Who cares about the world?

We care.

A few years ago, the shards of my old play group were forged anew.  Three of us - Luggish, Crunch and James - are the core; others drop in and out.  We tend to take turns GMing.  At first, we played a string of diverse games in various settings old and new, but nothing systematically.  After a while, I felt ready for something more serious.

In the past I have run pretty much exactly the game that I wanted at that particular moment.  I tend to experiment quite a lot, and don’t consult beforehand.  But this time (maybe I’m getting old) I decided to ask what the others wanted.

So we’re lounging around sipping instant coffee after a short session of something.  The debrief has run its course and conversation has slowed right down.  I know we will soon drift into talk about family and friends.

‘Next time, I’d like to start something new’, I say.

‘Sure’, says Luggish, ‘ in a new world you mean?’  Interesting, I think.

‘No no.  I’d be using a world you’ve played in a couple of times already.’  Crunch has taught me how to run several unconnected games in the same world without others really noticing.

‘Which one?’ everyone looks at me.  They want to know quite a lot about how the action in this game will relate to what we’ve already played.  They seem interested.  After a bit, we get around to the things I want to know.

‘So how do you want it to be?  What do you want the game to focus on?  What are you interested in?’  They are very slow to answer.  Maybe they think I am looking for feedback; and maybe I am.  Luggish lifts his head and stares out the window, like he can see something we can’t.

‘The world is the most important thing’, he says.  Crunch nods, thoughtfully.

‘So help me understand that.  What do you mean by world?’  I’m trying to get specifics, but they’re not responding.  ‘So we’re talking about setting: the places, people, background where the action happens?’

‘Yeah, that’s right’.

‘Its gotta be unique, different from what you’ve seen before?’ A shrug.  Crunch is very still, listening.  He looks at the floor.

‘It’s about how everything fits together,’ offers Luggish.

‘Internally consistent?’  Vigorous nods.

‘Plausible connections between events?’  More nods.

‘Everything connected to everything else?’  I hardly need to ask.

‘And’, says Luggish, ‘its about finding out things and learning about the world.’

‘You want it to be subtle,’ says Crunch, quite loud.  ‘Some things are in plain sight, some are hidden.  It depends on how good you are at seeing.  You can get people [i.e. NPCs] to do things, if you have the right touch, if you can see how they work.  Some things are easy and some things are beyond your power!’

‘And’, adds Luggish, ‘the best part is if you can see your character grow in power and understanding so that they really affect the world on a large scale’ nods and thoughtful looks.

No mention of game mechanics (unless you read the last remark as referring to character development rules).  Nothing about ‘overcoming evil’ or ‘helping the oppressed’.  Nothing about humour, horror, action, technology, money, gold, dragons, serial killers, sex, combat, commerce, tragedy, ethical dilemmas, philosophy, religion, anthropology or social issues.  Nothing really about ‘exciting story-lines’ or ‘plot twists’ or ‘special effects’ or ‘method-acting tortured souls in the fire of youth’ or ‘expressing something profound about human nature’ or ‘Art’.

So is this my group?  Did I ask the wrong questions?  What should I learn from this?

Next: Weekly Moldvay post

Soon: Ways to Layer History