Does the world exist for the PCs?

jgsugden said:

To take people to a more relatable view of this topic.

DM buys a campaign setting. It is a desert wasteland like Athas/Dark Sun filled with brutal NPCs and constant danger. It has no connection to the Feywild and thus has withered. He studies it and loves it. He is an expert on every page on the setting and expands it to create his own unique touches. He is prepared with dozens of story hooks, adventure locations and great CHARACTER AGNOSTIC storylines.

Then he finds his players.

Player 1 wants to play a Tempest Cleric that was a former pirate.

Player 2 wants to play a Fey Pact Warlock Firbolg.

Player 3 wants to play a Dwarven Barbarian.

Two of those three PCs do not fit into the setting well.

Do you tell the players, "No, you can't play that PC. It doesn't fit into my game?" Is telling a player "No" unnecessarily likely to result in the best experience for the player?

Do you have them be from far away and just ignore their background and motivations? Is that exciting? Or is that going to leave the players feeling like the DM is playing with himself and the PCs are just there to watch... If they're not interwoven into the story meaningfully, they're meaningless. For an example of stock adventures where this is a problem see the old Dark Sun modules.

Or, do you adjust your world to give these PCs a reason to be there. Do you find a place where a sailor might come from and give this PC a reson to travel to this wasteland. Do you add a storyline about a weak connecion to the Feywild that allowd the Feypact Warlock to get his powers and give him motivations to return the world to a lush place...

The DMG has chapters that far too few DMs read on world building and running a campaign. There are many great resources online for world building and finding ways to make the play experience for your characters legendary. I don't care if you're new to the game or, like me, you've played in 5 different decades... There is always more to be learned by looking at other DMs, looking at their advice, and trying to incorporate your players deeper into the game. You'll find that a lot of DMs note that the biggest improvement they made in their games was when they transitioned from making a game FOR the players to making a game WITH the players.

Click to expand...

As opposed to this:

A DM decides to run a game entirely based on the player characters. He has received the character sheets from the players, and low and behold...

Player 1 wants to play a Tempest Cleric that was a former pirate.

Player 2 wants to play a Fey Pact Warlock Firbolg.

Player 3 wants to play a Dwarven Barbarian.

So the DM decides to build the world around these folks. He thinks 'Oh, a former pirate. I am going to have it so the main enemy for the first arc is a pirate lord who takes Player 1's quitting of the pirate trade personally! Oh, and I'll have him stealing and plundering from the Ancient Dwarven Ruins, which angers the Dwarven Barbarian! Oooo and the Pirate Lord will have a pact with the same Fey Being that Player 2's Warlock has! Interesting and fun, the players will surely love and be motivated by this!

The DM eagerly preps and crafts the world, putting in various hooks and reveals that 100% relate to the characters. The first session begins. It is a high seas adventure which seas the former pirate fleeing from his old comrades, and the Warlock and the Barbarian and he join forces to cut down the enemy! They sneak through the ruins and sabotage the plundering operations of Evil Pirate Lord. This arc lasts about 3 sessions. All is going well...or so the DM thinks.

Session 4 comes around...and well, the Barbarian can't make it, something has come up with the Warlock's work, and that former pirate lord has decided to go play battletech instead. The DM is confused. Werent the players having fun? He confronts them.

Player 1: "I mean, sure it was cool and all but I was a 'former' pirate. I really didnt wanna do anything with pirates man.
DM: "But I thought cause you were a former pirate that..."
Player 1: "Nah it just sounded cool and maybe I could make pirate jokes now and then."
DM: "Oh..."
Player 2: "Yeah, I mean, the game was okay and all but when I started I really wanted to go to the nearest city, but you said it was some huge Tortuga-like hive of scum and villainy. Whats with you and pirates?"
Player 3: "I dunno, it just seems like it doesn't matter what we want, you've decided what we want. Everywhere we tried to go it was pirates and dwarves. Isnt there like...any normal cities?"

Do you see the issue here?

Also, before you run a campaign, best practice is to send your players what is called a Pitch Doc...where you explain the setting (briefly) along with maybe some of the major players/powers. Then the players will create character concepts that make sense for that world...sure, putting their own personal spin on it that you as a DM should both allow and encourage. But the horse goes before the cart. You let the setting/world inspire the players to create their characters...that way they always will fit, and always in a way THEY want to fit. Not what you think they want.

jgsugden said:

DM buys a campaign setting. It is a desert wasteland like Athas/Dark Sun filled with brutal NPCs and constant danger. It has no connection to the Feywild and thus has withered. He studies it and loves it. He is an expert on every page on the setting and expands it to create his own unique touches. He is prepared with dozens of story hooks, adventure locations and great CHARACTER AGNOSTIC storylines.

Then he finds his players.

Player 1 wants to play a Tempest Cleric that was a former pirate.

Player 2 wants to play a Fey Pact Warlock Firbolg.

Player 3 wants to play a Dwarven Barbarian.

Two of those three PCs do not fit into the setting well.

Do you tell the players, "No, you can't play that PC. It doesn't fit into my game?"

Click to expand...

On one hand, thank you for introducing a specific example. Those often bring ideas into focus and give commenters more specific approaches.

On another hand, your scenario is missing a step which to me seems obvious.

DM buys book. DM contacts player 1: "I've got this campaign book and I'm itching to DM. The setting is a desert wasteland, like Athas or Dark Sun. If that sounds fun to you, and if you're free on Thursday evenings, then claim a seat at the table, and write a character appropriate to the setting."

Player 1 responds: "Awesome! I've got a few character builds I want to try. One of them is a Tempest cleric with Pirate background. Are there lightning storms in this desert? Would your setting have raiders, who are equivalent to pirates, but attacking caravans on land rather than ships at sea?" (There are indeed lighting storms without any rain reaching the surface, in the western American deserts, and also in parts of Australia.)

Player 2 responds: "I'm only interested in games in which I can play a Fey Pact Warlock Firbolg. If your setting doesn't have warlocks, doesn't have firbolgs, or doesn't have access to the Feywild, then good luck finding other players, because this game is not for me."

DM sighs, and calls player 3. Dwarven Barbarian? Sure, why not.

DM then calls player 4, who doesn't have Thursdays free.

DM calls player 5, who says "Sounds fun. If you already have players with specific PCs, and we don't have any healers yet, then I could go Druid, Circle of the Land (Desert). Or shall we design PCs together at session zero, so that we end up with a well-rounded compatible party?"

I mean... why (and how) would you recruit players *without telling them what kind of game you plan to run*, thus setting up the conflict you describe?

Umbran said:

I found, over the years, that simulationism in my world design didn't get me anything valuable, and took more work. It burned up time as the PCs wandered around in the simulation looking for the things they found interesting. As time moved from college into later life, sessions got shorter and less frequent, and there was less time available to burn like that.

Click to expand...

Truth

Riley37 said:

...I mean... why (and how) would you recruit players *without telling them what kind of game you plan to run*, thus setting up the conflict you describe?

Click to expand...

Option 1:Tell players the world you're willing to run for them and see if it fits for them. If it doesn't work for what they want to play, you risk losing them from the game, or force them to make a less interesting choice.

Option 2: Create a world *with* them that will be good for everyone ... one they all want to be playing and capitalized upon their interests.

It really is that simple.

Reynard said:

What about the little stuff? Like, you have previously established an ancient hero who was buried with his famed weapon. The players' adventures bring them to the tomb. Do you make sure the famed weapon is one your party can use, even if for whatever reason your players have chosen are or esoteric weapons? And if so does that player choice impact the historical context of the hero?

Click to expand...

No.

The weapon is what it is (and if it's that famous the PCs will probably know what it is, or can easily find out) regardless of which if any PCs ever go looking for it or what their particular weapon proficiencies might be.

HJFudge said:

As opposed to this:

A DM decides to run a game entirely based on the player characters. He has received the character sheets from the players, and low and behold...

Player 1 wants to play a Tempest Cleric that was a former pirate.

Player 2 wants to play a Fey Pact Warlock Firbolg.

Player 3 wants to play a Dwarven Barbarian.

So the DM decides to build the world around these folks. He thinks 'Oh, a former pirate. I am going to have it so the main enemy for the first arc is a pirate lord who takes Player 1's quitting of the pirate trade personally! Oh, and I'll have him stealing and plundering from the Ancient Dwarven Ruins, which angers the Dwarven Barbarian! Oooo and the Pirate Lord will have a pact with the same Fey Being that Player 2's Warlock has! Interesting and fun, the players will surely love and be motivated by this!

Click to expand...

Which all sounds good but it very quickly runs hard aground on the failure of one critical underlying assumption: that the characters that start the campaign (and thus for whom the world/setting/story is built) will be around long enough for it to matter.

Characters die, particularly at low level, and are replaced by different characters. Later, characters retire or are cycled out for whatever reason (player turnover; or an in-game reason e.g. a PC is given a quest and can't talk the party into going along; or one or more players just want to play a different character than what they have) and are replaced by different characters.

Tailoring even a single adventure around a particular PC is risky - ironclad guarantee that'll be the PC that drops dead at the first opportunity. Tailoring an entire setting or campaign around a few particular PCs is an open invitation to disaster unless those PCs are bubble-wrapped in plot protection, which is just as bad.

The setting is what it is, and remember you-as-DM also have the right to pick and choose what races and-or classes will fit in this setting (this alone should prevent some weirdness like the example given). Then, the players through their PCs can then do what they like to said setting; ideally it's robust enough to withstand their best efforts.

Also, before you run a campaign, best practice is to send your players what is called a Pitch Doc...where you explain the setting (briefly) along with maybe some of the major players/powers. Then the players will create character concepts that make sense for that world...sure, putting their own personal spin on it that you as a DM should both allow and encourage. But the horse goes before the cart. You let the setting/world inspire the players to create their characters...that way they always will fit, and always in a way THEY want to fit. Not what you think they want.

Click to expand...

I'll tell them what the general starting area is like, a bit of basic history, show them a map, and tell them what races*/classes are allowed, but I won't say anything about any plot ideas even though I always have some; I'd prefer to give those a chance to grow organically out of play whether they're what I had in mind or not, and let them be discovered as things go along.

* - for my current campaign, as it was starting in the middle of a Human land I forced everyone's first PC to be Human; with other races allowed in later as the party's horizons expanded.

jgsugden said:

Option 1:Tell players the world you're willing to run for them and see if it fits for them. If it doesn't work for what they want to play, you risk losing them from the game, or force them to make a less interesting choice.

Option 2: Create a world *with* them that will be good for everyone ... one they all want to be playing and capitalized upon their interests.

It really is that simple.

Click to expand...

This assumes you'll have the same players at the table all the way through. For a short campaign this is fine, but for a long or open-ended one the more you tailor it to the starting players the harder it'll be to find and integrate new players later when the existing ones leave for whatever reason.

When it comes to the game world, it exists for the benefit of the players, and not necessarily for the PC's. The world is a creation crafted to serve the people at the table and it doesn't consider or care about the fictional characters that inhabit it. While the DM lays the groundwork of creating the world, it does not become a living, breathing place until there are players to interact with it. How real the world seems is dependent upon the energy invested in it by the playing group.

As a player, I find it more difficult to accept a world that seems to tailor itself to a particular individual or small group of individuals as a plausible fictional place. That would appear to be more like a dream world than an actual world inhabited by the character. The world is crafted to be entertaining for Bob, Jane, and Eric, while at the same time not really caring about about the fates of Blundarr the Barbarian, Izappu the Sorceress, or Shadowdork the Thief.

jgsugden said:

To take people to a more relatable view of this topic.

DM buys a campaign setting. It is a desert wasteland like Athas/Dark Sun filled with brutal NPCs and constant danger. It has no connection to the Feywild and thus has withered. He studies it and loves it. He is an expert on every page on the setting and expands it to create his own unique touches. He is prepared with dozens of story hooks, adventure locations and great CHARACTER AGNOSTIC storylines.

Then he finds his players.

Player 1 wants to play a Tempest Cleric that was a former pirate.

Player 2 wants to play a Fey Pact Warlock Firbolg.

Player 3 wants to play a Dwarven Barbarian.

Two of those three PCs do not fit into the setting well.

Do you tell the players, "No, you can't play that PC. It doesn't fit into my game?" Is telling a player "No" unnecessarily likely to result in the best experience for the player?

Do you have them be from far away and just ignore their background and motivations? Is that exciting? Or is that going to leave the players feeling like the DM is playing with himself and the PCs are just there to watch... If they're not interwoven into the story meaningfully, they're meaningless. For an example of stock adventures where this is a problem see the old Dark Sun modules.

Or, do you adjust your world to give these PCs a reason to be there. Do you find a place where a sailor might come from and give this PC a reson to travel to this wasteland. Do you add a storyline about a weak connecion to the Feywild that allowd the Feypact Warlock to get his powers and give him motivations to return the world to a lush place...

The DMG has chapters that far too few DMs read on world building and running a campaign. There are many great resources online for world building and finding ways to make the play experience for your characters legendary. I don't care if you're new to the game or, like me, you've played in 5 different decades... There is always more to be learned by looking at other DMs, looking at their advice, and trying to incorporate your players deeper into the game. You'll find that a lot of DMs note that the biggest improvement they made in their games was when they transitioned from making a game FOR the players to making a game WITH the players.

Click to expand...

The players and the DM need to work together to make stories that work for everyone. So in my campaign world (which I've been running for decades with multiple groups, multiple editions) some things make sense, some don't. So I don't care if you want to play a drow that dual-wields scimitars and has a pet cat. In my world drow are the boogeymen that rise from the darkness and murder people for fun in the middle of the night. I don't care if you're one in a million, the other 999,999 drow that anyone has ever encountered sealed your fate and people will assume you're a scout for a bigger group that's going to kill everyone in their sleep.

Same way with warlocks being limited in options for what patrons they can have. Sorry, but I don't allow evil characters and making a deal with the devil is evil. I also don't want to deal with Cthulhu suddenly taking notice of my world so that's out too. Sorry but there's no dragonborn, tieflings, tabaxi, and so on. Too many chefs spoil the broth and while dozens of different races coexisting may make sense in a sci-fi fantasy setting like Star Wars, I just don't see it making sense in my world.

Having said that, I have a big world. The group wants to do something centered around barbarians in the frozen north? Got you covered. Metropolitan environment with lots of political intrigue? Okay, you're going to be in this city I haven't run a campaign in for a while, let me think about how it's changed over the years and if any of the previous PCs would be legends or even NPCs. Gothic horror? Well it just so happens that I have notes about this region over here being secretly controlled by vampires. Want to play an ex-pirate? Awesome, the rest of the group wants to play in the mountains in the middle of the continent about as far away from the ocean as you can get. Is your ex-pirate trying to hide from someone or something?

So I try to adjust things in a way that make sense but there will always be hard lines I don't cross. Seeking out Garshon's Pride, a sword of legend? Well, it's a longsword because I threw that bit of lore in because it was originally used by a PC to kill a vampire boss while also sacrificing himself in a glorious fashion imbuing it with holy power. Hope that works for the group.

The world exists outside of a specific campaign, group or player. Hopefully my players appreciate that some day their name may too become part of the legends that help make my world a richer place.

Lanefan said:

This assumes you'll have the same players at the table all the way through. For a short campaign this is fine, but for a long or open-ended one the more you tailor it to the starting players the harder it'll be to find and integrate new players later when the existing ones leave for whatever reason.

Click to expand...

Evolution is always required. PCs die. Players move. Sometimes storylines fizzle or veer in a direction tat is best abandoned. But, you can adjust, introduce new elements, close loops in different ways etc... Regardless, this is a problem you face whether the themes and stories in your games are ones you placed in front of the players and asked them to adopt or if they are themes you crafted WITH the players.

The more I read this thread, the odder I find it. And, the more I recommend people read chapter one of the DMG, especially the section called, "Involving the Characters". If you have not read chapter one of the DMG - the guide for Dungeon Masters - please do so.

Another way to think about this: D&D is - at the core - improvisational acting. You're sitting at the table improvising dialogue and actions for your PCs and NPCs. What are the basic rules of improv? What is the FIRST of those rules? There are a lot of ways to say these rules, but the first one is usually either, "Say YES" or "Don't DENY". What does that mean? Why is it there?

It is there so that the story can flow organically by allowing both scene partners to build upon the efforts of each other and create a cumulative story that flows and breathes. All up, without backtrack. When the DM dictates their world on players, without involving the characters in the development of it, they're ignoring their scene partners. Instead, SAY YES by involving them and building with them, back and forth.