D&D 5E World-Building DMs

[S'mon]

It seems obvious to me that the fact you believe the DM has to do 100 times more work then the Players indicates that no, the Player does not control NPCs, organisations, cultural groups and/or locales. In this situation they do not even have control over their own PC so there is practically zero chance that the DM will in actual fact allow any PC creation other then in the most bland way possible.

They can control their PC to the extent real people control themselves. IRL I don't get to create my own reality, yet I'm still in control of myself. And not bland.

 

[Shasarak]

They can control their PC to the extent real people control themselves. IRL I don't get to create my own reality, yet I'm still in control of myself. And not bland.

And the DM wonders why he has to do 100 times the work.

 

[Phantarch]

It seems obvious to me that the fact you believe the DM has to do 100 times more work then the Players indicates that no, the Player does not control NPCs, organisations, cultural groups and/or locales. In this situation they do not even have control over their own PC so there is practically zero chance that the DM will in actual fact allow any PC creation other then in the most bland way possible.

And if you worry about Player ideas not sparking the DMs imagination then we of course have to consider if the DMs ideas will spark the Players imagination.

Those are some amazing leaps you took in drawing your conclusions. I applaud your imagination and now understand why you would have little concern for logical consistencies in a setting.

 

[S'mon]

And the DM wonders why he has to do 100 times the work.

No, he doesn't wonder.

 

[Nagol]

And the DM wonders why he has to do 100 times the work.

No, we know why.

That said, incorporating 4-8 peoples visions, additions, and interests when world-building is shared does not reduce the DM's workload. I run many different RPGs with different amounts of player-side input. Those games with much larger player input (like Champions or FATE) are no less work to establish and make coherent than my sandbox D&D game which has almost no player input aside from character action.

 

[Shasarak]

That said, incorporating 4-8 peoples visions, additions, and interests when world-building is shared does not reduce the DM's workload. I run many different RPGs with different amounts of player-side input. Those games with much larger player input (like Champions or FATE) are no less work to establish and make coherent than my sandbox D&D game which has almost no player input aside from character action.

And I am sure there are no differences between the two games either.

 

[Shasarak]

No, he doesn't wonder.

Must be one of the Lazy ones.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One thing that I see come up quite a bit online is a disagreement over how much setting control is appropriate for a DM to exercise.

Weird. I guess 5e & AL staying in the Realms is at odds a bit with it's DM Empowerment...?

So, lets instead look at it this way. How do you feel about playing D&D with a World-Building DM?

Fine. And I've played in some pretty out-there original worlds.

Would you enjoy playing a character in Westeros, DMed/GMed by George R. R. Martin? A character in Middle-Earth DMed/GMed by J. R. R. Tolkien?

(Assuming the latter is alive for the sake of argument) Probably not: DM and author are surprisingly different skills.

Would you ask to play a cat-person or a wookie, or a kender? Would you ask them to redefine who could and could not use magic?

None of those much appeal to me. But, for the sake of argument, in a setting like Westeros, part of a much larger world that has lots of unexplored/undeveloped regions, one could well make a case for some oddball race or culture or magically-talented member of a not-normally-magically-talented race/whatever coming from one of those mysterious regions.

If you're a DM and you leave a lot of your world undefined or mysterious, you're prettymuch begging for that kind of thing, but, if you're an author, you're just creating a tone & feel. Creating for active participants is different than creating for an audience. A blank space on the map of a fictional world is mystery, and the author decides when it's addressed. A blank space on a campaign setting map might get explored almost immediately, or completely ignored.

Replace those examples with any fantasy world you really like, and think about it.

Tekumel run by MAR Barker (when he was alive), that was supposed to be pretty awesome by all accounts.

I’m guessing the vast majority of people, if invited to play in such a situation, would gladly fit their character into the parameters.

Celebrity would have a lot to do with it in that sort of hypothetical.

Why not be willing to fit into another DM’s world in the same way?

Because he's not a celebrity? Because you're not familiar with the world? Because the available options don't appeal to you?

Does your answer depend on whether the world was created with you (or your group) as a player as the intended audience, vs whether the world was already existing or created for a general audience of players beyond your group?

Not really. Whatever the intended audience, the world might be interesting and inspire character ideas - or not.

My gut tells me that the objections are, at their heart, more about believing the DM just isn’t going to create a very good world (or at least one you will like) than they are power-struggle issues.

Part of the issue could just be the focus of the game. If the focus of the game is the world, that's a very different play experience than if the focus is the characters or the story or even just the overcoming of challenges.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

A DM has to put in 100 times the amount of work into running a campaign than a player has to put into creating and playing a character.

False.

A DM can put in 100 times the work, but doing so isn't necessary.

Also, many DMs actually get enjoyment out of just the processes of doing all that "work" so it is more that they get 100 times the enjoyment out of the game than a player does. At any rate, "I chose to do a bunch of whatever it is that I did, so I am entitled to a stronger vote that you" is an attitude I don't find to make any sense in the context of a gaming group.

Players should be appreciative of the work a DM has to do and realize that the DM is supposed to have fun, too. Forcing a DM to include your hairball character that has no place in his world is FAR more rude than a DM laying out the parameters of what he allows.

I've been a DM since minute 1 of me being a table-top gamer, and I find the idea that the players gathered together to share in the game with me should be showing me so much appreciation as to have my "I'm not a fan of that" be more important than their "I'm not a fan of that", rather than both being equal... well, what I find it to be involves language unfit for this board, so I will use a less potent word than I mean that conveys the same general idea: unfounded.

The work of both the DM and players is to find a cohesive, happy medium where everyone can immerse themselves in a world and story that works for everyone. And, generally, I think the people who are putting in the least work should be the most flexible.

The part about the goal being to find a cohesive happy medium I agree with. Of course, that's part of why I find your hyperbolic examples that paint a player wanting a thing that the DM doesn't want in an extreme light to be amusingly frustrating - when I discuss allowing what players want to influence what I present as a DM, I'm not talking about things like a DM saying "no half-fiend troll with laser eyes" (options not even remotely framed by the game as being intended for use as player characters), and neither are most people I've seen discussing the topic; we're more talking about a DM saying "No tieflings" or "No monks" (options the game presents as intended for use as player characters, but the DM just isn't a fan of them).

 

[mestewart3]

One of the great and wonderful things about playing with a group of people you know, rather than designing for strangers, is that you can converse with them.

Player A wants to be a dragonborn fighter. You can ask why. They can answer. You can explain their are not dragonborn, but there is this quirky tribe of goliaths that have lizards as pets.

Player B wants to be a wizard because they want arcane spells. You explain that magic is only two decades old so there are not great schools of magic and people are still trying to figure it all out, so they are sorcerers instead, but maybe, as the campaign goes on you can expand the spell list to represent the experience gained.

You now have two happy players that fit your game world, even with restrictions from their original desires.

Wow, both of those rationals are terrible. How does a Goliath with a lizard pet in any way resemble Dragonborn flavor (proud charismatic warrior race with a long and storied history). And 20 years is more than enough time to start pioneering a field of research. If I got either of these suggestions from a DM I would be downright insulted.

Not that you can't run a campaign without Dragon born or wizards. Just have better compromises and justifications. Also make sure that your next campaign idea has space for what wasn't allowed previously.