D&D 5E A thought/question for DMs about 5e...

[steeldragons]

To the DMs out there...and/or those who have a desire to DM in 5e...

How much is...or should...your game be a "World in which the Players' Characters live and adventure"?

OR, the flip side...

How much are the players responsible for setting the world in which they live and adventure?

OR...

Any variations/percentages/combinations thereof.

In other words, as a DM, your "job" is to present the world in which the PCs adventure...yes, and adjudicate and make it "fun" for your players and yourself (those are givens I think we can all, hopefully, agree with).

How much of that do you take as your responsibility and creation vs. how much to do "leave it open", so to speak, and let the players dictate and create the world in which they are adventuring...and then/thus "making" as they go along?

AND...

How much should 5e apply...in the system/crunch/rules...the parameters by which you, the DM, attempt to do that?

Discuss.

--SD

 

[Henry]

I'm not sure I understand the question, as it applies to 5E. Do you mean, "should 5E have shared story-game" elements, something like Fiasco or Burning Wheel, or do you meann something else?

Otherwise, 5E wouldn't likely have any more or less aptitude for any of this than any other game system. Myself, I prefer "sandbox" style, where players can go to anyplace and try anything (and let the dice help determine if they succeed or fail) but I prefer to keep the "facts of the world" as my sole purview, as in, "This kingdom has a Baron named Alpha, the state next door is a fledgling democracy, and that road to the mountains is haunted" instead of letting players supply new elements. I don't mind the occasional "yes, that room has a chandelier and a table" or "you can easily find an apple in the corner", but I have a blind spot when it comes to sharing the creativity of "big picture" elements, mainly because (1) my current players don't find that as plausible and engaging, and (2) previous bad experiences on my part, at least for D&D. If I were playing a game such as Fiasco, I would think differently of it, because shared story elements are built into the game play, but for traditional RPGs like D&D, Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu, etc. I tend to keep the world creation to myself.

 

[dkyle]

Depends on the intent of the campaign. It's important to understand where the "game" is.

Is the game about deciding which player gets narrative control at any one moment? Then the world can be mostly constructed by the players, even down to the NPCs and creatures they encounter.

Is the game about characters encountering things, and using the tools at their disposal to overcome them? Then the world as a whole could be highly player driven, but the encounters should be DM-created. Otherwise, the players are "solving" encounters they themselves created, which is rather empty, I think.

Is the game about exploring a world, and making your way through it? Then the world needs to be the creation of the DM.

 

[DMKastmaria]

I try to leave as much room for player input as possible. So, for instance, a cleric can invent his god/religion if he/she wants. Someone playing an elf is free to invent whatever details about elven society he/she likes, so long as I can make it fit with what's already known about the world. Which, in the beginning, isn't much.

Accommodating this sort of thing and getting my players involved is one of the reasons I do world creation from the bottom-up.

As for 5e, if the designers tie implied setting so tightly to the rules that changing things is problematic, or too bothersome, then I won't be running the game.

 

[Minigiant]

I pretty much go to rassle for tweak. The more I get to affect your character, the more you can affect my world.

Overall, I let players meddle with anything I didn't have plans or descriptions for already. There are 6 Kingdoms. You can't be from a Seventh. If you really want to be from another kingdom, know your homeland is a minor player in the world. Your customs are unknown. Your king or queen has little clout and you are viewed as a suspicious outsider or a funny foreigner.


But if they want to create a minor town as a rest spot and named the mayor and shopkeep fine. The second they relinquish control, they are mostly mine. At wish point I did if the mayor has a problem with the ale and leaves his house for a sip every night or not.

 

[Plane Sailing]

My preference has always been for "DM is in charge of creating the world and everything outside the character", both as a player and as a DM.

I don't mind if 5e supports and explains other ways of doing it as well, but I do hope that it supports the way I like too.

Cheers

 

[Lwaxy]

Depends on the group. There are groups where it is easy to create a world or build upon a world with (the new Orea group is such a one) and then there are groups who don't really have much interest in doing that and leave it up to me. And lots of variations.

Generally, I prefer my players to have some input over leaving it all to me. Even if they just say "I wanna play this or that, how do I do that?" That may mean creating a custom race/class/magic system/religion etc and with that, the player has already had an influence on the world. If there is one follower of Arbrachadned the Allseeing, then there will be more of his clergy somewhere. If there is one felinoid, others will exist. If there is one wizard not using vancian but mana points, he is unlikely to be the only one. Thus, the world has already be changed.

Same with background stories. So this fighter comes from a place destroyed by war and he's the only survivor? OK, let's add the battle to the world's history. Mom was a famous vampire hunter but the daughter just wants to follow the ways of her god? Sure, let's put in NPCs knowing her mother and judge her by it and let the bard's sing the mother's praise. PC is supposed to be a crazy mix of races? Let's add a mad wizard into history who experimented with breeding.

Small things, but they do influence the world.

If 5e would limit any of this and make it impossible to keep this flexibility, then it is not for me. If it is just the outline of suggested rules to expand upon, as I have done with all editions, then it is just fine, and buying it or not just depends on original content and my player's preferences.

 

[Mengu]

Don't care how much of the world is created by DM or players. Largely player dependent I suppose. In one of our games, players are more of the observer kind, so DM is creating almost 100% of it. In another game, through backgrounds we came up with we've had a good 10-20% influence on the world around us when we started the game.

How much should the system dictate? The system should aim to dictate 0% of the world. Period. It's a system, it's not a campaign setting. Campaign setting is in the hands of DM and players.

 

[delericho]

As DM, I create the world. I leave some room for player input, but it's all subject to my approval, and is fairly limited at that. Our group has several GMs - when others are running, they do their own thing. (So everyone gets a chance at world creation if they want it - but each in his own game.)

I see no reason this should change with 5e.

(Incidentally: that's just the way we do it. I'm not claiming it's the 'right' way, or advocating that other groups do likewise.)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

How much should the system dictate? The system should aim to dictate 0% of the world. Period. It's a system, it's not a campaign setting. Campaign setting is in the hands of DM and players.

Agreed. Not least because at the start of the campaign it may be heavily player driven, but become less so as we go. Or even vice versa. And certainly campaign A has all kinds of player driven elements, while campaign B is exactly a great big exploration sandbox with everything set by me.

It would be good for the system to acknowledge the range of desires here, lest subconscious and/or accidental bottlenecks creep in.