Players should play, and not be heard: Campaign Edition

[TwoSix]

What I keep saying is that if the DM is completely agnostic about the game they are running ... well, they will show the same level of caring in the remainder of the game.

Bah. I can run any game idea my players throw at me, and I will CRUSH it, just like I CRUSH beer cans against my forehead during parties.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah, I think I agree with some of what lowkey13 is saying, but not all of it.

If a DM isn't invested or having fun, the game is going to be bad. I'll probably have a lot of personal anecdotes in this post, but this first one reminds me of a homebrew place I created. The players were in this Empire and trying to establish their own adventurers guild. it was an idea I proposed and they liked it a lot. After a year of playing, they'd killed off a lot of my plot points and honestly, I wasn't feeling it anymore. I just didn't care about this setting and it was far too safe, there was nothing interesting I could see happening there. The players begged me to keep running it, but I killed off that game because there was nothing left in it for me.

However, right now I'm in discussions with a friend who wants to get some of his friends into a 5e game that he wants me to run. I don't know these guys and I can only assume they are partially part of his 3.5 group. I've got a setting and some early adventure hooks in my head, I can't stop myself from making them and having at least something to lay out in front of them is really good. However, I am actively trying to stop myself from building too much, because I don't know these people and therefore I don't know what they would all be interested in. I know my friend, and the idea I have for a borderland island where people are colonizing and the potential for the party to become lords ruling over the island will definitely appeal to him, but I am also very much going to talk to these new people and see what they are actually interested in playing, because I have ran games where the players didn't care about what happened next beyond which sized-die they had to roll this time and I hated it so much.

And I can be passionate about other games, other settings, I may not like any official settings, but I would make it clear to players that I'm not interested in running an exact setting but could set about a challenge of trying to make my own version of it, could be kind of fun if I was in the right mood.

If another DM was like, "I would love to run a Darksun game focusing on this merchant trading company, or this Forgotten Realms game where maybe we could explore the Ruins of Chult, or this Greyhawk game where we try and prevent the resurrection of Iuz which one sounds cool to you guys" then I don't think we can say that is a bad thing. Passion can carry over to many different places without diminishing and allowing your players to help shape the beginning narrative can draw them in deeper and keep your game running longer than it would have otherwise.

 

[Sunseeker]

One of the comments stuck with me- it was the idea of a DM polling the players to determine what setting to run their campaign in. And I thought to myself, "Self, that is precisely the opposite of what I would do. In fact, if a DM polled my table to determine the campaign setting I would run away faster than if the DM said, 'Hey guys, how would you feel about an all-Paladin campaign?'"

This seems like an odd thought. I have my campaign world sure, but there are also a variety of ideas that I have that don't take place there. Like an all-Drow evil campaign. Or a Ravenloft campaign. Or wild-west campaign. And there are some settings that do a lot of the legwork for me (I'm not very interested in reinventing the Underdark, for example).

That said, for my personal preference, give me a DM with a point of view any day of the week. At the vast majority of tables, the amount of work that the DM puts in to the game is greater than that put in by the players, which means that I want the DM to be invested in what he is doing, and to be knowledgeable about his campaign; is there anything worse than a DM who is uncaring about the campaign setting, and less knowledgeable about the lore of his/her campaign than the players?*

I'm gonna stroke my own ego here for a moment, but I'm fairly knowledgeable in a number of settings: Star Wars, Star Trek, Ravenloft, The Underdark, my own campaign world, Gargoyles, Transformers, all sorts of settings. I could run a campaign set in any of these settings and be demonstrably more knowledgeable about all of them than most of the people who would play in them.

A DM can be invested and knowledgeable in a number of systems and settings. Just because they're not running their baby doesn't mean that they won't be invested in whatever they are running. Have you considered that perhaps the DM is polling their players because they are interested and invested in several settings and want to make sure the players are equally invested and interested?

When I play, I want the DM to take ownership of the setting. To be honest, it doesn't even matter what the DM is running; it could be GH, FR, Eberron, DS, or some random homebrew where Mindflayers have enslaved humanity. Heck, even things that sound terrible ("All my vampires are sparkly!") will probably work out okay if the DM cares about the game they are running.

Not caring what they are running is not the same as not caring about what they're running. Like, I don't care if I drive a Chevy, Ford or a Dodge, but I care that whatever I'm driving is kept in good shape.

Now, I understand the counterargument to this- what about the DM that sucks? What about the DM that is so invested with telling the DM's story that the DM doesn't allow the players to breathe? What about railroading? And these are all good points- sometimes, you will find that a DM who is heavily invested in their campaign is the same DM who demands that the campaign play out a certain way - and that's no fun. But the thing is- that can be true of any DM, even the uncaring ones. Or, to put it more succinctly-

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.

In a way, I would analogize this to eating out. You can go to a cruddy restaurant anytime. But if you want a great dining experience, you go to the absolute best restaurant with an amazing chef. And if you eat there, you eat what the chef prepares; you don't try and substitute everything on the menu.** You want to experience that- and some times, you might find out that it isn't so great, and some times, you might have that transcendent experience. Now, this analogy isn't perfect, because eating food doesn't have the same interactive and emergent qualities as TTRPG, but you get the gist.

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

I don't think the counterargument you're presenting is actually the counterargument to the argument you're presenting.

The counterargument as I see it is is the DM running what they want regardless of how the players feel about it. Granted those players could leave I'm not disputing that but sometimes when you get invested in something you stick with it even when you shouldn't.

There's the DM who cares, and there's the DM who cares too much. About their world. About their opinion. About how their game should run. About how their players should behave in their world.

A good DM should take their players wants and needs into account. And realistically, most GMs probably care about more than one setting.

 

[Hussar]

I would say that you didn't understand the thesis.

Allow me to quote the part where I, um, summed up what I was saying.

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

I even said that players create stories in the interstitial spaces of the lore of the campaign ... that's fancy talk for players adding to the story and the campaign.


So, in case I wasn't sufficiently clear, I will re-state it:

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.

There are several RPG's out there that would disagree with you. FATE, for example, certainly builds the campaign and the world based on character generation. You, as the person running the game, aren't expected to come to the table with a campaign setting. And there are several other games in a similar vein.

AFAIC, player investment is far, far more important that whoever happens to be sitting in the big daddy chair. Farming out the decision to the players ensures a greater degree of investment at the outset.

/edit - sorry, didn't see that I got ninja'd by [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] and that we were limiting the conversation to only D&D. Not really seeing much of a difference to be honest, but, then, I play in a group where all six of us are DM's and we rotate pretty often. Trusting my players to be able to come up with setting ideas that are probably better than my own is pretty easy.

 

[Umbran]

/edit - sorry, didn't see that I got ninja'd by [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] and that we were limiting the conversation to only D&D.

Yeah, about that "limit". WHile the original thesis stipulated D&D, that has zero impact on the point.

Yes, those other games have explicit systems for including players in world construction. But so what? Does D&D have an explicit system for building its game world that a collaborative method would violate? No! D&D doesn't give a fetid dingo's kidney about how you build your game world!

As an example: you could very easily peel the world-building system out of, say, the Dresden Files RPG (which is a FATE-based game, with a collaborative world-building step before character generation in which the players help create many of the most important locations and factions or people in the game world) and use it to build a D&D world, because that process is pretty much agnostic to the rules of session play. You could *super easy* build a City of Lankhmar style game setting with that! You'd be assured that every element you used would be interesting to someone at the table, because they suggested it!

So, limit the discussion to D&D all you want - that is orthogonal* to the choice of how the world for the game gets built.

This is not to say that there's anything at all wrong with picking the game world as GM. I did it myself for teh two games I'm running now. But neither am I against a collaborative approach. I may try one for whatever game I start next.


*Yes, I like the word, okay?

 

[AmerginLiath]

But the lack of mechanics in D&D for the players adding story to the “DM’s” world doesn’t stop that from happening. It’s been going on since Rob Kuntz added El Raja Key to Greyhawk...or even since Gygax added Castle Greyhawk to Arneson’s Blackmoor game!

There’s no algorithm at play here dictating the DM’s control-as-referee over world-as-program. If the players have an idea what they want, talk about it. It’s a game, not a job or even a sport — I fear that some of you are honestly talking this too seriously.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think it's quite OK for a DM to ask the players what fantasy settings or genres they would like to play... it's not that different from a bunch of friends discussing which movie to watch or which tabletop game to play, unless you feel like the DM is really apart from the players.

It's just more natural for a DM to make that decision herself, simply because the initiative of playing D&D comes from the person who is willing to take the DM role more often than not. And of course the DM is going to do all the work between sessions, and so she is entitled at least to choose the arrangements of the game, including the fantasy setting. But that doesn't mean it has to be solely a DM's decision.

After all, just like players don't want to play one and only character concept, DMs don't want to run one and only fantasy genre/settings. So what's wrong in a DM being undecided between 2-3 and wanting to ask what is the players' preference? I don't think this should be seen as a DM's weakness, once the decision is made, the DM can totally be committed to a great job.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I never really bothered with things like settings as they are for me determined by the adventure path and not by the DM nor players.

But I can relate that you want to give some choices to your players. DMing is A LOT of work and when I notice it gets more work then I can take, I start to give tasks to players too. Like if they want a detailed descriptions on how many trees and rocks are in the area but it's not noted in the adventure path I might tell them they just can tell me what they'd like and I'll make it so. Or when they come up with a clever plan but it requires something not described in the module, I might ask them what they are imagining.

I wouldn't call it lazy, just work splitting. At least if you don't pay your DM, you shouldn't expect that he does everything for you and you have no work at all.

 

[Imaculata]

Usually when I'm the DM, I choose the setting I want to run (which tends to be homebrew). But I first always ask my players if they are interested.

 

[Riley37]

If the DM cannot be bothered to even decide on a campaign setting, that is not a DM I would like to play with.

Aw, darn.

For a moment, I hoped you were going for a thesis such that responses with the thesis would involve relevant, cogent, enlightening points. A thesis such that the friction could result not just in heat, but in light.

Nope. You have made an argument about *what you personally or won't play*.

At which point, there's no reasonable disagreement. Who here could possibly say anything about which games you, lowkey13, will or won't join? Not unless someone has a counter-example based on *observation of you personally*, such as "what about the time we played together, and the DM started off with door A to Western Adventure or door B to Ninja Robot Pirate Zombie Adventure?"

Okay, well, thanks for enlightening us about your personal deal-breakers. I also now know not to invite you to an all-paladin game. Not that I was going to, unless you attend a con where I run a game.

On another hand, I'm hearing from lots of DMs who have SO MANY IDEAS and since they can't run all of them at once, they're interested to hear which of their many awesome ideas have the most buy-in from players. And that's refreshing, to be reminded how many DMs are just boiling over with inspiration.

That said, if anyone's thinking of running a con game, with six pre-generated characters, one each of Devotion, Ancients, Vengeance, Redemption, Conquest, and Oathbreaker, then I'm ALL IN FOR THAT GAME. Especially if PvP is forbidden at first, then unlockable by advancing the story through the main turning points of the plot.