I've been buying OSR/NSR setting and sandbox zines. I'm not that excited by the mechanics, but the scene absolutely understands the "more setting, less systems" idea. There are some top notch setting zines out there.
Gotta leave 'em wanting more, gotta give 'em the ol' razzle dazzle.
Visitors Guide to the Rainy City is truly setting agnostic. It's written from diegetic perspective, which is fun. This one is pure setting, there's no implied story or narrative.
A Pound of Flesh is a space station made for Mothership. I want to use in a Death in Space game.
Willow is a "grim micro" setting. It's statted for Swords and Wizards (which I've never read) but I'm going to use Cairn.
The last two have a bit of a built in story. There are NPCs are who want specific things. Both has a table showing what those NPCs will do if the players do nothing. Willow also has a chart suggesting how NPCs will react to specific player action, which seems really handy. But there's no prescribed actions the players need to do or goals for them to achieve.
On recollection, I’ve Calvinballed nearly all of my games but never with the players in on it. Knowing them, that’s probably for the best. I envy tables with gear heads and schemers.
Your experience sounds very similar—better—but similar.
Interesting! That feels... smart for some tables I’ve run. A bad idea for others. Both have obvious pros and cons I think. I wonder if there’s another essay in your experience.
I've had mixed success with "no specific A plot in mind to start, find an end goal after some play". At best, it lets you "show, don't tell" the setting and factions until your players identify what they want to change in the world and end up with completely bespoke and earned 2nd and 3rd acts. At worst, your players constantly move their own goal posts and never latch onto a cohesive through-line. When it hits, it rules, and when it misses, it can make the GM and the players want to check out.
I think a good setting goes a LONG way towards making this work. If you want your players to be able to latch onto things to build their goals around, they need things to latch onto, and they need even more things to ignore to highlight that their choice was truly a free one.
I've been buying OSR/NSR setting and sandbox zines. I'm not that excited by the mechanics, but the scene absolutely understands the "more setting, less systems" idea. There are some top notch setting zines out there.
Can’t believe you’d post this without listing any of them
Gotta leave 'em wanting more, gotta give 'em the ol' razzle dazzle.
Visitors Guide to the Rainy City is truly setting agnostic. It's written from diegetic perspective, which is fun. This one is pure setting, there's no implied story or narrative.
A Pound of Flesh is a space station made for Mothership. I want to use in a Death in Space game.
Willow is a "grim micro" setting. It's statted for Swords and Wizards (which I've never read) but I'm going to use Cairn.
The last two have a bit of a built in story. There are NPCs are who want specific things. Both has a table showing what those NPCs will do if the players do nothing. Willow also has a chart suggesting how NPCs will react to specific player action, which seems really handy. But there's no prescribed actions the players need to do or goals for them to achieve.
On recollection, I’ve Calvinballed nearly all of my games but never with the players in on it. Knowing them, that’s probably for the best. I envy tables with gear heads and schemers.
Your experience sounds very similar—better—but similar.
Interesting! That feels... smart for some tables I’ve run. A bad idea for others. Both have obvious pros and cons I think. I wonder if there’s another essay in your experience.
I play with almost exclusively new role players so maybe it’s partly because of that. When the Calvinball happens it’s normally simplifying something.
I've had mixed success with "no specific A plot in mind to start, find an end goal after some play". At best, it lets you "show, don't tell" the setting and factions until your players identify what they want to change in the world and end up with completely bespoke and earned 2nd and 3rd acts. At worst, your players constantly move their own goal posts and never latch onto a cohesive through-line. When it hits, it rules, and when it misses, it can make the GM and the players want to check out.
I think a good setting goes a LONG way towards making this work. If you want your players to be able to latch onto things to build their goals around, they need things to latch onto, and they need even more things to ignore to highlight that their choice was truly a free one.
That all sounds dead on.