Casual vs. serious gamers, DMs Groups, and stuff you'll never use in a game...

[Hussar]

As a player, I will only play fantasy and certain sci-fi genres if the DM has done the world building (deities, races, cultures, major organizations, etc. as appropriate for the setting/genre).

If deities have animosities and alliiances against one another, has a favorite symbol, animal or weapon associated with it, etc. and such things effect the PCs or clerics (vestments, holy symbols, weapons, behavior when encountering a priest of another deity), I want to know the reason why. I don't need twenty or thirty pages, but a one-two page handout if I am a cleric of a certain deity is appreciated.

Heh, it's all about different strokes. Me, I hand my DM a one or two page bit about my church when I play a cleric. And, I make absolutely sure that I bring that stuff up in character as often as I can. As a DM? Not interested. That's your character. You tell me what your church is like and what the relationships are.

 

[Haltherrion]

Heh, it's all about different strokes. Me, I hand my DM a one or two page bit about my church when I play a cleric. And, I make absolutely sure that I bring that stuff up in character as often as I can. As a DM? Not interested. That's your character. You tell me what your church is like and what the relationships are.

Warms the cockles of my heart. I love it when the players take the initiative and create a bit of the world. Sure I could do it but I've got lots of other bits of the world I'm working on and it is much more likely to be what you had in mind if you do it

In my new campaign, the gods don't grant clerics powers. People honor them like in the ancient world but magic power comes from spirits, such as dryads, river nymphs, etc. There are hundreds of spirits in the campaign area, most of which I have not named nor described. Characters who use channeled powers (4E) get their particular channeled powers by aligning with a spirit.

The players already know they are going to have to work up the spirit details in most cases but in return, if they create a sensible justification for the channeled power they can pick which ever they want. It's a two way street. They get flexibility on powers at the cost of having to roleplay the spirit interactions and describe the spirits. I get more spirits described, ones that the players obviously care about.

So rather than spending tens of hours describing lots of spirits in the hopes I create a few that really grab the players, I'll let them create spirits they care about. Of course, I'll have my own creations for backstory or campaign needs as well.

 

[The Shaman]

[A]t the table, all I'm concerned with is what goes on at the table. I may think long and hard about world creation myths, but I'll only introduce it into a specific game if it is relevant to the PC action.

I spend quite a bit of time on world-building for my games. Geography and cartography, a historical timeline, organizations in the game-world, and a cast of thousands . . . well, dozens, at least.

But what actually makes its way into the game depends on the players and their characters. If they want court politics and intrigue, I've got factions and schemes and old scores to settle, and if they want exploration I have a world for them to explore, but if they want to carouse and chase mistresses and duel in alleys, then the background remains in the background while they debauch their way around Paris.

The adventurers determine the scope of the game, and it can be as wide or as narrow as their ambitions. The background is there should the players choose to engage it. I don't feel the need to force it on them, however. I enjoy the process of world-building, regardless of how much or how little gets used at the table.

 

[baradtgnome]

Another way I use background information like creation myth is to keep the world consistent for the players. The gods, the countries, major NPCs, etc all need to be depicted in a way that builds an environment that the players can expect, for the most part, to behave in a consistent way. The cause and effect, action and reaction, will have some logical consistency, or verisimilitude if you like. (I know that word is anathema for some around here - but I feel it does describe the feeling I seek. As opposed to realism, which is difficult to reconcile with fantasy.)

So, I paint a picture. Whether the players choose to use the information for their benefit or not is up to them. I generally don't penalize them for not using it, but they can use it for gain if they want to spend the time. As DM I use it in assisting myself in keeping a world that is internally consistent.

Not everyone is interested in this kind of world. I can see the other view points. Some don't want to world build but rather purchase a built world that has these consistencies already addressed - great. Others just want a dungeon crawl without the complications - all good. I enjoy building the world, and get some extra pleasure on those occasions when players put the pieces together. I'd like to think my players enjoy the efforts, since they have been coming back to the table for many years. I try to be sensitive to our group's desires for game style without forsaking what I like as DM.

So, no world building for a one night dungeon crawl for me. However for my campaign milieu that is 25+ years old... I do have some background information created.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't feel the need to force it on them, however. I enjoy the process of world-building, regardless of how much or how little gets used at the table.

My style is more strongly narrative, I think. It is largely this way because of my focus on "what gets used at the table."

As a result, I don't worry about creating too much background. I may hint at things during play, toss off asides, play a little "fantasy mad libs" here and there ("The <humanoid race>s in the <terrain feature> to the <compass direction> are working on <long-term plot>, according to <NPC> from <village the PC's have already visited>"), to create the sensation that the world exists outside of the PC's actions.

So if the PC's decide to snap this up, I'm ready to roll.

But generally, I know what the characters in my game will want, and I put that goal wherever I have an idea for a story or a scene, and I let them fill in the details between Point A and Point B. The characters are often tied inextricably to the campaign, and I swap campaigns about once a year, once the plots involving these characters and the antagonists are over with.

I don't make long-term, persistent sandboxes, by and large. My interest is far too short-term for that. My style generally favors a more scripted approach, with a beginning, middle, and end, so that I can move on to the next shiny thing quickly and easily.

That doesn't really mean I force anything on anyone, of course. Players always choose their actions. It does mean that I actively try to find out what motivates the characters, like a good director or writer, to find out how to create a reason for them to be in the scene.

Because at my table, that's generally the way that stuff gets used: by being linked to the characters' goals and motives. I could have a goblin camp somewhere Out There, but unless that goblin camp actually is going to involve one of the characters, I don't bother developing it much beyond the "Fantasy Mad Libs" stage.

 

[Greg K]

Heh, it's all about different strokes. Me, I hand my DM a one or two page bit about my church when I play a cleric. And, I make absolutely sure that I bring that stuff up in character as often as I can. As a DM? Not interested. That's your character. You tell me what your church is like and what the relationships are.

Yep, definitely different strokes. As a player, I am not going to play just because it is D&D, Rolemaster, GURPS fantasy, etc. It's the setting/world the DM created that is going to draw me in. Give me an interesting setting with cultures, the deities thought out w/ their priesthoods, some bits of history and recent events for the cultures (a few sentences is fine) and some organizations. These are the things that will
a) get me to buy in to the game;
b) help me make meaningful choices to decide on my character and ground my character into the setting.
c) provide a consistant world which helps me get some immersion for playing my character.

Then, once characters are created, I want the DM to set the players loose to explore the setting (no adventure paths, no chained modules like the G-D-Q series)

As a DM, I prefer the same thing. I create the world. The players design the characters and the backgrounds taking into account the settings cultures and other constraints. This means that, for example, the cleric will worship one of the pre-determined deities which will affect the character's choice of spells and there will be certain behavior that is expected as a priest of a particular deity to stay in the good graces of the church and deity.

Then, once the characters are created, the players are, otherwise, free to go off to explore and do what they want (as long as they are not playing evil characters). I'll set out hooks based on backgrounds. However, when all is said and done, If they want to be bakers whose adventures are based on running a business, travelling to other cultres to discovers new recipes, (or herbs, extracts, etc.), deaing with thugs trying to start a protection racket, and win a pie contest held by the king, so be it. I will accomodate them.

 

[JohnBiles]

My Amber campaign had huge amounts of world building over the course of three campaigns set in it, some of it in play, some of it invented in advance. A lot of the game revolved around uncovering ancient lore and the past in order to deal with the legacy of that past.

This led to a glossary developed by one player, who read over all the game logs and teased out all the lore he could. Entries like:

RUNES, SIDAR: The written characters of the high Sidar language, Sidar
Runes exist in multiple dimensions at once. Some of these dimensions no
longer exist post-collapse. Modern scholars who wish to read them must
first train themselves to see into these other dimensions, then figure out
what the missing dimensions are. This is said to be somewhat akin to
trying to watch a foreign language TV Show that has separate parts on 10
TV sets simultaniously, with some of the sets turning off at random
intervals. Worse, there were 47 different forms of runes. Needless to say,
only truly dedicated scholars try to learn it. As if that weren't enough,
according to Chloe and Setsuna some of the runes are carnivorous. Kuonji
is said to own a an apron with a particularly vicious inscription. Other
examples of Sidar Runes specifically mentioned are the writing on the Arch
of Revolution and a locket owned by Random. *Mentioned throughout the
game, detailed discussion occuring in F9R between Setsuna, Chloe, and
Suzuka at Minor's birthday party.

They plundered Sidar ruins, found a prison full of artificial gods created by the Sidar and so on.

 

[Hussar]

As a DM, I prefer the same thing. I create the world. The players design the characters and the backgrounds taking into account the settings cultures and other constraints. This means that, for example, the cleric will worship one of the pre-determined deities which will affect the character's choice of spells and there will be certain behavior that is expected as a priest of a particular deity to stay in the good graces of the church and deity.

See, every time I've tried to do that, I've had half the group hitting me up to try something from whatever book they happened to have gotten recently. I'd love to do it, but, I think because I play with DM's all the time, everyone wants a great deal of authorial control over their characters.

Sure, I'd love to sit down and play with a particular world, but, it never seems to work for me. Too many of my players have their own ideas of what they want to play, and most of them take one look at the setting material and then go off on their own tangents anyway.

To be fair, I do the same thing as well.

I think for a lot of players, telling them they HAVE to be something is a recipe for them telling me that they have a better idea in mind.

 

[TerraDave]

...I've written numerous scenarios for PCs and launched the beginnings of what was supposed to be an interesting side adventure for particular PCs to be involved in. Then either the PC dies before he can get knee deep in the side plot, or the player gets booted or leaves the game...

Never let things depend too much on a particular player. They will leave you high and dry.

But that is probably another thread.

 

[coyote6]

I mostly GM, but I have little interest in world building a la Tolkien. When I try, I either get bored, or realize I'm never going to finish, so why bother? Especially since I know most players aren't going to read it, or will read it & forget it.

Also, I hate drawing maps.

I do most of the "world building" as the game goes. Someone's playing a monk? Ask 'em what their order is about, then take that and run with it. Come up with a villain, then flesh out their background.

I also steal a lot from everywhere. Especially maps.

OTOH, I do think about my campaigns plenty, and it is awesomely cool when multiple players really get into a campaign.