I’d choose Fate Core for a connected cast and Microscope for a shared history. Both put group setup into the rules - but they give you different things to play.
- Fate Core: Build a campaign together, set 2 issues, and link characters through the 3-stage Phase Trio. Players guide their protagonists; the GM frames challenges.
- Microscope: Set a history’s beginning and end, agree on a Yes/No Palette, and add Periods, Events, and Scenes. Players take turns adding history without approval for every choice.
Quick Comparison
| What you’re choosing | Fate Core | Microscope |
|---|---|---|
| Shared worldbuilding | Campaign setting and conflicts | Timeline across eras |
| Character ties | Connected, lasting cast | Changing viewpoints |
| Upfront agreement | Scope, tone, and direction | Big Picture, bookends, and Palette |
| Player authority | Split between players and GM | Direct authorship on each turn |
My first step with either game: agree on <u>content boundaries and a way to pause or revise play</u>. Shared setup isn’t a substitute for consent.
Fate Core vs. Microscope: Choose Your Session-Zero Outcome
1. Fate Core
Shared worldbuilding
Start Fate Core with a one-sentence campaign pitch. Then have each player add one detail or question about the people, organizations, or mysteries surrounding the protagonists.
Create two issues: two current, two impending, or one of each. Write them as aspects so they shape play. Add only the faces and places you need. Name each one, connect it to an issue or organization, and give it an aspect that explains why it matters. These issues help shape the characters and their connections.
Character collaboration
Players build the setting as they describe who their characters know, what they’ve done, and where they come from. Those details add NPCs, organizations, and locations. Fate’s Phase Trio then connects each character to two others through a first adventure and shared aspects. If a character doesn’t fit the campaign’s faces and places, adjust the character or the setting before play.
Upfront agreement
Agree early on the campaign’s scope, tone, and content boundaries. Fate’s issues create pressure, not a fixed plot, so players choose how to respond. Decide which setting details are settled and which remain open. Have a separate safety conversation, too - the system doesn’t replace one.
Fate Core suits groups that want session zero to build a connected cast, shared pressures, and a shared campaign frame. For groups that want shared setup to create history rather than a cast, Microscope puts that same effort into a timeline.
2. Microscope
Shared worldbuilding
Start with a Big Picture: one sentence naming the history your group wants to explore. Then create two bookend Periods that mark its beginning and end. Each describes an era, not a single incident, and gets a Light or Dark tone. Leave room between them for players to discover what changed and why. In Microscope, session zero can become the history itself.
Establish the Palette, then have each player add a Period, Event, or Scene to the timeline. Periods cover broad spans; Events record specific developments within those spans. These entries aren’t prep for later play. They ARE the play.
Character collaboration
Microscope uses shifting perspectives, not a fixed party. During Scenes, players step into character to examine a question or moment tied to an Event. You can follow people across generations, but you’re not building a lasting adventuring party. The Palette serves as the group’s session-zero agreement.
Upfront agreement
The Yes/No Palette sets what the history can include and what it must leave out. Agree on the scope of each entry. A Yes makes an element available; it doesn’t require anyone to introduce it right away. A No rules it out. Keep the Palette visible so everyone can check it as the history develops.
During regular Lens rounds, the Lens chooses a Focus, and players take turns adding related Periods, Events, or Scenes. The Lens sets the round’s subject; the rest of the table helps decide what it means within the history. Entries can go wherever they fit chronologically, so players share authority and reveal history out of order. This history-first approach sets Microscope apart from games built around a fixed cast.
Microscope - The Game every Roleplayer and Writer needs to own
Character Collaboration: A Connected Cast or Changing Perspectives
Once the setting and boundaries are set, decide whether the game will follow one cast or shift between perspectives.
In Fate Core, character creation establishes the kind of protagonist the campaign will follow. The phase trio turns shared backstory into aspects: one from a recent adventure and two from adventures shared with other PCs.
Fate builds lasting relationships; Microscope builds a continuing history. Fate favors a fixed cast whose relationships carry forward. Microscope shifts viewpoints, letting character ties emerge from the history itself.
For Fate, ask what each crossover changed, complicated, or left unresolved before writing its aspect. For Microscope, bring a character back when their return adds meaning to the history - not just because someone played them before.
Upfront Agreement: Direction, Boundaries, and Player Authority
Fate Core treats session zero as campaign creation; Microscope treats it as history creation.
The comparison below can help your group decide how much direction, exclusion, and player authority to build into play.
| Agreement or trade-off | Fate Core | Microscope |
|---|---|---|
| Shared direction | Agree on the world, scope, central problems, protagonists, and tone. | Establish the Big Picture and timeline bookends. |
| Inclusions and exclusions | Discuss what fits the premise; game creation does not provide a Palette-style include/ban list. | Use the Palette to explicitly include or ban ingredients. |
| What players add | Players control their protagonists; the GM frames challenges and consequences. | Players author additions on their turns without needing table-wide approval. |
Microscope trades group consensus for individual authorship within shared limits. Players add history within the Big Picture, bookends, Palette, and current focus. They don’t need approval for each idea. Choose it if your group welcomes developments it wouldn’t have chosen together. Choose Fate Core if you want shared campaign direction and connected protagonists, with authority split between players and the GM.
Neither procedure replaces consent and safety discussions. Agree on Lines - content excluded entirely - and Veils - content kept off-screen. Also decide how anyone can pause, skip, or request revisions. A shared tone or Palette doesn’t mean consent to every treatment of an allowed subject. Separate disagreements about story choices from safety concerns, record explicit boundaries, and revisit them during play.
Choose the Session-Zero Outcome Your Group Wants
Use the comparison above to decide what your group wants from session zero built into play: connected protagonists or a shared history; shared control of a focused setting or direct authorship across eras; immediate conflict or historical turning points.
Choose Fate Core for shared campaign creation and connected characters.
Choose Microscope for history as play and shared authorship.
FAQs
How much setup do we need before play begins?
Setup depends on the system you choose and what your group wants from the game. Some games take plenty of prep; others make setup part of play. Use session zero to agree on expectations, the setting, and themes.
To get started with less prep, decide why the party exists, connect each character to at least one other player’s character, and map only the area where play begins. Premade adventures or modular tools can also cut prep time.
How do we handle conflicting worldbuilding ideas?
Start with open communication and group negotiation during Session Zero. Use the anchor point method to set core plot elements, leaving other details open for players to shape. Ask questions and work their answers into the story instead of overriding them.
If disagreements persist, use palettes to agree on what belongs in the world and what stays out. Or use consensus-based mechanics to keep the world consistent while making room for everyone’s vision.
Can we revise our shared boundaries during play?
Yes, you can - and should - revise shared boundaries during play. Session Zero sets expectations, lines, and veils, but the group’s preferences can change. Keep communication open, and check in regularly to discuss representation, adjust boundaries, or address new concerns.
Tools like the X-Card let players pause the game when something feels uncomfortable. That gives everyone a way to help keep the game comfortable and welcoming as the story moves forward.
