Why is it so hard to change a world?

[Sam Witt]

My question is, why? Why is it that no matter how great the quest, how noble the deeds, or how impressive the party may become, DMs will not let you change the campaign world in any meaningful way?

Because it's a lot of work for a GM to start figuring out what's going to happen to his $40 setting book when the characters bust a cap in Elminster's behind. It is far easier for a GM to simply say, "No, that plan is crazy and will blow the living snot out of this campaign" than to figure out the logical consequences of changing a linchpin of any given campaign setting.

One of the things I've seen in my experience as a GM, player, and writer of game-type stuff, is that the more time it takes to prep an adventure, the less likely a DM is to be willing to deviate from the course of that adventure to accomodate wacky PC actions. This theory holds true for for campaign settings, where a single evening of play can wreck weeks, even months, of prep time.

For the players, changing the world is exciting and adventurous activity. For the DM, it often means scrapping a lot of existing work, even to the point of nearly starting over. While good GMs are very adept at reusing their content to adapt to changes in their worlds, a lot of GMs are simply overwhelmed by the idea of such radical changes to their campaign.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's a true thing, in my experience.

Sam

 

[Henry]

Because it's a lot of work for a GM to start figuring out what's going to happen to his $40 setting book when the characters bust a cap in Elminster's behind. It is far easier for a GM to simply say, "No, that plan is crazy and will blow the living snot out of this campaign" than to figure out the logical consequences of changing a linchpin of any given campaign setting.

Exactly my previous point. I can understand a DM not having time or resources to go with a serious change in a campaign world that he plans to continue running.

I will also note the difference between "change" and "conquering." In my home brew campaign, my players obliterated half a swamp in my campaign world. (Dropping a hidden city from several hundred feet high, and getting the heck outta Dodge, can do that.) They went to great lengths to disguise the fact from divination magics, too, and never spoke of it again.

I would think harder before letting them succeed in a harebrained attempt to take over an existing country in my cmapaign, though. Would I let them do it ultimately, however, if they came up with something good enough?

Sure, why not!

If they give so much thought into my campaign world as to come up with a long-term and plausible plot to overthrow a section of it, then that would speak more flattery about their interest in my story and body of work I've done than I can relate to you.

 

[BSF]

If they give so much thought into my campaign world as to come up with a long-term and plausible plot to overthrow a section of it, then that would speak more flattery about their interest in my story and body of work I've done than I can relate to you.

I'm right there with you Henry! If the players are that excited to play, I will do my best to feed them. I won't necessarily make it easy. But, then again, my players wouldn't expect it to be easy.

Is it a lot of work? I suppose so. And I can easily see where other people might not be comfortable with that. Time and Interest are "expenses" that come with running a large scale change. Not everyone has both of those and I am not trying to judge them for it. Playing the game needs to be fun for everyone. One of the great things about RPG's is that everyone can play the same game, but do it in their own way. They aren't right or wrong for doing it their way.

For me, I am happy to work with my players on what is fun for them. If they want to be legends, we will work toward that. They will have to do legendary things. If they want to be the local heros, that's cool too. I can work with either. So long as they are having fun, and I am having fun, we are playing DnD as "right" as I need to.

For any of the GM's that might be reading this thread, that do not like to have large, world changing events, I am not criticizing you ... so long as you are having fun. As has been pointed out, there are many ways to create a dynamic environment rife with change, based on the character's actions/inactions. Work within your fun level!

As an aside, this is one of the things I like about EN World. Conversations like this help me be a better DM and make me think of new angles for the DM/Player dynamic to work in. Keep the commentary coming, I hope I am contributing as much as I am benefiting.

 

[DragonLancer]

You buy a published setting because there is something about it that you like. If you allow it to change too much - whether by your own actions or the actions of the your players - then its not the same setting that first drew you to it. You may not mind, but I'm sure that some do.

I love the Dragonlance setting but especially the world as it stands post War of the Lance, but the 5th age I am not too keen on. Why? Because the setting changed far too much for my taste. It would be the same if I let my players dictate the world to me.

Just my view.

 

[bekkilyn_rpg]

My preference is that while the characters should always be the focal point in the *story*, they aren't necessarily going to be the focal point in the whole world. There's always going to be others who are more powerful than them, whether that power be from strength in combat or strength in politics or some other combination of power. To me, it would be extremely boring to always be the best and most powerful in the world. Once you reach that point, there's nothing to left to strive for except possibly going into "god simulation mode" where you pick a creature to help you build up your villages and...oops.... *shakes Black & White computer game memories out of head*

Making a difference in the world definitely does not have to be on a cosmic scale and is oftentimes the least interesting approach. As long as powerful NPCs don't become the focal point in the story, I like them when used with care. They can serve as reminders to PC's that the PC's are *not* the gods of the world and that they can't just do whatever they want to to anyone without the risk of repercussion. They might have to play politics for a while to have a chance at getting what they want, it's not going to be a given and that they aren't going to be "above the law" so to speak.

Now as far as a DM changing a setting goes, I say it's the DM's call. DM's can do whatever they want to a setting in their own games, change it however they will and they aren't wrong for doing so. When it comes to games, the priority is "DM canon" supercedes "setting canon."

 

[Nifft]

IMC, the script has the bad guys winning. The bad guys are mind-bendingly big.

The PCs are specifically there to prevent this, as the "script" was written in the absence of the PCs.

That's about all I have to say.

-- Nifft

 

[d4]

IMC, the script has the bad guys winning. The bad guys are mind-bendingly big.

The PCs are specifically there to prevent this, as the "script" was written in the absence of the PCs.

that's a great way of doing. plan out the baddies' plot ahead of time with the absence of the PCs in mind.

after every session, update the plan based on what the PCs did.

keeps the PCs on their toes if the bad guys are constantly changing tactics and reacting to their actions.

i am firmly in the camp that PCs should be allowed to have an effect, even a major effect on the campaign world. that's part of the fun of playing! besides, it stretches credulity to see an 18th-level character who has had no lasting impact on his world.

i don't really have any sympathy for DMs who won't let their PCs change things because they're afraid it'll mess up that new sourcebook they just bought. improvise. adapt. overcome. come on, you're a DM -- show a little creativity!

 

[Dinkeldog]

I agree with you, Lu, but then Dark Sun has always been one of my favorite campaign worlds just because the players go up against all odds fighting massive evil beings and somehow, hopefully, are able to carve a nicer place somewhere. With the DragonKings book, then you can strive toward being a mighty force of good (or evil) attempting to have more of an effect on the world.

I can understand people wanting angst-filled dark and darker games, but I'm much more the epic heroic type.

 

[LuYangShih]

Don't cry for me, next door neighbor.

Dinkledog, I agree with that. Darksun was a great campaign setting, and I see a great deal of similarities between it and Midnight. As for the reasons for my posting, yes, it is in objection to a philosophy I have seen in a few DMs. None of the DMs I play under do this, thankfully, and if they did I wouldn't play with them.

As I said when I posted this topic, it was inspired by browsing through the forums at AgainstTheShadow.org, where a few DMs were talking about how the Night Kings should never be confronted by the PCs. As I said earlier, Midnight is not the only setting I have seen this line of thought set forth.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that fantasy literature reinforces the idea of the PCs changing the world, and that was a negative thing. I think that the reason successful fantasy literature contains such characters is because that is what people want to read about.

All the best fantasy characters have an element of greatness to them, whether it be their deeds, their abilities, or their striving against incomparable evil simply because it is the right thing to do. If such characters could not change the world they live in, it makes the world seem either hollow, or futile. And that is no fun for anyone.

 

[ForceUser]

The DM who doesn't allow PCs to effect change in his campaign should write a book, not run a D&D game. 'Nuff said.