Another discussion -- largely between @Hussar and @Micah Sweet -- got me thinking about the idea of the responsibilities for world building versus the responsibility for the game. In short, the thread title: in most campaigns, the GM is responsible for the world, while the players (of which we can call the GM one) are collectively responsible for the state and flow of the campaign.
Note that I don't have anything against the idea of collective world building, and I have mentioned bfore that my most long running and successful campaign was in a world built at least half by the players. But generally speaking, i think it is a truism that GMs want to be world builders more than players do. (Whether this is a result of being "trained that way" is a subject to debate left to that other thread, i think.) Meanwhile, everyone (presumably) loves playing and having a say in what happens in the game week to week.
What do you think? Do you think of world building as largely a GM responsibility? Do you think of the "game" as a whole as a shared responsibility? Do linear games versus sandboxes versus railroads/rollercoasters versus free for alls fit in?
Note that I don't have anything against the idea of collective world building, and I have mentioned bfore that my most long running and successful campaign was in a world built at least half by the players. But generally speaking, i think it is a truism that GMs want to be world builders more than players do. (Whether this is a result of being "trained that way" is a subject to debate left to that other thread, i think.) Meanwhile, everyone (presumably) loves playing and having a say in what happens in the game week to week.
What do you think? Do you think of world building as largely a GM responsibility? Do you think of the "game" as a whole as a shared responsibility? Do linear games versus sandboxes versus railroads/rollercoasters versus free for alls fit in?