Players should play, and not be heard: Campaign Edition

[MarkB]

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.

For some DMs it's not about the setting, or even the storyline. Just as you suggest players creating stories within the interstital spaces of the campaign lore, some DMs - some of them good ones - like to spin their narrative out of the backgrounds and interactions of the characters. And they will be fully invested in those narratives, no less so for the fact that they came up with most of them on-the-fly based upon a few off-hand remarks and character interactions rather than planning them meticulously in advance.

And if they know that's what they're ultimately going to be doing for most of the campaign, then they're really not going to be too concerned about nailing down its starting point.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pming]

Hiya!

As per the OP, [MENTION=88539]LowKey[/MENTION] 13, ...I'm mostly on-board with your thinking on this. Mostly. If I was DM'ing for a couple of new people, or a special one-off "guest DM appearance" for another group or event or something, then I'd be more willing to go the polling route. But I gathered from the OP post that a "special one-off" wasn't considered simply because it isn't really a "campaign".

When my and my group are going to start something new I will usually end the last session of whatever we were playing with "So, what do we want to play next?". This is the genre question. Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Horror, Super Hero, Apocalyptic. Once we decide, we narrow down to a specific game (D&D 5th, Star Frontiers, Cthulhu, SUPERS!, Zombocalypse! [my own zombie apocalypse setting using either Masterbook or Top Secret/SI; usually the former as of late]. After that gets decided, THEN we move on to any specific "style" or "location". In the case of "D&D", this is the "campaign world", mostly.

When we get to the point of playing a 5e D&D campaign and a setting is being decided, I will usually give two, maybe three of my "preferences" to DM. Say, "Greyhawk, Aereth, or Genericka" (yes, "Genericka"...random world I created 'on the fly' when we played our first 'real' 5e campaign; https://world-of-genericka.obsidianportal.com/ ...not a lot there, but still...). But if the players all REALLY want to play a game set in, say The Iron Kingdoms, I'd be up for it.

That gives me a week, sometimes two, to "get into" whatever setting/campaign/game we decided on.

So, as I said..."I mostly agree with Lowkey13 on this". Mostly.

TL;DR For strangers or people I haven't gamed with much...I'll poll. For friends and my normal group, I give choices of things I'd be into DM'ing and we choose together (I veto ones I'm just not interested in at the time, however).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[generic]

Interesting, I agree with you completely, but I've never heard of DMs offering their players a choice of campaign setting, only a choice of adventures or adventure types, is this a common thing?

 

[Umbran]

That said, for my personal preference, give me a DM with a point of view any day of the week.
...

I've had terrible games with all sorts of Dungeon Masters. But the only great and transcendent campaigns I've played in had one thing in common- a DM that was truly invested in the game.

...

So, in summation- the DM should pick the campaign setting that the DM wants to run. Period.

Here's the thing: there is a world of distance between "have a point of view" and "be invested" and "Should pick the game setting". The former two do not imply the latter. And the latter does not in any way insure the former. They are, I might say, orthogonal. The idea that they only way to be invested in something is to own it lock, stock, and barrel is kind of like saying you cannot have a whole lot of fun when you go to a friend's house and play with their toys instead of your own.

There are several games out there (things run on the FATE and Apolcalypse World engines, for example) in which it isnt' merely a commonly-agreed-upon choice of setting, but significant portions of world-authorship are in teh player's hands. None of this gets in the way of the GM beign invested, or having their own input.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[robus]

If the DM gets an idea in his head for a campaign setting that really resonates with him, but the players either aren't interested or just don't really grok the concept that he's going for, that's just going to be an exercise in frustration for everyone concerned. And sometimes the answer is going to be "get different players", but sometimes it may simply be to put that special project on the back-burner until you can develop it more, get player buy-in, or find a different crowd to run it with - and meanwhile, keep playing with the friends you have, and running something they can have fun playing.

Or write that novel that's obviously begging to be written

 

[Shiroiken]

The way I've always done it, and probably always will, is to propose a campaign to the players. This includes setting and theme, so that they can decide how they feel about it and ask questions. If someone doesn't like it, they have the choice to not play (usually they'll take up the issue with me first and we'll see what accommodations can be made). If too many people choose not to play, then the campaign doesn't happen, because no one wants to play in a small game when more players are available. In this case I'll scrap it while someone else runs a game, and start working on another idea.

 

[Oofta]

So...how would you feel about an all-Paladin campaign? Serious question. Assume for this hypothetical the DM has taken ownership of their campaign setting and has a good, thoughtful setting he's passionate about it and put a lot of time into creating an evocative setting. In this setting, you're a party of crusaders (all paladins) sent by a secret group of the dominate religious order of your society to rescue a holy relic from the heart of the invading armies stronghold, which was left behind and hidden by your order when fleeing the invading army. The fate of your civilization rests on your shoulders, as it looks like without this relic your society will perish to the invading enemy.

You may have just inspired my campaign. Because how terrifying would it be for an enemy to have to face a party of all paladins, combined with a Three Musketeers motif all dual wielding rapiers?



And yes, I think this thread has gotten too serious for it's own good.

 

[aco175]

My home group has been playing for many years and we tend to play along the lines of standard FR or greyhawk, or similar style homebrew. We know what to expect and I will ask what do the players want to play next. I have been getting the response that whatever you have been doing is fine and we are open to anything. Anything means same as we have been playing, but an arc of giants or drow would be cool. It does not mean "Surprise, read this primer on Dark Sun since that is what we are playing next." It is too far outside the norm.

I have seen DMs looking for players in want ads where they state what kind of players they are looking for and are forming a new group. Looking for new player interested in Dark sun or 2e players. You know what you are getting into, even without knowing the DM. I once playing in a homebrew where the DM got bored and portaled us to a few different worlds until the one dominated by giant bugs ate us. This was fine after the one with robots and laser riffles.