D&D 5E World-Building DMs

GMforPowergamers said:

It depends.

If you are GMing for the next 6-9 months, and you have this great idea for a world with only humans and gnomes, great. I would love to play.
If you are GMing for the next few years, and every 9-12 months is a new campaign, and just the first one is an oldschool elf/dwarf/human only world great, lets get started, especially if when I pitch my dragonborn psion, your answer is 'next campaign'.

If on the other hand you plan on running the same or similar worlds for the next 5-10 years... NO!! I mean HELL NO!!! DOn't resctict half of my choices for more or less ever...

Click to expand...

LoL.... So you'd likely hate games I run then.

Because, since I dislike them, there's no psionics in my games. Hasn't been for decades & won't be in the future. Doesn't matter if I'm running a homebrewed world or a company produced one. And since psionics are a big feature of Dark Sun? Rather than re-work it all, I just don't run DS.

I also routinely disallow most non-PHB races (no, the MM is NOT a catalogue of alternate PC races) & strongly discourage you from making Drow characters. Sometimes I'll say yes to a race though, so ask if you want. Just don't be surprised/upset when the answer is "No".

These are blanket restrictions when I DM, regardless of the setting. You know this up front.

As for your choices being restricted forever? Nonsense. My game only takes up 4-5 hours of 1 day per week. That leaves you 163 hours/week to play your psionic what-ever in somebody elses game.
Additionally? Our DM duties rotate in the groups I'm in. So it's not me sitting in the DM seat year in, year out. We also tend to alternate wich game we're playing. Sometimes it's been every other week, sometimes by chapter, sometimes by month, etc. So "Next campaigne" ussually isn't too far away....

Sword of Spirit said:

Usually it comes down to some people objecting to the idea of a DM setting up strict parameters without being flexible. It usually ends up with opponents of DM strictness essentially expressing that they think such DMs are selfish jerks, and are surprised anyone even wants to play with them.

Click to expand...

I think you are taking what is typically said in the wrong way. It isn't that people are saying that a DM applying strict parameters is inherently a selfish jerk, it's that people are saying that a DM applying strict parameters that their players would rather they not apply is a selfish jerk.

I.e. if you are a DM that doesn't want X race in your setting and none of your players have a problem with it you aren't being a selfish jerk. If you are a DM that refuses to include X race in your campaign, not even as a one-off oddity that everyone in-setting constantly is confused or surprised by, even though one or more of your players really want to play X race, maybe it's even their favorite race... then you are being a selfish jerk.

Sword of Spirit said:

How do you feel about playing D&D with a World-Building DM?

Click to expand...

I make it a rule to give anyone who wants to DM a chance to do so, and as much assistance as they want. Whether they want to build their own world or use one that is already established doesn't even register as a factor in deciding whether or not to play with them.

Sword of Spirit said:

Would you enjoy playing a character in Westeros, DMed/GMed by George R. R. Martin? A character in Middle-Earth DMed/GMed by J. R. R. Tolkien?

Click to expand...

Likely not. The skills that make one an entertaining novelist are not the same skills that make one an entertaining DM, and are actually at high risk of being counter-productive to the task of DMing

Sword of Spirit said:

Would you ask to play a cat-person or a wookie, or a kender? Would you ask them to redefine who could and could not use magic?

Click to expand...

What you are really asking is if I as a player would ask the DM if I could play something that isn't within the setting's definition of "normal and entirely expected." My answer is this: I'd let the DM know I am interested in playing whatever sort of character I am interested in playing, and if I want part of that play experience to be the setting responding to my character as if it were completely normal that would be in the form of me saying "Hey DM, here's an idea I had that maybe we can do a later campaign that will fit.", while if I want part of that play experience to be that my character is alien to the setting and vice versa I would let the DM know that too along the lines of "Hey DM, I'd like to play a character that isn't native to this world and setting, like someone from another dimension or planet."

In either case, if the DM didn't respond by trying to help me work that character into some campaign soon (not necessarily the one at hand), I'd consider that a negative.

Sword of Spirit said:

I’m guessing the vast majority of people, if invited to play in such a situation, would gladly fit their character into the parameters.

Why not be willing to fit into another DM’s world in the same way?

Click to expand...

There is a world of difference between being glad to fit your character into the "normal" parameters of a campaign, and a DM that has their world set up in a way that gives zero thought to what that DM's player group is into.

I've got a player that plays Dwarf characters basically all the time (like, he's played 1 elf, 1 human, and nothing else but dwarves for more than a decade at this point). If I want to run a campaign that doesn't involve Dwarves, I can sell him on the story of why there are no Dwarves around and he'll gladly play something else for that campaign, though he'd likely make sure that an "I'm the only Dwarf around and that is weird" character wasn't going to work first.

But if I were to say to him "I've decided that the setting we are going to use from now own, which I built myself so every decision was fully within my power, has nothing even resembling Dwarves in it." I'd quite obviously be putting what I want at a high enough priority as to completely disregard what anyone else wants (read: being a selfish jerk).

Sword of Spirit said:

My gut tells me that the objections are, at their heart, more about believing the DM just isn’t going to create a very good world (or at least one you will like) than they are power-struggle issues.

Click to expand...

In my view, it all boils down to whether the DM is trying to make a gaming experience suited to their players - and some DMs refusing to even entertain that the player is asking for something "oddball" without malicious intent toward the campaign.

ccs said:

LoL.... So you'd likely hate games I run then.

-cut out BS- So it's not me sitting in the DM seat year in, year out. We also tend to alternate wich game we're playing. Sometimes it's been every other week, sometimes by chapter, sometimes by month, etc. So "Next campaigne" ussually isn't too far away....

Click to expand...

you didn't read my answer at all then...
I don't mind a limit if it isn't monopolizeing time, my issue (and I mostly run into it online, because I know no DM that does it in real life) "I run this hevyly restrictive game that never allows for anything but X Y and Z and have steady since basic/1e/2e/ect" that is what I'm saying is the issue... if you are running for 4-6 months a restrictive campaign then someone else is taking over great... I'll save the idea you hate fro then,..


I ran a human only game once, and I (not counting when I actually was running 2e) have been known to go back to 2e style race/class only...

Sword of Spirit said:

My gut tells me that the objections are, at their heart, more about believing the DM just isn’t going to create a very good world (or at least one you will like) than they are power-struggle issues.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, the objections DMs have for incorporating their players ideas into their worlds usually come from the fact that either the DM is too lazy to do it or to proud to do it.

There is literally no one on this forum (except for the resident AI) that could hold the entirety of a DnD world in their brain at once. Take the world with "No Dwarves" for example - Is there really no mountain range anywhere on your world where a tribe of humanoids could not be living that no one else knows about? Or the "No Elves" world for example - Is there no possible way for a group of wood dwelling humanoids to set up camp in a forest anywhere on your world? And now add in the possibility of planar travel, or Spelljamming or just plain "A Wizard did it" and now tell me that you could not have those things. Because frankly an undiscovered tribe of Dwarves is not going to break your game and may actually make one of your Players enjoy your world more then they would have if they were stuck playing random Human.

So in conclusion, I am with [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] on this one - I will play your game for a session or maybe a month or two, but if you want a serious campaign then I have to play something that interests me, not what interests you.

I find a lot of people do not understand the relation between world, story and characters.

Now, let us say that we are doing a fanfic story where we delve into a well-established world and all feel we cannot introduce new things into that world without breaking it, at least if those new things run contrary to what has been established about the world prior in the stories.... Well, in this case we have all been witness to these previous stories and those previous stories were written well-enough for us to engage in them enough for us to be interested in engaging and playing a story that takes place in the world with characters much akin to the ones in the story.

You know what the dirty little secret is? The writer of those stories didn't think of the world in its entirety and then after totally deciding what existed and what didn't exist only then come up with a handful of characters that precisely fit what he had previously thought up and THEN come up with a story that would connect those characters.

Rather, what the person almost certainly did was come up with their characters first and foremost, maybe not all and maybe not in full detail, but a good concept. They then thought up the story for their characters. The world then is simply what they decided would be fitting for the backdrop of their story and, of course, whatever thing they thought up their characters being existed in their world and anything they didn't think up for a character was something that didn't exist.

George Lucas and J.R.R. Tolkien never said "I have this interesting idea for a character, BUT.... sadly I didn't write into my world that this thing existed, so I guess I have to throw it out." Nope! Particularly in the case of Lucas, (or, really, anyone working on the alien designs) if they thought it up, it existed in the world. It really was that easy. And almost certainly every additional story they wrote added something new to the world that hadn't previously existed.

So for a DM to sketch out every small detail of their world prior to any stories taking place within it and then afterwards come up with the basic story of what is going to happen and only after that to approach players and demand that they make protagonists for their story that 100% fit precisely the details they had predetermined without clashing with anything...

Well, you have just done the whole process backwards. It isn't a creative project anymore-- you have crushed the spirits of your players and excluded them from the process thus ensuring that they have no reason to engage with your world.

The smart way to do your world is to have only the vaguest ideas of setting and theme and what your world is going to contain and some ideas for what the antagonists of the world might be and some ideas of where story seeds are going to come from. Maybe even your starting location and starting point. Have an idea if you are doing horror or high fantasy or low fantasy or steampunk or... what have you.

Then ask your players what sort of protagonists they want to create. Ideally the sky should be the limit, but since this game is so stat-heavy, obviously there are some limitations on what a basic beginner character can be and can do. Still, let your players create their protagonists however they want.... which means even if you were initially considering the world to have only humans, elves, and dwarfs, if this player seems particularly keen on playing a wookie or cat-person... let them! In fact, ask them for ideas of how their character's people exist in the world and interact with others.

I mean, ideally you want at least half of your party to be the most common of folk in the world and if that means you might want to adjust what the common races in your world are (you hadn't really had any particular plans for Drow or Orcs, but it turns out because of player choices they are common citizens in your world's civilization-- in fact, maybe Drow are the only sort of Elves there are) to accommodate this unless you want to alter your starting adventure hook (maybe they are part of a carnival or they are specifically pulled in because they are weirdos and outcasts), but if the other half of your party is made up of outcasts, travelers, slaves, oppressed minorities or what have you, it works just fine.

And not just their races, of course, but their backgrounds! Allow the players to shape what the world is like with their backgrounds. If they say something in their background, it is something that exists in the world. Engaged players who feel enabled to be creative will give you backgrounds that will add additional locations and characters to your world. Bring their enemies into the fold, endanger their families, put important clues into the hands of their friends (or bring back an old friend only for it to be revealed they are now an enemy!) If a player says it is part of the character, it exists in the world.

Also, the nature of D&D is such that everyone is going to start in the same place at the same time and hopefully be on the same page... as opposed to what you can do in a book where characters are going to be introduced one by one across the first several chapters... maybe not even pop up until halfway through the adventure even if they were name-dropped in the beginning... it might be best if you can create some ties between the characters. A massive mistake I see made again and again is starting the characters off as 6 strangers who are supposed to come together, all be on the same place and from that point forward be totally inseparable despite having no previous relationship. It is so much better to have the characters tied together in ways they mutually consented to because if they have an idea of what their character's relationships are like, they can begin roleplaying right away.

Beyond that, your homebrew world should be where the adventure takes the characters from that point on. If you run a published module, then whatever that module needs to work now exists in your world. If you come up with your own thing, then add locations and people as necessary for it to work right.

Because, honestly, THAT is how authors build their worlds-- not independent of characters and story, trying to force those elements into it, but rather as the extension of the characters and story.

TheHobgoblin said:

The smart way to do your world is to have only the vaguest ideas of setting and theme and what your world is going to contain and some ideas for what the antagonists of the world might be and some ideas of where story seeds are going to come from. Maybe even your starting location and starting point. Have an idea if you are doing horror or high fantasy or low fantasy or steampunk or... what have you.

Then ask your players what sort of protagonists they want to create. Ideally the sky should be the limit, but since this game is so stat-heavy, obviously there are some limitations on what a basic beginner character can be and can do. Still, let your players create their protagonists however they want.... which means even if you were initially considering the world to have only humans, elves, and dwarfs, if this player seems particularly keen on playing a wookie or cat-person... let them! In fact, ask them for ideas of how their character's people exist in the world and interact with others.

I mean, ideally you want at least half of your party to be the most common of folk in the world and if that means you might want to adjust what the common races in your world are (you hadn't really had any particular plans for Drow or Orcs, but it turns out because of player choices they are common citizens in your world's civilization-- in fact, maybe Drow are the only sort of Elves there are) to accommodate this unless you want to alter your starting adventure hook (maybe they are part of a carnival or they are specifically pulled in because they are weirdos and outcasts), but if the other half of your party is made up of outcasts, travelers, slaves, oppressed minorities or what have you, it works just fine.

And not just their races, of course, but their backgrounds! Allow the players to shape what the world is like with their backgrounds. If they say something in their background, it is something that exists in the world. Engaged players who feel enabled to be creative will give you backgrounds that will add additional locations and characters to your world. Bring their enemies into the fold, endanger their families, put important clues into the hands of their friends (or bring back an old friend only for it to be revealed they are now an enemy!) If a player says it is part of the character, it exists in the world.

...snip...

Beyond that, your homebrew world should be where the adventure takes the characters from that point on. If you run a published module, then whatever that module needs to work now exists in your world. If you come up with your own thing, then add locations and people as necessary for it to work right.

Because, honestly, THAT is how authors build their worlds-- not independent of characters and story, trying to force those elements into it, but rather as the extension of the characters and story.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with the above. This is what's happening in my setting. It is highly restrictive with only 3 base races (5 others added over time) and greatly nerfed magic. Everyone got into and wanted to help create why the world is the way it is.

That helps me, because I can outsource some of the development.

While the PC was creating Maurice he said that he was a halfling from a small town (unsketched at that point) on the river north of the starting city. He described it as a thoroughfare connecting three major cities. That wound up being Fort Ooshar and sits on a road and river at the same time. Ooshar has a vertical port, as the river is a cliff and the bridge is part of the city. Maurice also said that his goal was to find his father. He created some story about how his father left on an adventure with a couple other townspeople, but only one came back alive. That one left the city.

Working with the player that one that abandoned his father is now part of the adventure, as a hostile leader of a street gang in Ooshar and a couple other cities.

Several other characters have helped with similar events, cultures, peoples. One of the characters from Mehmd convinced me that it has a pit-fighting culture and that rather than dogs, horses, etc they bond with lizards and dinosaurs.

By having other people help out it's meant that my world is much more alive than if I was doing this entirely on my own. We know that similar things happen in published settings too. They are not top-down dictatorial DMing, but instead are co-op living worlds that develop through the play-testers, home games and fiction of their creators.

TheHobgoblin said:

THAT is how authors build their worlds-- not independent of characters and story, trying to force those elements into it, but rather as the extension of the characters and story.

Click to expand...

"There are three rules for writing a novel. Unfortunately, no one knows what they are." - W. Somerset Maugham

I think you might find that the "how" of storytelling is as varied as there are authors.

Don't get me wrong, I think the advice you layout is very sound advice for a DM and leads to very fun games for those involved. However, I don't think it's the ONLY way to do it.

As to applying strictures to a campaign prior to character creation, from a storytelling standpoint, the setting is what creates the tone and theme of the story, and can frequently be used as the starting point of character development. As a hypothetical example, it's quite possible that Joss Whedon started Firefly off with the simple idea of "I want to write a show about Space Cowboys". He may have then had the thought, "I really want the focus to be on the nuanced relationship of human culture in this setting", at which point he decided that there would be no aliens in his setting, only humans. Then, he possibly decided that the best explanation for an expanse of terraformed worlds would be a unified central government that was power hungry, which would would of course lead to rebellion. Finally, he could ask himself, "What kind of characters would live in this world trying to survive on the fringes of civilization?" I'm not saying that this IS how he did it, but I'm saying it's an equally viable option to storytelling as starting with characters and working out from there.

Likewise, it is just as viable for a DM to set the tone and theme of the campaign setting prior to character creation, and it's equally good practice for players to practice developing characters that fit a specific setting, theme, and tone as it is good practice for DMs to adapt their setting, theme, and tone for their players.

As another thought, as much as I can appreciate a very strict campaign setting, I think it is something that probably best fits with a group that has been playing together for quite a while and the players and DM all have a good understanding of each other. I can't really imagine trying to successfully pull it off with players I'm not well acquainted with.

I don't mind a DM setting strict parameters on their game. I just want to know ahead of time so I can make an informed decision on if I want to play within those parameters or not.

Sword of Spirit said:

One thing that I see come up quite a bit online is a disagreement over how much setting control is appropriate for a DM to exercise. Usually it comes down to some people objecting to the idea of a DM setting up strict parameters without being flexible. It usually ends up with opponents of DM strictness essentially expressing that they think such DMs are selfish jerks, and are surprised anyone even wants to play with them.

As someone who is such a strict DM, this has continued to bother me because it’s quite contrary to my experiences as a DM or a player. Amazingly enough, my experience has been that players actually enjoy playing in such games.

I tried to address some of this in a thread on GMing as Fine Art over in the general RPG section, but it ended up becoming too much a semantic debate for me to continue to have interest in it.

Click to expand...

Like most debates, there's a middle ground.

If a player has a really cool character idea that they're excited for, it behooves the DM to try to work that into the world, helping the player make the concept fit even if it requires some compromise. Because the player's excitement will translate to excitement for the campaign.
On the other hand, the players also need to embrace the concepts and themes of the world and be willing to work with the setting, rather than trying to fight it or do their own thing.

The strictness also vary. If the DM just throws the restrictions at their players without seeing if they're onboard, that's a bit harsh. You do need to listen to your players and work with them. To see what type of game they're interested in. If they're not interested in a particular type of game then pushing for that is generally a mistake.