WoD, after all, you mentioned two White Wolf Games.
I recommend not having the players as gods but reality warpers, just folk with a natural talent to bend reality. Less powerful than a god, more natural than a mage.

I'm sure pretty many people might be interested in this, but a setting that's basically putty in the players hands has really no substance, so you'll need some really creative-minded players who love creating worlds for it to work.

I think the idea is good, and that you shouldn't get discouraged if this thread doesn't get too many replies: A setting that's got no "setting" as such is a pretty hard thing to argue for or against.

Also, don't bury the concept if it doesn't work out at first. You really need some players who are very open-minded and creative.

Introduce some bad guys if you need something for the players to make progress against: maybe something like the BBEGs from Nobilis, fuckers actively trying to erase concepts from reality.

>>9480983
I may post it a day or two later at a better time.

I want it to be 'putty' enough that there's no real established history. There's no 1000 yrs of history of wars, famine, progress, stagnation etc. Maybe I should give each player a village and they can decide what they want it to be like?

Or maybe I can have the players colectively fight/conjure up the origins. Said origins could be changed, but they'd establish the world as something that exists. Maybe they could decide on some cultures/aesthetic, but thats it.

Also, would oWoD be good? I was thinking maybe Exalted, but really, it has no tech base so I'm a bit...eh.

Atleast with WoD, there's physics and magic existing alongside. Not so with Exalted, where hot air makes things go up just because, and there being no gunpowder, only magitech etc

>>9481073

There's nothign you can really plan for this in any way, unless you want to establish certain baseline rules for the game. If your players have the ability and the inclination to play this campaign, establishing any sort of hard mechanics will only be a needless obstacle to the progress of the game. If they have the inclination but lack the ability, mechanics won't help as you'll basically be doing everything yourself, with them steering in only the most vague sense, making a futile and pointless campaign. If they have the ability but lack the inclination they'll have no fun and not meaningfully participate.

The best part of players play RPGs for combat, with everything else being an interesting decoration or break. Introducing a game that isn't fundamentally based on set rules for combat as its core element will be an interesting but confusing novelty at best and a tedious disaster at worst. Players that are used to narrativistic games where the mechanics of combat are less important than world-simulation and fighting things is nothing more than one potential solution to the few situations where it is appropriate will adjust very well to this. As always, good GMing is about knowing your players.

>>9481156
I'd probably recruit players from people I know or other outlets.

Personally, the most appealing thing about RPGs to me is free will. From deciding what your puny human does to fight a futile war to building a nation. I want to explode that concept, let players ultimately shape the setting and the laws of man & nature.

>>9481139

For what you're doing there will be no existing mechanics, because any system that tried to do so would be either be so complex as to require postgraduate qualifications to understand, so simple as to be irrelevant, or both. The rules systems of games aren't some sacred law of the game so much as a suggested method of arbitrated conflict resolution that will more often than not produce X style of results. If you aren't experienced at the sort of pseudo-freeform style of GMing where you only use game rules in situations where random-yet-predictable outcomes are necessary and desirable, this task is likely beyond you. I don't mean to be dismissive, but trying to build up a web of rules based on best-guess and kept predictable only by internal precedent in your head is the sort of thing that can't be done as you go.

Compare it to your legal system. A common-law system that has built up precedents over centuries can work reasonably well with statute only as guidance and control where precedent is too slow or indirect. If you needed to make a new system of law tomorrow that would work immediately, you wouldn't be able to run it off precedent and it'd have to be statute-based.

What about the doppleganger idea + this idea

>>9481209

That's very risky with a new party. For something so freeform, you'll need to have a good idea of your group's internal mechanics to be able to produce satisfactory and fun results. Where the rules serve as no guidance, your players have to, and if you don't know where they want it all to go you're flying blind. In a world with no fixed landmarks, that's bad.

>>9481236
What if I use a system, but then freeform/use really simple rules for the meta scale of things? Like, depending on actions I'd add a modifier to a 1d20 and see how the world/realm has changed 10, 20 etc yrs from now

I say take what you want from whatever system you and your first victims (read players) are most comfortable with and home-rule what you need to

>>9481266

That is what I said.

If you're not used to this stuff, you're going to need a system to fall back on when you don't know how to structure a resolution. I can mostly get away without one since I've done it for a while, but I still like to have one in case something comes up I've not had to deal with before. The less experience you have at this sort of thing, the more you will need to rely on the mechanics. If you're new to it, best to freeform responses only where the mechanics can't produce an effective resolution.

>>9481319
I suppose. But I imagine any system would work, right?

But yeah, if it's too freeform, some may not be interested. And it's always nice to fall back on mechanics.

I'm thinking when I do progressions, players tell me what they want to happen. I take their previous actions in account, which I"ll assign as modifiers for when I roll the dice. From highest to lowest, players would be the most involved in deciding/giving me pointers on how the world would be

>>9481352

Don't give them too much control. You're the arbitrator and the process mechanic. They just point. Better instead of asking outright to have them talk of their plans as they work.

I would be extremely hesitant of runnign a game like this without having done things like it before. It's very hard, and you need to be capable of furious speed of imagination without compromising your intertnal consistency. Doing that is difficult enough without trying to figure out how to do it in the first place, or work out the dynamic of a new group.

>>9481382
Well, I'm thinking time skips wouldn't be too often, so there'd be room for players to try to lay down foundations and let them change the world in smaller, more subtle/immediate ways that may or may not effect the world at large once a time skip occurs.

Time skips would probably have their own dedicated session, I guess. But like I said, it wouldn't be too often.

OP, perhaps you could use spectrums/alignment charts.

The alignment chart and maybe a mundane - extraordinary spectrum. Actions of the player would ultimately decide it.

If players use magic over belief/fath/action to effect the world, the spectrum goes moves to extraordinary. Vice versa for the same.

Improving the conditions of the world will effect how societies are. Say, someone acts like a complete dick/ruthless, but ultimately is the most successful, and he vows for a technocracy like deal. The world becomes more mundane/banal, technology progresses. But the masses become more pessimistic/cynical. Leaders are more likely to be corrupt. Class divisions may be more pronounced etc. So that means the tone of the world/society becomes either noble or neutral dark.

Maybe have 6 villages 2 'civilized'/gypsy nomads and 4 'uncivilized'/barbarian/hunter gatherer societies for every player. Have them speak the same language, share some culture. There.

While you'll probably have to change the fluff, you shoud probably take a look at Houses of the Blooded's system.
It basically does what you're talking about, with players creating the world around them.

>>9482519
info? torrent/rapishit?

>>9482519
With the difference that while the players have control over the world, the characters don't. But yeah, that could be refluffed.

DM is obviously the environment, so play that up. They have indirect control over their possessions/followers, you control everything. They may change the setting, but remember you ARE the setting.