Communal Reality Building

[Danie Ware]

In all my years gaming, we've had various attempts at communal reality building - the ultimate idealistic scenario where everyone creates on an even platform, is both player and GM, and we work together to construct a reality inspired and assisted by all.

These attempts are invariably doomed to failure.

I blundered across this on StumbleUpon - it made me chuckle and it made me think. With an internet step back from the immediate personal politics in any gaming group, maybe such starry-eyed idealism really can happen.

Or maybe it's still horsecrap. I'm curious to know if anyone else is as zinged by this as I am :)

[Sir Golgotha, KEoPS]

Thank you. I was trying to think about this website a while back, but couldn't remember its name. It's nice to see that it A) is not only still around, but B) is active and has been added-to and updated since I first encountered it years ago.

I have noticed that two opposing factors can cause the same result, both leading to the demise of communal building groups. Either one person is left doing most of the work while most of the 'participants' are as passive as players in a tabletop game (as regards worldbuilding), or one person's strong personality leads them (intentionally or otherwise) to dominate the group. Either way, it tends to be primarily one person's vision. The problems arise when two or more strong personalities compete, or the primary person can't or won't contribute content to keep up with demand.

When groups truly cooperate, the results are usually sort of bland, or even bad. Compromise works wonders during a session, but isn't always the best option during game design. If meeting someone half-way means an option neither one of you want, the end result is (at least in that aspect) something neither person will play, if not outright unplayable. This isn't always true, and some really neat stuff can come from collaboration, but design-by-committee is too easy a trap to fall into, and too obvious to an observer when it happens.

[Danie Ware]

Oh I SO hear that!!!

Committees fall back to a medium that really pleases no-one and a single dominating influence means you have a single vision - and seriously pisses people off!

Ideally, you have a front man who acts as steersman, guide and editor - and lets everyone else create and provide while weaving it into the whole - our CyberPunk, long-term, kind of did that without ever meaning to. It seems that this stuff works when it's organic and unpressured and allowed to grow by itself. Trying to force it is usually when it lands up on its face.

I'm told by Darren Turpin (@TheGenreFiles) that this has been around for years. Perhaps longevity - and Nothing To Prove - is the secret to its success?

[Sir Golgotha, KEoPS]

I've tried to do this with Midian's Immersive Game World. The primary vision (and most of the content) is mine, but anyone can add to it. Some ideas I love, and make integral parts of the setting, some I am meh about and let them stand as-is, and some I mostly ignore but leave for others to use if they so desire. I have also set aside a huge chunk of the game world solely for other people to use--I have a strict personal hands-off policy for a quarter of the total planetary area and over a third of its total land (the bulk of the largest and most densely populated continent). With the new content that's been added by players and fans, I'd say that this plan seems to be working.

I'm still waiting for the "honourable dog/wolf warrior" types, cat-girls, and more-elfier-elves (usually purple or blue and with added magic or psychic powers). Those all seem inevitable, but fortunately I have not yet had to deal with them. Oh, and "like humans but with word/symbol inherent magic". Those are becoming the new "honourable wolf people", but I haven't had that mess (yet) either. I really expected to see dozens of these nigh-inevitable fan-additions for every one town or real culture. Fortunately, I have been blessed with a small but very dedicated and creative bunch. The Midianites (a fan-created name for fans of the game, gotta love the meta) have really taken to the whole 'ownership' of the game idea, and seem genuinely as interested in making the end result high-quality as I am.

There would seem to be two or three different types of people involved in Communal Reality Building. First are the Chiefs, the ones who want to run things or add a whole bunch of their own ideas. Second are the Brainstormers, the ones who are content with bouncing ideas around. They may not actually write up a final draft of a detailed addition to the game, but don't usually let their egos get in the way of the ideas. The third are the DIYers. This is the person who--perhaps in isolation--writes up something for the game and posts it up on their own website. They add what they add, and don't seem to give a damn about what other people think about it, or what other people add on their own. Ever since Wizard's OGL was created, the line between the DIYers and Brainstormers has gotten very fuzzy. I'm not sure that they are really two different types of people at all. It is definitely possible that the sort of people who used to put their own AD&D kits up on their Geocities page are the same ones who now add useful contributory ideas as comments on someone's design-in-progress blog. A final sort of person is the very passive lurker, but though they may love the game and play it offline, they don't add any more to the content. Yet another hit on a webpage doesn't count; a web-crawling spider can do that.

I think it definitely helps to know which sort of contributor you are, at least with a given situation. With Midian I am definitely a Chief--I have to be, and would find it odd otherwise. However, with Mr. Shirley's From Scratch idea, I am happy to be a Brainstormer, letting him be the one in charge and make the decisions, with me free to throw out new ideas and act as a sounding board. I'm perfectly content if any of my ideas make the final cut in any form.

Overall, I'd say that it helps to have one person making final decisions--sort of like a GM does in tabletop--but the most important thing is to be cool and treat everyone's ideas with some measure of respect. Orion's Arm proves that it can be done. Having at least some part of the game where a contributor has unrestricted freedom, and having a supportive administration, also seem to help matters, and they certainly don't hurt.

[Sir Golgotha, KEoPS]

You know, I'm starting to think that this thread might make for a good UncleBear.com guest post...

[Deidzoeb]

"If you want to get to Carnegie Hall, you want to go down here about two blocks and turn left at the Communal Reality building..."