Don't Shoot Me, but I don't love group city creation

[furashgf]

I like the game mechanics, I like the group character creation, and I like GMing it, but I don't like group city creation. I don't mind, at all, people making up locations on the fly. I don't mind players creating objects and NPC's on the fly. I just found the city group creation process un-fun, and it resulted in something I had difficulty running with. There's nothing WRONG with the mechanics, I just don't like them.

So, given the above, and the fact that you can't just change your preferences, is there an alternative to the group city creation method? Could a GM just create a few of the bits (some locations, a big trouble, etc.), let the players each create a location or two, and then just grow the city as you go? I just made that up, but I'd appreciate anyone who has come up with an alternative mechanism.

[WillH]

Is your problem you don't like players having input on things like threats and themes, or are you feeling constrained like you have to stay within what you created?

[admiralducksauce]

I don't even use a city and the game works fine.

[furashgf]

Thanks for response #2 - I thought the game would work fine w/out the city created mechanic.

In answer to response #2, I don't have any problem with characters creating locations, NPC's, or even saying YOUR THEME BLOWS. But you hit the nail on the head - if I'm not into the theme, I can't get into the game as a player or PC. That's the only amount of control I need - I'm old school that way. That being said, I think it's just a style difference (though I think the old Forge people would say I'm wrong and shouldn't be allowed to play RPG's).

[Tsunami]

So, given the above, and the fact that you can't just change your preferences, is there an alternative to the group city creation method? Could a GM just create a few of the bits (some locations, a big trouble, etc.), let the players each create a location or two, and then just grow the city as you go?

Short Version:

Yupp.


"Long" version:
City/setting creation is only one part of the game. If you don't like it, it can easily be skipped and replaced with the more traditional method where the GM makes up the setting on his own.
I don't think you need to bother much with finding a mechanic for it... what measure of influence the players have/need is totally up to your group.

[Stonelaird01]

we usually take turns being gm and have created a piece of the city each as we go round. Like for my first game I created the city centre and played out most of the story there then the next person added a res area then the next a small village on the outskirts and so on...

[Richard_Chilton]

Group city creation seems to spark a higher level of "buy in" for the game - but it if the group wants the GM to handle it all then that can work too.

Richard

[sinker]

One of the things I've done is to simply create the themes/threats, a few organizations and where they fit, and then a couple of locations (the ones that I know are going to get a lot of use). The only reason I make sure to do the themes/threats is because that is the best way for the players to tell you the kind of game they want or for you to tell them the kind of story you want to tell. Just because it's group creation doesn't mean that you aren't still the GM and that you can't express your desires there. If you want to tell a story deeply involving X then make sure that's a theme/threat. You can do that. If you do then it sets the stage for your players and then they know what to expect. Then you don't get any players making a white knight in your campaign about a world with no clear good guys or bad guys or a purely social character in your hack 'n slash game.