How do you prepare for a new game?

[Engurrand]

Thanks for asking this question. It was really valuable for me to formalize this sequence in my head.

0) Get fluent with the physical, social and technical realities of the setting.
1) Make a short list of concepts I think are really cool about this world, focusing on imbalances inherent to the gameworld's present state. Pick one which may be defined simply and make it my message for the campaign. The "Pitch."
2) Sit down with my players and spitball, filling their heads with world details until they burp up a character concept or two.
3) Get to know those characters really well. They will be the primary actors -their back-stories, desires and goals will move the story. (If I try to fight this, the campaign will fail. If I misapprehend a character's intended purpose, the player will revolt.) Work with the players to create lists of the important characters, places and events that made the PCs who they are.
4) Decide which PC concepts are right for the campaign.
5) Ask myself what questions the character's life story asks that only they can answer. Consider what deeper themes, questions, and purpose their life might have. Then make a list of the kinds of people or events that might force the character to face that. From there comes the antagonist.
6) Build a few of the NPCs from the lists above, use them as a gauge for how many points and what rules to use for the campaign. (I usually throw these away).
7) Help my players build their characters.
8) Do a few solo sessions with each player, based largely around their back-story.
9) Build the relevant NPCs, including assets, for the first story-arch, and the long arch.
10) First proper session.
11) Around session 5 a player will have a personal or work crisis or move away. Put the campaign on "hiatus" and start over from 0.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Engurrand

0) Get fluent with the physical, social and technical realities of the setting.

Having this step in this position is a big difference from my practice. As I approach things, the setting has no "realities" at the outset. I decide what the realities are in developing the setting, which I do in a way suited to the theme the campaign is going to explore. I don't first put a gun on the mantel and then decide I have to run a murder mystery; I decide to run a campaign where someone could get shot and then put the gun on the mantel. That's not the only way to do it, but I prefer theme-driven to setting-driven, as a rule.

Bill Stoddard

[Engurrand]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I don't first put a gun on the mantel and then decide I have to run a murder mystery; I decide to run a campaign where someone could get shot and then put the gun on the mantel. That's not the only way to do it, but I prefer theme-driven to setting-driven, as a rule.

Checkov's gun. Nice.
I'm not sure I disagree with you on any point. Themes may arise through interrogation of environment or visa versa, but the conversation is two way, and which end you start on is, IMHO, a matter of convenience.

To clarify: By step 0 I meant only that I've found a degree of setting fluency is necessary to convince my players to buy in and generate character concepts.

[Dustin]

For thugs or other combat opponents, I'll have a "monster" style writeup for them, with Basic Speed, Move, Encumbrance for their gear, defenses, weapon damage, etc all worked out ahead of time. Sometimes I'll differentiate them with weapon choices and 1d: 1-3 nothing special; 4 combat reflexes; 5 high pain threshold; 6 both.

The question of 'who knows what' is important, since it's often reasonable for prisoners to be taken and questioned. The NPCs (even thugs) should have some reason for their behavior (pay, loyalties, etc).

Major NPCs will only get a full character sheet if they are intended as combat opponents. For NPCs whose interaction with the PCs will be mainly social, I handle them much more ad hoc - if a skill roll seems called for, I'll pluck a value out of thin air that seems appropriate and roll against that.

Other preparations I make are lists of typical arms and armor for the campaign area, some idea of the local economy, the "magical economy" of the campaign (how is magic powered? are spirits important? is enchantment common or rare?), and what advantages (esp. magical abilities) are available to PCs and NPCs.

[Drifter]

Some great suggestions, thank you all.

I really need to get more player input. And listing out the steps in a logical order is also a departure for me - I find that I muck around, work up an NPC I'm excited about for a while, then brainstorm about how he got to where I've put him, then muck around with setting, then another NPC that pops out of that. Ultimately it gets done, but its a lot of work, and time consuming, and I miss sections or possibilities that are staring players in the face.

And that book looks interesting, its exactly what I'm asking about. But I've blown my RPG budget for a little while - I did end up getting Robins Laws, which is good but not exactly what I'm looking for.

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by Drifter

I know there is a game map of the city floating around but I found a very detailed map online.

It can be found, among other places, in the free sample for Pyramid #10, along with the article it was part of. There are certainly some excellent maps out there, but if it matters to you, they tend to include features from later periods, like the Fortezza da Basso, which wasn't built until the 1530s.

[Gotha]

My practice goes along those lines:

1. I start by identifying the general feel I want, that is what kind of dynamics the game would offer to the players. I actually found the Robin's Laws to GM quite helpful here. It nicely sums up how to structure a game for a given group of players.

2. Then, I elaborate: I work on the setting itself and I add depth wherever I think it matters. Depending on the setting, the resource can be Wikipedia, history books, science books, other games settings I find inspiring, novels, etc. This also involves quite a lot of time spent reading GURPS books to find the right ruleset.

3. When I am fluent with the setting, I present it to the players and get their feedback on it. I also take note of what kind of PCs they might want to play. I then go back to work and I document the immediate environment of the PCs: places, organisations, NPCs, etc.

Step 2. can take anything between two weeks and three years...

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Gotha

1. I start by identifying the general feel I want, that is what kind of dynamics the game would offer to the players. I actually found the Robin's Laws to GM quite helpful here. It nicely sums up how to structure a game for a given group of players.

That's another one I do backward, viz., I come up with descriptions of from half a dozen to twenty or so possible campaigns; I hand them out to the players, and ask them to allocate 2N points among N games; then I pick options that are popular and assign players who rated them highly to them. I really prefer having the players actually make the choices over trying to emulate the choices the players would make within the limits of my knowledge and my analytical categories.

Bill Stoddard

[Gotha]

Originally Posted by whswhs

That's another one I do backward, viz., I come up with descriptions of from half a dozen to twenty or so possible campaigns; I hand them out to the players, and ask them to allocate 2N points among N games; then I pick options that are popular and assign players who rated them highly to them. I really prefer having the players actually make the choices over trying to emulate the choices the players would make within the limits of my knowledge and my analytical categories.

Bill Stoddard

I understand and I think your approach is better from the players point of view.

Perhaps I should have pointed out that I don't get to play a proper session that often. This means that when I'm preparing a game, I'm kind of already playing and I want to keep this phase really enjoyable. I guess I'm afraid it would feel like working on an assignment to design the game the players ordered (I obviously exaggerate here, but you get the idea).

Also, I find it useful to do the exercise of anticipating what the players might like. This way, I might even surprise the players with something they never thought they would enjoy. Additionally, it forces me to take an honest look at the gaming group and our games together, and this helps me understand the players better.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Gotha

I understand and I think your approach is better from the players point of view.

I don't think that my approach would necessarily suit everyone, and still less that it's inherently the best or the only good one. But I mention it on the chance that you might not have thought of it, both because you might want to try it out and because it might give you a new perspective on your own approach. Comparing approaches is what this thread is all about, after all.

Bill Stoddard