D&D 5E World-Building DMs

[hawkeyefan]

I consider myself a world builder DM as described in the OP. However, I can't imagine a game where I didn't allow any input from my players. Sure I've put more work into the game than the player, but it's still their game too. I think collaboration is pretty easy in this regard. Simply talk to each other and you can work something out. A little compromise on both sides and usually you're all set.

Also, I find inspiration in what my players offer. Some of my favorite moments of DMing are when I'm able to take something one of my players has come up with and dovetail it into what I've written. One time, against my better judgment, I let a player play a mind flayer as a PC. Turned out to be a great idea. The character is still an NPC in our ongoing campaign.

I used to be much more closed off to letting the players have large input. But I faced the fact that I'm not writing a novel...we're all playing a game. Those two things are very different, and what's good for one isn't always good for the other.

 

[ProgBard]

Aha! This is another statement that I'm glad came up. (I think I'm seeing some real progress in getting past some of the misconceptions through this thread.)

Your statement makes a lot of sense. So I thought about it and figured out what I think is missing from the equation.

Compare running a game to opening a restaurant. You can open a restaurant (say, a pizza place) that almost everyone will enjoy to some degree. Or you can open a French restaurant, or a barbeque place where everything on the menu is spicy, or some other restaurant that will simply delight some people, but others will have no interest in.

So that's what my estimation is of what is actually going on in these scenarios. It's not a binary enjoy/don't enjoy thing. <...>

Now, I'm a passionate and intense person, so that definitely is a matter of preference. But I don't see it as fundamentally selfish to cater to a smaller group that will derive great value from something rather than a larger group that will derive good value from it. I mean, we are talking about role-playing games, which are pretty much as a whole an example of that very phenomenon.

And this reframing gets no argument whatsoever from me. It does feel, though, like a very different angle from the original question, which felt like trying to figure out of the DM or the player is more out of line if the player objects when the DM nixes his elven cleric for an all-human, no-gods campaign.

You don't really need to take it to the level of calculating Standard Fun Units for everyone at the table; if everyone is having some level of a good time, all is well (especially if the players who aren't quite as passionate in sharing the DM's vision also get to play in the kind of games they most enjoy). If you have clear communication, and everyone's in agreement, then run with it. Nor is there anything wrong with floating a proposal that you know isn't going to be to everyone's taste and making it understood that there are no hard feelings if anyone wants to sit it out.

I think "selfish or not" is the wrong question. As I may have hinted upstream there, gamemastering is in many ways an inherently egocentric pursuit. So is worldbuilding. That's okay. The impulse of your inner six-year-old to say "Look at this thing I made! Isn't it awesome?" is right in the tender, fragile heart of every creative pursuit ever. The worldbuilder isn't wrong to be proud of their work. The GM isn't wrong to be proud of theirs. The only catch is that there will always be someone whose response to your inner six-year-old's creation is going to be, more or less, "I am not the audience for this." And that's okay too. It sucks when that's one of your friends who you were hoping to instill with delight instead, but so it goes. It may help to understand what expectations of theirs you might not have taken into account, or it may not; but you can't talk someone into digging what they just aren't gonna dig. Find the folks who are your audience, if you can, and delight them. Anything more than that is almost certainly beyond what you can reasonably expect.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I would love to see the situation where you tell Steve that he can not play your game because Mary enjoys it twice as much as he does.

Although it would allow you to score higher in the Competitive RPG Enjoyment Tournament though.

What I've actually done is send out an email telling my player base about 4 theme adventures I was going to be running in the next yearish (overly optimistic time estimate it turned out, but not relevant). I asked them to let me know their relative levels of interest in each of the campaigns, plus their available play times. With that information I put together an Excel sheet. I then determined who would be able to play in which games based on how well things intersected and making sure everyone got to play the ones they most enjoyed. I then sent out individual invitations to each player, telling them which games they have reservations for. I also let them know that not having a reservation doesn't mean you don't get to play in a game, it just means those spots will be filled from the remaining players who are interested and available closer to the time of the game.

But in effect, if Steve told me he had average interest in all four of the games, and Mary told me she was super gung-ho about one particular game, and the other players were also pretty excited about that game (more so than Steve). Then yeah, absolutely Steve didn't get to play in that one because Mary was twice as excited. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

What I've actually done is send out an email telling my player base about 4 theme adventures I was going to be running in the next yearish (overly optimistic time estimate it turned out, but not relevant). I asked them to let me know their relative levels of interest in each of the campaigns, plus their available play times. With that information I put together an Excel sheet. I then determined who would be able to play in which games based on how well things intersected and making sure everyone got to play the ones they most enjoyed. I then sent out individual invitations to each player, telling them which games they have reservations for. I also let them know that not having a reservation doesn't mean you don't get to play in a game, it just means those spots will be filled from the remaining players who are interested and available closer to the time of the game.

But in effect, if Steve told me he had average interest in all four of the games, and Mary told me she was super gung-ho about one particular game, and the other players were also pretty excited about that game (more so than Steve). Then yeah, absolutely Steve didn't get to play in that one because Mary was twice as excited. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I do something similar quite frequently, basically at any time I have more than one idea that I am interested in running.

What I do is make a list of each idea, just a title for ease of reference, what game system would be used, and a one- to two-sentence blurb covering the idea and theme of the campaign. Then I print a copy for each player, have them rate how interested they are in each from 1 to 10, and I total up those ratings to see which campaign idea the overall group is most excited about.

The process isn't entirely straight-forward though, because I have some players that are only available 1 night a week, some that are available 2 nights a week, and some that are available 3 nights a week, and I account for that when analyzing their votes to fill up each schedule slot and determine back-up games for when not all scheduled players are in attendance.

 

[Asatania_GM]

I'm an unrepentant world builder. My fictions may not be Tolkein or Martin, but world building is the part of D&D that I enjoy. I don't take much pleasure in DMing pre-made content, but I love watching how groups interact with what I've developed.

Often they surprise and inspire me to follow threads that I wouldn't have otherwise, but there is always a story going on around them. I set choices and quandaries in front of them and then mold the story and its characters around their actions and reactions. I use a combination of set pieces and improvisation but I try to keep a keen eye on how the world around them will view and adapt to them.

But, I don't attempt to make a completely open sandbox for them to play in - that's just not interesting enough to get me to DM week in and week out.

I tell players before they join one of my campaigns about the structures of the campaign world. They won't be on rails but I do expect that they'll be working towards dealing with the main plot lines and themes of the campaign. If that's not what they are looking for, I discourage them from joining. But, I've always found its a DM's market out there. Far more people want to play than want to DM, so I always seem to be able to find people that are excited to play what I'm offering.

 

[S'mon]

But, I don't attempt to make a completely open sandbox for them to play in - that's just not interesting enough to get me to DM week in and week out.

I tell players before they join one of my campaigns about the structures of the campaign world. They won't be on rails but I do expect that they'll be working towards dealing with the main plot lines and themes of the campaign.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?473017-World-Building-DMs/page12#ixzz3ssPPMy4Y

I think of my Wilderlands campaign as a completely open sandbox, but I do expect that the PCs are adventurers and interested in adventuring. They could have ignored the big 'theme' of the Neo-Nerathi invasion, and focused on dungeon-delving for loot. But if they just wanted to get married, have kids and live quietly as farmers then their PCs would either be retired, or I'd just skip forward in time to when the Neo-Nerathi undead army attacks their farm - 'plants vs zombies'?

 

[Hussar]

I see a couple of things here.

1. There's nothing wrong with setting baselines for a campaign. You, the DM, pitch the concept to the players, get their buy in and we're all good to go. In my next Primeval Thule campaign, I am going for a very specific feel - very low magic. So, I flat out stated that all classes with at-will casting are off the table. Not that you can't play any sort of caster, one of the players pitched the Witch Hunter class to me and I'm groovy with two of the three subclasses. There was some back and forth on this, but, I got the buy in from the players and so, we're all on the same page. I would be pretty annoyed if someone then pitched me a Sorcerer at this point.

Once the buy in is there from the players, generally, most problems go away.

2. Where I tend to fall off the train is that I see a lot of problems occurring AFTER character generation. Let me spin a tale. Oooh, gaming story.

Years ago, in a 2e game, I was playing a Necromancer using the Necromancer's Guide (2e). I forget the name of the kit, but, basically a mad scientist type. It was my (clearly) stated goal that I wanted this guy to be a researcher, pushing the boundaries of magic and making some new spells. I spent several levels (and many weeks of play) finding a lair, stocking it with a library and laboratory (all rules pulled from the 2e Complete Wizard) and, around sixth level, I was good to go.

I wrote up a new spell - an improved Unseen Servant (I was going with the idea that my necromancer was using spirits to do his bidding) with a bit longer duration and some minor attacks. Nothing too major. The DM was fine with it. Nothing overpowered. So, using the 2e Wizard's Guide, I calculated my chances of successfully creating a new spell after two or three weeks of in game time. Something like 30% as I recall. If you failed, you burned money and time, but you could try again.

DM: No, that's not right.
Me: I think so. See, here, I do this and this and this, yup, 30%. Can I roll?
DM: No. Creating new spells is something only very powerful wizards should do. You have a 3% chance of success.
Me: But, my entire player concept centers around the idea of making new spells... this is a major change to my character.
DM: Doesn't matter. I don't want a bunch of new spells in the game.
Me: But, you didn't have a problem with this spell five minutes ago.

Back and forth, and the DM stuck to his guns. Completely nerfed my entire concept, after weeks of play.

So, when people on online forums talk about how the DM is always right, and the campaign is 100% under the control of the DM and whatnot, it does tend to fly up my left nostril. Because, by the arguments put forward by [MENTION=6677017]Sword of Spirit[/MENTION] and others, I should have just nodded and smiled and not been the slightest put out by having a DM flush my character down the toilet. I made a character whose entire schtick was creating new spells. Not spend level after level trying to make a single third level spell for the entire campaign. Talk about frustrating.

I guess my basic point is, no, the campaign is not always 100% under the ownership of the DM. DM's make mistakes. DM's don't think of everything. None of us do. And putting your campaign world ahead of what the player's want is almost always (presuming good faith on the part of the player) a very bad idea. When your players are enthusiastic about an idea, run with it. If it runs roughshod over your campaign world? So what? Make up new stuff. That's what world building is all about.

My advice to DM's is to never presume that your ideas are better than those of your players.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think in that situation, unless there was a lot more going on, the DM was definitely wrong. I don't know what he was thinking. Did he not realize what your character entailed?

One of the main reasons I strive so much to make sure expectations are clear and understood at the beginning is so that sort of thing doesn't happen. Once a character is approved, they are approved. I've been in similar (though less extreme) situations as a player, and it straight up sucks. Nobody wants to be told what their character can or can't do, is or is not, after they've already been created and played.

If, as a DM, there was some misunderstanding and I didn't realize what the PC concept was going to be doing (whether because I misread the rules, or whatever) until after he'd been approved and played, I would have felt obligated to come up with some way to honor the social contract without messing up my world. In that sort of situation, I would have apologized for my misunderstanding, explained the way my world works, and then asked the player if he would be okay if we thought of a story reason for his PC to be a special exception to allow him to do more than is normal. For instance, we might say that the reason he can pull off more spell creation than normal is because he stumbled upon some rare ingredients that significantly enhance spell research, or an artifact, or a tome of ancient secrets from a bygone age, or some such. I'd also offer him the alternative of bringing in a new character if (for some odd reason) part of his concept required that everyone in the world could do what he's doing. I wouldn't change my basic assumptions about magic in the campaign, but I'd take responsibility for the misunderstanding and not hose the character that was created and played in good faith.

Now, maybe I'm odd, but I don't really see myself as all that unusual in this respect.

 

[Phantarch]

I agree. In that situation, as described, the DM is definitely in the wrong. I admittedly had been coming at this whole discussion from the perspective of starting a new campaign, but that does bring up an interesting side point about a game that is already in progress. One more reason to make sure that player's and DM's both are very clear about their intentions from the beginning. I would be seriously upset if I felt like I was completely clear about my intentions from the get go and my DM changed his mind mid-campaign. This is one of the reasons why I try to have a complete level 20 build at the start of the campaign. It may change as play continues, but I at least have a clear concept of everything that I need to clear with the DM from the beginning.

As a devil's advocate, I can also see a situation where a person gives a general description of their character concept that gets approved by a DM, but the player has intentions of using questionable material without getting it approved beforehand by the DM. For example, 3.5 had the Vow of Poverty feat that many a DM had banned, and I imagine that quite a few didn't necessarily feel the need to spell out that they were banning the feat at the beginning of a game. If a player pitches their concept of a Monk serving Ilmater who gives away his treasure to take care of the poor, a DM could easily approve this and think nothing more of it. If the player after the fact tried to add the Vow of Poverty feat, I'd say it's well within the DM's right to squelch it, no matter the arguments of "but it's part of my character concept that you approved!".

That may sound extreme, and diverges from the argument a bit because it's more about rules and power than setting and concept, but I have read plenty of forum posts where people either imply or flat-out state that they are going to try and sneak something past their DM.

Anyway, the only real point of that long diatribe is where I started: It's important for both DMs and players to be clear and honest about their entire expectations at the start of the campaign.