Session 0

>This

My favorite one is for the GURPS general resident game logs, Grimwyrd

wp.me/p3tZqv-aR

I assume this is the same master baiter that comes in every time someone mentions Session 0, in which case his answer will be "email, EMAIL! Face to face discussion without having characters is scary, better to handle social interactions through text only."

The ideal game is a player driven emergent narrative with the GM only serving to act as a rebound board, the generator of obstacles that interpose themselves in the heroic journey. Yes, if the players got together WITHOUT THE GM, that would be fine. But as soon as the GM is present, with his nigh unlimited power to distort the game from what it should be into some stupid novel that he wants to make, he will put a chilling effect on actual player emergent narratives. And it's not really a session without the GM, so my assumption is that a "Session 0" has the GM present. Players getting together and planning things out beforehand without GM input is a perfectly valid notion.

I'm not really angry. It's just that there's a real large number of shitty GMs around with shitty GMing practices, and session zero is one of them; it primarily serves as a method of setting the railroad tracks down before the game proper even has a chance to emerge.

Nope, I'm someone else. I don't really care about how you communicate, and to be honest, I think that more impersonal methods leave more chance for miscommunication. I just think that the ideal game should be 100% improvised by the GM in reaction to what the players decide to do, and Session Zero flies in the face of that.

If you want to improvise games 100%, do the world a favor and DM.

Having an established setting and a mutually agreed upon scope and goal of a campaign is not railroads.

This is all based around the idea that GM is shitty, and ANYTHING turns shitty in the hands of a shitty GM.

Session Zero? Oh, instead of using it to get ideas and inspiration from your players, you forced them to follow your novel.
No Session Zero? Oh, instead of giving your players a chance to give you ideas and inspiration, you forced them to follow your novel.

See how that works?

I really want to be listening on your table when Barr the Barbarian, Space Marine Big Chin and Furry Friend Fetish Tits meet up in a tavern for their first meeting.

>100% improvised by the GM
That takes a lot of skill to do well. Is it so bad that a GM wants some basic knowledge of who the characters are before starting? Also, what if the GM is planning on playing a setting that some of the players won't enjoy?

I do GM, reasonably often. And yes, pre-establishing a setting, a goal, a course of action is almost definitively railroading, since you've determined to your players what the game's choices are going to be.

No, it is based around the idea that the GM holds pretty much absolute power in the game setting, and must be extremely careful in how he uses it in order not to overwrite what the players want to do with what he wants to do.

>Session Zero? Oh, instead of using it to get ideas and inspiration from your players, you forced them to follow your novel.
Which is what inevitably happens, because the GM has considerably more power to put his plans into action than the players do.

>No Session Zero? Oh, instead of giving your players a chance to give you ideas and inspiration, you forced them to follow your novel.
No, this does not follow. The ideal GM HAS no ideas, just reflections of the player ideas. He doesn't himself know what is going on until the players embark on a course of action that needs reacting to.

I'm sure they'll have very interesting adventures together.

>That takes a lot of skill to do well.
Yes, good GMing is difficult. Nobody said it wasn't.

> Is it so bad that a GM wants some basic knowledge of who the characters are before starting?
No, but the line of communication should be player driven; it should consist of the players forming whatever ideas they have with zero input of the GM, and then informing him or her of their decision.

>Also, what if the GM is planning on playing a setting that some of the players won't enjoy?
The GM shouldn't be planning anything about the setting, it should emerge as a reaction to what the players do.

>pre-establishing a setting, a goal, a course of action is almost definitively railroading, since you've determined to your players what the game's choices are going to be.

Preparing for the game is railroading? Can I make a map? Or is that railroading

You can make a map once your players have conclusively determined what the area they're in is like in broad brushstrokes. But not before.

>The GM shouldn't be planning anything about the setting, it should emerge as a reaction to what the players do.

Wat

Yeah it's definitely railroading.

In fact, if you use any game system aside from free roleplay, you're railroading people to operate under its very constraining set of rules and implications.

Why you even have a GM?

so...youre saying that a good gm would let the players do whatever they want, without worry? Because challenging them would be input from the GM? So an ideal GM sits there and says "Yes" to every action the players make?

It's gay shit for redditors, there is no point

How are they supposed to make their characters, if they have no idea what type of setting they're trying to fit into?

>Which is what inevitably happens

And, you have reduced yourself to an insane rambling man.

>because the GM has considerably more power to put his plans into action than the players do.

This is something that happens regardless of whether there is a session zero or not. The GM always can assume absolute control, and a good GM won't, regardless of session zero or no.

>No, this does not follow. The ideal GM HAS no ideas, just reflections of the player ideas.

That's stupid on the level where I don't think you've ever GM'ed.
There's something called a "middleground". Something between "I need to herd cats and cobble together a story out of players chaotically improvising off each other" and "Follow my script."

A valid philosophy, but I don't see a imperative to apply it to every campaign.

Its like random rolling characters vs. pointbuy to realize a concept. The same decision between emergent gameplay and planning. I like to alternate between those.

There is no reason to fling shit against one game style or to assume adherents of one are inherently less skilled.

And ultimately the lines we draw in this scenario are arbitrary.
In your ideal emergent narrative experience, aren't the obstacles a form of influence by the GM a "chilling effect on actual player narratives"? At some point you have to let the GM take part.

>And yes, pre-establishing a setting, a goal, a course of action is almost definitively railroading, since you've determined to your players what the game's choices are going to be.
When you apply the term of railroading at such an early top down level it ceases to be a negative thing. And lets not forget that players are free to decline or work on compromises with the GM here.

Obviously they use their Right and Freedom as players and make whatever character they want. It's GM's job to make it all work. But everything GM does has to have player's stamp of approval just to prevent any kind of free thought or railroading from GM.

My group had a session 0 last week that l organized because, besides myself and one other, no one has more than 1 or 2 previous sessions of ttrpg experience. We spent a few hours helping the new folks generate characters and answer questions. If this hadn't happened, l am 100% sure at least half of them would have come to the table with incomplete or incorrectly done character sheets, and that would've taken a sizable chunk of play time to fix.

stop replying to obvious bait from shitposters you goddman fucking idiots

Attached: 0 outta 10.jpg (495x480, 43K)

I genuinely thought the guy had an actual opinion for a while.

I fail to see what's so incomprehensible about the statement. Perhaps an example would help.

Conventional shitty railroading DM:
>You all live in the desert of Amargh, which has recently come under threat by the evil lich, so Peter, no, you can't play a pirate, nobody in your party has ever seen an ocean, and Jane, no, the Gods are only ambiguous figures, so you can't draw overt power from them, you'll have to re-think your characters. George's spear wielding warrior and Ivan's traveling historian are fine.

Good GM
>Well, we've got a pirate, a wandering priest, a spear wielding fighter, and a traveling historian all wandering together. What sort of world can produce that foursome? Clearly, there must be enough of a literacy base in order to have scholars, and a societal interest in history to support them; there must be sufficient maritime trade to support piracy, as well as insufficient oversight to keep it from being instantly stamped out. There are Gods who openly shower their fervent with practical blessings, and people who stab things with spears and can make a living of it. We go from there to establish geography, demography, economics, etc.

Because AIs have not yet reached the point where they can procedurally generate risks and rewards in a rapidly changing context. You still need a person to determine things like the tactics that enemies use or the characterization of the people they interact with.

But it's funny shitposter. Usually they are just being stupid, but this managed to reach the "so stupid it's funny" line.

They never do, user. I mean look at this shit , he's clearly retarded.

Its more interesting than answering OPs already answered Question again. He can ask another one if he wants.

And I can genuinely see how one might over-zealously get bogged down into a philosophy such as "the GM has to be a servitor computer".

>Players always get to play exactly the character they want. The point is to have agencies and fun, after all
>GMing is a chore that has to comply with everyone else's wishes at all times.

okay but I still dont know what the setting for the four players are, and Im genuinely curious as to what you would make out of that foursome.

a good dm would pitch an idea to a party. If they like it and all unanimously agree on it, THEN character creation could commence, now knowing that their characters should probably fit in line with the setting, unless they can come up with a backstory worthy of them being there.

Keep going

No, the GM should be anticipating what the players actually want (which is rarely just to go on an unbroken string of successes) and provide a world that organically creates that, without seeming to. Most people actually want travail and hardship before success, so they can feel like they've earned it. So a GM should provide that; if , for some reason you have a bunch of players hwo really and truly want to wander around candyland and be showered with riches and praise, you should provide that. If you have a group that wants to be brutally skullfucked every time they emerge out of a hole, you should be providing that. But in any case, the GM is there to facilitate the activities of the players, not to force them to conform to his vision as to what the game "should "be like.
See my above post The setting should itself be a product initially of what characters the players decided to create.

>This is something that happens regardless of whether there is a session zero or not. The GM always can assume absolute control, and a good GM won't, regardless of session zero or no.
Yes, and a bad GM is not made a good one by foregoing session zero, but a pre-game planning session with the GM's input only serves to create problems and railroading. It has no actually beneficial purpose.

>here's something called a "middleground". Something between "I need to herd cats and cobble together a story out of players chaotically improvising off each other" and "Follow my script."
Grey fallacy. If I say a wall is white and you say it's black, that doesn't mean it's actually grey. The proper way to GM is to not force your players to conform to your vision.

Those are just two styles.

You seem to assume that saying no is always badwrong and GM influence is somehow tainted.

Why do you regard GM influence as different from player influence in a qualitative regard?

Id say content created between person A and B is as emergent as content created between A and C.

But won't you better know what the players want if you have a session 0 to ask them? Obviously, things can be changed in the future, but getting to understand what your players want from you ahead of time cannot be a bad idea.

try arguing out of this one kid

Clearly, every GOOD GM is clairvoyant and can divine what the players want before they even think to want it. Also, every GOOD GM is a doormat and I- I mean the players, can just walk all over the GOOD GM with no consequences whatsoever.

Again, the ideal GM puts in the level of challenge necessary to maximize player enjoyment, not to put obstacles in there because he or she thinks they should be there.

>When you apply the term of railroading at such an early top down level it ceases to be a negative thing
Yes it is. Keeping the players from actualizing their vision is bad, no matter how early or how high up you do it. Don't do it.

>And lets not forget that players are free to decline or work on compromises with the GM here.
You can't feasibly compromise when the GM holds all the real cards. About the only leverage players have is threatening to leave the game, which destroys the entire experience.

Absolute power implies absolute responsibility, and yes, it's rarely fun.

It doesn't seem that hard to make a viable world out of the foursome. Water based, lots of maritime travel, weak central governments owing to the ease of raising small forces and raiding the shit out of your neighbors leading to high levels of regionalism; organization much beyond alliances of city-state levels doesn't exist in the PC field of awareness. Complicated issues of rule are the very strong churches that inevitably exist because the Gods do have a loud presence and actively intervene on behalf of their faithful; which means there is always going to be a struggle between religious groups against each other, and with whatever secular authorities exist in an area.

1/2

>pre-existing plot hooks is railroading
>knowing anything about the PCs is railroading
>GMing is railroading
the idiocy in this thread is palpable.
no (you), you know who the fuck you are.

Session 0 is most useful when you have a mixed (in terms of experience) group or some first-timers to establish a tone, whether they want Game of Thrones intrigue fest or Diablo dungeon crawls, etc etc. At the same time there are groups who can say "it's gonna be in X setting with Y and Z constraints/conditions" and everyone shows up with a character ready to go and it's all peachy.
in short, do em if ya want 'em. don't if you don't.

As for what sort of idea I would pitch, I wouldn't pitch; I would wait for them to pitch an idea to me, and then facilitate it. Of the four, only made up scholar seems to have an actual goal in mind, so we need to create some ruins to investigate or some sort of great personage that he can follow around and take notes about. The former is probably more appealing to most groups I've interacted with, the latter reeks of DMPCing. So if there are ruins, there must be an advanced society that later fell into decay to produce those ruins, which in turn should feed back in on the religious dynamic; probable centering around culture heroes who arose in some sort of dark age in the past few centuries and preserving their teachings. That in turn creates an avenue of interparty drama as the findings in the ruin can easily be molded into something that makes our cleric's church look bad, or even false. (Before actually actualizing this though, you need to have a good feel on the proverbial pulse of the party and whether or not they'd enjoy interparty drama or having your cleric's dreams possibly shattered that way). Otherwise, a dungeon-delving you go, with the lure of loot or staying out of sight to possibly entice the pirate; I didn't make up enough detail about our spear dude to really give him a characterization, so ti's hard to include him as I really have no data.

>a good dm would pitch an idea to a party.
This is backwards. The players should pitch the idea, and the GM should make it happen.

Because the GM has essentially absolute power within the game world. There are no checks on his bad ideas, short of the players leaving the game over his mishandling things.

>and GM influence is somehow tainted.
It is.

Because you're observing them as the game goes on? Because you've probably played in the group before you got behind the GM screen, and thus have a handle on these people who are actually not total strangers?

>A valid philosophy

No, it's ridiculous.

The idea that the ideal game should have the person with the most ability to affect the game be relegated as an unthinking automaton is a complete failure of understanding the reason there is a GM in the first place. He genuinely thinks that a GM having more power than the players is a catastrophic imbalance that will inevitable result in a railroaded novel, when that's such a ridiculous hyperbolic statement that it's embarrassing to see someone think that any people experienced with roleplaying games would even entertain it.

There are plenty of GMless games, but they understand the limitations of a "leaderless" group, and typically reign in their scope so as to not have as many conflicting ideas dramatically impeding the game, and typically also have some method of meta-arbitration to enable the group to move past certain arguments.

Games with GMs typically rely on the GM as an arbiter, and for someone to rule for or against something requires a measure of scope and vision that cannot simply stop at what the players have immediately presented, since no matter how good a GM might be, no GM is capable of reading multiple minds and simultaneously (and instantly) creating some sort of nuanced amalgam out of the disparate thoughts of their players.

A GM should allow players freedom, as much as they can, but the idea that a GM should deny themselves the capacity to determine the general course of the game is ridiculous. They retain the ability to adapt the course to the player's decisions, and a good GM should be capable of scrapping his plans to adjust to a dramatic decision on the players' parts, but to argue that the "ideal" GM is a rudderless ship is just asking for the boat to drift in aimless circles by the competing winds, or more likely to hit some rocky shore and sink.

The ideal GM steers the ship according to the the winds the players create, but let's at least go somewhere.

>Absolute power implies absolute responsibility, and yes, it's rarely fun.

So now I'm really curios here: Why would anyone want to GM?

the idiocy in this thread is highly entertaining, I'd say. Been a while since I've seen a troll that wasn't just political shitflinging.

>Grey fallacy. If I say a wall is white and you say it's black, that doesn't mean it's actually grey. The proper way to GM is to not force your players to conform to your vision.

Can you stop being such a ridiculous idiot for half a second?

You can simultaneously "not force your players to conform to your vision" AND have a vision as a GM. To argue you can't is pretending that a GM can't start with an outline that still gets influenced by the player's decisions, and that's not an argument, that it just you being stupid.

>So now I'm really curios here: Why would anyone want to GM?
To facilitate the fun of their friends. And they'll usually burn out fairly fast, which implies that the position rotates.

If you can't play a transgender furry space pirate, your GM is violating NAP!

Even if you've played with people before, there's nothign thats stopping them from wanting anything different. Are you saying that you should have pre-concieved notions about what your players want based on their historical choices? That's railroading right there buddy

>You can simultaneously "not force your players to conform to your vision" AND have a vision as a GM
No you cannot, other than not actually actualizing your GM vision. Since the players cannot override your vision while you can do so for theirs, when they are in conflict, the GM vision triumphs.

> To argue you can't is pretending that a GM can't start with an outline that still gets influenced by the player's decisions,
So you only railroad them for some stuff, but not others? The fact that you could railroad them more than you're already doing doesn't mean you're not railroading them, user.

No, I'm saying you should be reacting to what they display at the table, with pre-existing relationships providing context and guidance for your decisions.

Attached: actions have consequences railroad.png (800x600, 58K)

And why is player influence not tainted?
When even the tiniest bit of influence ruins the actualization of all others, how can the decisions of a player not ruin the actualization of all others?
Because you designated players to be allowed to do that? What checks has a player against another players bad ideas?

That's railroading though, according to your earlier thoughts, since you are bringing input to the table. Any GM influence to the story is railroading, right?

So, you were trolling all along? Trip up, because no one could be as genuinely stupid as you are being.

It's like you've never interacted with another person before.

>No you cannot, other than not actually actualizing your GM vision.

Watch this example.

A GM sets a course. He has an idea, a vision, of the players fighting and killing a dragon. He makes preparations, fills up the world, but leaves himself with plenty of flexibility.
The players surprise him, by deciding they want to befriend the dragon instead. This is different from his vision, so he adapts to it, retooling his notes. They have "overridden" his original course, but that doesn't mean there was no value or purpose in preparing it in the first place, nor is the GM's "omnipotence" "unfairly" influencing the players, since they don't even know what his plans are or the fact that they dashed them.

>So you only railroad them for some stuff, but not others?

Yes? And it's not "railroading" if you only do it a little. A little control isn't a bad thing, and pushing the players along can help them reach places they wouldn't have imagined for themselves. You honestly are just an idiot, because you don't even know what "railroading" means.

Providing the players with paths and roads isn't a single-track railroad.

Let me expand on that, why is merely flipping the power dynamic a solution?

Because player influence is by definition extremely limited.

>When even the tiniest bit of influence ruins the actualization of all others, how can the decisions of a player not ruin the actualization of all others?
You are mis-stating my point. Influence ruining actualization only exists when one form of influence overrides the other. That does not happen when you have player to player conflicts.

> What checks has a player against another players bad ideas?
They can argue with each other as equals out of character. If necessary, they can even try to use in character abilities in order to influence or destroy each other.

No, it is not input, it is a processing of player input.

Your example is specious; since the GM at any point can declare that the dragon is immune to the attempts at friendship, or to attack the players out of hand, clearly he did not have the vision of fighting the dragon and defeating it in armed combat, because he did not actually actualize said vision.

>And it's not "railroading" if you only do it a little.
It quite literally is.

>Providing the players with paths and roads isn't a single-track railroad.
So it's a multi-track railroad. It's still a railroad.

>clearly he did not have the vision of fighting the dragon and defeating it in armed combat, because he did not actually actualize said vision.

What

Keep going, this is hilarious.

>What
It's self-evident. If the GM was having this vision that the players would fight the dragon, then attempts to befriend it, or to avoid the fight in some other manner would fail. He can easily do this.

If they did not fail, clearly he did not have such a vision.

Sure he can, but why would having an original plan render him incapable of changing it in the face of the unexpected? That's basically the entire point of RPGs, for players and GM alike.

This is literally communist D&D. The proles, aka the players, control everything and they run it into the ground just like the last time.

You need a strong autocratic leader (DM) to have a stable game.

I think he went too far with that last post. It's impossible to take him seriously anymore, and that leaves no one to keep biting at his bait.

It doesn't. The fact that the GM can change a plan is irrelevant to the fact that his plans are unimpeachable by the players acting as players. Yes, maybe, theoretically, the specific input that got him to change his mind was something a player said or did, but it could just as easily have been him feeling bloated from after dinner that evening and not wanting to run a long combat. Plans do change. That doesn't impact the power dynamic; a GM can force a player plan to change, whereas the reverse is not true, at the very best they might provide something that makes the GM change his mind, same as any other random stimulus.

>Players vs GM

Absolutely disgusting.

>Influence ruining actualization only exists when one form of influence overrides the other. That does not happen when you have player to player conflicts.

Player A plays a serious operator fit for a serious high suspense thriller.
Player B plays Teehee Maccaroni, and clowns in every scene, preventing A from actualizing and immersing himself in a suspenseful story.

A can maybe kill B, but he has already lost the moment Teehee was made.

>They can argue with each other as equals out of character.
At that point they are communicating as just people about their desires. The GM is a person too. As people we are all on the same height. Why do you arbitrarily not give the GM that courtesy?

Lets just keep him going.

Attached: teehee maccaroni.jpg (640x569, 96K)

Not against, entirely subservient and loving it.

>usually burn out fairly fast

Maybe with shitty players.

Or this proposed style.

Read the thread. That doesn't talk about normal GM, it talks about GM that is machine that narrates world with no preset ideas of anything allowing players to do anything and providing things out of that.

You mean the retarded style? Yea, I could see burning out if I was made to play in an idiotic manner with autistic retards. Them would be some real fuckin' tough games.

>It quite literally is.
It literally is not. A railroad is one (1) singular path from point A (BEGINNING OF GAME/SESSION) to B (END OF GAME/SESSION) where no option that the DM did not conceive of will allow you to progress. A quantum ogre is not a railroad if you can do things with said ogre other than just fight it.

Also the point of a quantum ogre is the players do not know when one has occurred. It's merely a card in the DM's deck of improv. They may suspect it but a good DM covers it up. Though some retard will come here and say I ALWAYS KNOW! Yea cuz your DM is shit.

Foreverial, amen.

theangrygm.com/session-zero-part-one/

TLDR:

>Imagine you and your friends just saw a movie. And now you’re having that casual post-move dinner discussion. But you – secretly – have been hired by the movie studio to make a sequel to the movie you just saw. You’re under contract, but you have a non-disclosure agreement. If anyone finds out that you’ve been hired to make the movie before the studio announces it, you’ll be sued for eleventy-billion dollars. But your friends are the perfect audience for the sequel. You want to pump them for information. You want to know what they loved about the movie and what they didn’t. And you want to steal any great ideas they might have. You just can’t let them know what you’re doing. So, you mostly let the conversation happen as it will while you listen carefully and make note of everything remotely useful. And you stay uninvolved until the conversation drifts too far away from the movie or movies in general or cool things that might make cool movies. When that happens, you casually steer the conversation back toward the movie.

>THAT’S a good Session Zero. If you can do that, you’re done here. Bye. Everyone else can keep reading.

Inb4 >I don't like him so his advice is bad

Attached: 1444695851664.png (480x360, 189K)

I came in literally just to see how long it took for this shitstain to arrive. Three posts, pretty damn fast.

Let's say that this is the first time you've ever played with these people. Where do you start getting inputs? When do you discuss characters?

As a player I support the idea because party dynamics are a thing and a party that relies on player meta-understanding to stay together is a dreadful thing.

ITT: CHOO CHOO ALL ABOARD

This idea sounds too much like tyranny of the player class.

My issue is that most players don’t know what they want. And even you give what they want they will complain.

The framing of the GM by the anti session zero dude make it sound that GM shouldnt and can’t have fun and might as well be a slave to player will at ever step of the way.

At this point is punishing the group consider railroading cause you a punishing them for their action ?

Session 0 usually only takes half a usual session so I just run session 1 immediately after anyway. Usually turns out well. Why doesn’t everyone do this?

Sometimes chargen takes too long, either because there's a lot to take in account, players don't know the system or options well enough, or there's simply a lot of system explaining to do

In games where at least half the players know the system or if the system itself isn't too harsh in chargen, it's not an issue

Usually I'll start session one if there's enough time after we're done

Yeah I’m usually running fast chargen systems like 5e or Call of Cthulhu. I find people usually want to play a bit after having spoke about the game for an hour or two.

>THE GM DOING ANYTHING BUT CHECKING CHARTS IN REACTION TO PLAYER ACTIONS IS RAILROADING!

5e is fast? I think it's pretty okay until I get into the nitty gritty, then it just crawls. Any tips in making it more efficient?

5e doesn't really have much nitty gritty, does it? What really slows you down?

I think it's when my players choose to have spells it kinda slows down, since there's quite a few of them and allows for much choices.

meant for

To give every character a scene to themselves to see how they act, to figure out the group dynamic, and to set a tone and initial goal. Also fully establishing the setting.

Print out the descriptions on little cards. Cuts out the page-flipping part of it.

This.

You should not be flipping through any rulebooks during play. Have your handy DC chart as a DM and all the stat blocks you might need (in just single line format for most basic enemies, you don't need detail) and maybe the printout of spells.

If you can't determine how something works in about 30 seconds, just improvise it on the fly. That applies to skills, spells, stats, anything.

Oh, I'm referring to Chargen, anons. Sorry, should've specified.

Just pick things thematic to the character, then. It's only two or three things at low levels.

Is the player fellatio complimentary or is that extra?

SJW much? Because if you find something so trivial
>Absolutely disgusting.
you must go crazy at all the real problems in the world.

While pure-improv GMing is possible, and can be amazing with the right group, it has very severe limitations on what sort of game you can play with it: Entire genres, particularly mystery and dungeon crawlers, tend to benefit from a bit of prep time.

Mostly-improv is the real way it's done. Keeps prep time low and wasted prep at near-zero.

>Railroading DM is bad
>100% slave DM is good

Both are bad.

Everyone at the table should be having fun, including the DM. The game should be a collaboration. A mix of inputs in the middle of the two extremes you've outlined.
Where exactly in the middle do you land? well that's the entire point of a session 0. To see what everyone is looking for and figure out if you all work together. Some tables want strictly outlined modules. Some want freeform improv. Most are somewhere in the middle. All are valid and enjoyable in their own way.

To use your example. If a DM has prepared a desert land, and someone wants to play a pirate. Well the challenge (and fun, and creativity) is how do we bring the two together? Sand pirates, sky pirates, outlaws control the few water sources, etc.
I put a story point down, then you put a story point down. And together we build something more interesting than any of us could individually.