Anti-session zero sentiments

[Telok]

A thing on this forum is the... fesishization isn't right, but its close... the extremely strong advocacy for a "session zero" to create characters, discuss house rules, and otherwise hash out things about the game and system before starting to play.

However, in actual play I've never seen this happen. The closest I've experienced is Champions games where the GM is explicitly, written in the rule book, supposed to set power levels, vet the characters, and collaborate with the players before the game starts. Outside of that one system I've experienced... call it a sort of passive aggressive hostility towards a "session zero". With a combination of players insinuating that any GM intervention during character creation is some sort of bad "character railroading", and an idea that "session zero" isn't playing the game and therefore wastes a game session.

Interestingly, a GM saying something like "PH +1" which D&D AL uses isn't regarded as interference. On the other hand, this "anti-session zero" is so ingraned in my local gaming culture that most GMs (and all D&D DMs) will not interact with any PC backgrounds provided by the player. On the gripping hand my local gaming culture is definitely into the more crunchy and complex rule sets, seeing many more players coming in from technical backgrounds and things like the Warhammer armies games as opposed to more literary backgrounds and rules light games. That produces a more "rules bound" culture that prefers explicit rules permission for things over more free form "it doesn't say not to" styles.

So I'm asking the playground: In your real life, in person, TTRPGs, do you really have a session zero where the players all come in without completed character sheets, talk to each other about making their characters fit the game & party, the GM lays out the tone & house rules, backstories are swapped & adjusted, and that's pretty much the whole 3-5 hour session?

[Faily]

Kind of, yes?

Plenty of times Session 0 for me have just been that we're talking about what we want to play next, we figure that out, and start to make characters. That's with the groups that I play with the most and we have a good rapport with eachother, so there's no need to go over what to expect, what the houserules will be, etc.

If we're starting a completely new system for most of the folks (like when I introduced a group to FFG's Star Wars), then we dedicate Session 0 to build characters together and cover the basics of the system so that we've gotten our feet wet with the new mechanics.

Some games have required a bit more of a Session 0, such as an Ars Magica campaign where we built our covenant ahead of starting the game, so that required a bit more sharing about our characters and spending time building their home and the people there. So as it was kind of a collective world-building thing, it required its own session.

Most of the people I play with I have contact with through Messenger or Discord, and we set up group-chats there, and a lot of the convo there covers what could've been a Session 0 for some.


But honestly, we don't really have Session 0 to make sure that "everyone is on the same page" and stuff like that, because the people I play with are people I have played games with for years now and we all know eachother fairly well.

[Batcathat]

For me it's been rather varied over my roleplaying "career". When I was first starting out at the dawn of time, neither me nor any of my friends had any experience with TTRPGs and I don't even think we had seen much of them in popular culture (I remember reading one book where they played some sort of RPG but looking back at it, it was very weird). So the idea of any sort of formalized session zero didn't occur to us. We did usually create our characters together, so I suppose we had shades of it (not that it stopped some pretty odd character combinations in the party).

Later in life, some of the games I've been in have had session zeroes and some have not, it seems to depend mostly on the GM. I don't think I've had one myself when GMing but I might use one when I get around to GMing again (that said, I don't have a problem making suggestions about characters, backstories, etc. It just usually haven't taken the form of a session zero).

Though whether the group uses them or not, I don't think I've ever encountered the sentiments you describe.

[icefractal]

We have those things happen, but not in a separate session. This is a group that generally meets weekly, so it's more like:

Week 1, after or before the game: "Hey, I'm thinking about running a game where you build up a city in a post-apocalyptic world ... [insert details]. The system would be ___. Who'd be interested in that?"
Week 2: "So here's more details on the setting and mechanics. Anyone got a character concept?" (some people do, some don't yet).
At this point people discuss character concepts, campaign style, tone, and other "Session 0" parameters over the course of several weeks, either by text message or in person before/after the current game.
Week N: "We're going to start the post-apocalypse game next week. Everyone ready?" At this point everyone should have a character concept, any final discussion about how they fit together can occur, and the next week will be Session 1.

So there effectively is a Session 0, but it's stretched out over a period of time and never occupies an entire session. Personally, I like this style - you're not forced to come up with a character on the spot, much less built it at the table (I hate building characters at the table unless the system is simple), and the GM has plenty of time to adjust campaign details based on the feedback.

If this was a new group being assembled only for this particular game, then I'd be in favor of either a Session 0 or a period of text message discussion that covers the same information. Still would rather create characters with no time pressure rather than at the table.

[ngilop]

We have those things happen, but not in a separate session. This is a group that generally meets weekly, so it's more like:

Week 1, after or before the game: "Hey, I'm thinking about running a game where you build up a city in a post-apocalyptic world ... [insert details]. The system would be ___. Who'd be interested in that?"
Week 2: "So here's more details on the setting and mechanics. Anyone got a character concept?" (some people do, some don't yet).
At this point people discuss character concepts, campaign style, tone, and other "Session 0" parameters over the course of several weeks, either by text message or in person before/after the current game.
Week N: "We're going to start the post-apocalypse game next week. Everyone ready?" At this point everyone should have a character concept, any final discussion about how they fit together can occur, and the next week will be Session 1.

So there effectively is a Session 0, but it's stretched out over a period of time and never occupies an entire session. Personally, I like this style - you're not forced to come up with a character on the spot, much less built it at the table (I hate building characters at the table unless the system is simple), and the GM has plenty of time to adjust campaign details based on the feedback.

If this was a new group being assembled only for this particular game, then I'd be in favor of either a Session 0 or a period of text message discussion that covers the same information. Still would rather create characters with no time pressure rather than at the table.

Yeah... pretty much this. I have very rarely had an actual sit down and discuss session 0. It normally towards the end of the current campaign and we start to talk about what we want to do next as a group.

Its more of an organic growth than an actual established thing. The few times i have done a formal session zero is one time in college and we were, for the most part, ignorant of each other. and so a discussion of what you enjoy, your expectations, and what your playstyle is was warranted. Then when I moved to a new town and had a brand new group and again it was the base issue of none of us knew each other and that as an actual discussion was needed.

[False God]

So I'm asking the playground: In your real life, in person, TTRPGs, do you really have a session zero where the players all come in without completed character sheets, talk to each other about making their characters fit the game & party, the GM lays out the tone & house rules, backstories are swapped & adjusted, and that's pretty much the whole 3-5 hour session?

It's typically a shorter session, but yes. It often takes place at the end of a previous session or between games, sometimes when we all just happen to be in the same place at the same time and someone has an idea for a new game.

[Zevox]

So I'm asking the playground: In your real life, in person, TTRPGs, do you really have a session zero where the players all come in without completed character sheets, talk to each other about making their characters fit the game & party, the GM lays out the tone & house rules, backstories are swapped & adjusted, and that's pretty much the whole 3-5 hour session?

My group has not done a "session zero" in exactly that fashion before (though I believe we will for our next campaign), but we've also never had players make characters without the involvement of the DM, either. I can't imagine not doing that - you need to ensure the DM approves of the character, after all; and moreover how are they going to include anything from your character's backstory in a campaign if they're not aware of what it is? And without that, well, the game would be a lot less fun, at least to me.

Our DM has also sent us an e-mailed document outlining house rules and simple expectations before, so that part of a "session zero" has been handled that way instead for us.

[Chaos Jackal]

Generally, character creation happens more or less independently in all groups I've played in (that is, each player's character is usually revealed in session 1, though they might've discussed a few things with the DM and we typically share the class we intend to play in order to avoid duplicates and/or make a more balanced party) but otherwise yes, we do usually have a session 0. It's usually a short meeting, 30-60 minutes, to give a brief overview of the game, what's to be expected from it (starting and finishing levels, duration, quirks etc.) welcome new additions to the group if any, lay down potential houserules and answer questions pertaining to character creation.

Nothing big or fancy, just some groundwork so that we know where we're standing. But we do it most of the time, even if the group has played together before. We discuss things in Discord servers and Messenger chats too, of course, but a face-to-face (or voice-to-voice) will happen too.

[Psyren]

So I'm asking the playground: In your real life, in person, TTRPGs, do you really have a session zero where the players all come in without completed character sheets, talk to each other about making their characters fit the game & party, the GM lays out the tone & house rules, backstories are swapped & adjusted, and that's pretty much the whole 3-5 hour session?

It doesn't have to be a physical / in-person meeting. Nearly all of my campaigns have had a session zero, but the majority have been coordinated online via discord or facebook or similar. We're all there to help each other though, especially the veterans and GM helping new and inexperienced players, and the GM is generally making a lore channel crammed with background/setting stuff too.

[Mastikator]

When I GM? YES. I insist! I begin by explaining what the game is about and give a short summary of the campaign setting. Then I have a list of rules for the players, these rules are up to them but they must agree before it starts. It's things like is PVP allowed, how is loot distributed, etc. I do also have rules for what kinds of characters they are allowed to make, (mostly no joke characters, everyone must make characters that are willing to be team players). THEN we make characters, since all the PCs should know each other when the game starts all the players know what the other players are making. This process takes 1-2 hours, after that I can soft start the game.
I think it's important to stipulate that the players are responsible for keeping the group together and everyone having fun. In my experience this makes the team work much more robust and the players are much happier. It also reduces the murder-hobo-y instincts.

As a player I tend to just make a character with my DM outside of the game, but I prefer to know what the other players are playing before I decide what to do. Either because I see a role that isn't done, or if everyone is a barbarian obviously I should be one too. With that DM session zero is more of a campaign intro than a party creation collab.

[OldTrees1]

It is okay for a Session 0 to conclude in time to start Session 1 on the same day.

It is okay for a Session 0 to start as side chatter before/during/after sessions of the last campaign.

It is also okay for a Session 0 to be abridged. There is so much we can discuss during a session 0, but how much is relevant to the group and the campaign?

In my experience I have always had a session 0 but it might not cover exactly what the opening post describes nor cover it to that extent. For example character backstories tend to be in the player's head (based on clarifying questions for the GM) until the player reveals parts of the backstory through their PC's actions/words.

Basically session 0 is a tool that gives the group a blank check opportunity to discuss any and everything they need to. Duration and topics depend on what needs to be covered.


I have once required a new session 0 mid campaign to discuss an issue with mismatched expectations between different players. That resolved that issue sufficiently for the campaign to continue.

[King of Nowhere]

we don't have exactly a session 0, but we do discuss all the stuff that must be discussed beforehand. generally over whatsapp, or discord.

[Cluedrew]

Session 0 is usually split between the pitch, where the explanation (and any discussion) about the high level idea behind the campaign. I usually go over it again at the beginning of session 1 (in the "prelude" to the campaign). Which is when I like to do character creation. I can't force people to think out-loud and bounce ideas off each other and work out how the PCs are balanced, but I like to have them do it as a group anyways when I can.

[Reversefigure4]

We do it most every time, but it depends on the campaign (and particularly, the length of it). We run towards long term campaigns - 150 lots of 3 hour sessions, taking up 3 or 4 years of real time, isn't unusual. Spending 3 of 500 hours on making sure everyone is on the same page is just a good investment of time, preventing us running into problems during the game because people aren't on the same page about genre, rules, expectations, etc. It's a timesaver, not a time spender, because it will take us a lot longer to dig ourselves out of the hole than to just talk it through in the first place.

For one or two session campaigns, it's a waste of time. "You are all musketeers in France. Take one skill at +2, one at + 4, one at +6. You have 5 minutes to make characters and a sentence about how you know each other would be nice". And we're going 10 minutes after we started the game.

A 10 session mini campaign is introduced with a page or two Word doc covering the rules and game pitch, followed by everyone swapping a few emails about the characters, is quite suitable for that length.

[Pauly]

Always had a session zero in any campaign I’ve been in.
Character creation has generally been done in the group, although with some campaigns pre-generating your character was allowed.

Factors which affect the length of session zero.
1) Familiarity with the rules.
2) Familiarity with the campaign setting.
3) Explanation of group resources. Do you have a ship and what are its capabilities. Organizations the characters belong to. Any powerful NPCs helping the party. These kind of things.
4) Campaign themes. Dungeon bash? Diplomacy? Bounty hunting? Piracy/privateering?
5) What degree of PvP is allowed.
6) What source books are allowed.

If I’m doing something easy like a dungeon bashing campaign using D&D, player’s handbooks only characters, set in Greyhawk, then session zero takes 30 minutes tops and you roll straight into session 1.
If I’m doing a setting based on The old Blake’s 7 TV series, using home brew rules with a heavy emphasis on diplomacy and spycraft then session zero might take a full session.

As others have said it’s best if you can do as much of session zero as possible before the players sit down. Campaign pitches, character creation guides, quick start rules, even watching a movie or a few episodes of a series all can help

[Satinavian]

We kinda have sessions zero but they differ wildly in scope

- if we start a new campaign, it is basically pitching campaign premise and making sure everyone is aboard and roughly getting an idea what people want to have as characters (only 2-3 word concepts) to make sure that is not too much skill overlap and we could make a theme group if desired. This can easily be done at the end of a session before people go home. Then everyone makes the character at home by themself, potentially emailing each other about common background if it is a theme group.

- if we start a new campaign in a new system, there will be a pitch of a system, the system rules explained in broad strokes, then the setting explained i broad strokes and discussed if people still want that. Then we discuss whether it will be just a short trial or a campaign and where in the new setting it will be and what characters might be appropriate. If extensive houserules will be used, those are either explained (if many people are new to the system) or discussed and decided upon. Then we might make characters.

- if a new group of players come together, we talk about each other, play preferrences and assumptions, sceduling and place, systems, settings, whether we want campaigns or long episodes, if we want rotating gms or not, a potential permanent gm will explain more about how they usually do things or how their games usually work and what are potential pitfalls. Generally the system in question is already known before the meating, but houserules and special tbale rules are not and everyone with prior experience has suggestions about them so that is discussed as well and when we are done with all of that we still have the "new campaign" thing coming. All of this takes so much time that we rarely make characters afterwards, so most are made at home. But i have had such groups making characters together at a second meeting.

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

Generally session zero is to align expectations, check assumptions and making sure everyone is on the same page with the rules not in the rulebooks. All of this useful but wheter it is necessary depends a lot on potential common background of the players. It is very well possible to have a open-table community where all of this is already established and people just take their characters and start playing. The opposite would be 6 people meeting the first time after someone posting a "looking for rpg group in city x after moving" at facebook.

But character creation generally does not really be part of session zero. While their are some benefits in doing it together, it is not strictly necessary and many people feel more creative when they can do it at their own pace and without distraction at home.

[Vahnavoi]

I'm against the term "session zero" because you can just call game set-up, game set-up.

Slightly more elaborately, "session zero" only reliably communicates that something ought to be done, in someone's opinion, before a game begins. It communicates very little beyond that and at worst, is misleading. For one, for simple games, you don't need a separate session for "session zero" stuff because setting up the game is naturally done as part of the first session. I'm not going to call anything I can do as part of an usual game session "session zero", and if I genuinely want to hold a session just for planning something, I'm going to call it a "planning session". For two, if there's any actual methodology to what people call "session zero" beyond "talk to people about what kind of game they'd like to play", I've yet to have it explained to me. There are multiple ways to set up a game, with different time and work requirements depending on type of game, so if there's something specific to "session zero", I'd like to know. If there's nothing specific to it, it's just another case of people inventing words to describe something that already had words to describe it.

[DigoDragon]

I'm against the term "session zero" because you can just call game set-up, game set-up.

That's fine. Whatever it's called at the table, the point is that the group is together setting up the system, the rules, characters, and backgrounds. It's not always a session for me, but end result is the same.

I always have such a "session" done when I GM because I want my players to sell me their character concepts. Get me to buy in to their background. I generally only half-build my campaign and fill the rest in with the background that characters have.

[The Glyphstone]

The OP does sound like they're part of a more...disengaged? gaming scene. If everything is strangers joining random games like AL modules, and its assumed that fully formed characters will be dropped into a game with zero links to the world or other players, then everything important about 'Session 0' becomes irrelevant.

Whatever name you stick on it, the concept has never just been about approvals and permissions. Personally, I haven't had a RL game in years and all my gaming is PbP or discord/roll20, so like others here our 'session zeros' tend to be extended text conversations. But its always very much making sure the group is on the same page thematically and narratively before we begin.

[Corsair14]

My group prefers to just get on with it. Leading up to the game I will send out a primer on the scenario, for example("you are in the crusades" although a bit more elaborate) what is and isnt allowed, any house rules etc. If they have any questions then they ask me.

I am not opposed to a session zero but we can handle most things without one. Then again the core of my group has been together for several years now and know my DM style regardless of what game we are playing.

[Xervous]

All the on boarding is accomplished via slack/discord now, with voice/video calls clarifying rules, realms, and reasons for the party to be together.

Never again “you’re all in town but don’t know each other, form a party organically”. For that way leads the level 1 rope boss.

With the luxury of communication options we now have (much like information retrieval) most failures to get things properly aligned stem from a lack of effort rather than capability.

[Psyren]

For that way leads the level 1 rope boss.

The what? Sounds like a story here.

[Batcathat]

The what? Sounds like a story here.

Glad I'm not the only one wondering, I just assumed it was some piece of community lingo I hadn't picked up.

[Xervous]

The what? Sounds like a story here.

Party to be:
My cleric

The exploding fire wizard

The bard

The rogue

The samurai (yes he was warned, yes he drizzled authentic Japanese fish sauce on his meals and watched anime during some sessions)

What it all came down to was a conflict after thugs jumped my cleric (who had the mcguffin) and one of them had been exploded into paste by a Minotaur Greathammer crit. The fire wizard got a little happy and scorched people so the samurai decided to tie him up just to be safe. The samurai with high dex, skill point investment, and a natural 20 for the quality of the hog tying. The rogue fumbled with the rope but could not initially get it undone. The wizard’s suggestion that we cut it was met with protest from the samurai for he had spent good money on that quality rope (yeah it gave a +2 on tying things up).

By then the guards had arrived and the bard was able to convince them and get witnesses talking. All the while the rest of us are trying to undo the damned ropes. The guards inform the still prone wizard that he owes a fine for reckless magic use, which he is currently incapable of paying because we still haven’t gotten the rope off. The guards suggest cutting it at which point the samurai protests again.

Eventually we somehow managed to get to a calm enough situation we could take 20 and defeat the level 1 rope boss.

The level 3 boss was fog on ships.

This campaign also saw the use of summon celestial puppy 1 wands to test the spherical kill radius of the unboxed mcguffin.

[Kevka Palazzo]

I didn't read all of the replies in the thread (my focus seems to be shot today) but I have to wonder if part of the sense of "hostility" to session 0 is because games that actively discuss a Session 0 probably do in the same area as safety tools, if not discussing safety tools in the session 0 section. Fallout 2d20 has a two-page spread in the Gamemastering chapter titled "Safety and Consent" and that's where it brings up session 0, for instance.

So given that there's a vocal minority of hobbyists who are against the inclusion or normalization of codified safety tools I think the aversion to session 0 is part of that in some way.

[The Glyphstone]

I don't think I have ever seen a printed book that discussed Session 0 in explicit terms. It's always been a community-lingo term for the sort of concept people have thrown various names at in the thread so far. Or if I have, I don't remember it.

[truemane]

I consistently find it strange how much of 'Session 0' talk centres on allowed sources and houserules and how little of it centres on tone, mood, expectations around table authority and rules adherence.

I always have a Session 0. Even when I'm doing one-off drop-in games, I have a Session 0. I think it's vitally important to tell players a little about my views on things like:

• The general expected tone/mood/atmosphere/genre of the game we're about to play
• How PG/Adult I would like things to remain
• Any meta-game expectations the module/adventure/game/story includes (or allows, or encourages, or resists, or rejects, or requires)
• The place and function of alignment in the game world (descriptive vs prescriptive)
• The relationship of crunch to fluff for things like Classes and Feats
• How closely I generally adhere to the letter of the rules vs the perceived intent of the rules (which edges a bit into simulationism vs narrativism)
• How I want rules disputes to be handled
• How I want discomfort or conflict over IC or OC content to be handled
• Content warnings (if applicable - although I try to do this on an individual basis, pre-table if I can)
• My cell phone/electronics policy
• My 'systematized prejudice' policy

All of this can be done in a matter of a few minutes. And it makes such a huge difference.

This is all stuff that seems simple and basic and intuitive but it's all stuff that different people make different decisions about, private, invisible, intensely important decisions, often without even realizing they are decisions.

As I've said elsewhere, I spend a lot of time playing with novice-level players, and I consider it part of my duty to start their journey off with the knowledge that these touchpoints aren't carved in stone. They're like dials or switches that can be adjusted and tweaked to create a particular kind of experience for a particular kind of audience, each just as valid as any other.

I am constantly flummoxed by the paucity of common accepted terms and shared expectations for these kinds of things, considering how long this hobby has been in existence, how much time a lot of us spend talking about how to do it. Everyone on this board knows first-hand how wildly divergent base assumptions about the simplest of things can be, and how fiercely intractable conflicts around them can get.

It's like (and pardon the sharp left turn, there's a point, trust me) hooking up on the internet. Non-heternormative people (people with non-heteronormative sexual or gender identities or members of alternate sexual communities) have, on average, spent a lot more time thinking about sex and sexuality and exploring options and experimenting with what they want and what they like and what they don't like. So when they hook up, they almost always start with some version of 'what are you into?' and then have a whole rich reservoir of shared terms and concepts and expectations and processes by which that question gets answered.

Heteronormative people, by contrast, often don't spend as much time exploring the edges of who they are (or, more accurately, have explored a much smaller area to a greater or less degree), and are often confused by the question, if it's even asked, and often have a hard time answering it in any detail.

In terms of role-players, we on this board are the non-heteronormative people. We spend so much time thinking about and arguing about the many faces of the hobby compared to more casual players who think 'role-playing' and 'D&D' are roughly the same thing.

And yet all of this never seems to get crunched down into a constructive, useful, nuanced way of talking about it (in the same way that optimization discussions often do).

It's weird. I've always found it weird. It's been weird to me since the first time I heard two people fight about exactly what a Chaotic Neutral person was allowed to do in, like, 1989.

[TheStranger]

I don't think I have ever seen a printed book that discussed Session 0 in explicit terms. It's always been a community-lingo term for the sort of concept people have thrown various names at in the thread so far. Or if I have, I don't remember it.

This is my take on it. I think I’ve done an actual session 0 once or twice for a new system, but usually it’s a fairly informal process. In general, it’s good to have some kind of idea what to expect when a new game starts, but the amount of talking required varies greatly.

The place I see it used most often and insisted on most strongly on this forum is in DM advice/horror story threads, when it becomes apparent that the DM and the players have different expectations and maybe need to talk OOC/should have set some expectations before the campaign started.

[Easy e]

For one or two session campaigns, it's a waste of time. "You are all musketeers in France. Take one skill at +2, one at + 4, one at +6. You have 5 minutes to make characters and a sentence about how you know each other would be nice". And we're going 10 minutes after we started the game.

Almost always this, and perhaps some discussion in a group chat.

[Psyren]

I don't think I have ever seen a printed book that discussed Session 0 in explicit terms. It's always been a community-lingo term for the sort of concept people have thrown various names at in the thread so far. Or if I have, I don't remember it.

I believe the PF2 Game Mastery Guide mentions it. I remember seeing it in Starfinder somewhere as well.