20131016 Fate Core Thought of the Day What Col...

Robert Hanz - 2013-10-16T15:56:27-0400 - Updated: 2013-10-16T16:04:02-0400

Fate Core Thought of the Day: What Collaborative Setting Creation Means To Me

Okay, so, collaborative setting creation seems to be one of those weird things for people new to more narrative games, and it was a bit of a hurdle for me. What exactly does the GM have power over? Does that mean that the players can just determine whatever they want? Does the GM do no worldbuilding? If the players can just declare anything they want, then doesn't the game just devolve into sitting around and telling a story?

I think the best way I can explain my thoughts on this is to give you a few examples of what I think it means. As always, this is my opinion, and others will almost certainly disagree :)

My examples will be three versions of a single pitch - government agents investigating supernatural threats - and how this changes according to the three groups it's run with. Any similarity to anything "real" is as utterly unintended as any similarity Nanoc the IP-Friendly Barbarian has to any other character.

Some of this will be slightly not-strictly-according-to-the-rules for the sake of the examples.

Group one
GM: "Okay, so government agents investigating the supernatural. What do you guys like for a threat? Kind of at the looming threat level?"
P1: "Aliens. I like aliens."
P2: "Cool! But, how about a conspiracy? Like, the aliens are working with the government?"
GM: "I dig it. So you guys are what, then, FBI?"
P1: "Yeah, that sounds cool. Some interesting possibilities for the government investigating itself and politics in there."
GM: "Okay, any ideas on characters? I'd like to keep the players pretty normal - I don't want this to be a superhero game."
P1: "Okay, I can do normal. Since we're doing aliens, how about if I'm an investigator obsessed with the supernatural, since my sister was abducted when I was a kid?"
GM: "I like it."
P2: "Good stuff... as a counter, why don't I play a character that's more skeptical? That'll make some good tension between the two?"
GM: "Awesome. I'll work on some details, and we'll get to playing."

Group Two
GM: "Okay, so government agents investigating the supernatural. What do you guys like for a threat? Kind of at the looming threat level?"
P1: "Hrm. How about something like an alternate dimension?"
P2: "Yeah, there could be something like a war looming, only we're unaware of it."
P3: "That's... pretty cool. Though maybe there should be something else, some kind of group that's kind of... I don't know, dimensional cops or something."
GM: "Good stuff. Okay, any character ideas?"
P1: "Can I be a government agent? Maybe psychic?"
GM: "I'd like to keep this pretty much with normal people. I guess psychic is okay, but is it okay if it's more 'plot-psychic', as in it's not a generally useful skill?"
P1: "Sure, that works. It's not relevant until it is."
P2: "I want to be a mad scientist, how's that?"
P1: "Hey, you can have experimented on me when I was a kid, and that's why I'm sorta psychic!"
P2: "Awesome. I love it."
GM: "Cool. P3?"
P3: "We're doing this dimension thing, right? How about if I'm someone from this other dimension?"
GM: "Mmm, I kinda want to keep the other dimension thing unknown to the characters at the start."
P3: "That's fine, maybe I just don't know it. Maybe I was dragged over here when I was a kid."
P2: "... maybe by your friendly neighborhood mad scientist?"
P3: "I love it. But why?"
P2: "Maybe you're the alternate version of my dead son?"
GM: "Oh, wow. I can't see that blowing up in anyone's faces. But does that mean that everyone has an alternate version?"
P1: "Yeah, I think it would."
GM: "That could get very cool if people start crossing dimensions. Love it. Okay, I'll set it up, see you guys next week."

Group Three
GM: "Okay, so government agents investigating the supernatural. What do you guys like for a threat? Kind of at the looming threat level?"
P1: "I really like the idea that myths are based on some kind of reality, even if it's heavily distorted. Can we do something like that."
GM: "Sure. What kind of myths?"
P2: "I dunno, most of the old myths are overdone."
P3: "How about fairy tales? Except we've drastically misinterpreted them."
GM: "That... could be cool. So, what are you guys thinking? FBI for you guys?"
P1: "Mmmmm... how about something more low-scale at first, to kind of make the larger conflict seem bigger. Maybe local cops?"
P2: "Yeah, I like it. And maybe the fairy-tale creatures are trying to rise to prominence like they used to be."
P3: "Oh, that's awesome. But if we're going with misinterpreted fairy tales, I get to be the big bad wolf."
GM: "Cute."
P3: "No, really! Except I"m like, reformed, and a vegetarian."
P1: "That's... kind of awesome."
GM: "I really want to keep this more about regular people, not superheroes..."
P3: "That's fine. Maybe I'm a bit tougher than most people, but that'd really be about it... I figure most of these supernatural folks are just kinda hanging out living regular lives anyway, so I don't really need anything super-awesome."
GM: "Yeah, I can see that working."
P1: "Okay, so these are fairy tales, right? How about if the fairy tales were written down originally as kind of a warning about the supernatural? And then I'm one of the descendants of this group that fought against them?"
GM: "I like it. P2?"
P2: "Well, you want to keep this grounded, and we've already got the big bad wolf and a monster hunter, so why don't I just be a regular cop? That'll provide at least some grounding back in reality. Plus, I think getting exposed to this stuff will lead to some cool character development."
GM: "That's awesome. I'll get some stuff planned, and see you guys next week."

So, in each case, the players have modified the setting, and the story of the games will end up revolving around them - it wouldn't really work with other characters. But, the GM still has a huge amount of responsibility over the game - the players have helped set the overall world, as well as the general themes of the game, but the individual events and scenarios still are well within the realm of what the GM does, even if they're often based on character aspects.

Shared to the community Fate Core - Public

Reshared by: Jürgen Rudolph, Michael Newton, Drew Owen, Andreas Rönnqvist, Jon Tate, Jon Knight

Fábio Emilio Costa - 2013-10-16T15:59:28-0400

/sub

Porter Williams - 2013-10-16T16:14:02-0400

sub

Stuart McDermid - 2013-10-16T16:18:29-0400

I don't know the second "non-infringing reference" but /sub!

Spencer Bowers - 2013-10-16T16:24:02-0400

This sounds like exactly how I see it also. The collaborative setting creation is really just setting the stage; it's about making sure everyone understands the setting and what the game will be like, while at the same time, getting individual input and buy-in. when the 'actual' game starts, the players still have control over just their characters and the GM still runs the rest of the world.

Fred Hicks - 2013-10-16T16:39:21-0400

X-Files, Fringe, Grimm, respectively.

HUGE props.

Robert Hanz - 2013-10-16T18:55:06-0400

+Stuart McDermid: Would that be the second non-in"fringe"ing example? Ha! I kill myself.

Michael Barrett - 2013-10-16T19:10:42-0400

I want to play in all of these right now.

Porter Williams - 2013-10-16T19:30:18-0400

Actually, my players and I just began having this discussion I over email for our next game, and it's going some really unexpected directions that are looking really cool!

Luckily we're all DM's who love the collaborative world-building activity.

Emlyn Freeman - 2013-10-17T00:52:28-0400

Looks like you've got the collaborative stuff down pat. Some groups might have a little more input, some a little less, but that looks about right to me.

Paul Kießhauer - 2013-10-17T02:39:33-0400

It's weird. Some people really get inspired when you confront them with the idea of colaborative setting creation, others will be petrified by it. I've actually had one player tell me "you do that, we'll just react." Which made me a bit sad, since I like the process very much.

Great thoughts, +Robert Hanz , as always.

Stuart McDermid - 2013-10-17T03:06:12-0400

If you are playing Fate and defining interesting aspects, you already are participating in collaborative setting creation. That's not to say that doing so explicitly isn't cool though, it's just an observation. If you have players reluctant to participate "formally" then you can ask questions as they create characters and act on the answers.

Fábio Emilio Costa - 2013-10-17T08:30:11-0400

First could also encompass Torchwood and even The Sarah Jane Adventures (Doctor Who's spinoffs). The third one could encompass also (with a twist) things like Vertigo's Fables and Once upon a time.

Garth Rose - 2013-10-17T12:11:11-0400

On the spectrum of 'all collaboration' to 'the GM does everything', I don't think many games tend to occur in pristine purity at either end. Even in the examples above, the GM specified that he wanted normal human government agents. For people used to being on the 'GM' side, it might be best to move the slider a few inches toward the other end rather than try to slam it all the way. :) Like, the GM has a fairly solid idea, but encourages people to fill in the gaps.

My impression is that many people who would balk at examples like those above - creating the basic premise of the game - would still respond well to participating in city creation.

Robert Hanz - 2013-10-17T18:47:45-0400

+Fábio Emilio Costa: +Fred Hicks got the... erm... "totally unintended" examples right ;)

+Paul Kießhauer: I usually don't sell it as "collaborative worldbuilding" - which is why the examples pretty much avoid that kind of language.

+Garth Rose: Sure, the GM could start with more of a pitch if he wanted - add in the aliens idea, or whatever, and then see what people thought and where they went with it. I don't see that as being really super-different, as I was going more for the overall flow and results, rather than specific points about "draw the line here".

I guess I really had two points here:

1) Collaborative world-building isn't necessarily this weird and strange thing that's more like a story-writing seminar than a game.

2) Taking a bit of ideas from your players, you can start with a relatively bland idea, and have it go in some really cool ways - without doing "game as story-writing seminar".

Paul Kießhauer - 2013-10-17T19:07:51-0400

+Robert Hanz
I don't sell it as such either, I ask a few questions about what the players would like to do, and I get nothing. I guess the lack of lists to choose things from is putting them off. That's what I meant by my post above, I think some people just can't handle that. If you know that, you can work around that, sure, but it's still weird. I myself always have tons of ideas for any number of settings, and I wouldn't be able to shut up once world building starts.