Players establishing facts about the world impromptu during play

[S'mon]

at 20:44 - what do you think of players establishing facts about the world impromptu (spontaneously, not pre-approved) during play? Players, do you feel happy & confident doing this? GMs, do you enjoy this or dislike it?

As a GM I love it when players do it well, and dread it when players do it badly. So as a player I do it a bit more than most, but feel very wary of stepping on GM's toes.

 

[John R Davis]

Yep. It's good, if it stays consistent. And way better than a 4 page player backstory or novel like setting description by the GM

 

[Campbell]

I'm a big believer in what John Harper initially called the line in regards to Apocalypse World. Basically on the player's side of the line are things their character might have experienced or known about (with a preference more for personal connections and experiences). On the other side of the line are things their character could not have experienced or known about. I generally like when players are capable of adding detail to things on their side of the line (particularly when it comes to stuff like personal connections / relationships) in a way that is not really advantage seeking. I try to avoid stuff where players speak to things on the GM's side of the line.

I also think as a GM you should cognizant of things that are on the players' side of the line not to shock them with things their characters should have a firm grasp on.

 

[ninjayeti]

As a DM I think it depends on the game. I have certainly run campaigns where my own world building is somewhat impromptu, and in those games I would see rolling with player-established facts as a fun challenge. On the other hand I have run campaigns where the world building was very deliberate and in those games I would not want players just throwing in rando facts willy nilly.

As a player I just don't really have any interest in this. I might collaborated with the GM on some backstory elements, but my enjoyment comes from shaping the world through my PC's actions, not in getting a co-writing credit on the game world. Maybe that is just because I can do all the world building I want when I run my own games.

 

[aco175]

I think that some depends on the player and some on the extend on it. Some players are good about introducing some elements that are realistic enough for the world and not interfering with what the DM has established. I can also see where some players are not mature enough or may try to game the system with advantage if this was a table norm.

I like things like adding some details to the inn, having the PC come this way and giving a name of the cook and a favorite recipe. Saying the cook is a member of the evil guild and hides poison under the floorboard is a bit much. Establishing that another soldier served in the same unit at the battle of orc pass is good, but saying that he owes the PC a favor and will likely give him his sword as payment is not.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Its fine for the games that incorporate it as a core aspect of design, but it damages exploration as a play aesthetic in some ways, because the process of creation and the process of discovery are two very different experiences. But I think they can be incorporated amiably, if the elements the players create are more personal to their characters-- e.g. here's my family, rather than here's the continent I'm from.

 

[bloodtide]

I don't like it. It's far to disruptive for the game. Even if you could get all the players to agree to not be jerks, nearly anything they create of significance will disrupt the world the DM has made.

It's already bad enough that the players can just, every minute, just randomly "pop' stuff into the game world.

It's already bad enough when the DM makes a small town helpless before a orc horde...and then a player just randomly says "oh, I create the warrior god knights of power in town". So, then, suddenly, the DM must explain why the knights do nothing to protect the town.

Then comes the next big huge problem. Once the player creates the knights of power, the DM then gets control over them. Then the DM, needing to keep them out of the war says "oh, they are all cowards". THEN the player super freaks out as they are all offended their 'special" knights of power have been ruined by the DM.

The worst, off course, is when the players outright cheat. They just make a tavern, a weak foe or just an outright pile of treasure. After all why can't the players just say "ok, right by that tree is a trillion gold coins". Oh sure the DM "asks" the players not to do dumb stuff....but where do you draw the line? Just about anything a player just "creates" will disrupt the game....unless it is so pointless and useless not to matter.

Now, all that being said, I do love when players add things to the game....but only limited to rumors, stories, legends, fairy tales, tall tales, songs and stories. And while the player is free to "say anything", they understand and accept that roughly 99% of whatever they say is wrong or at best a half truth.

 

[pogre]

I don't like it. It's far to disruptive for the game. Even if you could get all the players to agree to not be jerks, nearly anything they create of significance will disrupt the world the DM has made.

It's already bad enough that the players can just, every minute, just randomly "pop' stuff into the game world.

It's already bad enough when the DM makes a small town helpless before a orc horde...and then a player just randomly says "oh, I create the warrior god knights of power in town". So, then, suddenly, the DM must explain why the knights do nothing to protect the town.

Then comes the next big huge problem. Once the player creates the knights of power, the DM then gets control over them. Then the DM, needing to keep them out of the war says "oh, they are all cowards". THEN the player super freaks out as they are all offended their 'special" knights of power have been ruined by the DM.

The worst, off course, is when the players outright cheat. They just make a tavern, a weak foe or just an outright pile of treasure. After all why can't the players just say "ok, right by that tree is a trillion gold coins". Oh sure the DM "asks" the players not to do dumb stuff....but where do you draw the line? Just about anything a player just "creates" will disrupt the game....unless it is so pointless and useless not to matter.

Now, all that being said, I do love when players add things to the game....but only limited to rumors, stories, legends, fairy tales, tall tales, songs and stories. And while the player is free to "say anything", they understand and accept that roughly 99% of whatever they say is wrong or at best a half truth.

You have to trust your players to do it for sure. Some groups can do it in constructive and cool ways - others cannot handle it.

 

[S'mon]

I'm a big believer in what John Harper initially called the line in regards to Apocalypse World. Basically on the player's side of the line are things their character might have experienced or known about (with a preference more for personal connections and experiences). On the other side of the line are things their character could not have experienced or known about. I generally like when players are capable of adding detail to things on their side of the line (particularly when it comes to stuff like personal connections / relationships) in a way that is not really advantage seeking. I try to avoid stuff where players speak to things on the GM's side of the line.

I also think as a GM you should cognizant of things that are on the players' side of the line not to shock them with things their characters should have a firm grasp on.

Great answer, thanks! Yes that line is very important.

 

[Burnside]

I'm a big believer in what John Harper initially called the line in regards to Apocalypse World. Basically on the player's side of the line are things their character might have experienced or known about (with a preference more for personal connections and experiences). On the other side of the line are things their character could not have experienced or known about. I generally like when players are capable of adding detail to things on their side of the line (particularly when it comes to stuff like personal connections / relationships) in a way that is not really advantage seeking. I try to avoid stuff where players speak to things on the GM's side of the line.

I also think as a GM you should cognizant of things that are on the players' side of the line not to shock them with things their characters should have a firm grasp on.

This is exactly how it works in my games as well.