D&D General Collaboration With Your Players?

[prabe]

I have played and run games where the players had a lot of ability to write things into the game world. I came to find them ... well, I think because the worlds were so mutable I came to find the stories lacking.

My current approach is to give players a lot of ability (subject to negotiation and/or veto) to write things into the world as their characters' backstories (what happens before they join the campaign), but ... remarkably limited ability to do so once the campaign starts. That said, once the campaign starts the characters are welcome to change the world as much as they want, within the limits of their capabilities.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have played and run games where the players had a lot of ability to write things into the game world. I came to find them ... well, I think because the worlds were so mutable I came to find the stories lacking.

My current approach is to give players a lot of ability (subject to negotiation and/or veto) to write things into the world as their characters' backstories (what happens before they join the campaign), but ... remarkably limited ability to do so once the campaign starts. That said, once the campaign starts the characters are welcome to change the world as much as they want, within the limits of their capabilities.

Certainly, I grant that stakes can rapidly drain away if you have a total "anything goes" attitude. But I'd personally lay that at the feet of unwise use. After all, we have a word for worlds that are so immutable the story is lacking. We call that "railroading." (Or slightly less pejoratively "themeparking," where you can't decide how the ride will end but it is meant for your enjoyment.)

Every tool can be used unwisely, hence the old saw about keeping an open mind but not a vacant one.

 

[clearstream]

I put intermittently as the question seemed to be about what DMs in general do. I work in a DM-as-author mode, meaning that I do any needed world building and players live in that world.

Someone above used the term theme-parking, which I think can be true of published adventures, but not of open world campaigns. There is no requirement for players to be involved in creating a world, for them to be free to live as they like in it. And I do not believe participation in world building necessarily prevents being rail-roaded.

 

[ccs]

I'll go with frequently.

Most often the players are free to add nearly anything to the world. The more creative/interesting/personal the better & more likely it'll stick. Sometimes even if it really does contradict something else.

Sometimes though the players will run into stuff that's truly set & I'll veto the idea. Or ask for edits to it, taking into account facts xyz.
And sometimes I reject the idea but don't tell the player. Their character simply believes something that isn't true. Maybe they'll discover that fact during play. A prime example would be Player A & his idea of how the afterlife works.... He'll find out the truth if his character dies. {this detail is set because it influences things that the players have yet to consider AND I have future plans/ideas in case they TPK themselves.... Things that would not work under A's assumptions}

 

[Shiroiken]

Hard to say, as there's a pretty wide scope of how you define world building. I work with the players to develop their history within the existing setting, focusing on the large stuff. Specifics I often leave to the player to fill out, but review to make sure it still fits. Someone can name their hometown, for example, but not claim that they were an apprentice of Tasha.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I always not just permit it but actively encourage it; it adds to the richness of the world because even the real world is too big and interesting for me to fully visualise and it makes the players more engaged with their characters if they know who they are. How much I expect it depends on the game. Moving outside the D&D realm at the far extreme is Apocalypse World where the DM is instructed to come with nothing and you build things round the characters created in an expansive and collaborative session 0.

 

[Oofta]

I first put (colored) pencil to paper for the foundation of my world in high school. Things have morphed a bit because of world events and because I filled in blanks or tweaked the map, but players only add minor bits in design through background and history. The actions of their PCs can have major impact and have become part of the world's history.

While I DM more than I play, when I have played it's been either in published campaigns or in worlds that the DM created and often didn't have much in the way of world building in the first place.

 

[jgsugden]

I have a massive prime world, 12 times the size of Earth on the surface, plus a slightly smaller 'surface underdark' in a dyson sphere within the planet. In addition, there are other worlds in the universe that can be accessed with teleportation, teleportation circles, etc... So, when a player comes to me with a character idea, I give them free reign to create the backstory, and almost complete reign with the setting around their backstory. I may ask to tweak some names to fit it into an established location and NPC structure, or I may just create something entirely new around the skeleton they give me in a previously unexplored location.

I find this enhances engagement. It is something I've done for decades.

However, once a PC enters the world, the setup they've given me goes live, and interacts with the rest of the world around it. And, as these locations are tied to PCs, and we need conflict for PCs, there is often conflict wrought changes in what they set up soon.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Heck yes! Here's one of my favorite things to do:

Player: I want to learn more about this statue. What is the significance of the person depicted?

DM (didn't plan on statue being significant): You tell me! What is this a statue of?

Player: Um... It's a statue of a famous gnome barbarian drinking a skin of mead in one hand and slaying a minotaur with the other.

DM: Wow! (Starts thinking of ways to incorporate this famous gnome barbarian or minotaurs into future adventures)

 

[zarionofarabel]

I voted Almost Never as most of the players I've encountered simply don't care to add anything to the world. They wish to show up with a character they have put limited thought into and engage with the world on a limited level. At least, that's with most D&D only, player only types I've encountered. In systems other than D&D I find the level of engagement goes up, sometimes because the system forces the players to do it, sometimes because the players simply have access to more things that allow for increased engagement. I also find that players who also DM have a higher level of engagement.

But, yeah, for the average player that never does the DM thing, the level of world building they choose to engage in is very low.