Players should play, and not be heard: Campaign Edition

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaculata]

If the DM cannot be bothered to even decide on a campaign setting, that is not a DM I would like to play with. This has nothing to do with player input, or talking to the table, or player style. I just want to make sure that my DM cares enough to at least decide on the world that we are playing in. Because if a DM can't even make that single decision, and farms it out to the table, that bodes poorly for the play experience. IMO. This doesn't guarantee a good DM, but I'd never play in a game where the DM can't be bothered to select a campaign world.

I think I am mostly in agreement. When a DM wants to run a campaign, I generally expect that DM to take some interest in the story and setting. If they can't even be bothered to pick a campaign setting, then we're probably off to a bad start.

A scifi campaign that I played in once ended mere minutes after it started, because of a similar reason. Our DM had decided on a basic setting, but he had not decided on anything else. Our characters arrived at a planet. Our DM had clearly not yet decided what planet it was going to be, so he randomly picked one from a book. We arrived on a spaceport, and he didn't know what the port was called, nor what the name was of the first character we met. And that is when we ended the campaign immediately.

Now, this was a first time DM, who was clearly not prepared to run even the most basic adventure. And to some degree I can be forgiving of first time mistakes. But the fact that he didn't even bother to prepare some basic names for a planet and a location, was enough to never have him be a DM again. He didn't even try.

If the DM doesn't care where our characters are, then why should we care?

 

[Coroc]

Well, since it is a lot of work for me and i want the Players (and me) to have fun i suggest a setting and suggest what contingent of playable race class Combos are availabel and give two sentences about the general Topic. And then i ask my Players: Are you missing something? And normally i meet their range of expectaitons, with my GH campaign i wanted to include Renaissance firearms, but one of my Players objected to it so i left them out and used crossbows instead.

But that is about it. I also inform upfront wether it is an open campaign with Story arc or if it ist rather an adventure path (more railroady) . I can do both styles and have fun with either, my players prefer freedom but are not totally opposed to the other.

So yes i discuss some things upfront, but there is enough stuff they step into when the actual campaign is running and then it is my world, even if it is using an official setting as a baseline.

 

[Imaculata]

with my GH campaign i wanted to include Renaissance firearms, but one of my Players objected to it so i left them out and used crossbows instead.

Why? That seems like a big missed opportunity.

If I were to include firearms in my campaign (which I currently am), it would define the technology level of the setting. I would almost go as far as to say that it IS the setting; a setting that has firearms. It would mean that players could/would own guns too, and so would their enemies.

It would be a pretty important bit of world building, that sets the entire tone and mood of the campaign.

 

[Hussar]

Or, conversely, adding firearms might make the player not enjoy the game as much, and, since, for me, the player's enjoyment is the most important thing, leaving an idea on the cutting room floor is always the first choice I'd make.

My setting is never, ever more important than the players at the table.

 

[Coroc]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] #65 that was exactly my Motivation, instead of Canons i got balista and scorpions doing the same amount of damage and Impact path / area and the rest of the tech is available e.g. clockworks.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Hussar]

Huh, funny, that's only post 62 for me. Wonder who's got me blocked. Haven't pissed anyone off recently that I know of.

But, yeah, it's so much easier, AFAIC, to simply alter my setting to make the players happy rather than try to force my setting on the players. Again, I have to wonder if it's not because of the number of DM's in my group. Since at any given time, we could have a new campaign with a new DM, there's a fair degree of incentive to compromise with players. Getting voted out of the Big Daddy Chair is pretty easy.

 

[Hussar]

So, again, not sure if the point is getting across.

I'm not advocating for a DM who says, "What, you hate firearms? Well, I AM THE KING OF THE WORLD! You will take my firearms, and you will like it. I wasn't even going to have firearms until I heard you didn't want them. HA! Suck it, Trebek."

Although, I guess if you really want to go old school ...

No, but, you are advocating, from what I can see, a much more DM driven game than I prefer. I have zero problem with a DM who comes to the table with virtually nothing, asks the players to create a group and then builds the campaign based on the feedback from the players. IOW, the FATE approach.

I mean, heck, I want to use Dawn of Worlds for the next campaign I run. Sit down for a session (our sessions are about 3 hours long) and build the campaign setting collaboratively through that game and then build the campaign from there.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*