So you’ve got a great setting to run: homebrewed or published. You’ve
crafted pages of material or pored over every supplement. You know
every detail. You can GM the hell out of this world. Now how do you show the players this place?
I’ve tried all kinds of approaches to setting presentation: gazetteers,
hyperlinked web sites, key lists, collaborative design. Recently in L5R I used a trick to explicate spycraft and give a player ownership. That
got me thinking about those many different ways I’ve gone about doing painting the backdrop. That’s changed over time for me and I've shifted techniques to fit the needs of
particular campaigns. Like most GMs I love discovery through play, but know I
have to balance that with set up.
I used to spend days and weeks writing & developing campaign background. And when players didn’t engage with the
material I got irritated. In some cases they didn’t read the handouts. In others they couldn’t absorb the
mass of vomited info. Over time I saw where I wasted effort, producing work which never actually hit the table. I comforted myself with the thought that it added
depth or could be repurposed later. But it rarely turned out that way. Eventually I moved
to doing less. Yet I suspect even my more minimal approaches look overelaborate
to some.
Many published settings overwhlem as well; especially long-running gamelines or one based on other properties. For example, I dig the Iron Kingdoms setting, but it’s massive
and sprawling. If you include Hordes material, it becomes even more
complex. If I wanted to run that, I’d first have to consider how to condense
and explain the peoples, kingdoms, and nature of magic & tech. I dig other
settings presenting similar difficulties: Legend of the Five Rings, Kerberos
Club, Fading Suns, Exalted. It isn’t true for all published worlds. For
example most GUMSHOE settings build on strong and easily pitched
concepts: Mutant City Blues (cops with powers controlling supers), Night’s
Black Agents (spies vs. vampires), Ashen Stars (mercenary space
problem-solvers). Their atmosphere works with a logline and a little backstory.
To figure out gamemaster “Best Practices” for setting
presentation I’ve create a list of approaches. Some overlap, some offer small variations, some skip the setting, some skip the GM. I’m certain this isn’t
complete. So I’m curious about your techniques. What have I missed? When do you
use particular techniques and why? Do you have specific tools that have served
you well? Any and all feedback’s appreciated.
Player Booklets: The classic. The GM prepares a lengthy
synopsis of the setting. This might include a timeline, history, details of the
peoples, etc. In our recent podcast episode show- casing Sam's campaign, he describes creating a
substantial player reference book. Several of the D&D Gazetteers provide
these as well: a distinct player supplement, usually with history and
mechanical options. Part of the trick here is figuring out what the players
need to know and avoiding info dump.
Cut to the Core Book: For published settings, the GM may
allow/request/require players to read the rulebook and the background presented
there. They might limit that to certain chapters or broaden it to assorted
secondary materials and splat books. This gets everyone on the same page. Of course, this brings up the perennial question of "meta-information." How much do the players know versus their character? I've had problems with this in the past. I ran a Changeling the Lost campaign with PCs fresh from the Hedge and new to their existence. One player had studied the core book and assumed he knew everything there. He and I clashed a couple of times on that. In retrospect I should have been clearer about the ground rules regarding that info.
Licensed Source Material: A variation on the above, the GM of
a licensed game uses the original books, comics, or films to convey the
setting. It’s easier to do this with a narrower setting, for example based on a
single book or TV series. It’s more problematic when the material exists in
several mediums. If you’re running The One Ring is it enough to have seen the
movies? Or do the players need to know the lore and have read the trilogy? The
Silmarillion? Or closer to home, what about Star Wars? Which parts are canon? In my campaign I flatly stated only the original trilogy definitely happened.
Sliced Setting: The GM has written material but cuts it down to one narrow segment of the setting. That narrow perspective's used as a starting point to see the world. Chris Handley recently did this for Iron Kingdoms, using an all-Trollkin group to focus presentation. I can imagine an all-Hobbit game for LoTR or an all Cop game for Cyberpunk.
Wikis and Online: A player-booklet variation which uses blogs, wikis, and portal sites to increase accessibility. Information can be added to or modified easily. An encyclopedia approach with
hyperlinks lets players roam through the material. A couple of times I’ve
combined this with a “Weekly Teaser.” Once we’ve established I’m going to run,
I’ll post entries and articles in the run-up to the campaign. For my Exalted
campaign, this allowed me to make a rich setting without overwhelming players. Alternately, if a game has an existing independent wiki, the GM can direct them to
that. However this isn’t a great solution since that info’s often chaotic and
potentially filled with spoilers.
One-Sheet Summaries: The GM reduces everything they think the player needs to know to a single page. This could be a single global summary or a set of
sheets tailored to each character. This seems like a good idea for conventions, but it does eat up time. Players will always go through these sheets at the table and
lose focus on what you’re saying. The alternative is to wait and sit in silence while discovering the different reading speeds of your group.
What My Father Told Me: A specific form of one-sheet created for Glorantha. It focuses on a single culture, clan, or peoples. It’s a
great tool because it nicely covers a character's typical upbringing. Their
experience may differ, but they at least know the baseline. I’ve used this in a
couple of ways. On the one hand, I’ve presented it as a set of choices for
players. That does make for a chunk of material for players to skim before play
begins. On the other hand in the Last Fleet campaign, players selected their
characters' origins and then I had them write up a WMFTM sheet for that. That
gave them expertise and control.
Player-Facing Materials: A variation on some of these
approaches, in particular player booklets. This provides information fully from the
character's point of view: documents, letters, overheard conversations. The WMFTM
above takes this approach. City of Lies remains my favorite example of this. It
provides a document describing the city of Ryoko Owari for incoming Magistrates.
Many characters aren’t named which offers a mystery; some of the information’s
noted as outdated; and references come from several sources- including a couple
of uncertain reliability. Beyond that the set contains a completely separate
journal which serves as a plot-moving discovery.
Player-Facing Materials “Meta”: Another kind of player-facing
material combines setting explanation and player control. Plot and story
choices merge with description. For example, the Kaiin Player’s Guide
for DERPG describes the neighborhoods as well as events happening there. Players, rather than the GM, can choose what to engage with and make the session's story. Cairn does a similar thing, built around
the notable NPCs of the setting. I emulated that with my L5R Spymaster
write-up. Rumor sheets, as used in Geanavue:
The Stones of Peace, also use this. This approach assumes the characters
have deeper knowledge than their players. It works to make the feel they have
that mastery.
Unimportant to the Play: The setting/backstory’s unimportant to
play. A one shot might focus purely on the interaction of the players. You
could be simply dungeon-crawling. Or perhaps you operate in a setting with
established common details, like a 1920’s Call
of Cthulhu game where the players interact with a generic “society.”
Puzzle Piece: A little bit like the above, but there’s a
setting and it may have impact on choices. For example a Hex-Crawl where the
players discover facts as they move from section to section. This might be
pre-defined or rolled randomly by the GM. The actual background and what it
means emerges through play. In a sense the setting’s unimportant during
character creation, but becomes a factor through exploration.
You Already Know: They players have played in the setting
before. They earned their knowledge through previous play. Alternately could
apply to games set in a shared real world city.
Aspects: Instead of defining specifics of a place or setting,
you define it via catchphrases or short descriptors. Fate leans heavily on
this. Cities, peoples, neighborhoods could all be defined in this way. “Wrong
Side of the Tracks,” “Sense of Hopelessness,” “Heavily Patrolled” for example
set up a tone. For an even more short-hand approach, areas might be defined
numerically. Ratings in different aspects provide the players baseline info.
Q&A: Each session, the GM assigns one or more players to
choose a topic they want to hear more about. The GM then prepares that
information for the next session. This can be used to flesh out plot points,
clarify backgrounds, and connect to current or future plot points. The GM can
tune the number of responses to their schedule (everyone gets a request, the
petitioner varies from session to session).
Collaborative Creation: Players and GM work together to build the setting. Microscope can be used for this, and Questlandia and Fate include
this as a key mechanic. Participants shape the world to their interests. It
generates new ideas as they bounce concepts around. Importantly all players
begin with the same level of knowledge about the setting. Rather than passively reading or being read to, the players
actively participate and invest in the setting. It promotes expertise and mastery. This process has a couple of
drawbacks. For example, how to handle a collaboratively created campaign where
new players join later? It also requires a GM who is willing to build and
play with material they didn’t generate.
Collaborative Authority: Rather than or in addition to pre-game development,
the GM asks players to define ideas during play. For example, if someone wants to
encounter a non-human, the GM asks the player(s) what kind there are in the
world. Questlandia uses a variation of this. It has the group collaboratively
define the setting. But important locations, issues, and aspects developed are then
parceled out to the players. They gain the final say on those points. When a
related question comes up, the group turns to that authority.
Structured Collaboration: The setting’s fleshed out collaboratively, but based on an existing structure. For example Kingdom comes with some set frames.
These spell out the general picture, but then the group walks through and makes
selections from a menu about the details and problems facing them. DramaSystem
takes a similar but looser approach where players have a pitch and then work
through questions to flesh it out.
Mediated Collaboration: In this version, the setting and
information indirectly comes from the player choices. Players create their
characters and fill in details. The GM uses this on-the-fly to create the
backdrop. This ties elements the players have selected to the game at hand.
Spelling out the setting and communicating that to the players still rests in
the GM’s hands. Dungeon World, for example, takes this approach.
Again, what’s missing? When do you use a specific technique
and how does that serve the game? What devices have you used for this? What's your experience with the relative strengths or weaknesses of these?
