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

[Dessert Nomad]

Weave names of deities into the plot and into descriptions of rooms. Have npc's often invoke the names of deities in common every day speech. Name squares and streets after saints and deities.

This is a good example of what I meant before about forestory vs backstory. You're putting things that in a lot of settings would be distant background in the foreground for players to be a part of, which in my experience makes a huge difference in engagement. A lot of game setups just have a list of deities somewhere in the background but don't bring them into the game, and the players look at it long enough to pick one to fit a cleric, and maybe grab a name of a god of death, luck, war, or something else to make quips or insults with. If the names of deities are invoked commonly, they become part of the PC's world instead of a checkbox to click when building a cleric or paladin.

Hiya!

EDIT: It also occurs to me that "world of hurt" means different things to different people; to me, it doesnt' mean "death and dismemberment", but more of a Homer "DOH!" mental-anguish type of thing. Just needed to clarify that I think.

That's a pretty important distinction actually - I read 'world of hurt' as meaning that the PCs would likely fail (or have the difficulty ramped over the top) if they didn't remember some offhand info in a packet from three weeks ago, not just that they'd have a DOH moment later on. That's significantly less hostile of a game than my initial read, so thanks for clarifying.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

That's a pretty important distinction actually - I read 'world of hurt' as meaning that the PCs would likely fail (or have the difficulty ramped over the top) if they didn't remember some offhand info in a packet from three weeks ago, not just that they'd have a DOH moment later on. That's significantly less hostile of a game than my initial read, so thanks for clarifying.

Yeah, after posting I re-read it and figured I needed to get more specific on what that meant to me.

I probably need to be more careful about my wording in regards to my DM'ing style and my group's preference; for example, we would probably be what could be consider an "DM vs. Players" sort of game...but it's not what the current gaming mindset would read that to be. I think it would be akin to playing a game of Poker with your friends, using pretzel sticks as chips; everyone is trying to "win" and "beat the other guy"...smart play, AND bluffing your friends, are the order of the day. But, when it's all over, everyone knows that the game was for funzies...the fact that Tracey "bluffed the last two hands and cleaned everyone out" isn't held against her. In fact, quite the opposite!

Just like when I'm DM'ing and the NPC's "pull one over on the PC's and kill one, maim another and sell the rest into slavery". The Players don't think it was "me", personally, deliberately 'cheating' or something in order to 'win'; they just know that "I, the DM" managed to "bluff them", leading to their PC's current predicament. But it goes both ways; the Players have completely "screwed up" the NPC bad guys plans or whatever...or utterly annihilated their key stronghold/dungeon, barely breaking a sweat. You know the saying, "Sometimes you get the Owlbear...sometimes the Owlbear gets you".

My games are DEFINITELY on the "tougher than normal", and because of that, I now fall into the "Killer DM" bucket. Go back 25 or 30 years though...and my DM'ing was just "Tough...but fair...". Today though? The game has been pushing the "You play a HERO and will perform HEROIC deeds of HEROIC proportions to win the day and Save the World!". Older days? It was more "CAN you survive the trials of the Horrible Caves of Death?". I guess I'm still "stuck" on the later mindset. And I'm quite happy right where I am.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Have to answer that in my experience, no.

The may care about individual NPCs who they meet, but there really don't care who was king of Exotitca in 493 BS.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

Absolutely. Setting matters a ton for my engagement. I definitely DO want to kick butt, sure, but JUST kicking butt in a narrative vacuum gets boring real quick.

Like a lot of others, I've found that the players only care about the world if/when it directly matters to them in the moment. Tell them there's an order of battle mages and they'll yawn. Throw a squad of battle mages at them and suddenly they care. If you use the distinction between foreground and background, the players (and their PCs) generally only care about what's in the foreground. The background is irrelevant...right up until you bring it to the foreground. Another way to say it is unless it directly matters to the story at hand, it doesn't matter.

My players, thus far, have been pretty distinct from that. They like learning about the history of the world for its own sake--and when that happens to become useful later, that's even better. Of course, I do my best to make that history relevant to them in one way or another, so that it's not JUST me info-dumping them. But I've had plans in motion pretty much since the beginning of the game, and the players have been learning the cosmology, geography, history, etc. both because it's directly relevant and because it simply is interesting to them. E.g., they did some genealogy research for one of the characters, purely because they were curious....and then it turned out that that family history is probably more interesting than it seemed at first.

Spoiler: Aside

That is, the Bard is a tiefling from both of his parents, one with devilish blood, the other demonic; on his mother's side, he has a succubus great-grandmother, but on his father's side, they've been tieflings as long as anyone can remember....and, indeed, as far back as there are genealogy records, which is quite some time due to incidental other relatives of his. Except, it's clear documented fact that his paternal line doesn't branch: every generation, one and ONLY one child has ever produced children. Many times there have been celibate siblings or siblings who died young, but there's never been cousins on that side of the family, ever. That's really weird! And it made them curious about why that would be the case, so they dug deeper, and found more mysteries. They've since narrowed down the Bard's devilish ancestors to one of two options: Glasya, Prince of the Sixth Circle of Hell and daughter of Asmodeus; or Baalzephon, former Prime Minister of Dispater, Duke of Hell and general of the Blood War. AKA, really scary no matter which one it is.

Of course, it helps that one of my players is fanatical about his own world-building for the book he's writing, and another is a trained anthropologist, so "learn about a culture/location" is right up their alleys. The third player, I have to work a bit harder for, and perhaps he is only interested in things for the "foreground," but he's also really really new to TTRPGs.

 

[ccs]

After observing my 5e group for the better part of 4 years....
*1 player - Definitely. Even when she knows the campaign is a finite one-shot. She has added stuff to the world through her characters.
*2nd player - He'll tell you he does. And he's very knowledgeable & stuck on the FR. But this is a lie. He does not. And if the action isn't set in the FR? Then he cares even less. In fact, he doesn't actually care about what's directly affecting him adventure-wise beyond how to overcome the enemies/obstacles/challenges.
*3rd player - Sort of. His world of preference is Golarion (PF, PF1 specifically). Though he'll try.
*players 4 & 5 - Sort of - not really. It varies as much as their availability....

Me...
As a player? Yes. I don't get to spend enough time on the PC side of play. So I'm going to get the most out of it while it lasts. I will make characters that will fit into whatever world your running. I will engage with the plot, the NPCs, details, etc etc etc. If you let me I'll add details.... Great fun will be had.

 

[ccs]

Absolutely. Setting matters a ton for my engagement. I definitely DO want to kick butt, sure, but JUST kicking butt in a narrative vacuum gets boring real quick.

Yes, that's what miniature wargaming night is for.

 

[Lwaxy]

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?

In campaigns,yes of course. One shots, not so much.

 

[cbwjm]

I think my players like finding out things about my world when it's introduced in the game, not sure how many would be keen on reading a large world document, though they were fine with a short 3 pager (it wasn't very dense and the 3rd page was just deity details in case someone wanted to play a cleric, paladin, or druid). I know when playing in largely the same. Happy to read a few pages for details which helps me establish a character and then finding out details later on can be fun. Doesn't really matter if that world is an official or homebrew.

 

[Cadence]

Now I'm kind of wondering about the variability in how much our fellow human beings on Earth in the Sol system care about the backstory of their "setting". Seems like some really get in to science and history in general, some care deeply about their own history and genealogy, and either don't have the time or don't have the inclination.

As far as the question, I'm reminded of the twilight zone episode (iirc) where some people are caught between the seconds and learn that the parts of the world people see are built on demand each second (like a stage). So, I don't need there to be a logistics chain supporting the bad guy we're going after... until we ask about it.

And there are lots of things I don't need, except for my particular character concept during creation. I need to be as open when I DM as I appreciate my DMs being for me as a player. When they don't have it locked down yet they admit it, and then are happy to take any suggestions and incorporate a bunch of them that don't contradict anything, instead of trying to frantically write the world out themselves out of naybe some author's pride or the like.

 

[Helldritch]

After reading other posts, I think I need to clarify things a bit further with two examples.

I ran OotA thrice; once with both of my groups and once with our Friday night dungeons. The first group was going with the flow, acting and reacting to stimuli but never initiated anything of their own beyond what was asked of them or what the situations warranted.

The second group, made alliances with Grey dwarves, Mithril halls, Triboar and the Lord's Alliance. They went to build a castle on the entrance to the underwater that led to the trading outpost, controlling the flow of trade towards that trading post and used the castle itself as a staging ground to their forays into the underdark.

The third group is mainly for show, but they too, to a lesser extent, used politics and alliances to get their way and improve their chance of success.

Of these, only the second group succeeded. The first one was obliterated by Demogorgon and the third ended in the Labyrinth through a streak of bad luck and very poor, but entertaining decisions.

I should point out that I am on the hard side of DMing and all my players appreciate it. I am also very democratic and all rules, house or optional are voted upon by everyone. I roll on the open, so no fudging from me. All of this makes games particularly hard games where attrition can be high, buy the feeling of achievement that comes with a successful endeavor is hard to beat. Like @Paul L Ming I am often seen by external players as an adversarial DM. That is far from the truth. Nowadays, hard is considered adversarial and this is a loss for our community. I DMed for a few of those that were scorning my style and guess what? They liked it in the end.

Hard does not mean no RP.
Hard does not mean no explorations.
Hard is simply that, hard...

And when you know something is and will be hard, you often try to find every single little advantage that will help you tip the sales in your favor. Be it tactics or politics or even simple historical knowledge, you will try to use those to your advantage. And thus, because you want these advantages, you will interact with the game world a lot more than if you do not need that advantage to succeed.