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

[steeldragons]

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?

Not at all...at least, I don't think that's what I'm asking.

Maybe...in a way. How much should 5e being trying to tell you what your world should be/has to look like? But not even that...I'm asking, point blank, how much do you, as the DM, have/want control over the setting...and/or how much should/do you allow/want your players to contribute?

It's a pretty plain "DM-power/allowance" question.

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,

That's wut I'm tawkin' about.

...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.

Cool. That's what I'm looking for. You answered it thoroughly and admirably.

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.

I generally take charge of the deities, myself. Not saying that if a player wants to have a cleric PC of some god of stuff I haven't accounted for, I don't allow it...if it's not beyond the pale. A good few of my own world's, Orea's, deities came from player desire/input...from my, albeit limited, memory, the gods of the forest/wilds/animals, the sun/protection of travelers/change, and the goddess of winter were all player's contributions.

They didn't stipulate the religion or the mythology or anything...I worked all of that in...made it fit with the already occurring races, cultures, mythologies, but the fact they were a cleric of X, that was all them. Some liked how it turned out...some didn't. C'est la guerre.

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

Good reason.

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.

That's kind of what I'm getting at. How much is "too much"? How much, or none at all(!), should be included in the "default" 5e?

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

This is goooood. I like this. I don't think I've ever played it this way...I allow or add various things to the world as the players suggest or ask for them, but I like this line of thinking/never thought of it as "the more you add/the more I can affect your character". I've done it, I suppose subconsciously...but hearing/reading it in black and white, makes a hella lotta sense.

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.

This sounds imminently reasonable. I can't imagine players having issue with this. Though, I'm sure, there are those that would...existing somewhere.

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.

Good stuff. Let the players "make"/come up with the space...then take control of it. Me likey.

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

I am of the same mind. <Depeche Mode song begins to play in the background>The World is Mine...but don't tell me, 5e, in the books/"rules", the world has to be X or y.</Depeche Mode>

Again, imminently sensible. Do as you please...and, 5e, give me the tools/options to do so...or, at least, don't tell me I "can't" do it this way because it's somehow stepping on the PCs/"against duh rulz".

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)

Hoping it works out for you!

...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.

Just so...and likely not a small one. If/when my people came up with some element I hadn't detailed or thought of yet (and i like it/it's "good"), then it almost always becomes a solid staple of the game world.

I've had gods, religions, orders of paladins, "rules"/staples for spellcasting, any number of cultural notes, regional delicacies..regional resources, even a "class" or two become the norm for Orea...simply because of player creativity. I might, almost certainly in fact, "tweak" it or mold the explanation/background more into the existing vision of the world...but the player's contribution is by no means thrown aside. [Ok, in the case of completely divergent, overpowered, or simple nonsense ideas, they are thrown aside...] but all in all, pretty much all of my players can say they've contributed to the game world in some fashion. It's a question of knowing one's players/group, I suppose. Playing with "like minded people" and all of that.

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.

This is what I consider to be [part of] the beauty of D&D. I heartily hope 5e will provide the allowances for this, from the base/core on up.

As opposed to a buncha "rules" that mandate the DM do things "this way"...and incur the wrath of the rule-lawyers if they don't.

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.

Precisely. I find, in many cases, "it's the little things" that provide the most flavor. Sure, some of them might fall by the wayside...But, as a DM, I do attempt to bring them in to enforce their impact on the "living breathing immersive" world.

I had a pseudo-dragon familiar of a magist one time who prompted the wizard player to mention, "Mother has two"...done! IN the game. The same player "presumed" that the Polymorph spells (and I'm only reminded of this because of my Story Hour) were "forbidden curses" in her mage-run homeland. DONE! Into the world/story it goes...what are the OTHER forbiden curses? I don't/didn't know yet. But it's in there. You [the player] might benefit from this creation...you [the player OR DM!] may lament it later...but it's in there now.

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.

I am inclined to agree...which is kinda why I posted this as a thread. I expect other people's game-style will vary...but likin' what I'm hearin' so far! And hope that the 5e designers/developers are listening...oooOOOooo.

Thanks for the responses, all. Good stuff.
--SD

 

[dkyle]

Not at all...at least, I don't think that's what I'm asking.

Maybe...in a way. How much should 5e being trying to tell you what your world should be/has to look like? But not even that...I'm asking, point blank, how much do you, as the DM, have/want control over the setting...and/or how much should/do you allow/want your players to contribute?

It's a pretty plain "DM-power/allowance" question.

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.

That's kind of what I'm getting at. How much is "too much"? How much, or none at all(!), should be included in the "default" 5e?

I'm confused because these seem like different issues.

How much implied setting should the designers put into the base game, is very different from how much control players should have over the setting.


As far as implied setting, I prefer a very light setting, easily separated from the rules, since I basically never use published settings, and only buy RPGs for the rules. For example, I don't really like mechanics based on specific gods for divine characters. I'd rather have a bunch of theme options that divine characters can choose, that may or may not be directly evocative of their diety.

But, I don't really care much if there is a lot of setting. It's fluff. Fluff is easily changed. No book can ever prevent me from doing something as the DM. All it can do is tell me what some professional game designers thought was a good idea.

 

[the Jester]

For my playstyle:

The milieu is the bailiwick of the dm, not the players. Players should world-build through their characters- in other words, if you want there to be a guild of falconers and there isn't one in the culture you're from (or whatever), you should try to start one up.

 

[Lwaxy]

I had a pseudo-dragon familiar of a magist one time who prompted the wizard player to mention, "Mother has two"...done! IN the game. The same player "presumed" that the Polymorph spells (and I'm only reminded of this because of my Story Hour) were "forbidden curses" in her mage-run homeland. DONE! Into the world/story it goes...what are the OTHER forbiden curses? I don't/didn't know yet. But it's in there.

The in game additions are the most fun. Especially when they don't even kn ow they are doing it!

A while ago, I had a young man playing who was kind of a dirty mouth. The F and S words and various other not so nice saying came out of him frequently. This wasn't good as we had players under 12 at the table and I really don't need angry parents raiding my lair.

So I told him to make up substitute words for his fighter's bad behavior. One saying that kept popping up after that was "may the 9-eyed tree hugger get you."

A few month later, I ran out of monsters in a forest (and they didn't even have a magic user ) so I threw the 9-eyed tree hugger at them. "What's it look like? Ask Mike, he invented it..."

So on the spot we created a funny tree-shaped monster which was less dangerous than annoying as it would try to make you hug the trees. Kind of like an ent on drugs.

Someone had made a drawing of it but unfortunately I lost it in a move.

 

[Lwaxy]

For my playstyle:

The milieu is the bailiwick of the dm, not the players. Players should world-build through their characters- in other words, if you want there to be a guild of falconers and there isn't one in the culture you're from (or whatever), you should try to start one up.

But I would have a chance at succeeding?

 

[GM Dave]

I would agree that it depends on the campaign that I am running and the players that I am gaming with.

I have a brand new group of players with 3 to 4 players that are playing for the first time. In this situation, I've taken on most of the campaign details and have given very little freedom in the first couple of missions on what their objective for the adventure is to be.

I've started them with an amnesia situation and told them they were pulled out moments before their deaths to serve a mysterious organization that will happily return them to their deaths if they don't comply. They've had a bit of latitude to decide on how they died (I allow them to pitch suggestions that fit with their natures). I also adjust the story based on who has shown up on a week and what kind of characters and moods are present.

------------------------

The other campaign has an experienced group that has been gaming together for roughly five years though this is my first time GMing the full group (I've done fill in for some of the players when the regular GM and wife have been out with maternity leave).

I started this campaign by taking a blank sheet of paper, putting an X in the middle and then asking the players in turn to tell me; 'What is to the North? East? West?' I gave each a chance to give a one word description of an item that later players could add details to or create something new for the general map.

After the surroundings were created, I then had them answer questions on what was at the centre of the map. I asked them questions on why certain things were important, what kind of religion existed, how did magic work, who did people say was in charge and who was really in charge.

They even chose what races were working in the world by what races they choose for their characters and telling me what part of the world did the races call home.

I then worked with the players borrowing from the game Smallville to make relationship and conflict maps around the characters. We rolled randomly deciding on which characters had in some prior time worked together on a mission together and what kind of encounter that had been (borrowing from Fate/Dresden RPG).

I got from this several pages of ideas which I add to from time to time while advancing the ideas that the players started and pursue.

When players need an idea to pursue, I pull out a list of plot threads they can look into. I've also over time had them generate bits of family and connections to the town. This give further sources for story hooks and 'toys' for the players to play with.

This is my aim with the campiagn is to create a rich 'toyland' or 'toybox' of things the players can do. If they want to work on a mystery then I have several threads that I feed with a weekly series of 'rumours' (usually 3 to 4 is enough). If they want or don't want then their families will interact with them in different ways.

I've even did a session where two of the player's siblings (7 normally NPC characters) were distributed to the PCs to play an adventure (they went on a rescue mission to free two of the players that were in prison while the rest of the group was doing another adventure).

I'd say this game is 30% GM managed (I fill in the missing details and keep the NPCs moving on and off stage) and 70% Player actions and inspiration (they've created most of the details and have high buy in).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I don't think edition does, or should, drive style of gameplay.

As a DM and player, I prefer sandboxy-style games. I want a world there for players to interact with in whatever manner they see fit pursuing or ignoring plot hooks as they choose. I don't see that the design of the rules necessarily encourage or prohibit this style, or at least, not through the multiple editions of D&D rules to date.

It's up to the DM and players to establish the style of play. The rules are secondary.

 

[Lanefan]

One way in which the editions sort of tried to style the world in different ways lies in how many adventurers are booting around in it.

In the older editions it was pretty much assumed (and in fact hard-wired in to more than a few adventure modules) that the PCs were but one of many many groups of daring adventurers out there, and if they didn't do something someone else would.

In 4e it seemed the intent leaned more toward the PC party being the only real adventuring group in (this part of) the world - the only true heroes able to get things done. And while this certainly serves to put the focus squarely on the PCs, it doesn't make for as vibrant a setting IMO and makes replacement characters a real nuisance to justify.

Don't get me wrong - 4e's setting ideas are in general pretty decent, other than the whole PC-as-special-snowflake thing. I'd far rather play in a PoL setting than in 3e's much-too-developed Forgotten Realms, for example. But there have to be more adventurers than just the PCs.

Lanefan

 

[GM Dave]

One way in which the editions sort of tried to style the world in different ways lies in how many adventurers are booting around in it.

In the older editions it was pretty much assumed (and in fact hard-wired in to more than a few adventure modules) that the PCs were but one of many many groups of daring adventurers out there, and if they didn't do something someone else would.

In 4e it seemed the intent leaned more toward the PC party being the only real adventuring group in (this part of) the world - the only true heroes able to get things done. And while this certainly serves to put the focus squarely on the PCs, it doesn't make for as vibrant a setting IMO and makes replacement characters a real nuisance to justify.

Don't get me wrong - 4e's setting ideas are in general pretty decent, other than the whole PC-as-special-snowflake thing. I'd far rather play in a PoL setting than in 3e's much-too-developed Forgotten Realms, for example. But there have to be more adventurers than just the PCs.

Lanefan

This reminds me of a recent adventure that I ran with my one campaign group.

They had a story thread they had decided to pursue but it was at least a month in the game since the 'clue' had been handed to them.

I advanced the story and had determined the 'bad guys' had already pursued this thread and the players found the location had already been run through. They found some dead and decomposing bodies by various traps and the main aim of their traveling into this location was already looted by the 'bad guys'.

It gave them a sense that time was moving along and now they knew the bad guys were 'advancing' along with them. The bad guys had gained an advantage because they had chosen to pursue a different adventure.

The players still gain information from some the glyphs on the wall but they don't have the McGuffin which could be important later in the campaign.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I look at it as a two step process.

I have the world; basic themes I plan to address, tone, flavor, what countries are where, basic idea for what kind of adventures I want to run thematically.

Then I bring the players together, have a half session or three building characters and backgrounds, and tie them into the world I have mostly created. Usually while another game is being run the rest of the time of those session.

I take those characters, backgrounds and what the player's want and build the details of the world for them - adjust NPC organizations to fit player background. Flesh out the NPCs that will most likely be the ones to appear in the kind of stuff the players want to see for their character's adventure. usually takes a few weeks.

Basically I have a basic world (a simple cake) and then build all the details and such from the players (the frosting, spices or whatnot).

The final world is designed to be the world for these specific characters to adventure in, and be the leads in the book/movie/comic series of their actions.

As a rule we run long games - most run 5-6 years, and a few have lasted a decade or more. Having a long term stable group is fantastic. 20+ years with the same core 4 or so in the group, plus occasional fluctuation.


After the game starts, aside from a player (or players) saying "I'd love to run this kind of story arc for the character would you run something like that" out of session, the only influence the player's have in the world is through the actions of the character.