Setting
I have been having quite a bit of fun over at Story Games--recently discussing how to strip down a setting to its productive elements. There are several reasons this appeals to me. For one, the more I DM, the less willing I am to spend too much time fleshing out dungeons, towns, and challenges. I want to provide the players with the maximum opportunity to move through the world as they want, rather than have me tell them where to go. This naturally lends itself to improv and the idea of a 'setting factory' lays out some of the underlying elements of good improvisation--not randomness, but the capacity to play the variations of a theme.
For two, it opens the door to a more cooperative game, one in which the players begin to take some responsibility for the setting. You give them the theme and give them resources that they can use to invoke these themes to create setting elements on the spot. If the players don't want to take that responsibility, nothing changes. If they do, it expands upon the 'give the players opportunities' goal--if they want to go someplace cool, they tell you where they want to go.
The idea of key oppositions works well and appeals to my intuitive structuralism. You start a game with three or four oppositions that define the game, provide some correspondence between them, and then provide the players with tokens. They spend a token, invoke an opposition or two, and briefly describe the setting element they are introducing.
Build in a reward system. Each time a player contributes an element that furthers game play in an in interesting (yes, vague) way, they receive more tokens. Some of these should be special, allowing them to expand on their creation roles. They create a number of setting specific encounter zones, eventually acquiring tokens that can be used to introduce setting specific rewards. So they move up from 'shelter for those seeking justice' to finding a 'sword of the just.'
I do like ideas that are not yet embedded in the mechanics of a game--they seem more mobile, easier to plug into a game that is already in play, easier to incorporate into a new game.
For two, it opens the door to a more cooperative game, one in which the players begin to take some responsibility for the setting. You give them the theme and give them resources that they can use to invoke these themes to create setting elements on the spot. If the players don't want to take that responsibility, nothing changes. If they do, it expands upon the 'give the players opportunities' goal--if they want to go someplace cool, they tell you where they want to go.
The idea of key oppositions works well and appeals to my intuitive structuralism. You start a game with three or four oppositions that define the game, provide some correspondence between them, and then provide the players with tokens. They spend a token, invoke an opposition or two, and briefly describe the setting element they are introducing.
Build in a reward system. Each time a player contributes an element that furthers game play in an in interesting (yes, vague) way, they receive more tokens. Some of these should be special, allowing them to expand on their creation roles. They create a number of setting specific encounter zones, eventually acquiring tokens that can be used to introduce setting specific rewards. So they move up from 'shelter for those seeking justice' to finding a 'sword of the just.'
I do like ideas that are not yet embedded in the mechanics of a game--they seem more mobile, easier to plug into a game that is already in play, easier to incorporate into a new game.
posted by Ian | 7:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home