Should we build for our players?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

My take on it is to pick a setting that I like and create a loose framework for the area the players will be in. THEN I look at what they're interested in and create that within the context of what I like. It's worked so far.

 

[Valesin]

I always bounce ideas off of my players before designing a world, and I do my best to take their comments/concerns into consideration for the final product.

That being said, I am quite simply incapable of running a game in a world I have no enthusiasm for. My GMing style is strongly inspiration based; I can't simply 'force' a good game. I have a vision of the world that comes to me with little conscious effort on my part and can't really just toss it aside, although sometimes I have two or more competing ideas and can be swayed to the more universally appealing one.

Generally I come up with the basics of the world (religion dominated, low magic, apocalyptic, etc) and then tweak it as much as I can to make it interesting for the players.

 

[Wik]

Anyway, for the record, Wik: I would be all over a North African-influenced fantasy campaign. Play up the different cultures and they exotic mythological elements well enough, and that would be completely badass.

Cool, thanks. I'm really trying to play with the rules a bit. Wizards, for example, are the religious centres of the tribes outside of "the cities" - they can hear "all the spirits", while the clerics of the cities "only listen to one".

I've got a few tribal groups set up in my head, most of them based off actual tribal groups in Mali (I've been reading a lot of ethnographies from the region; like I said earlier, Anthropology has ruined me!). We have a river-dwelling group that lives in huts *on* the water, a cliff-dwelling group similar to the Pueblo Indians, a Nuer-like group of pastoralists that raise cattle and occasionally raid, A "Villager" people that are fairly stereotypically "african", and, of course, mountain raiders (based off the mountain men from Mesopotamia). I also have seven city-states (a nod to Dark Sun) - Babylon, Thebes, Timbuktu, Tenochitlan, old Jerusalem, Constantinople, and a hodgepodge city based off Kabul.

The problem with all this, of course, is whether or not my players will bite. I think I might just spin it as "Dark Sun, only with water". That should get them at least a *little* bit interested. I'm also axing out most of the non-human races, which should actually attract my players - they're interested in playing humans, but sometimes feel like they're losing out because there are much stronger races out there.

 

[Mark CMG]

My question is, when the GM creates his world, how much thought should he be spending on the players in it?

If you are a GM who always has and always will have the same players, then you should focus your efforts on what they like. If, however, you are a GM who can solicit from a pool of players and over time those players will likely change or rotate, you should focus on the fact that there will be players but also focus mainly on what you enjoy creating the most. There are some players who simply enjoy playing with a GM to see what he has come up with regardless of who is playing. When I play, I fall into that category and while I'll look for a certain type of game in general, I'm looking primarily to explore a detailed, new world.

 

[GreatLemur]

Cool, thanks. I'm really trying to play with the rules a bit. Wizards, for example, are the religious centres of the tribes outside of "the cities" - they can hear "all the spirits", while the clerics of the cities "only listen to one".

I've got a few tribal groups set up in my head, most of them based off actual tribal groups in Mali (I've been reading a lot of ethnographies from the region; like I said earlier, Anthropology has ruined me!). We have a river-dwelling group that lives in huts *on* the water, a cliff-dwelling group similar to the Pueblo Indians, a Nuer-like group of pastoralists that raise cattle and occasionally raid, A "Villager" people that are fairly stereotypically "african", and, of course, mountain raiders (based off the mountain men from Mesopotamia). I also have seven city-states (a nod to Dark Sun) - Babylon, Thebes, Timbuktu, Tenochitlan, old Jerusalem, Constantinople, and a hodgepodge city based off Kabul.

The problem with all this, of course, is whether or not my players will bite. I think I might just spin it as "Dark Sun, only with water". That should get them at least a *little* bit interested. I'm also axing out most of the non-human races, which should actually attract my players - they're interested in playing humans, but sometimes feel like they're losing out because there are much stronger races out there.

Hell, that sounds great. A much wider range of influences than I expected--thowing in Pueblo-style cliff-dwellers sounds great, as does a Tenochtitlan-style city--and getting your inspiration from real life is freaking great. I think most gamers fail to realize just how much completely awesome and bizarre raw material they could pull out of history, anthropology, theology, and biology books.

One way to play up the human angle, by the way: Go for the "dark continent" bit. People are fighting each other as always, yeah, but they're also struggling against nature itself. This isn't a world so industrialized that it needs druids and rangers to protect its wild places; it is a wild place, and humanity is still carving out its niche in it, beating back the jungle to build cities, establish trade routes, plant crops, and dig wells. Man vs. nature vibe, maybe with a little civilization vs. savagery thrown in ('cause maybe the city people and the nomads don't get along, especially when cities seem like a new and unnatural idea). Lots of dire animals lurking just beyond the light of the campfire. Throw in dinosaurs, too, if you think your players would dig a "Lost World" angle.

Yeah, I could totally dig this game.

 

[Umbran]

Deeper in the meat of the campaign--and I don't mean during the 12th session, or something, just after the initial pitch, possibly after character creation, if necessary--then you bring in the stuff that you think is cool, but thought might turn the players off. If you've already got them hooked on the whole idea of the campaign, there shouldn't be a problem (assuming it's not something completely jarring to the paradigm they thought they were playing in).

If you do this, you risk the players reacting as if to a "bait and switch". Especially since what one person finds jarring to the paradigm is another's small detail.

Personally, I prefer honesty. Sure, there's a whole lot of information you don't give to players for plot reasons. But hiding something from them only because they might not like it smacks of a certain level of... distrust that I'd rather not see at my gaming table.

Gaming is already a cooperative endeavor. Both the DM and the players should be willing to make some compromises for everyone's enjoyment.

 

[Dr Simon]

I think if you're excited about a campaign setting, that will rub off onto the players. As long as you aren't completely at odds with their playing style it should work fine.

To avoid wasted effort, I'd suggest the old DM maxim of 'only create what you need (plus a little bit more'. What do typical D&D adventurers usually need, how are you going to serve that in the setting, what distinctive elements of the setting can you play up from day one, etc.)

Sounds like a cool setting, though. You've inspired me to revisit the continent of Fallen Sun, the African-inspired part of Conclave.

 

[GreatLemur]

If you do this, you risk the players reacting as if to a "bait and switch". Especially since what one person finds jarring to the paradigm is another's small detail.

I think that as long as you know your players, you ought to be able to avoid that sort of thing. You just got to be sure you're only using it to dress up the central themes you're looking to explore, not to sneak in ideas that your players will actively reject.

If you want to run a campaign focusing on civil war resulting from a religious schism in an empire, but think your players would be ambivalent about sectarian strife, then you can tell them that the people in this empire ride dinosaurs and have magic tattoos--if that's the kind of thing they're into--before you start getting into the actual plot that drives the action. Let them ride down heretics on triceratops-back the whole time, and it should be cool: They're getting what they were promised, and the stuff that you couldn't get them excited about before isn't getting in the way of their fun.

...But you don't pull this whole bit if you've got a guy in your group who really hates hearing about fantasy religious beliefs, because all the magic tattoos in the world ain't gonna make it okay for him.

Don't try it if you don't know your group, don't take away the incentive elements you used to sell the game, and only use this whole routine to get players excited about the campaign, not to trick them into playing something they dislike.

Admittedly, though, I've never actually had to try this method, so it could be a hell of a lot more precarious a balance than I'm imagining.

 

[pogre]

My experience has always been if I bring something to the table with enthusiasm and direction players will go with the flow. It's not that I do not seek players' input, quite the opposite, but the Dm's enthusiasm for his world is infectious. I have a good group of players who trust me to bring the fun - no matter my quirks.

 

[Ghendar]

I tend to create campaign worlds according to my vision and inspiration, not with specific player requests and preferences in mind. I think a campaign world much like a film has to be the vision of one person and one person only.

That's not to say I wouldn't build a world based on player suggestion, if asked to do so.