Here’s an idea now how to setup a setting or module for an RPG: Give the players the overarching story which they will be playing within, then allow them to play out the details of how exactly the things took place.

I shall provide an example: Let’s say that you were playing DND (Or any other system). You wanted to setup a campaign, and you wanted everybody to take part in this grand event that is going to take place. Setup the players and allow them to read (or read aloud to them) this setting:

----

“The History of King Jarrod and the Great War”

“King Jarrod, ruler of the the Northern Reaches, sat upon his throne. He had been charged by the Gods to protect the people of his realm... but with his age came the madness. He brutally attacked his own people, claiming that his opponents were the agents of darkness, set to defile the realm. It was his duty to defend his people, even against themselves.”

“Seeing this madness, a rebellion was forged, lead by Spector Keer. Spector’s followers gathered and gained strength, until at last a great battle was fought in the fields of the Northern Reaches. Alas, the rebellion had failed... and Spector Keer was never seen again.”

“After this Great War, King Jarrod returned to his throne, but never again ventured beyond his castle walls. He ended his reign in quiet solitude, never to wage war again.”

-----

After they know this setting, and it’s basic conclusion, have the players create characters. The idea is that, sure they know the outcome... but the don’t know how the details fall into place.

Theoretically, I asked my friends on some possible ways this story could be interpreted. Here are some of the ideas which they came up with:

1. Maybe King Jarrod’s mind was being poisoned by some evil gods, and Spector Keer was able to cleanse his mind... but died in the process. The heroes could be fighting along side Spector Keer.

2. Perhaps King Jerrod was defeated, and Spector Keer took his place, impersonating the king after the war.

3. What if the players were playing on King Jerrod’s side, and kidnapped Spector Keer? What if the players figured out that Spector Keer was the one poisoning the King’s mind?

Other ideas also came up... but each of these possible “endings” to the story fit within the broad brushstrokes that the “History” provides. Also, having a defined “Beginning” and “End” helped some newer players understand what they were trying to do.

So the idea is to give the players a very basic “history lesson,” then letting them interpret the history how they see fit. As the say, the devil is in the details.

What do you think? Could this work?

--Pathway

Sounds like a form of railroading to me, giving the conclusion to the adventure before anyone begins. I could foresee players trying to work against the pre-determined outcome coming to pass.

Or players could not be douche-canoes and play into it, trying to bring it about in unforeseen ways rather than to an unforeseen conclusion.

Basically, this is the game Microscope except that the GM is creating the history instead of it being a shared thing.

http://www.lamemage.com/

The problem I see with the PC's being the prime movers of predetermined plot is that they would all have to agree on what was going to happen. If one player wants the king to be possessed and another player wants the king to be insane and yet a third player wants the king to be just pretending to be insane, then all three of them can't be right. I think the game might just become a railroad of their own design, which isn't necessarily bad, but might turn off some players.

To take another approach, they could be characters that are just ordinary people caught up in the events instead of the characters that worked behind the scenes to cause them to happen. They might be witness to some of the events but not the cause of them. At that point, the game needs to be about the characters, not the big events. A time travel plot might work well here - "We know that Spector Keer's rebellion will fail. How do we survive that long?"

The King's madness left him vulnerable to a crafty devil that is continuing to feign insanity as a way to distract people from the true, more sinister plot he has going below the surface.

The King is mad. The king is possessed. The King is pretending to be mad! Compromise! Nobody wins, nobody loses.

With any free form game, this is going to end up being a reflection of the group as a whole. Any group that functions for a length of time is going to have their own internal methods for resolving dispute. It may be who ever talks the loudest or wins a dice roll, but it will be there. To a player who can craft story and character on the fly this setup sounds great. To player who has a great deal of trouble improvising, they may encounter severe frustration. Its really a match up of how well can the group improvise together versus the rate they need to generate content to have fun.

Well played.

I do see what you mean by Railroading, but sometimes I see that as a necessary tool. Maybe I'm just not as good at the GM thing than others, but at least I try.

One of the reasons I wanted to try this was so I could use some well established IP, and not break the existing lore. Imagine using this type of idea with Starwars, or Forgotten Realms IP... You could have a real adventure directly within the content of one of your favorite settings, and not mess anything up.

Well, it was an idea. Thanks for the input.

--Pathway

I see no railroading here. Railroading takes freedom of choice away from the players.

Sure, by presenting the framework of the Beginning and End of the story, certain choices are restricted. The players can't just walk in and kill the king, they can't decide the war is boring and take off for lands unknown. But one could say the same thing of any setting material.

There's a difference between establishing parameters and boundaries within which to play, and dropping the players in the proverbial box canyon.

-- Ben