Starting a Game

[Easy e]

In a different thread, there seemed to be some differing views on the proper way of starting a session with new characters. I found this an interesting topic, and wanted to discuss it without bogging down the other thread.

I know how I go about starting a game, but really want to hear about how you personally do it.

[Tawmis]

In a different thread, there seemed to be some differing views on the proper way of starting a session with new characters. I found this an interesting topic, and wanted to discuss it without bogging down the other thread. I know how I go about starting a game, but really want to hear about how you personally do it.

Depends on my players.
If they're brand new - PHB is the only thing accessible. This is to narrow down the amount of "branches" within each class and narrow down the insane amount of spells.
This allows them to create a core D&D character and get the concept of it.
Let them roll whatever they want and explain as much as I can - especially since I run a homebrew world.

[Cheesegear]

I know how I go about starting a game, but really want to hear about how you personally do it.

1) I choose a biome (e.g; Hills)
2) I make a Village or Town, set an economy (e.g; Mining), and a government (e.g; Plutocracy)

Alright, players. There's a Village [name], in the Hills, mostly a mining town run by basically the group of people who own the mine and associated interests.

I'm usually not interested what my players' characters did before the game starts. I don't care about the off-screen. So I'm usually not too worried about their backstories. But I will ask them one single question:

What are you doing here? Hills. Mine. Plutocracy. Go. You'd better have an answer when I ask. I'm making this up as I go along and I'm gonna get the narrative ideas for the campaign based on what you want to play. If you've got nothing, then I'm going with someone else's idea...If none of you have any ideas, I'm going to start making my own stuff and you're just gonna have to play it.

The players begin making their own plot hooks:
- The plutocracy is corrupt, and someone needs to look into it.
- There are monsters in the mine.
- Someone is looking for [missing NPC] who was last seen in the area.
- I dunno? Umm. Mercenary? Plutocrats have money.
- You said Hills? What colour Dragon lives in Hills? Something, something that one.

During the first hour or so of the players introducing themselves, trying to find employment or generally looking around, I am furiously writing plot hooks and creating NPCs. If those are the adventures that my players want to play, then I need to start making them up.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I like starting with an action scene. Let the players describe what their characters look like and what they're doing in the moments before, and then have something explode. While it can be a bit goofy, there are a lot of advantages.

It pulls all the characters in at the same time, meaning no-one is left sitting around waiting to join the game.
It establishes cooperation as the standard from the very get-go, reducing the impact of mistrustful or unfriendly characters.
It focuses players in a way that roleplaying scenes don't always manage, and gives you some good momentum going into the rest of the session.
Fighting together is a good excuse for the kind of quick bonding you need to turn a bunch of strangers into a loyal party.
The GM has a lot of control over the feel of a combat scene, letting you quickly establish the tone of your campaign.

[Vahnavoi]

For conventions, there's a standard form that fits on A4, telling name of the scenario, date, time and duration of a game, what ruleset is being used, what's the genre and themes of the game, a five word synopsis, a four-hundred character description of what the scenario is about, some boxes to tick concerning who the game is suitable to (kids, beginners, foreign language speakers etc.), how many players are required and contact information of the game master. So when going to a convention, filling up that form is what I do first. Potential players read the form and sign up to a game based on that.

If I am home or visiting friends, I pull a book or boxed set from my big container of games, hand it to people present and ask "does this look like a game you want to play?" They take a good look and then either agree or not.

The game set-up then seques to game set-up. First question I tend to ask is if all the players have played roleplaying games before. If someone hasn't, I follow it by brief explanation: assume viewpoint of a character in described situation and decide what to do, how and why. This is followed by rest of the rules or statement that rules will be explained as they become relevant, depending on complexity of game. Then the typical sequence is character selection, description of initial situation, equipment selection, first moves, and it goes from there.

Depending on how much prep work I've done for the specific game, there may be some extra set-up between pitching the game and players coming to the table, mostly laying out writing and drawing equipment, dice, game forms, organizing folders etc.

I'll leave scenario and game design out of this, because I don't have one method for doing that.

[Pauly]

In a different thread, there seemed to be some differing views on the proper way of starting a session with new characters. I found this an interesting topic, and wanted to discuss it without bogging down the other thread.

I know how I go about starting a game, but really want to hear about how you personally do it.

First, before any character creation there is some form of session zero. As GM I’m telling the players about the world and the setting. The players are telling me about what kind of experience they’re looking for.

Then I ask the players what their character concepts are. Before any character sheet is filled in or backstories are written in detail I ask the important question
“How do you all know each other?” (alternatively Why are you adventuring together?)
I don’t need the character to know every other character, but to have a link to at least one other character in the party and for the entire party to be linked in a chain. For example A might be linked to B, B is linked to A and C, and D is linked to C.

Once the players know what type of game they’re playing and how their characters relate to each other then detailed character creation is done.

As for a starting session. I like to start with a scene highlighting the core concept of the campaign. It can be a combat scene, a diplomacy scene, a survival scene, a covert infiltration scene, whatever. Think of the pre-credits sequence in a Bond movie. It doesn’t have to be linked to the main campaign but it gives the players a chance to test drive their characters and to familiarize themselves with the system other characters and GM style.

At the end of scene then there’s a chance to catch their breath and the main plot hook(s) is(are) introduced.

[Satinavian]

The first step is usually deciding players, system and theme.

Now if you have a stable group you can forgoe the "players" step but if you are building a new one there will be some back and forth here finding common ground, voicing expectations, sceduling etc.

Usually you decide the system before the theme. But sometimes you wan to play a certain theme (e.g. a Star Trek campaign) and are looking for matching/working systems after that. If you have a long running group, there is a good chance wou won't change the system all that often as you have found one that works for you all and where everyone is familiar with.

The theme is usually given by the GM because that is the inspiration for the GM. It is possible to have players come together and propose themes and then pick one bu this is sinifcantly harder as the GM has to have interest in it or the campaign risks being done halfheartily or ven to be abandoned. An inspired GM really helpes.

Houserules and table agreements are discussed. Established group playing a known system skip this. Completely new groups might a long time deciding them. Is only one or two newcomer some in, they are mostly just informed unless they severely disagree with the existing rules.

Gameworld is chosen. Most of the time people just take some official setting. On the rare case that does not happen, there has to be done a lot of worldbuilding now. That can be something the GM has done and now prepares the results of. Or it is done collaboratively now. But i stress again, that is really rare and also not he expectation in most systems. If i start a Shadowrun campaign, everyone just naturally assumes the SR setting. If i do my Star Trek campaign, i might have some discussion about timelines and what is considered canon for the campaign but it is not that there has to be much real worldbuilding to be done.

After system, players and theme are decided upon group planning and starting conditions are discussed openly. Often the theme requires certain starting conditions, otherwise they are chosen to fit. People discuss roughly what kind of character they want to play. Their role in the group, how they fit into the setting, how they are connected to the chosen campaiggn theme, why they might already know each other and work together.

------------------------------------------------------------

The above can take up a whole session of time, especially for new groups. This is generally assumed to have been session 0. Now everyone knows enough to build the complete character until the next session and then the game starts. It is generally expected that one mails the character and sto the GM before that session but there are regularly people late.

The firts real game session thus is not that different from all the others. But instead of the recap that is quite common for running campaigns, the GM sets the stage where the PC meet and start. Usually this is an event where those characters who don't have established connections to the rest are introduced to the others. What kind of event that is depends on the campaign, the setting and the PCs.

[Telonius]

For me, "session zero" depends a lot on how experienced the players are with the system. But usually it involves figuring out character sheets and backstories, and the players establishing a few basic things about their characters (motivations, why they adventure, etc). Also, setting expectations for content and behavior (I usually ask, if this game were a movie, what rating would you be comfortable playing), figuring out if PVP is going to be allowed or not. Then, giving them any worldbuilding information that would be common knowledge to people in the game world: major place names, local rulers, general culture and legal expectations. (If the usual setting assumes "orcs are always irredeemably evil and are shot on sight by any decent humanoid," and you're playing "orcs are nomads, tolerated but mistrusted," you need to let them know). Last, going over rules issues. Any houserules that deviate from the published rules needs to be established before we start.

Exactly how the first session plays out depends on that, plus the work I've done beforehand to plan the adventure. Figure out how to get all of the characters into the same place, and give them a reason to adventure together.

[OldTrees1]

Session -N:
The existing campaign is winding down. The players start asking if anyone has a campaign idea they would run.

Session 0:
A) The next GM provides whatever additional information is needed for the other players to make informed choices about whether they want to participate. This is a dialogue (if there is a sticking point, the GM and player can discuss it, or a new campaign idea can be attempted). It also utilizes shared expectations and assumptions. The vast majority of the relevant information for the informed choice might be captured in existing assumptions and understandings. (Sometimes session 0 takes 0 seconds).

B) The next GM also provides whatever additional information is needed for the other players to start creating characters for that campaign. This usually takes longer because there are fewer shared assumptions about the new world the GM is creating or borrowing AND because the players will bounce ideas off each other to see if the party would be enjoyable. This is also where we figure out how the party is already together so we can skip the "meetup" phase of session 1.

Session 1:
The campaign starts with the party together. There is usually some more detailed reminder exposition about the initial location and situation (and possibly initial goal/objective/task if one exists). Then the game begins.

[kyoryu]

Here's roughly what I do:

1) "Hey, let's play a game. I'm thinking this rough setting, and this kind of a theme/high level plot (movie trailer level summary/high concept)"
1a) Sometimes, instead of pitching a game, it's more like "hey, why don't we use a collaborative setting creation tool like Spark/Spark in Fate Core/Microscope to create the genre/setting"

2) "Here's the rules I'm gonna use, and here's notable house rules. That work for everyone?"

3) "Here's the general structure of the game". This can be linear, sandbox, story sandbox, episodic dungeon crawl, whatever. I give specific examples of how this structure plays out.

4) General policies on fudging, character death, expectations of how players should approach encounters/scenes, how often they should expect to not have things go their way, what "it doesn't go your way" means, etc. Again, I try to give specific examples.

5) General policies on characters, PvP, etc.

Note that each of these are a conversation. Some of these subjects can be glossed over if the group I'm playing with is used to the particular style of game, etc.

A couple concrete examples:

"Hey, I wanna run a game - I'm thinking Fate Core. Kind of a dark fantasy game about some wizards summoning some bad crap from the void realms. For magic, probably use aspect-based narration <description>. I don't fudge in this kind of game, and it's open - if we all agree that we're hunting these things for whatever reason, then I expect you to hunt them. But how you do that is up to you, and I won't have a particular solution in mind. Death is not going to happen from random rolls, and even in combat it won't be the default - when something is really primarily after death, I'll let you know. That doesn't mean you can abuse that, though. If you do something that would result in death, like jumping off a cliff, you'll die. I run this type of game pretty tough, so you can expect you'll 'lose' a lot of scenes, maybe 25-35%, at a guess. But losing means the story goes the way you didn't want to - think of movies, the heroes often 'lose' individual scenes. I do expect the players to work together, while some conflict is normal and understandable, it shouldn't get to the level of flat-out sabotage or trying to kill each other, so we'll come together to make characters that would have a reason to play with each other. Sound good?"

"Hey, I wanna run a game. I'm thinking old-school megadungeon style play, using D&D 1e. I'm gonna run it pretty much by the book, but that does include a fair amount of 'rulings over rules'. Characters are 4d6b3 in order. Each session will be people either choosing from one of their characters, or making a new one, and making a single trip into the dungeon and back. I don't expect the same people to show up every week, either. I'm not going to fudge, and certainly not for death. Characters will die, and your job is not to. I do expect you to use your judgement in what to fight and what to run from, and to make smart decisions. But, that's why you'll have a number of characters, for when that happens. I don't really expect PvP - if it ends up that you have two incompatible characters, they just shouldn't adventure together. Sound good?"

"Hey, I wanna run a game. 5e. Descent to Avernus. I'm going to stick to the modules and rules, and I'm going to ask you all to kind of work with me here - we're running the module, so don't try to break anything. Find a party that works with each other and go from there. I'm not going to fudge, and I'm going to let death stand, but the encounters should be balanced, so I'm not really expecting that you should have to do a lot of decisions about what to fight and what not to - if something is clearly a combat encounter, it should be balanced for you. Sound good?"

I've described three different games here, and only a few things are really similar between them all (mostly because i don't care to run PvP, and I don't like to fudge).

[KorvinStarmast]

Starting a Game:

Step 0: when can you all (from 3-5 players, but up to 7) all join a game for 3-4 hours. I am thinking of running {this game} but I can't do it without players.

Step 1: Seriously, can you commit to showing up at least 80% of the time?

After that it's all gravy. :smalltongue:

[Easy e]

Starting a Game:

Step 0: when can you all (from 3-5 players, but up to 7) all join a game for 3-4 hours. I am thinking of running {this game} but I can't do it without players.

Step 1: Seriously, can you commit to showing up at least 80% of the time?

After that it's all gravy. :smalltongue:

This post contains the truth that sets us all free!