It's not "it's 1876 New Orleans," it's "You're professional shootists in 1876 New Orleans" or "you're adventurous young men and women in a medieval fantasy world" or whatever.

So go to the nearest bar and start talking to people.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935479there is no competition between Players and GM. They shouldn't be trying to stump anybody, and if they do so accidentally, its an unfortunate occurrence that only takes away from the flow of the game. If anything my players, over 35 years, have always respected the work put in by the GM and will 'go with the flow' when weird options become available in the interest of a smooth storyline for all.

So, "you must stick with one of the referee-provided answers, A, B, or C?"  That is the very archetype of railroading, except there is a multiple choice provided.

Of course, if any of my players ever used the phrase "in the interest of a smooth storyline for all" we would kill him and take his stuff.

Here is a world full of interesting shit, go explore it.  "Story" is whatever the fuck happens.

And "brings up an airship as a bizarre possibilty."  What, has somebody got an airship in their pocket?  Is the Graf Zeppelin tied up at a mooring mast here?  If not, they're just flapping their face.

Quote from: Sommerjon;935506Sounds like a you problem if you can't predict what your players will do with a great deal of accuracy.  

It kinda just sounds like your players are boring.

I concur with Gronan, being surprised by player choices is like 75% of why I GM.

The other 25% is hanging outwith friends, the intellectual/creative stimulation of game prep, and free beer/Doritos.

Quote from: Sommerjon;935606Session after session, week after week, year after year, decade after decade, and you and others are still surprised by players?
Then you and the others are all goddamn idiots.

You need to define surprise. If by surprise you mean no idea what the players want to do or where to go adventure wise, then of course not.  We are adults we talk about where we see things going, all the better to prepare.  If you mean by surprised they change their minds and I'm at a lost for what to do, of course not, I excel at improve sometimes so much they think I actually prepared in detail for the new direction.  

If you mean by surprised they come up with something I hadn't thought of, not that I try to map out all their actions just what NPCs think might happen based on what the NPCs know, I certainly hope so.  There is so much more than I hit it with my axe, or I cast fireball, or I check for traps, etc.   If you are never surprised by this last definition, then you must be a genius, an ass or have lame players.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;935651And "brings up an airship as a bizarre possibilty."  What, has somebody got an airship in their pocket?  Is the Graf Zeppelin tied up at a mooring mast here?  If not, they're just flapping their face.

Now you're just talking out of your ass, Gronan! Graf Zeppelin wasn't built until 1928, how could it be in 1876 New Orleans:D?
Unless you assume time travel, of course;).

Quote from: rgrove0172;935625"Ok ladies, gentleman.. it is 1876 and you are in New Orleans. You have your characters... what would you like to do?"

I suppose I could, and have actually, allowed players to wander nilly willy for a bit, acting out the lives of the characters before I ..YES... spring the plot on them and in our viewpoint, start the game.

I'm not going to dismiss these issues, because starting a campaign isn't as obvious as some people make it sound. (Classic Traveller, for example, from posts I've read online, often falters from the Players not having a focus and too many choices.)

It's also worth talking about and discussing techniques, because some ways of starting are better than others. So, why not talk about?

For my money, however, I think rgrove0172 and I have two very different styles of Refereeing. For example, I have no plot to spring on the players, for I have no plot at all. In my games, the "story" is the wake left behind by the Player Character's choices and actions.

But I don't leave them hanging in the wind, either.

A valuable technique I use is Rumor Tables: Both for the campaign as a whole, and for specific adventure environments. (Each new PC that begins the game automatically starts with one Rumor off the campaign Rumor Table.) The Rumor Table is full of suggestive bits of information for lots of places the Players might want to have their characters go. I have no expectation which one they might go to... and they might blow them all off completely. But it does provide a selection of choices for them... and at the start of a game, this is helpful.

The other strength of this technique is that the items from the Rumor Table are ideas, places, and things I am already interested in. That is, they get to pick from a selection of items off the menu... but I love all the dishes on the menu and can't wait to make and serve them to them.

That said, again, I have no idea where they will go. Random rolls along the way might derail them, inspire them to whole new agendas, and so on. The point of the Rumor Table is to:
a) inform them of the game world through specific, concrete imagery and words delivered directly to the PCs (thus, telling them about the world without a big info dump;
b) take an infinite setting they know nothing about and boil it down to possibilities that might both intrigue them and give them focus

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;935675A valuable technique I use is Rumor Tables: Both for the campaign as a whole, and for specific adventure environments. (Each new PC that begins the game automatically starts with one Rumor off the campaign Rumor Table.) The Rumor Table is full of suggestive bits of information for lots of places the Players might want to have their characters go. I have no expectation which one they might go to... and they might blow them all off completely. But it does provide a selection of choices for them... and at the start of a game, this is helpful.

The other strength of this technique is that the items from the Rumor Table are ideas, places, and things I am already interested in. That is, they get to pick from a selection of items off the menu... but I love all the dishes on the menu and can't wait to make and serve them to them.

The lack of rumor tables going from 1st to 2nd edition was a great loss. One of those GM techniques that I've had to "rediscover" over the years.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;935680The lack of rumor tables going from 1st to 2nd edition was a great loss. One of those GM techniques that I've had to "rediscover" over the years.

Agreed.

I bumped into the Rumor Table in Qelong (LotFP) and thought, "Wait! This is genius!"

Also, I've been digging deep into the original Traveller rules, and Classic Traveller in general. The original rules didn't have Rumor Tables, Adventure 1: The Kinunir introduced them, and Rumor Tables were added to the rules in both The Traveller Book and Starter Traveller.

For a sandbox as rich and sprawling as Traveller offers (even one subsector!) I think a Rumor Table is the only way to go. But then I realized, they'd probably be a good idea in any sandbox setting.

I think the loss of Rumor Tables in general can be traced in the shift from the focus on exploration to the focus on pre-plotted adventure stories.

People having too many options and not enough focus can be a problem in some games especially when you have too many people write up long backstories that pull in different directions.

This problem often goes away after the early game as the players have learned enough and pissed off enough people to narrow their focus but what often helps to kick off a game is a "highway."

A highway is like a railroad and you set it up in the same way but make absolutely no effort to make the players stick to the road and provide lots of tempting off ramps. But if the players are being indecisive there's always the default of turning on cruise control and going a few more miles.

What often works well is to start the PCs off with an upper class twit of an employer. Then have him give them errands. If the PCs have half a brain they'll realize that they are much better off manipulating their boss to further their own goals than meekly going all with his orders. They often just need some time to figure out what their goals are.

Just because you can and will do things on the fly doesn't mean there aren't plot hooks out there already. The starting point of "New Orleans, 1876" is going to include a bit more info than just that -- scenario particulars, major players, why they're there, etc. (as for that, asking a player why their PC is there solves that issue immediately). You CAN also start with something like, "tell me a couple rumors you've heard about..." and get hooks from there. Even a reluctant player will come on board with something, given time and perhaps some more prompting.

I bring this up as one who skewed closer to your style, grove, for a long time. Realizing that it's not just my world, but the player's world, too (maybe even more so theirs, since they're authoring the actions), has improved the interest level for all of us. Players feel invested and hooked. I feel a greater challenge to react to their hooks and ideas when they present themselves. I might even toss in something I've really wanted to run, provided the focus is still (mainly) on them. I'm still gonna challenge them head on, make things tough for them, simply because overcoming obstacles leads to greater reward for them. So, there's prep in the form of system knowledge, and notes upon notes related to the machine of the campaign as it churns along. And, yeah, I'll move something I had planned for somewhere else, if I think it might be interesting and/or challenging to them. And I'll certainly bring the world right into their smiling faces if their actions have prompted the response. But I'll no longer dead-end them in my world closet, simply because of some sense of privileged ownership of the imagined world. If it's our world, we both get an invitation to play in it. Seeing as how you're a sticker for detail, I'm fairly certain you could sit down and run a great quality game off the top of your head, if you were so inclined. Yeah, you might make a "mistake" with some thread here or there, but some so-called mistakes are happy ones. And philosophically speaking, mistakes, failures, whatever you want to call them, are often the things that define us most, especially our reactions to them.

But I digress. As has already been echoed incessantly, if your players want the game you run, who gives a damn how you shape it? It isn't about being all things to all people. Rather, it is being the main thing for a select few, including yourself.

Quote from: Daztur;935684People having too many options and not enough focus can be a problem in some games especially when you have too many people write up long backstories that pull in different directions.

This problem often goes away after the early game as the players have learned enough and pissed off enough people to narrow their focus but what often helps to kick off a game is a "highway."

A highway is like a railroad and you set it up in the same way but make absolutely no effort to make the players stick to the road and provide lots of tempting off ramps. But if the players are being indecisive there's always the default of turning on cruise control and going a few more miles.

What often works well is to start the PCs off with an upper class twit of an employer. Then have him give them errands. If the PCs have half a brain they'll realize that they are much better off manipulating their boss to further their own goals than meekly going all with his orders. They often just need some time to figure out what their goals are.

+1. A hybrid approach is a pretty solid way to bring in the best elements of the various approaches. I'm thinking a lot of us play that way? (maybe?)

Quote from: cranebump;935687+1. A hybrid approach is a pretty solid way to bring in the best elements of the various approaches. I'm thinking a lot of us play that way? (maybe?)

I'd agree. People tend to be, IME, more dogmatic and extreme in internet discussions that in real life.

Quote from: cranebump;935687+1. A hybrid approach is a pretty solid way to bring in the best elements of the various approaches. I'm thinking a lot of us play that way? (maybe?)

Quote from: Nexus;935690I'd agree. People tend to be, IME, more dogmatic and extreme in internet discussions that in real life.

Totally agree.  Too much fidelity to ideology can ruin anything.

Quote from: cranebump;935687+1. A hybrid approach is a pretty solid way to bring in the best elements of the various approaches. I'm thinking a lot of us play that way? (maybe?)

Quote from: Nexus;935690I'd agree. People tend to be, IME, more dogmatic and extreme in internet discussions that in real life.

Quote from: Old One Eye;935693Totally agree.  Too much fidelity to ideology can ruin anything.

Yeap, I also concur.

Quote from: Sommerjon;935632

Quote from: Old One EyeDM style. When planning a campaign, I only set up conflict, I never plan for how the PCs will tackle the conflict. I do not even know what side they will take.

I have been in the process of planning a Star Wars campaign set in the old WEG Tapani sector that I have been updating to the Force Awakens timeline. I have been planning out conflicts between the various factions and how the First Order and Republic will impact things. I have no idea even what side the players will want to be on.

All I design are the various factions, their resources, their goals, and how the factions interact.

I do not plan the PCs, the PCs' goals, or how the PCs will interact with the setting. This is the purpose of in-game play. If I planned this stuff out beforehand, then my players would largely be relegated to just rolling dice.

It has nothing, zero, nada to do with Dm style.  
It's understanding that roleplayers are creatures of habit.  Look at where we are, a website dedicated to a very particular style of gaming that came out over 40 years ago.  Are you seriously going to try and tell me that roleplayers are not creatures of habit?

Utter non-sequitur? Did I miss something?