D&D General Do players REALLY care about the game world?

[overgeeked]

Like a lot of others, I've found that the players only care about the world if/when it directly matters to them in the moment. Tell them there's an order of battle mages and they'll yawn. Throw a squad of battle mages at them and suddenly they care. If you use the distinction between foreground and background, the players (and their PCs) generally only care about what's in the foreground. The background is irrelevant...right up until you bring it to the foreground. Another way to say it is unless it directly matters to the story at hand, it doesn't matter.

 

[overgeeked]

No player is going to care about your homebrew as much as you do. The DM spends hours making something and the players are mild to meh about it. There are times where one or two will be, that was cool.

I agree. They might come to care over time, through exposure to the setting in chunks that actually matter to them. But no fresh player really cares about the setting. Not until you make them care by bringing it into the game in a way that matters to them.

Mostly you make something cool and unique and a player will say, "That sounds just like such and such show that I remember".

With the caveat that nothing's really unique, it's always just a jumble of things we've previously seen, read, watched, etc and we're recombining them in new and interesting ways. So a player spotting your inspiration simply means you need to file off more of the serial numbers.

I switched to FR Sword Coast for 5e and played in Nentir Vale for 4e. This is partly work related reasons since I found that I could spend my limited time planning adventures and not world building so I could get the biggest bang for my time. There is also a part of having a world already built for you being better than the one you can make by yourself. I'm not saying that me or you do not have good ideas for a world or campaign, but generally they tend to mimic the ones already made.

I've found this to be situationlly true. Sometimes it's far easier to study an existing setting and work within it, other times it's far easier to not be constrained by the setting and create one as you go. For me, it's the difference in tone that I want in the game that makes the choice for me. If I want something grounded, I'll go with an established setting. If I want to really play up the fantasy, I'll go with a homebrew setting. There's nothing worse than running a setting that your players know better than you do. "That's not on the corner of X and Y, that's on the corner of Y and Z". Homebrew simply eliminates that as a potential problem.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

Great question in the OP. My answer in short is "No, no one cares about your game world. Not even the people playing it." In my own games, as an example, I've found that it's easier for me to take the Forgotten Realms and change a few elements to suit my taste than create a whole game world from scratch and effectively communicate that to my players. (That latter part being the most difficult.) Also, I've discovered that I really like 13th Age's strategy -- the campaign setting is intentionally "half-designed" so that DMs and players alike can shape it to suit their game. In my own campaign building I'm now trying to take a similar approach -- to intentionally leave gaps that will be filled in later by the players' action and stories.

 

[Stormonu]

That is not my experience. My players have memorized the names of countless npc's, most of the important deities, the name of the world, the names of various tribes, the names of several countries, and the names of several cities. For example, if I were to ask any one of them what the name is of the god of death, they would know the answer instantly.

I feel you're very lucky. I've run both homebrew and published worlds and short of one player who came in as a fan of the Forgotten Realms, I don't think any of my players over the years would remember much of anything about the game world.

Well, maybe anything other than Ravenloft and Strahd...

 

[THEMNGMNT]

As a tactic, a great way to communicate the lore of your world is through NPCs that embody that lore.

In other words, it's better to have an NPC talk about the ancient curse in the castle than have players find journals in the castle chronicling the curse. It's better still to have an NPC actually cursed by the castle. Better than that is for the NPC to be someone the players have a history with and care about. And best of all is if the NPC then takes actions that impact the PCs, for good or ill.

13th Age does something smart with the Icon system. The Icons are really just factions. But putting a face on the faction immediately gives it more emotional weight. It's more compelling for players to work for (or against) the High Druid than a circle of druids.

 

[Imaculata]

I feel you're very lucky.

I think you do need the right type of players for it, but there are ways to make the setting stick better with the players.

Weave names of deities into the plot and into descriptions of rooms. Have npc's often invoke the names of deities in common every day speech. Name squares and streets after saints and deities.

Give npc's names that are easy to pronounce and spell. Alliteration does wonders here. Names that have a lyrical quality to them, also help. Take a page out of George R R Martins playbook, and give lots of characters a nickname that is easy to remember. Like Jamie Lannister, aka The Kingslayer. Or you can do both, by giving a character a name that includes a nickname, and is an alliteration. Such as Scurvy Scarlet.

Name towns and cities after important landmarks, and be sure to often mention the landmark they are named after. I tend to frequently sneak them into my descriptions. Not a sunrise goes by, without me mentioning that the coastal town of Montcolere is in the shadow of a dormant volcano, and that fog rolling down the mountain ensures that the town is always shrouded in fog.

 

[Imaculata]

It's better still to have an NPC actually cursed by the castle. Better than that is for the NPC to be someone the players have a history with and care about. And best of all is if the NPC then takes actions that impact the PCs, for good or ill.

And if you want the name of the npc to stick, give them an unflattering nickname referring to the curse. If that nickname is an alliteration of their actual name, the players will remember both.

 

[jayoungr]

Matt Colville has a video on this. Basically, he recommends putting players in a situation where they need setting knowledge in order to progress:

 

[pming]

Hiya!

EDIT: It also occurs to me that "world of hurt" means different things to different people; to me, it doesnt' mean "death and dismemberment", but more of a Homer "DOH!" mental-anguish type of thing. Just needed to clarify that I think.

To me, this feels like the DM handing out homework, expecting me to memorize minor factoids, and then sneering at me if I don't remember minor details from some paper almost a month ago. And it goes against the idea that the characters are supposed to be individuals living in the game world instead of purely avatars for the players to play the game; whether the player remembers obscure details from the handout, the characters should know. I'm not saying 'you're a terrible DM and you shouldn't be allowed within 100' of a DMG' (this is clearly a legit playstyle), but I am saying that I would just stop playing in a game the first time 'you're in a world of hurt because you didn't remember specific information on the handout I assigned a month ago that your character would know' happened. I play games for adventure and general escapism, and this really would not hit the mark for me or a lot of people I know.

I can understand that perception. But then again, "anything" can be considered 'homework' if the person doing it isn't interested in it in the first place.

I mean, "Ok, you're new to D&D. Here's the main book for players...the Players Hand Book. Give it a look see, read what you want and think about the character you might want to play". <-- could be "homework" to some people. I actually had one player, a girlfriend of a friend, who was quite annoyed at having to actually read anything in the Basic Players Book (out of the Basic Box Set #1)...including what her character class actually was. She enjoyed playing, rolling dice and making decisions, you know, all the actual "game and roleplaying stuff". But getting her to read what the "Magic Missile" spell did...you'd swear we were asking her to read War and Peace!

As for ME and my DM'ing style... rarely (ever?...I can't remember it ever happening...) will a PC's "death" result from the Player not knowing XYZ about factoid ABC from country 123. It's usually just a benefit. I might say something in passing like, "...and at the end of the dock is a ship flying a flag of a black, four-pointed wavy star on a red field" after describing a few other ships with their flags. Now, if the PC's were involved in some "shenanigans" that involved trouncing a couple of Scarlett Brotherhood theives/assassins/monks a little while ago...this might give them a heads up to keep their heads down. But if the Player(s) DIDN'T recognize the standard on the ship...it's not going to "kill them"; it's just information that might give them a bit of a tip.

So, I guess you could say it's "good to be informed...but it's better to be lucky". As such, my players and our general "Play Style" is much more old-school, which involves a lot of questions. Newer players, I've found anyway, tend to rely on the DM feeding them the "needed information" for whatever quest/adventure they are on. Just yesterday I FINALLY managed to play with my bro and his group online (Fantasy Grounds Unity; 5e game). I could tell that all of the other players other than my bro and maybe one other guy, were all "new'ish" (re: learned with 3e or later). Very little in the way of "mundane questions"...usually their questions were specific to the immediate focus (re: "How far away is he from X?", "Is it a stone or wood fence?", etc). I think I caught them off guard when asking and doing stuff that had 'nothing' to do with the immediately obvious "pointer", but had to do with more NPC motivation, backstory, world info, city laws, etc.

Anyway...bottom line...: My Players might find the "world history/background/info" to be useful and beneficial to them...but not "necessary for success/survival". That's all.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[jayoungr]

I have to admit, the worlds I have been most invested in have been the ones with group creation.