D&D General Collaboration With Your Players?

[EzekielRaiden]

Forking off of the more specific threads about races in D&D, this particular component has intrigued me. Having players contribute to worldbuilding activity is something I've always seen in every game I've played. To hear that not only do some groups avoid it entirely, but a few even consider this outright bad DMing (to the tune of "why am I doing your job for you")...well, it was a shock, to say the least.

So let's talk about it. What does your group do? Obviously this isn't a survey of any objective measure, but I'd like to get some sense of where the ENWorld community sits.

Note that when I say "worldbuilding," I mean...pretty much anything beyond the bare-bones "you needed parents and a birthplace" stuff. Inventing a school you attend(ed), a former megacorp employer you hate, adult children that are now off doing their own thing, a particular sect you belong(ed) to...that's all at least a small piece of worldbuilding. As the other thread demonstrates, playing a particular race or class might qualify, as might having some kind of special ability, a connection to a powerful force/being/office, or a special or important item. Things that imply cultural, historical, geographic, or magical context beyond the character, more or less.

 

[iserith]

Generally speaking, players are free to establish anything in my games that doesn't contradict something that has already been established as it pertains to their characters. Want to say that it was not only orcs that killed your parents, but these orcs right here? Great, let's roll with it and see where this goes. If, however, you already established that some other orcs killed your parents and these aren't those orcs, then you can't do that because it would be a contradiction of previously-established fiction.

This extends somewhat to the environment where it makes sense to, particularly when it builds on something the DM has already described, the classic example being the chandelier in the tavern that is assumed to be there by all but wasn't specifically mentioned by the DM.

The general rule of thumb is I want the players to add to the world when they are inspired to do so, but they should do so in good faith and with an eye toward achieving the goals of play - fun for everyone and the creation of an exciting, memorable story by playing.

 

[Zardnaar]

They can, most of the things me they don't.

As long as they're not trying to outright contradict the big picture I don't care if they flesh out their hometown or whatever.

If fire magic doesn't exist for example they can't change that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Generally speaking, players are free to establish anything in my games that doesn't contradict something that has already been established as it pertains to their characters. Want to say that it was not only orcs that killed your parents, but these orcs right here? Great, let's roll with it and see where this goes. If, however, you already established that some other orcs killed your parents and these aren't those orcs, then you can't do that because it would be a contradiction of previously-established fiction.

This extends somewhat to the environment where it makes sense to, particularly when it builds on something the DM has already described, the classic example being the chandelier in the tavern that is assumed to be there by all but wasn't specifically mentioned by the DM.

The general rule of thumb is I want the players to add to the world when they are inspired to do so, but they should do so in good faith and with an eye toward achieving the goals of play - fun for everyone and the creation of an exciting, memorable story by playing.

Personally, I would say that this counts as "always," but I didn't let people change votes for a reason. You always let them participate, it just has to meet the (extremely lenient) requirement of "logical/chronological consistency."

Perhaps turning the above into a question, rather than a statement: Are there any situations you can think of where you would reject worldbuilding that was logically consistent and fitting to the timeline? That is, not just "it has to make sense" but "cause must come before effect" and "the same exact event can't happen at two different points in time. For example, unless you got adopted, your mom can't have died both when you were eight and just before you set out to make your fortune as an adult. Or you couldn't have cast a carefully-researched spell to trap a devil before you attended Wizard school. Etc.

 

[Helldritch]

I voted rarely but in certain circumstances it might become a prerequisite. In my home brew campaign, there are very few races. And of the "evil" only orcs, goblins and hobgoblins are there. If a player would want to play a Loxodon, it would be straight no. Just as playing a standard elf is dependant on the back story. But if the player wants to flesh out the barony of his father, go ahead and it will be incorporated into the campaign. The continuity of the world is very important for me.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Questions for clarification.
1) Should I answer depending on my experience only with D&D, most of which was many years ago with a single unchanging group of players, or should I include all my years of experiences with several different groups?
2) Would you consider "Depends heavily on players, system, and group dynamic" to be Sometimes OR Other?

 

[The Green Hermit]

I put rarely, because I don't build from scratch. I use a published adventure. However, my players have a lot of say in what the next adventure will be.

 

[Randomthoughts]

I voted Sometimes b/c of the last part ("depends on the specific game/situation). For my current 5e homebrew, which is inspired from a mix of Nentir Vale, Middle Earth and Greyhawk, player input on world building is pretty high. Their selection of races impact what major races will be high lighted in the campaign (at least, that's the plan). Their backstories, PC goals and (of course) actual decisions in the game set the direction of where the campaign will go.

But in a past (4e) Dark Sun campaign, players had a lot less input into the setting, given its fairly prescriptive aspects (e.g., no gnomes).

I also assumed this pertained only to D&D (as some games, as you know, have player collaboration baked into world building).

 

[iserith]

Personally, I would say that this counts as "always," but I didn't let people change votes for a reason. You always let them participate, it just has to meet the (extremely lenient) requirement of "logical/chronological consistency."

Perhaps turning the above into a question, rather than a statement: Are there any situations you can think of where you would reject worldbuilding that was logically consistent and fitting to the timeline? That is, not just "it has to make sense" but "cause must come before effect" and "the same exact event can't happen at two different points in time. For example, unless you got adopted, your mom can't have died both when you were eight and just before you set out to make your fortune as an adult. Or you couldn't have cast a carefully-researched spell to trap a devil before you attended Wizard school. Etc.

I chose "Sometimes or Intermittently" because I'm considering all the games I run which includes with my regular johns and with pickup groups. With pickup groups, I tend to go with a more traditional role for players which does not include this sort of thing. There are exceptions, of course. I recall a fairly recent pickup group I ran where this whole subplot got built and resolved within the scope of a 4-hour one-shot. Feedback on the session was that a lot of players couldn't understand how I prepped all that memorable content that seemed tailored to that character and still made sense in the context of the scenario. Well, as I explained, I didn't - I improvised all of it by just building on what I was picking up off one of the players.

As to your question, I'm not inclined to reject anything out of hand and, because my regular group is very much on the same page, there's unlikely to arise anything that wouldn't meet our shared understanding. And if it did, we could just quickly hash it out to have it make sense to everyone, adding whatever details were necessary so we didn't have to say "No." When one is used to playing with a "Yes, and..." mindset, this gets easier and easier to do over time.

 

[Maxperson]

I voted rarely, since I other than some very rare exceptions, I only let them make NPCs, villages, etc. during their background creation, and I have veto power if they go overboard with something(half the villagers are transformed dragons for example). I almost went with sometimes, but it seemed like you meant that to be for more creation ability.