The GM's World, the Players' Campaign

[Reynard]

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?

 

[pointofyou]

It is probable that the sorts of people who are drawn to worldbuilding are drawn to GMing games that allow or encourage or require the GM to build the world ahead of play. It is certainly a pleasure that is not typically part of the experience of play for anyone else at the table. Whether that is literally a truism I do not know.

In the games I've been in lately there's been more of a trend in the direction of asking the players to supply details in the GM's world as part of session-zero-ish stuff. My experience is this isn't exactly worldbuilding in the sense I think you mean. It's more like making sure the characters have ties in the setting. Some players do have a harder time with this than others but I've never seen a player just flat refuse.

 

[Reynard]

In the games I've been in lately there's been more of a trend in the direction of asking the players to supply details in the GM's world as part of session-zero-ish stuff. My experience is this isn't exactly worldbuilding in the sense I think you mean. It's more like making sure the characters have ties in the setting. Some players do have a harder time with this than others but I've never seen a player just flat refuse.

I do that throughout play -- "You have come to the village of Breakwater. There is no inn and only one alehouse but Bob, your character knows the operator. Who is it?" -- and I do think it counts as world building. But then I am not a deep pre-play world builder. I prefer to do it as the game progresses (which can be frustrating for lore-hound players, I admit).

 

[Yora]

I think the most interesting part about playing RPGs is exploring the world, finding out how things work there, and using that understanding to your advantage to influence things. Uncovering the hidden secrets and mysteries of the world is the core of an adventure to me. The world is a puzzle for the players to solve.

As such, the players adding elements to the world or changing them (other than through character actions) does not even enter as a feasible option. To connect the dots of the world, the players need to have assurance that the dots are already placed in a meaningful pattern.

I can understand how some people might find collaborative storytelling fun, but that's just not for me and not what my campaigns are about.

 

[Xamnam]

As a player, a key part of my enjoyment is the sensation that I am exploring a world that 'exists.' The more ownership I have over world building, the more that sensation disappears. While I know it is a crafted universe, my participation highlights that and brings it to the forefront. Obviously, this depends on scale. Describing where I come from, my family, the events in my past is one thing. Being giving the ownership of the authoring of a town is very different, to me.

So, when I GM, I want to be able to provide that experience for anyone who wants it, and I am happy to take the primary reins. I do make it clear that if a player expresses interest in contributing, I welcome the investment and excitement wholeheartedly, and will honor and respect their contributions, but I don't expect it, and I've rarely seen it. On occasion, I have lobbed that ball to members of my groups, for personal color and flavor, and the most common reaction is giving it right back.

I do find great fun in building out the world, be it fleshing out an existing property to make it best fit my group, or starting from scratch. While it is work, it's stuff I enjoy. It is one of my way of showing my investment in the campaign and group activity, in a more clear and visible way than a lot of the other stuff. I definitely can see myself being protective of that work, to a degree, but I would hope it would only be for aspects that I find foundational and core to the experience as a whole, and not small minutiae that will be irrelevant in a session but does matter to a player. However, because I do my best to make the nature of the world and the campaign clear, everyone at the table seems to have started out on the same page as far as what fits within the worlds.

That said, I've been playing Ironsworn and Starforged recently, and I have found more enjoyment than I anticipated in the moments where the world has been crafted on the spot between the players involved as it became necessary. Thankfully, we haven't run into any points of strong disagreement on vision.

 

[pointofyou]

I do that throughout play -- "You have come to the village of Breakwater. There is no inn and only one alehouse but Bob, your character knows the operator. Who is it?" -- and I do think it counts as world building. But then I am not a deep pre-play world builder. I prefer to do it as the game progresses (which can be frustrating for lore-hound players, I admit).

Inviting the players to add details during play also works. I have a setting I've written up parts of that I tend to fall back on for D&D and related games. My other fallback is "The Real World + Weird." Asking the players for details in Session Zero works for either.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

I certainly think worldbuilding should in the vast majority of cases and proportion be the GMs job, largely because I see the player's job as guiding their PC through an imaginary world using only what that PC knows and is capable of. I don't want to play or DM any other way, though other ways are perfectly valid if that's your choice and everyone agrees.

Player input prior to the campaign, including backstories and personal interests for the game to include, are fine and indeed make the game more fun for everyone, but it's still the GMs world in my estimation.

 

[loverdrive]

I would probably say that worldbuilding is a fun pastime in of itself, that is largely separate from the actual process of play, because nothing would break if GM would just... not do it. Players don't have object permanence and forget what you were saying five minutes later anyway, and even if they don't forget, gaslighting them into thinking they did is a trivial task.

 

[Reynard]

I would probably say that worldbuilding is a fun pastime in of itself, that is largely separate from the actual process of play, because nothing would break if GM would just... not do it.

I agree.

Players don't have object permanence and forget what you were saying five minutes later anyway, and even if they don't forget, gaslighting them into thinking they did is a trivial task.

Ummm....

 

[CleverNickName]

Inviting the players to add details during play also works. I have a setting I've written up parts of that I tend to fall back on for D&D and related games. My other fallback is "The Real World + Weird.* Asking the players for details in Session Zero works for either.

This is what I do, every chance I get. Like at my last gaming session, when the party was looting an ancient tomb:

Me: "You unlock the chest and look inside. You find a small cache of gems worth 500gp in total...what kind of gems are they?"
The Rogue: "Ooo...they're a set of three yellow diamonds." (her IRL favorite gemstone)

Later...

Me: "Still sitting atop the ancient, dust-covered throne is a skeleton. It is dressed in corroded remnants of plate armor, and a glittering weapon lay across its lap. What kind of weapon is it?"
The Barbarian: "Oh heck yes! It's a greatsword!"
Me: "Your eyes are drawn to the glittering weapon, still sharp after all these years. To your amazement, the skeleton grabs the sword and stands, ready for battle. Roll initiative!"
The Cleric: "You just had to say 'greatsword,' didn't you?"

Later still...

Me: (rolling a random treasure, discovering it's a spell scroll) "You search the mummy's tattered remains, and find a small scroll of papyrus tucked within its bandages. There's a third-level spell inscribed upon it! What spell is--?"
Everyone, interrupting: "REMOVE CURSE!!!"