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

[Charlaquin]

Players care about things that are directly relevant to them. Most world building details aren’t directly relevant to the PCs most of the time, so players don’t usually care about them. But when/if they do become relevant, the players will care about them.

 

[Ixal]

Sadly most do not seem to care much, or at least less than I would want them to.
Which is why many companies go for the "rule of cool", even when it hurts versimilitude and the internal logic of the setting. Because they know that most players will never interact with the setting in depth as long as they have a location to go to, things to murder and look good while doing so.
Paizo APs and Settings are one example for this, but it also applies to most D&D settings and adventures.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Which is why many companies go for the "rule of cool", even when it hurts versimilitude and the internal logic of the setting.

Which might be why I'm contemplating sticking the Keep on the Borderlands in the Savage Frontier on the Sword Coast in Faerun! LOL.

 

[GuyBoy]

I care a lot about the world, both as a player and DM, and also regardless of whether the setting is homebrew or commercial. Part of that might be from my background lecturing in global politics, which makes me a bit of a sucker for campaign settings, but I’m also pretty keen on the inhabitants of the world and interacting with them.
Having said that, I have at least one player who prefers the chill of the adventures rather more, and that’s totally valid.

 

[D1Tremere]

Over the decades of playing and running games and creating what I think of as fascinating worlds, I was informed in a non-insulting "yeah, cool. Nifty. Uh, when can we kick ass?" sort of way that my players don't really care about the world except in the context of having a place to adventure. The reasons why the world is the way it is are cool and all, but seem to not really have a huge impact (I have a reason why there are only three gods and a host of saints/apostates, for example). I could just as easily run using any world as long as the adventures are cool.

And I find, unsurprisingly, that I'm the same way. Oh, sure. I like cool worlds. But I'm also fine with bog-standard fantasy worlds as long as the adventures are fun. And, at times, prefer it as I don't want to remember all that esoteric stuff and just wanna play. Yah know?

Got me thinking about just running Sword Coast stuff and not taxing my brain anymore.

So, as PLAYERS (as DMs, sure, as that's where a lot of our fun comes from), do you really care that much about the game world?

Much like Wizards has discovered (and why there design philosophy shifted to bottom up), top down world features have little to do with the players. This often results in low buy in. After all, why should we care about things we may never see or interact with? Start from the beginning. A town where you come together. Build out from there, with the players discovering ever more information as they grow. There actions having some impact on the world around them, and the details emerging organically. They care more about a world that grows up along side them.

 

[Dausuul]

So, as PLAYERS (as DMs, sure, as that's where a lot of our fun comes from), do you really care that much about the game world?

I am interested in many things in the game world. I am interested in my PC, the other PCs, the challenges of our adventure, cool NPCs, and the elements of my PC's connection to the game world (enemies, loyalties, factions, etc.).

But the world itself, independent of my PC's interaction with it? Generally, no. It isn't that I can't get excited about the details of a setting--I have delved deeply into the lore of many fictional settings. But:

a) Before I care about a setting for its own sake, I have to engage with characters/story in that setting.
b) The setting has to be fleshed out and internally consistent. Many DMs are not good at this.
c) The setting has to have a "bible" that I can peruse at my leisure. When I'm at the game table, I am focused on the adventure at hand, not random backstory.
d) The setting bible has to be coherent, understandable, and concise. Most DMs really, deeply, terribly suck at this. Especially the last bit. And the more enthusiastic they are about the setting, the worse it gets.

And that's coming from a guy who loves world-building for its own sake. In my experience, most players don't. They simply do not care about anything beyond the adventure at hand. Any world-building that I do as DM is done for me, not for my players.

 

[Dioltach]

I find that the best way to draw players into my worlds is by writing a short piece of fiction to introduce each session. Nothing much, just a few hundred words in which a couple of NPCs provide some commentary on what's happening in the world.

Otherwise, no, players don't care much. When I'm a player, I don't care much either, at least not enough to give the world any serious thought in between sessions. And the more combat-focused the session, the less I care about anything else.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

I like to compare it the difference in emotional resonance between being told there's a ton of people dying in a far away country and being shown a video or hearing a testimony. The first case is only numbers, it's a statistic, it's a fact. You go "Oh that's terrible" and then wonder what you'll eat for dinner. The second has emotional resonance, it pulls on your empathy, personal experiences, etc.

With the years, I've come to understand that players tend to care about the part of the settings that they can interact with. Characters they met, places they've been to or are heading for, etc. When you start talking about legends, myths, old kingdoms and stuff like that, if it doesn't feel related to something they're emotional bound to, it'll fall flat and they probably don't care about it. They'll listen to you, but think about what they'll eat for dinner.

So, I always strive to find the sweet spot where I can give them enough exposition so they know a bit about the setting, have information that allows them to make choices as to where go next, understand the major political situations of the places they visit, etc. But most of my attention is on giving them bits of the game world through characters they meet, places they go to, events they were part of, etc. Then, they care. And it can be frightening how sometimes they do.

 

[Iry]

I care about the game world quite a bit, and one of the greatest feelings (for me) is playing a future game in the same setting and seeing lasting impacts from those prior characters.

For example, one character invests a large amount of his treasure into a ship based trading company. Then, in a future campaign, discover the trading company is thriving and many of their ships are named after our founding characters!

 

[el-remmen]

Rarely. But they don't really need to.