D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Maxperson]

I think tightly curated settings are great fun.

But if the players aren't interested, then it's the concept that goes away, not the players.

Maybe another group at another time may want to try that idea; if not, it doesn't make it to the table just like thousands of other campaign ideas I've had.

I think that really depends on the situation. My main group is a group of guys who have been playing together for 20-40+ years, with the guy who has been with us for 20 years being the son of the guy I've been playing with since 1984. For my group it's not even a question that the concept goes away.

Normally how my group does it is that the night the campaign ends, we brainstorm ideas and everyone(including me) puts in 4 ideas without saying anything to anyone. Then the ideas are revealed and if there are duplicates, someone puts in a different idea. Then all 5 of us get to just remove one idea from the group that we least want to play. Then voting happens with each idea getting a number from 1-15 with no duplicates, from each player and myself. The top 3 get a vote off with the number 1 idea winning and being the concept for the next campaign. Nobody has had any issues with the concept or curation(if any), because it came from us and was the most popular idea.

Once, though, they just told me at the end of the campaign to come up with something on my own. So I worked out something with demons starting to spill into the world, some possessing people and trying to take over. After a few sessions the PCs turned to one another and said, "These Demons have been freaking us out. Let's get out of here." Another was like, "Why don't go south and become pirates?" So that's what they did. The demon thing kept going in the background with periodic rolls in my part to see how the rest of the world was handling it. The group as pirates did hear rumor and occasionally some demon part of what was going on touched them tangentially, but as a whole they just abandoned that concept and it wasn't what they were doing.

Now, if instead I were combing local game stores for players to play in an idea I had, if you didn't want to play in it, no worries. I'll find someone else. In that sort of situation, the potential player goes away, not the concept.

 

[AlViking]

And my experience is precisely the opposite. Either the campaign is using something not created by anyone in the group in the first place, so we're all operating under limits players will already know because they can just read the material; or the campaign is bespoke for this specific thing, and thus it can and will be adjusted.

Worlds invented by a single GM which are intended to only be used by that GM's groups, and which every group must be beholden to, are rare. Mostly because that requires a single GM with a many-year-long, generally multi-decade-long semi-stable group that wants to do the same sorts of things repeatedly, given...it's the same world with the same concepts and contents.

The simple truth is that most groups are not multi-decade arrangements, and most players look for something fresh when they're aiming to join a new game. Do I have objective data proving this, no, it would be pointless to ask because you know I don't and I know you don't either. But I don't think it requires much more than straightforward logic to conclude that groups which fall apart sooner rather than later are more common than the reverse; that groups which decide to do different things rather than sticking to the same thing will outnumber the reverse, since there are so many ways to change, and only one way to stay the same; and that players who are not currently involved in a game, but want to be, are much more likely to join a fresh group than to join a long-term otherwise stable group that needs new players.

Our experiences differ, hardly the first time. Meanwhile I'm not claiming my way is better, I just don't think other approaches are inherently better either.

 

[Remathilis]

That's one way of doing it but it's a fairly uncommon one as far as I've seen. Most worlds are not built for a specific campaign or even for a specific group of players. Either it's a DM's homebrew or a published setting like FR or Eberron.

And most of the time, those settings are permissive enough to allow most ideas though. Ever notice most published settings are still kitchen sinks of various sizes? Because those sell to the largest audience. Even I wager the majority of homebrews aren't that much more restricting than Greyhawk or The Realms. The only time I see large restrictions is when the GM is either emulating specific fiction (ie Middle Earth) or the DM is specifically emulating OS play like it's 1983.

 

[AlViking]

I think that really depends on the situation. My main group is a group of guys who have been playing together for 20-40+ years, with the guy who has been with us for 20 years being the son of the guy I've been playing with since 1984. For my group it's not even a question that the concept goes away.

Normally how my group does it is that the night the campaign ends, we brainstorm ideas and everyone(including me) puts in 4 ideas without saying anything to anyone. Then the ideas are revealed and if there are duplicates, someone puts in a different idea. Then all 5 of us get to just remove one idea from the group that we least want to play. Then voting happens with each idea getting a number from 1-15 with no duplicates, from each player and myself. The top 3 get a vote off with the number 1 idea winning and being the concept for the next campaign. Nobody has had any issues with the concept or curation(if any), because it came from us and was the most popular idea.

Once, though, they just told me at the end of the campaign to come up with something on my own. So I worked out something with demons starting to spill into the world, some possessing people and trying to take over. After a few sessions the PCs turned to one another and said, "These Demons have been freaking us out. Let's get out of here." Another was like, "Why don't go south and become pirates?" So that's what they did. The demon thing kept going in the background with periodic rolls in my part to see how the rest of the world was handling it. The group as pirates did hear rumor and occasionally some demon part of what was going on touched them tangentially, but as a whole they just abandoned that concept and it wasn't what they were doing.

Now, if instead I were combing local game stores for players to play in an idea I had, if you didn't want to play in it, no worries. I'll find someone else. In that sort of situation, the potential player goes away, not the concept.

At the end of my last campaign I asked the group without qualifying it in any way what we wanted to do next. Everybody just sort of looked at me and said they trusted me to do something fun and exciting without a single suggestion. I guess my hypnosis abilities must be better than I thought if the majority of players secretly want collaborative world building.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No. Nobody has to take the lead and it's wrong to expect the DM to do so.

And that, precisely, is why GMs neither have nor should have "absolute power".

No one who is not willing to make personal sacrifices for the good of the group merits leadership. Full stop.

 

[AlViking]

And most of the time, those settings are permissive enough to allow most ideas though. Ever notice most published settings are still kitchen sinks of various sizes? Because those sell to the largest audience. Even I wager the majority of homebrews aren't that much more restricting than Greyhawk or The Realms. The only time I see large restrictions is when the GM is either emulating specific fiction (ie Middle Earth) or the DM is specifically emulating OS play like it's 1983.

Eberron is not a kitchen sink campaign unless you change it just to name a current setting and last time I checked it's quite popular. FR is a kitchen sink because WOTC wants to sell more splat books and new species.

 

[Belen]

You want the power, you take the responsibility--which means putting others first, even when that's inconvenient or slightly less fun for you than what you were originally intending to do.

You are forgetting that most DMs do not really want the power. They do it because they love TTRPGs and most players refuse to take a turn as the DM.

This is what happened to me and I do care about my players fun. I care too much at times; however, my experience is that most players never really think about the DM in terms of what they may be giving up or the work involved in providing that game. Let's not even discuss that I buy most of the material and even keep extra copies of the PHB on hand if needed. If I decide I want to run a certain theme or curate a setting so that it is not stock D&D, then I am doing it because it keeps me invested in running that game.

Final example: My parents had to die to get one of my friends to take over the game to give me time to grieve. That is what is took to allow me to step away from being the DM.

 

[mamba]

If the players and GMs agree on a curated setting, than that curation was shared.

does it matter whether this is a published setting or someone’s homebrew?

I also doubt most players read through the FR Campaign Setting book or whatever its equivalent is for another setting, so ‘shared’ really means the two page summary by the DM

 

[TwoSix]

It's not like we don't discuss what the next campaign is going to be like, we've had many discussions about what we want to do next over the years. But no current or past player has ever expressed an interest in collaborative world building.

Your way is not the one true way or even a better way.

I believe it to be the better way, but you have no reason to agree with me unless I convince you.

That's the point of discussing things! It's totally OK if we come to an understanding that our priorities are different.

But I'm also not required to act like I think every methodology of play is equally compelling.

 

[AlViking]

I believe it to be the better way, but you have no reason to agree with me unless I convince you.

That's the point of discussing things! It's totally OK if we come to an understanding that our priorities are different.

But I'm also not required to act like I think every methodology of play is equally compelling.

Neither one of us can "prove" anything. But I have not nor will I ever tell you that my way is better, something you do on a regular basis.