My players and I pulled off collective setting design

Well, it worked. It finally worked! I managed to do collective setting creation with my players while avoiding the "don't mess with my idea" politeness that keeps everything from syncing up and having real conflicts.

We spent 3 hours, it's still quite macro but we've got a great start. We used some specific rules and they helped a lot. (This has nothing to do with the Great Hundred, this was making a fun high-fantasy world.) Anybody interested in this?

Yes, its our default method when starting new games regardless of the system.

Do you have a set of rules you follow for that or is it generally pretty open?

It depends. Some system will provide guidelines on generating setting elements (SotC novels, Burning Wheel BIT's) etc.

Bcause we have played together for so long our first instinct is always to sit down before we ever even think of what we are going to play and dcssuss what we want out of the game.

Character creation is always done jointly with people bringing some initial ideas to the table. The game world will then be fitted around those characters and the important issues and stories they bring to the table.

We dont have any fixed rules for managing the process but it also not a process which stops when the game starts. If players want to add new overall elements to the game as we progress and everyone agress them then its cool. We also tend to take it further and if a player wants to suggest a particular scene in a session then it is going to happen. They may not be successful in doing what they want but ensuring everyone has the spotlight time they want for their character is important to us.

We have in the past given players responsibility for providing a short write up on game elements important to their character as the game went on.

For example, in the last D&D game we played in (many years ago) one character had as part of his history that his father was the last member of an old order of knights that was wiped out. He inherited his fathers armour and sword and when it seemed that the order was going to become relevant he wrote some of the backstory and fitted it into events that were happening at the time.

Similarly one person was playing a warrior/cleric from a pretty harsh and savage mountain range. When it looked like we were heading in that direction he took responsibility for producing some notes on what his people were like, their traditions, customs and patron god.

This has three real benefits as far as we see it.

Firstly it makes the players care about the setting, they feel a real ownership of the material as they have had a hand in creating it.

Secondly it reduces GM workload, important when your grpup are in their early 30's with work and family committments.

Finally it shares the responsibility for making the game enjoyable amongst the entire group. Making the GM the sole person responsible for bringing the game and the fun to the table is a concept we left behind long long ago.

You see a lot of these issues in a number of indie games which have come out over the last few years. Some do it well, others badly, there is plenty to steal and adapt. We have been doing it since we got together at the release of 3e.

Another example. We recently managed to do something we have been trying to arrange for ages and have a proper gamers weekend away. We rented a cottage in the middle of nowhere, waved goodbye to the kids and s/o's and headed off for a weekend of uninterrupted gaming free of phones, Blackberries, e-mail and the internet.

Each of us ran a game and I decided to do a one shot high level D&D game as we hadnt played it for ages. I gave the players an overarching concept (28 days later D&D style with a bit of the Mummy thrown in) and asked each player to describe three previous adventures they had been involved in prior to the start of the game (totally stealing the SotC novel idea). This built up a series of complicated relationships between the characters (some had clashed in the past) and gave me most of the rest of the game and significant setting elements.

As a result what could have been a very awkward one off (they hadnt played past about level 8 before) was exciting and interesting for them. As a gaming style I dont think I could ever go back to the "traditional" method, it doesnt bring enough advantage or story to the table.

Sure. I'd like to see how the game-world the collective minds made using those guidelines you explained to me came out.

jensun, you're like + and I'm like... &. You're saying all the reasons I did it the way I did.

Woas, I'll try to post more in a bit, we did it over skype and I have a recording but it's poor quality and kind of painful to listen to (the initial bit felt awkward until the guys got used to what TRAPs were).

Have you checked out Primetime Adventures? Joint creation of the setting and the adventures (on a scene-by-scene basis) is the default for that game. Awesome stuff.

Yeah, we played a game of PTA about a year back, it was fun and I think set the ground for this to be OK. Universalis (or more, thinking about how Universalis gets people to agree) was a big factor too when I wrote the how-we-play-build-a-setting rules.

Here's a shot of the web we built:

These were our rules:

[sblock]Setting Up, and What's a TRAP?
There are three "pages" (we're using a digital tabletop) - the Web, the Codex, and the Map. We'll be doing brainstorming on these 3 pages, making up a world. We'll make this world out of building blocks of Situations - interactive elements that can come out in play. These building blocks are called TRAPs.

When we say TRAP we mean Threat, Reward, Asset, or Problem. They're the elemental parts of the game's Situation - after all, the game's about defeating Threats and solving Problems by using your Assets, and earning Rewards for doing so. Practically everything interesting in a fantasy world outside of the protagonists is a TRAP. In Lord of the Rings, Mordor is a Threat, being knighted is a Reward, the city of Rivendell is an Asset, and Theoden's curse is a Problem. Nazgul are Threats, and a belly full of beer is a Reward, Elven archers are Assets, the draw of the ring is a Problem. You can read more about what TRAPs are and some very down-to-earth examples here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=192201

Everybody gets 30 Coins. Decide who goes first however you wish. If you are playing online you should make a list of the turn order and stick to it for the game.

On your turn

1. If there are any coins in the pot, you can award a Coin to a player if you thought they had a cool idea. This is used to encourage the ideas that are most exciting to you.

2. You can propose a TRAP or pass. When you propose it, you need to spend 2 Coins and get 2 other players to spend 1 Coin each. Anyone can veto that idea but if they do you all keep your Coins. If the TRAP you propose gets the support and doesn't get vetoed, then we write the title on the Map, Web, or Codex (as appropriate).

The first ones are often quite general, like Desert Winds (P), Snow (P), Citadel of the Moon (R), Knights of Death (T), Demons (T), or Valley of Gold (A). After the name of the TRAP they put a letter indicating what kind of TRAP it is for future reference.

a. Add a TRAP to The Web. Usually you will draw a line from one or more words already in The Web, and write a related word at the end of that line. For example, if you already had "Akagon, home sweet home (R)" on the map, you could write "Greedy, Dangerous House Muasi (T)". If House Muasi is trying to steal from the people of Akagon, then you would draw a line between them.
b. Add a TRAP to The Codex. This is a new phrase about the world that doesn't fit on the web or map, like "Elves are claustrophobic. (P)"
c. Add a TRAP to The Map. Indicate where your TRAP is, such as "Leviathan (T)" and a dangerous-looking X mark next to it.

The stuff that goes on the Codex or Map has to relate to something on the Web. Stuff on the Web doesn't have to relate to other stuff on the Web but has to relate to something on the Codex or the Map. So we can't silo - the ideas have to relate to each other. That was probably how you guys would go about it anyway but it needs to be clear.

This is the idea: TRAPs go in the most appropriate page. If it's a place, or highly tied to location (like a monster chained under a mountain) it goes on the Map. If it's part of the web of factions and NPCs vying for power, it belongs on the Web. If it's some other statement about the world, it belongs on the Codex.

Once it's added, it's a Fact. One of the coins spent on this fact goes into a Pot, the others are out of the game.

If you have an idea you want to add, but it's not a TRAP, you can still propose it. You and supporters need to spend double the Coins to put it through, but usually one of your supporters will suggest a way to turn the idea into a TRAP and your idea will still make it in. The best thing is to be bold - don't worrry about the format so much, just say what you think is cool and the players will help make it into something that is part of the game's Situation.

3. When one of your ideas has made it onto a page, or you pass, your turn is over, go to the next player (clockwise if in person).[/sblock]