There are many kinds of player input in creating the setting.
The most basic one is through backstories. Players create characters with background events, relations, values and goals. The GM makes sure that they are not only true in the fiction, but also important. That is, play centers on the characters as created by players, on the themes they flagged.
Honestly, I can't imagine running anything bigger than an experimental one-shot without this approach. PCs may not be most powerful or influential in the world, but the story we create together is about them; they are not external to it. The absence of this element is what turns me off from published modules.
The second kind of input is through the focus in play. Something is a small detail, but players get interested in it. They form ties with a background NPC; they dig into the history of found item; they try to affect the city's politics, irritated by decisions of its current rulers. If players are really interested in it (as opposed to grasping for straws because they can't find anything fun to do), the best move on the GMs part is to go with it, instead of telling the players "ignore it, it's not important". This also contains listening to players' ideas and interpretations and building on them, mostly in the "yes, but" kind of way (taking player's idea as true, but adding a twist).
This is also something I do very naturally, almost without thinking. One can't pre-prepare everything, so new facts must be added during play - and doing it based on player's interest and ideas ensures their engagement. I've never player with somebody who would object to this kind of approach.
Then, there is filling in the blanks. The GM does not prepare every detail, and if something is not important from their PoV, it may be turned over to players. "Is there an alchemist in this town?" "Marena, you said you've been here before. Is there an alchemist here?".
It's quite natural for me, but it's not something I do all the time. It's definitely not as necessary as the previous points. It reduces workload on the GM without removing any story potential (as this is specifically for things that are neither prepared nor follow from things established in play). On the other hand, I know that it can be jarring for strongly actor-stance players.
The final kind is a full-on collaborative world design. Before we start play, we share ideas, discuss them and incorporate ones that people find interesting. This does not mean that everything is known to the players from the beginning - if the game has a GM, they still introduce their ideas when running the game. Without it, it wouldn't really be fun (see: Czege Principle). But the main themes of play and the main areas of conflict are designed together.
This is not something I typically do, which does not mean I'm strongly opposed to that. In campaign play, both as a player and as a GM, I prefer more exploratory kind of play for which collaborative design does not work well. But for shorter games this works very well, dramatically reducing the amount of work the GM has to put in prep between session 0 and the start of play. Some games, like Urban Shadows, incorporate parts of collaborative setting design in character creation process, making no-prep one-shots possible.
The most basic one is through backstories. Players create characters with background events, relations, values and goals. The GM makes sure that they are not only true in the fiction, but also important. That is, play centers on the characters as created by players, on the themes they flagged.
Honestly, I can't imagine running anything bigger than an experimental one-shot without this approach. PCs may not be most powerful or influential in the world, but the story we create together is about them; they are not external to it. The absence of this element is what turns me off from published modules.
The second kind of input is through the focus in play. Something is a small detail, but players get interested in it. They form ties with a background NPC; they dig into the history of found item; they try to affect the city's politics, irritated by decisions of its current rulers. If players are really interested in it (as opposed to grasping for straws because they can't find anything fun to do), the best move on the GMs part is to go with it, instead of telling the players "ignore it, it's not important". This also contains listening to players' ideas and interpretations and building on them, mostly in the "yes, but" kind of way (taking player's idea as true, but adding a twist).
This is also something I do very naturally, almost without thinking. One can't pre-prepare everything, so new facts must be added during play - and doing it based on player's interest and ideas ensures their engagement. I've never player with somebody who would object to this kind of approach.
Then, there is filling in the blanks. The GM does not prepare every detail, and if something is not important from their PoV, it may be turned over to players. "Is there an alchemist in this town?" "Marena, you said you've been here before. Is there an alchemist here?".
It's quite natural for me, but it's not something I do all the time. It's definitely not as necessary as the previous points. It reduces workload on the GM without removing any story potential (as this is specifically for things that are neither prepared nor follow from things established in play). On the other hand, I know that it can be jarring for strongly actor-stance players.
The final kind is a full-on collaborative world design. Before we start play, we share ideas, discuss them and incorporate ones that people find interesting. This does not mean that everything is known to the players from the beginning - if the game has a GM, they still introduce their ideas when running the game. Without it, it wouldn't really be fun (see: Czege Principle). But the main themes of play and the main areas of conflict are designed together.
This is not something I typically do, which does not mean I'm strongly opposed to that. In campaign play, both as a player and as a GM, I prefer more exploratory kind of play for which collaborative design does not work well. But for shorter games this works very well, dramatically reducing the amount of work the GM has to put in prep between session 0 and the start of play. Some games, like Urban Shadows, incorporate parts of collaborative setting design in character creation process, making no-prep one-shots possible.
