Setting up a new campaign, it will be remote and with a bunch of folk wrangled together by the bard - a half dozen folk I have never met before. I've got an idea for the campaign but my first area for focus is the session minus one or 'do I want to play with these people, do they want to be in a game I am proposing to DM.' Assuming the answer is yes, we will proceed straight to Session Zero - but the question must be asked first.
This is on my mind as I was subjected to a particularly hectoring pre-game brief recently that made me want to get up from the table and walk just then. Much of it was good in concept but the delivery annoyed me because it took those good ideas and then gave reasons for them that were absolutely not what I would say. To stay and agree to go along with these table rules (reasonable ones) because you were subscribing to some very specific socio-political views not even from the country we were sitting in. Yes I think these tools are good to use. No, I do not agree with certain takes on why we should use them - but let us not mention that and just use the tools.
I have worked a day job where 'safety first' was a mantra, I've done the pre-job briefings, and if you want people to take them seriously, you have to tailor them to the hazards folk are likely to face in that current situation. Devoting time and energy to hazards which do not apply at that job site just make the briefing hot air and people switch off. Part of setting up to make sure a thing gets done right is by pitching your brief at the right level; some things can be just a confirmatory check - we do not have such hazards present here, right? - and then move on. Other things need to be talked out in detail to establish just how we want to approach a matter and making sure that everyone is on the same page. This balance needs to be gotten right so that people present understand that the person going through the topic has paid attention and is not just rote-reading a list they got.
Anyway - I am trying to take this bad feeling onboard and figure out how to set out some table rules, more popularly called safety tools, that will work to get a bunch of strangers playing together with the minimum of friction, maximum of fun - and without fumbling it and having them never darken my table again. As put by the MCDM team - "ways to formalize the process of getting everyone at the table on the same page about the topics and themes you’ll be exploring as you play."
Broadly this breaks down to:
- What is the game we want to play? Spanning from things people do not want to have in through to atmosphere, activities in focus, ruleset.
- How are we going to play together? Includes the nuts-and-bolts logistics but also some ground rules for communication, especially if people do not know one-another already
- Feedback loops to enhance the positive.
Reading up on what is out there I find they mirror a lot of good gaming practices that have been around for a bit, just better articulated and now we have a name for them so they can be referred to in a shorthand way.
Staring with the pre-game - Lines and Veils - a neater system for getting to a place where everyone can be happy with what is likely to turn up at the table. I used to use the old film ratings - U/PG/15/18 - as a general 'how violent the violence will get' dial. Crude, but the idea was similar in setting a collective expectation of where a table would go. I like Lines and Veils for the granularity, tells you exactly what people want to avoid and to what extent. Now there are full checklists available for topics that players can weigh in on, e.g. Monte Cook Games Consent in Gaming - classing topics as 'avoid', 'off camera only' or 'fine' - it feels somewhat like homework that experience has shown me some players are reluctant to do so this will be available.
I took the MCDM frame of Concept / Aim / Tone / Subject Matter from their toolkit to outline what the content is going to me - Aim is one that is going to be solved in Session Zero I think but the rest should give a sense of what the game is going to be. First draft is going to be Brancalonia adapted to my Menagerie World.
I like to pair this pre-game with an initial iteration of Wishes - what do people want to see in this game? If I hear six folk tell me swashbuckling piracy then perhaps time to chuck the idea for the megadungeon crawl - good to hear that early before lots of time has been sunk into building things the table does not want. This can also be the moment to clearly state what you are planning to run if people are wishing for something very different to clarify the game they want to play and the game you want to run are compatible - or at worst this is a signal to go find a new bunch of players.
For in-game systems at table, looking at Sly Flourish, I like the 'Pause a second' set up - mostly because I like how it fits in seamlessly; since we'll be on camera I like to use a raised fist as a visual cue for a quick break. Rather than a "break glass for emergency" option, I like 'pause a minute' because it can be used organically in lots of situations 'can you repeat what the count just said?' to 'wait, did we leave the harness of ceaseless bells on the horse or do we have it with us now on the donkey' to 'can we take a short break'. The first two will come up a lot and so when it is time for the third, I would hope people will have little hesitancy to ask for what they need.
For post-game, Stars and Wishes have been mentioned - this I like because it helps me focus my prep and accentuating the positive is great. I tweak this usually into 'what did you like, what do you intend to do next session' and that usually nets both wishes and concrete intentions to help plan the next session.
All of these I think I can promote as 'player comfort' or 'GM simplifiers', no more, no less. The point is to make a welcoming table, no matter the nationality. I have spoken before of how session zero simplifies my life as a DM, hopefully I can frame up this stuff to get the good stuff without annoying folk.
No comments:
Post a Comment