking and answering questions. I see your suggestion about Dungeon World as broadly sitting in the same space.

Torchbearer is a bit of both B and D contingent upon how much Twists in Town/Adventure/Journey engage with Friends, Family, Hometown, Rivals, Beliefs, Creed (3rd and beyond) + how much Adventure is generated based on these things.

If those two things recede while Adventures are picked by players from a small menu of prepared scenarios (that don’t engage, or engage marginally) with PC-flagged dramatic needs) and Goal is an outgrowth of that choice, then Torchbearer will lean toward Classic D&D play of the Moldvay variety which is full-throated D play.

If BOTH Adventure & Goal are dictated by GM AND Friends, Family, Hometown, Rivals, Beliefs, Creed recede into the background to become (effectively) mere color, then we’re in Adventure Path/Setting-As-Protagonist play.

I don't know if you saw this from me, also replying to niklinna:

I am trying a version of it with my Torchbearer adventure design! But my feeling is that, at least for me, there would be standing temptation to drift towards B, using the GM-side prep as more like a list of suggestions or aides-memoire, rather than sticking to the prep as constraint in the manner of D. Torchbearer is probably a good system for me in this respect, as it has some nice tools - the interplay of prepared scenario and improvised twist - to try and balance the B vs D tensions.

So I think we're broadly on the same page with respect to what is possible in Torchbearer, but I'm still very much developing my sense of the system tolerances.

 

[Manbearcat]

My incomplete knowledge of DitV is showing. Agon does it differently - in the transition phase (called The Voyage) after each island, each PC asks a question of another, which can feed into backstory, attitude towards the gods, hopes for the homecoming, etc. But this isn't a kicker, being primarily reflective rather than driving of the action.

When I looked into Agon (after your excerpting your play!), my sense was that Voyages were kindred with Dogs' Reflection phase (transition phase between town where we ask and answer questions about the PC and resolve Advancement/changes to PCs based on prior Town play). It seems to be basically a dead lock that Harper cribbed that more-or-less directly from Dogs (honestly, Agon really seems like Dogs structure Greek Mythified)!

As far as A vs B, there is definitely some bleed there, with the crux being subtle as to whether one should be binned in one vs the other with the binning being related to "what qualifies as a full-blown kicker" vs "what qualifies as the consequential ingredients for a kicker, PC evinced dramatic needs, that the GM then frames play around." Regardless, after that initial starting point, (A) and (B) is mostly indistinguishable outside of the intricacies of system and structure.

I think for some players the difference is of great import, while for others its negligible to the point of irrelevant.

Your candidate (E) I thought might get close to (A) in my reply to @niklinna upthread. To me it seems different from (C) because the players are contributing more to the content of the situation, not just their response to it. Especially if there is a lot of AW-style asking and answering questions. I see your suggestion about Dungeon World as broadly sitting in the same space.

Definitely agree that Dungeon World hews very much toward A (& B) there vs C (and my proposed E). However, I think where we might differ is that I see that as its really only identifiable break-point from Apocalypse World. The Burning Wheel and Shadows of Yesterday influence on Dungeon World are decisive and formative. Whereas the thematic triggers in AW and Blades are obvious clarion calls for framing, they yet have a level of malleability to them which (intentionally) requires some initial exploration with setting and situation to ultimately give form to (this is that opening session in both games; opening phase in Blades' structure). Contrast with Dungeon World where you're already going to have an Alignment statement (which is an oath of ethos or objective that is unmistakable in its game-driving trajectory - "engage with and resolve this particular thing") and at 1-4 Bonds (which is a Relationship question/objective that is unmistakable in its game-driving trajectory - "engage with and resolve this particular thing"). This is much, much more like Burning Wheel and Shadows of Yesterday and 4e (Player-Authored Quests) than it is Apocalypse World. However, the you only need to fill out 1 Bond initially and opening play will give rise to the other 3 Bonds option is where DW play can yield a more AW opening session aesthetic (much like the "Make Maps and Leave Blanks" process is AW-ifying D&D setting).

I don't know if you saw this from me, also replying to niklinna:

pemerton said:
I am trying a version of it with my Torchbearer adventure design! But my feeling is that, at least for me, there would be standing temptation to drift towards B, using the GM-side prep as more like a list of suggestions or aides-memoire, rather than sticking to the prep as constraint in the manner of D. Torchbearer is probably a good system for me in this respect, as it has some nice tools - the interplay of prepared scenario and improvised twist - to try and balance the B vs D tensions.

So I think we're broadly on the same page with respect to what is possible in Torchbearer, but I'm still very much developing my sense of the system tolerances.

I saw it as of now!

Yup, that does look like we're broadly on the same page. I look forward to your future TB play excerpts (if they evolve or stay roughly where you presently are)!

 

[hawkeyefan]

A. Players kick off the action
Once we've agreed on our system and basic genre/context, the players build PCs and decide on the initial difficult/challenging situation their PCs are in. (In some writing about RPGs, that initial situation is called the "kicker", for obvious reasons.

C. GM creates situation, players bring the evaluation and interpretation
I've never played Dogs in the Vineyard, but as I understand it, it is a classic example of (C): the GM designs a town ripe with sin and conflict, and the players, playing their Dogs, have to decide whether and how to "clean things up". At the heart of this approach is that the players, not the GM, decide what counts as a satisfactory resolution.

E) The game itself creates a premise and, within that premise, PCs are made. Initial play is centered around developing threats, conflicts, opportunities. The GM frames loose scenes, follows the PCs around, and this process firms up a pregnant-with-conflict nexus that spark subsequent play.

I've been pondering my recent Spire campaign in regard to the categories offered in the thread, and I'm stuck on some kind of mix of the above.

Spire does have a default premise that the PCs are all members of the Ministry of Our Hidden Mistress, as a resistance cell of drow in their home city which has been ruled by high elves for the past couple of centuries. So that seems in line with (E) offered by @Manbearcat .

To begin play, we created the characters first. The players have a lot of input on this, and must make choices about contacts and other connections they have in the fiction, which of course gives the GM material to work with. So this kind of sounds like A. We collectively decided the district we'd start in for play, which was the crime-ridden Red Row, an underground ghetto for the drow, largely ignored by the powers that be so long as the violence doesn't spread to other parts of Spire. This is kind of like @pemerton 's (A) above.

I then did some prep work, which was to take the different elements of Red Row presented in the book, and incorporate some (with or without changes) and to add a few new ones, including those established by player creation. For our first game, I did initiate things with a "starting mission" so to speak, just to get the ball rolling with a clear goal for the first session. The idea was that the Ministry had a cell already working in Red Row, but that cell was compromised, and their handler was discovered. The cell was eliminated, and the handler captured, and was held in a facility loyal to the high elves. Their first mission was to make sure that the handler could not be properly interrogated.

After that initial premise, I didn't have their handler just offer missions every session. She tasked them with operating in Red Row toward drow ends. How they did so was entirely up to them. I think that initial situation is more like @pemerton 's (C).

So I'm not sure... is all of the above covered by (E)? Or is it more a combo of (A) and (C)?

 

[Fenris-77]

My general set-up is a little more recursive than can be captured by picking one of the options in the OP. I tend to have an opening conceit or situation to help the PCs build characters and add to the world, and then I take their motivations and additions and tinker before the first session. So call that A + B, and the opening session usually looks more like C than anything else. I like in media res to start usually, something to get the players acting and reacting right away. That doesn't mean a campaign-level hook or entanglements mind, it's often a situation designed to introduce the setting and/or rules as much as anything else.

 

[pemerton]

To begin play, we created the characters first. The players have a lot of input on this, and must make choices about contacts and other connections they have in the fiction, which of course gives the GM material to work with. So this kind of sounds like A.

Or (B)?

Because there's no "kicker" in there, is there? But there are embedded, motivated PCs.

We collectively decided the district we'd start in for play, which was the crime-ridden Red Row

<snip>

I then did some prep work, which was to take the different elements of Red Row presented in the book, and incorporate some (with or without changes) and to add a few new ones, including those established by player creation

<snip>

After that initial premise, I didn't have their handler just offer missions every session. She tasked them with operating in Red Row toward drow ends. How they did so was entirely up to them. I think that initial situation is more like @pemerton 's (C).

So I'm not sure... is all of the above covered by (E)? Or is it more a combo of (A) and (C)?

To me it still seems (B)-ish: the players have built these connected, embedded, motivated PCs and then you're framing them into situations that speak to that. The handler is just one of your devices to that end (if I've followed properly).

My general set-up is a little more recursive than can be captured by picking one of the options in the OP. I tend to have an opening conceit or situation to help the PCs build characters and add to the world, and then I take their motivations and additions and tinker before the first session. So call that A + B, and the opening session usually looks more like C than anything else. I like in media res to start usually

To me, this sounds pretty solidly (B). The players build their PCs with relationships, embeddedness, motivations, etc. Then you frame them into a situation that speaks to that.

The contrast with (A) is no "kicker". And the contrast with (C) is that, in (C), the GM isn't authoring the situation to directly engage with established PC motivations/context.

Of course the taxonomy is a bit porous, or at least wobbly around the edges. But what you are describing seems to me pretty consistent with Burning Wheel, which is in turn a (B)-ish game by default, I think.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Or (B)?

Because there's no "kicker" in there, is there? But there are embedded, motivated PCs.

Well I put in an immediate need for action. Not a kicker as I think they’re typically viewed, but it let us hit the ground running. The players also picked the district, which informed the kinds of situations that would come up in play.

To me it still seems (B)-ish: the players have built these connected, embedded, motivated PCs and then you're framing them into situations that speak to that. The handler is just one of your devices to that end (if I've followed properly).

That may be! I think I shied away from (B) more because I didn’t set their overall goal, it was determined by the setting/game.

After the first session, I wasn’t very involved at all in getting them going.

But as a start, perhaps (B) is the most accurate, unless we consider (E).

 

[pemerton]

Well I put in an immediate need for action. Not a kicker as I think they’re typically viewed, but it let us hit the ground running.

This seems (B): the players provide the drive, but the GM provides the situation (you, the GM, put in an immediate need for action; in (A), the players do that).

The players also picked the district, which informed the kinds of situations that would come up in play.

<snip>
I think I shied away from (B) more because I didn’t set their overall goal, it was determined by the setting/game.

My thinking of this through a (B) lens is shaped by this: within the overall context of the setting/game, the players chose motivations/character "embeddedness" - eg by choosing district - but they didn't choose the starting situation.

 

[Fenris-77]

So when we say starting situation, maybe we need to be more granular. I'll explain by way of example. So lets say we're talking about an OSR game where the party play licensed adventurers delving into a mysterious and magical woods for lost technology and treasure. Lets also say that the group picked this idea after some session zero discussion and world building. They will begin on their way to a remote town that will serve as the base of operations. Lets also say that as a natural consequence to something that happens on the journey there, they get attacked by bandits (which is essentially then the first thing that 'happens' in the game).

In this case, if someone asked me about the starting situation, I'd say it's being newcomers (perhaps unwelcome) to that remote village and the decisions the group makes about how to settle in, who to trust, or not, and how to go about setting themselves up for forays into the dark and mysterious woods. However, its perhaps just as correct to say the starting situation is the journey north and the bandit attack. This is really a question of scale and teleos, I suppose, but I was curious which one was meant in the OP.

 

[niklinna]

So when we say starting situation, maybe we need to be more granular. I'll explain by way of example. So lets say we're talking about an OSR game where the party play licensed adventurers delving into a mysterious and magical woods for lost technology and treasure. Lets also say that the group picked this idea after some session zero discussion and world building. They will begin on their way to a remote town that will serve as the base of operations. Lets also say that as a natural consequence to something that happens on the journey there, they get attacked by bandits (which is essentially then the first thing that 'happens' in the game).

Good distinction. The original post discusses several stages of "setting up and starting".

Your example sounds like a switch from B to C/D (dependent on further detail). Or you could say it's an incidental C/D embedded in an otherwise B setup.

Who decided they get attackd by bandits, though? It could be an A-style kicker if one of the players put that forward. Maybe one of the bandits is their long-lost second cousin, or the bandits have a hostage the PCs end up rescuing so they become instant celebrities on arriving in town. Or maybe the GM decided either of those, in which case we are back to C/D. Each bit of setup & start could be different.

In this case, if someone asked me about the starting situation, I'd say it's being newcomers (perhaps unwelcome) to that remote village and the decisions the group makes about how to settle in, who to trust, or not, and how to go about setting themselves up for forays into the dark and mysterious woods. However, its perhaps just as correct to say the starting situation is the journey north and the bandit attack. This is really a question of scale and teleos, I suppose, but I was curious which one was meant in the OP.

In that case, I'd call the broader thing the starting premise or setup.

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, this is an imaginary example, but the thought was that it was an adjudicated outgrowth of the fiction and mechanics. In most games this means it's a twist or consequence presented as a reaction to something like a failed travel or journey roll, or a random encounter roll. It depends on the system. What I was getting at was that it wasn't something the GM just decided should happen.

Edit: I usually prefer things like encounters to be an adjudicated reaction to mechanical interaction on the parts of the players, rather than simply a GM decision (or system mandated) roll to see if something happens.