D&D 5E World-Building DMs

[GainVanquish]

I'm happy to play in any scenario. I like that the DM has thought about how they want their world to run and evolve. I think it adds to the game personally

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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...

 

[iserith]

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.

So, lets instead look at it this way. How do you feel about playing D&D with a World-Building DM? A DM who builds a world with imagination and passion apart from any character concepts, and then invites you to come into and participate in it within its own parameters (which some might see as strict).

Of course, that question alone adds nothing to the discussion, because it just lets people identify which side of the “line” they are on. So let me rephrase it.

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?

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?

Replace those examples with any fantasy world you really like, and think about it.

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?

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.

I think being able to create a game setting, or even design a game, doesn't necessarily make someone a good DM. To me, what makes a good DM comes down to running the thing - imparting information, adjudicating fairly and consistently, improvising, managing spotlight, knowing what makes for a good story on the fly, and avoiding the common pitfalls. So, while I love the setting of Game of Thrones, GRRM might in fact be a godawful DM for all I know. And frankly, in my experience, most of the "world-building DMs" I've encountered over the years weren't very good at DMing, despite how much time and effort they put into their settings.

As to whether I would create characters and act within the given setting's parameters, yes, I would. However, I would find it awfully annoying to have to tease out information about the setting from the DM via asking questions all the time or having the DM hit me with "No, but..." every time I do something that might contradict something about the setting which hasn't been established yet. I find this an anathema to a good game experience and is more apt to occur in such a game than in mine where nothing exists that hasn't been established during play.

 

[sleypy]

Despite not having much interest in Tolkien's world, I think I would very much enjoy him as a DM.

I feel like I can't make a character without having some idea of what the world looks like, I would ask if I could play a weird race or class, but that is because I don't know that those things exist or not until the DM tells me.

I am concerned that when things that are fascinating to someone are not present they are too quick to discredit other worldbuilders that have put their efforts into another place.

Being a world builder myself, I find that there are aspects of the world building that I enjoy that on occasion differ from those of my Players. I don't put as much effort into geography or economics--I use artistic maps and have towns with a single export. In my experience, the Players that tend to care about those things are also world builders, and I lean on them for specific details when I flesh out the world. The parts or world building I enjoy and spend most of my time on are creatures and culture; bizarre/backwards technology; and magic items. I usually have GM friends come to me to bounce ideas about those types of things.

 

[TerraDave]

You find lots of arguments on the inter-webs..I think most players have a pretty limited interest in the world building side outside their immediate player concept. And like co-world builders, players with disruptive concepts they must play are much more common on the web then at the table.

Some times, me doing world-building inspires world building from the players (whether I encourage it or not). Part of being a world builder is accommodating that. And then turning it against them at just the right time, I mean everyone having fun. Everyone having fun.

 

[Marandahir]

The cool thing about Tolkien as a world builder was that he was a constant revisionist.

Something new and interesting come into the stories he's telling? He'd then think about the ramifications of this new element upon the setting at large, and then ripple them out to a complete new vision for the world.

Now, these new ideas were things he encountered as he was carrying out the exercise of writing. He was writing solo, and the ideas were his (though he has clear influences from mythology, earlier literature, etc). For the sake of the experiment, let's assume he LIKES D&D; he'd probably hate it by and large as per his essay "On Fairy-stories" where he eviscerates the modern fantasy genre as being all style and no substance, as taking the blueprints of fantasy with elves and dwarves and a Dark Lord but lacking the meaning that makes fantasy real. So, let's say he's cool with D&D as long as it's not just a carbon copy. Let's say even that Gygax and Arneson didn't make the game, Tolkien did, as a way of developing his world and stories.

Putting that all past, I think Tolkien would be an excellent DM. Just like he takes in the random new ideas that "come walking out of the woods" to him when he's written himself into them, such as Faramir appearing as the brother of Boromir or Aragorn emerging from this character that was at one point a wooden-shoe wearing Hobbit (Trotter), Tolkien would also take the ideas of the players quite seriously and mold the world to fit their stories. He was hardly a top-down world-builder. While he revised the world to fix geographic issues and revised his stories to fit the new geographies, geography was primarily design to fit the needs of the story. He's a bottom-up world-builder, following the needs of the story as it unfolds. "Lord of the Rings" originally was supposed to end at the Necromancer's Tower in Dol Guldur in southern Mirkwood, and Tolkien thought he was half-way done when he got Frodo Baggins (or rather, Frodo's storyform predecessor, Bingo Baggins) to Rivendell. It was only as they faced more and more complications in the story as they travelled east and south that the story unfolded itself to be a much larger, more complicated issue. The campaign expanded. Boromir's appearance at the Council of Elrond was the origin point for the Land of Gondor. The whole story of Isildur and the Ring and the Last Alliance of Gondor and Elves was something that Tolkien revised later. When Boromir appeared at the Council to give it a Mannish representative who wasn't from Lake-town, his country of Gondor became an important plot point that Tolkien decided to follow – a siege of the City of [G]Ond, which would take place around the same time the heroes reached Dol Guldur in southern Mirkwood. Gondor was supposed to be built near the southern borders of Mirkwood at the time. But as Boromir joins the Fellowship, his character starts evolving to the point that he causes the Breaking of the Fellowship, and then the world starts developing into new forms. The story must be larger now that everyone's going in every which way. We're still not at Sauron's fortress or Gondor, so eventually we all have to get back together for these things. But the "tale grew in the telling," as Tolkien says.

That's classic D&D storyforming, there. Let's also not forget that he was very particular about getting details right. He researched phases of the moon in order to get his timelines for different narratives aligned. He researched how to make rabbit stew so he could feature it in a scene. He painstakingly explored aspects of history and economy and culture for various elements of his world that never would see the light of day, just so that he could give a greater depth to the setting and could draw upon them when necessary. Tolkien would be an excellent DM, if he thought the medium was a good one to explore his languages and stories and worlds.

 

[Bawylie]

For me, DM-ing includes 3 broad categories. Organization & Admin, Writing (including adventures, campaign, world, etc), and Running a table.

I've played under people who were good at 2 of 3 and neglected the 3rd. I've rarely played with someone who was top notch at all 3.

I can live with DMs that are good at Running & Organizing. I can live with DMs that are good at Running and Writing.

I can no longer tolerate a DM who isn't good at Running, even if they're a genius at writing and organizing.

I recognize each DM brings a particular interest and passion to their game. But being good at one of these 3 things isn't good enough. And being excellent at one (at the expense of the other 2) doesn't necessarily make you an excellent DM.

If all you can do is Run, I'll enjoy your one-shots but not your campaign.

If all you can do is organize, I'll be there, but we're going to Peter-out.

If all you can do is write, I may love your setting, but I won't necessarily enjoy playing in it.

Really, even if you identify as "Im a world building DM" it's the practice at developing the skills in other areas - areas you're not passionate about - that separates mediocre DM-ing from Great DM-ing.

Git Gud.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I’d be perfectly fine with those sorts of constraints, provided I can still interact with the world in a meaningful way. That is to say, using the Westeros idea, if I was playing Sandor Clegane and decided to try to fight my way through to save Robb Stark, I’d want to have a chance at it, rather than being told “that’s not how it goes.”

DMs that create worlds with restrictions can work well, provided they don't unbalance the game (i.e., all wizards can cast fireball at 1st level, or something like that). But in my experience, many players do mind it, or make little attempt to match their play style to the game.

 

[Phantarch]

I have been playing in an extremely restricted campaign setting for the past 8 years. We take breaks now and again to play different minicampaigns and such, but our main game is a 3.5 game that is essentially limited to Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Battle. And all of the players have really enjoyed it and not had any complaints about being restricted. I think there are a few reasons for this.

Firstly, the players were asked if they'd like to play this campaign. Knowing that it was our choice to join in certainly helps (and all of our campaigns tend to start with a pitch for an idea to see if everyone is interested).

Secondly, the restrictions were very explicitly laid out from the very beginning, with a ton of in-game information as to why the world was the way it was. Our DM put together a very detailed campaign book explaining it all, so we knew exactly what to expect from the beginning. You didn't have that feeling of asking to play stuff and then being told no, because the expectations were totally laid out before asking what you could and couldn't play.

Finally, I think it's knowing that this is one campaign. If the only DMing you will ever do is in your one very restrictive world, you better plan on having a steady rotation of DMs or players. And it doesn't even have to be short term. As I've said, I've been playing this campaign for 8 years. However, taking breaks to play different short campaigns (and different game systems) has been key for increasing player creativity and satisfaction. Also, we are nearing the end of the overall campaign, and looking forward to picking something COMPLETELY different for our next major campaign. This might be equally restrictive and might last for another 8 years, but it won't be the same.

 

[Manbearcat]

I've never found this to be the case.

I've had players create mentors for PCs, families, secret organisations, social systems (for cities, dwarves, orcs etc), gods, myths, and other stuff that I'm not thinking of at the moment. As a GM, it's not that hard to incorporate this stuff into the challenges with which I confront the players (via their PCs).

Ditto. Low prep, low resolution settings that get fleshed out during play, and allowing players some measure of authorship does not automatically correlate to incoherency with respect to the spatial/temporal aspects of play nor story continuity. There are typically some other ingredients that spoil the meal (such as fatigue/weariness, lack of consistent play, poor GM information organization and improvisation, some breach of social contract).

I think being able to create a game setting, or even design a game, doesn't necessarily make someone a good DM. To me, what makes a good DM comes down to running the thing - imparting information, adjudicating fairly and consistently, improvising, managing spotlight, knowing what makes for a good story on the fly, and avoiding the common pitfalls. So, while I love the setting of Game of Thrones, GRRM might in fact be a godawful DM for all I know. And frankly, in my experience, most of the "world-building DMs" I've encountered over the years weren't very good at DMing, despite how much time and effort they put into their settings.

As to whether I would create characters and act within the given setting's parameters, yes, I would. However, I would find it awfully annoying to have to tease out information about the setting from the DM via asking questions all the time or having the DM hit me with "No, but..." every time I do something that might contradict something about the setting which hasn't been established yet. I find this an anathema to a good game experience and is more apt to occur in such a game than in mine where nothing exists that hasn't been established during play.

Agreed with all of the above. Couple thoughts:

1) GMs who devote so much labor, love, and attention to their setting or their metaplot have a (quite natural) tendency to make those things the primary locus/fulcrum/linchpin of play. The mover/shaker:backdrop/color paradigm has a not uncommon tendency to become inverted (or at least uncomfortably muddled). That can be a huge breach of social contract if the players expect the opposite.

2) What you note in the second paragraph has a tendency to become rife. Inhabiting the emotions and sensory experience of an actor in any given situation becomes extremely difficult when your orientation to the world around you must constantly be vetted through the GM by and is beholden to a process of correction > question > clarification (etc). The other not-so-good byproduct of this is that it slows the action down tremendously.

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.

As above, it isn't about that for me as a GM. I'm extremely confident in my ability to run high-resolution-setting games. I've run many Forgotten Realms games with players who adore the setting. I can manage the overhead that comes with it perfectly fine. I just find it puts players who don't have access to the high-resolution-setting information in a precarious, insecure position, leading to 2 above.

And personally, I get no emotional/entertainment return for either preparing or for running such settings. It is many times more difficult to "play to find out what happens", the pace of the game has a tendency toward crawling (or a brisk walk when done well and the group has good chemistry) rather than humming along, and the continuum of the focus of play can move further from focusing like a laser beam on "the conflicts the PCs care about, their thematic actions with respect to those things, and its attendant fallout" and more towards "setting as theme park so all these bells and whistles and NPC power players each need their due screen-time (because I think they're cool and to legitimize all the friggin work I put in outside of play!)".

I think such situations work best (a) as pemerton depicted above (short arcs) or (b) in a case of Forgotten Realms where EVERY....SINGLE...PLAYER has emotional buy-in to the setting and they're psyched about the "theme-park" aspect of play, they're ok with their agency being somewhat muted or infringed upon (due to the heightened role of the setting and the metaplot relative to the PCs), and perfectly fine with a relaxed pace.