D&D 5E Who Picks the Campaign? DMs, Players, and Choice

[ReshiIRE]

I'm planning, when I am in a position to run, to give my players a choice between systems and concepts to run, which I'll have some developed beforehand (and some will be adventure paths or such). I'll have a vote and give opinions on what I would prefer, but I really want to ensure that I run what players want.

 

[MGibster]

That said, for my personal preference, give me a DM with a point of view any day of the week. At the majority of tables, the amount of work that the DM puts in to the game is greater than that put in by the players, which means that I want the DM to be invested in what she is doing, and to be knowledgeable about her campaign; is there anything worse than a DM who is uncaring about the campaign setting, and less knowledgeable about the lore of her campaign than the players? Having a player that isn't invested in the campaign can be a tragedy, but when the DM isn't invested, that's a campaign-killer.

What makes you think I can't simultaneously give the players a choice in what campaigns I'll run while maintaining control and having a point of view? When it's time to start a new campaign, I typically give my players 2-3 campaign ideas and let them decide which ones sounds like the most fun. For example, I might pitch the following three games:

Pulp Cthulhu: You've all joined Caduceus, a globe trotting humanitarian organization based out of New York dedicated to assisting those in need in times of war and disaster. But something sinister lurks in in places most men dare not tread and it's up to you to protect the world.

Deadlands: This campaign will take place entirely within the county of Unita in the Wyoming territory. You've been sent to inquire as to the fate of a missing Agent, to assess any danger that might be present, and to eliminate the threat if necessary. Since this campaign is confined to a small geographic area, there will be many recurring NPCs and the decisions you make early in the campaign will determine how they treat you later in the campaign.

Conan: Each one of your characters was wronged by the sorceress Zenobia. You have sworn vengeance and united with one another in your quest to track her down and bring her to justice. Your characters can be from any nation and each one of you has the cosmopolitan trait allowing you to have a common language.

 

[MGibster]

Come on in to the elevator! Sweet dreams!

That's just the same garbage I see when I get into the elevator at work.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So, in summation- the DM should pick the campaign setting that the DM wants to run. If the DM cannot be bothered to even decide on a campaign setting, that is not a DM I would like to play with.

I find unbelievable a DM with A setting that they want to run. As a DM, at any given moment, I have five to ten cool campaign ideas I want to try.

That being the case, the fun at the table is enhanced by choosing a campaign that both I and my players are excited about.

As a side note, allowing a vote increases player buy-in in the campaign as well.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What makes you think I can't simultaneously give the players a choice in what campaigns I'll run while maintaining control and having a point of view?

It's a floor wax AND a dessert!

 

[practicalm]

I cannot imagine a DM just choosing the campaign and expecting players to all sign up for it without discussion.

As a GM, I pitch 3-5 ideas to the players and then we see who shakes out at each idea. Some ideas don't get any players, some get the players interested and then we have a session zero to talk about what is expected of the players and the world.

But then I don't have a set of players I only play with but a group of players that rotate in as they are interested in different games or ideas.

Different models for different groups.

 

[Laurefindel]

Jerks and dickery aside, I'm easily caught up in a DM's enthusiasm and will enjoy any game DMed by anyone who really dig the setting they're going for and invest the right amount of energy into the game. Except for random homebrews where a Mindflayer/Flumph alliance has enslaved humanity. Those are the worst...

The opposite is also true; I'm not going to enjoy a game where the DM doesn't believe in what they're proposing, no matter how much I like the setting. Thinking of it actually, this is often way worse than Mindflayer/Flumph alliances...

 

[reelo]

I pick about three ideas I would be excited to run, and THEN poll my players. In theory, they pick the one that excites them the most, and their excitement increases mine.

That's the way I do it. I'm currently not running amy games due to family constraints, but once those are sorted, I'll approach my usual suspects (a FB group of local gamers, a lot of which I know well enoigh already) with a diverse selection of stuff I'd like to run (Dolmenwood hexcrawl using OSE, cartoonish post-apocalyptic fun using Barbarians of the Ruined Earth, something low-magic medieval using a Mythras/Hârn mashup, or ToR 2E) and then see what is the most popular option and who signs up for what.
So, I let players choose.... from a curated selction of stuff I propose.

 

[Rabbitbait]

The campaign world and general storyline are always my decision. If I don't feel invested then any campaign will whither and die. However within that I give players fairly free reign around races, characters backgrounds and then fit the campaign around what they design. This (for me) is the best of both worlds. Players get to play what they want and have the campaign directly speak to their character while I am inspired by the world and overarching story so am willing to put in a good effort.

This is not always the case though. I have run a campaign where a starting conceit was that all the characters were human, related to each other and from the same town.

 

[overgeeked]

Except for random homebrews where a Mindflayer/Flumph alliance has enslaved humanity. Those are the worse...

That sounds kinda awesome to me.