D&D General Your favorite ways for players to participate in world building?

[BookTenTiger]

I consider myself a very collaborate DM, and I love it when my players help me build the campaign world. It is my dream to eventually run a game in which I am only one of many architects of the campaign world, with players designing settings, NPCs, villains, magic items, and narratives they're interested in playing through.

I know this isn't a style shared by everyone, but it's definitely my preference!

If you do enjoy it when players participate in world building, what are your favorite ways of seeing this at the table? Do you prefer it to stay in Session 0 or Character Backstories? Are players free to come up with "truths" about the campaign world mid-session? (For example: "Oh, my character's cousin is a smithy in this city." or "What if in this region, the dragons are worshiped as gods?")

Would you ever invite a player to design an upcoming city, organization, or NPC? What about a dungeon or villain?

Here are some of my experiences with players participating in campaign building:

1. Dwarven Lore

I played in a 5e game for a few years that I've mentioned here before, in which two other players and I played as dwarven cousins. After the campaign started, the two other players and I got together and played a little backstory adventure, brainstorming details about our extended dwarven family, the patriarch of the clan, the holds we came from... We were playing in the Forgotten Realms, but we got to add a lot of details. Our patriarch, Adric Amberhelm, wound up being the secret Big Bad Guy of the campaign!

2. Backstory Adventures

During that campaign, the players worked together to design "Backstory Adventures." During these sessions, the DM took a turn as a player while another player ran the game. These adventurers were always set in the past, filling in details about the backstories of our characters. For example, I once ran a session in which everyone played as kids in a gang in Skullport, one of the players playing a kid version of his own character.

3. Designing the Home Base

As players, we really wanted a small town we could adopt as a home base. The DM wound up asking me to design the town, and I did so on Inkarnate (I'm attaching the map below). I came up with all the NPCs and even a bunch of adventure hooks. The DM used my notes when we arrived, and it was so fun seeing everything come to life!

Later, when the DM needed a break for a while, so I took over and we played out a few months in the town. I got to use all those plot hooks as the characters helped townsfolk with their various troubles. My character was busy in the Wizard's Tower studying arcana.

(By the way, Revel's Lift is an anagram of "First Level," since this was supposed to be like the starting town of a campaign.)

 

[Lanefan]

(By the way, Revel's Lift is an anagram of "First Level,"since this was supposed to be like the starting town of a campaign.)

That is bloody brilliant! Love it!

As for the poll itself, I voted for three of the options:

Players come up with [stuff] through their character's backstory. This one's tricky for me, in that I don't want long character backstories to come in with the character but would rather those stories emerge during play. Thus, if a player with a character whose past career was "Soldier" comes up with the army and unit(s) and CO's name(s) etc. that character served in/under while chatting in-character around the campfire I'm fine with that, but I don't want this stuff done before the character even enters play. Once we determine where a character is from, that character's player fleshing out that village/home/whatever is fine. And so forth, with me-as-DM always retaining a soft right of veto should something happen to conflict with as-yet-unknown setting canon (e.g. if I'm intending to run Village of Hommlet and it turns out one of the PCs grew up there, I'll strongly encourage the player to leave off thinking too much about anything to do with the village for now as all will be revealed later...and when I run the adventure that PC will probably be the star of the show due to all the local knowledge it has. )

Players give the DM ideas for future [stuff]. In my own thinking I phrase this in the reverse: the DM should be alert for player ideas and ready to quietly make notes then, and then incorporate those ideas at some point down the road after the players have forgotten suggesting them. In other words, it's not intentional that the players give the DM ideas...

Players do something that's not on the list. To me this includes where the players, as their characters, invent or research new elements to add to the game world, e.g. designing new spells, inventing and commissioning/building new magic items, etc. Doesn't happen nearly often enough IME; and in part this could be my fault as DM for not giving them enough (or not encouraging them to take) in-character downtime, as only during downtime can such things be reasonably expected to occur.

 

[Clint_L]

Pretty much as Lanefan described. I also encourage players to DM sessions if they want to add their ideas to the campaign, and wish they did it more often. I'll let players add all kinds of world details while we're playing, as long as they aren't stepping on the toes of the plot. For example, they might be in a shopping district and a player explains that they stop to listen to the tale being sung by the bard on the corner that they just imagined, that kind of thing. And I recently experimented with a session that fused D&D with Fiasco, so that all of us took turns being the DM, or working collaboratively to DM. It was fun!

Basically, the more involved the players are, the more fun it is for me. If we go ten minutes where I'm just sitting back and listening, I'm a happy camper.

 

[cranberry]

Most of the player world building that occurs in the game I'm in happens by accident.

Someone comes up with a clever idea, the DM likes it, and later on, we'll come across it in some way.

(It's usually fairly minor "in the margins" kind of world building changes)

 

[BookTenTiger]

That is bloody brilliant! Love it!

As for the poll itself, I voted for three of the options:

Players come up with [stuff] through their character's backstory. This one's tricky for me, in that I don't want long character backstories to come in with the character but would rather those stories emerge during play. Thus, if a player with a character whose past career was "Soldier" comes up with the army and unit(s) and CO's name(s) etc. that character served in/under while chatting in-character around the campfire I'm fine with that, but I don't want this stuff done before the character even enters play. Once we determine where a character is from, that character's player fleshing out that village/home/whatever is fine. And so forth, with me-as-DM always retaining a soft right of veto should something happen to conflict with as-yet-unknown setting canon (e.g. if I'm intending to run Village of Hommlet and it turns out one of the PCs grew up there, I'll strongly encourage the player to leave off thinking too much about anything to do with the village for now as all will be revealed later...and when I run the adventure that PC will probably be the star of the show due to all the local knowledge it has. )

Players give the DM ideas for future [stuff]. In my own thinking I phrase this in the reverse: the DM should be alert for player ideas and ready to quietly make notes then, and then incorporate those ideas at some point down the road after the players have forgotten suggesting them. In other words, it's not intentional that the players give the DM ideas...

Players do something that's not on the list. To me this includes where the players, as their characters, invent or research new elements to add to the game world, e.g. designing new spells, inventing and commissioning/building new magic items, etc. Doesn't happen nearly often enough IME; and in part this could be my fault as DM for not giving them enough (or not encouraging them to take) in-character downtime, as only during downtime can such things be reasonably expected to occur.

It's funny, I agree with you that I don't want my players to have detailed backstories until we get a few sessions into the campaign. By then they've gotten to know the world and we have a feel for the themes and kinds of adventures we are seeking. I'm always willing to retcon things that happen in the first few sessions so that players can make the world and their characters fit together well

 

[BookTenTiger]

Pretty much as Lanefan described. I also encourage players to DM sessions if they want to add their ideas to the campaign, and wish they did it more often. I'll let players add all kinds of world details while we're playing, as long as they aren't stepping on the toes of the plot. For example, they might be in a shopping district and a player explains that they stop to listen to the tale being sung by the bard on the corner that they just imagined, that kind of thing. And I recently experimented with a session that fused D&D with Fiasco, so that all of us took urns being the DM, or working collaboratively to DM. It was fun!

Basically, the more involved the players are, the more fun it is for me. If we go ten minutes where I'm just sitting back and listening, I'm a happy camper.

I have a fantasy of each player claiming parts of the campaign map, and switching who is in the DM's seat based on where we are. So though I would have responsibility over all the unclaimed bits of world, Player A would run anything that happens in a city they designed, Player B would do the same for a mountain monetary, Player C would do it for the pirate islands they designed, etc.

 

[Blue Orange]

If anyone wants to go old-RPG hunting, the game Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth had a whole system where the players play out the history of the world with the DM.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I think the time for players to primarily contribute to the world building is when it is still being built, the initial session zero’s and backstories, so that the GM can then take those ideas and incorporate them into a coherent whole, it is the GM who has to run the world and they will likely know far far more about the world than i will so suddenly inventing a religion or hero of the land or plonking down a major city where there wasn’t one five minutes ago and suddenly having to try to incorporate that might give them some issues with established information, which might trickle back down and have an adverse effect on my fun.

Once the world is created what is possible to just add in freely is greatly reduced, not removed entirely, but still significantly reduced.

There are some GMs who do not map out their entire gameworld before, adding and expanding the map as and when they need to, i would presume it is much easier for this GM to add new pieces to their world as ‘off the edges of the map’ is still malleable but even in this situation I don’t think a player should expect the GM to add their suggestions if they can’t find a way to satisfyingly integrate it

 

[cbwjm]

One of the things I'm quite keen on is players altering the world during play. Not just whether they win or lose a quest and the results that follow, but the players themselves establishing new towns or keeps or wizard towers. Maybe the thief player sets up a thieves guild in a major city or a cleric creates a shrine to their god at a site which was the scene of divine intervention. These things then become part of the setting that new characters can visit or encounter.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

it is the GM who has to run the world and they will likely know far far more about the world than i will so suddenly inventing a religion or hero of the land or plonking down a major city where there wasn’t one five minutes ago and suddenly having to try to incorporate that might give them some issues with established information, which might trickle back down and have an adverse effect on my fun.

That's why you shouldn't establish too much information. You can't--even in principle--establish everything. Establish only what is needful, what is useful, and keep loose and flexible with the rest.

Once the world is created what is possible to just add in freely is greatly reduced, not removed entirely, but still significantly reduced.

Only if you try to fill in every inch of the map. You might be surprised how liberating it is to, as they say, "draw maps, leave blanks."

There are some GMs who do not map out their entire gameworld before, adding and expanding the map as and when they need to, i would presume it is much easier for this GM to add new pieces to their world as ‘off the edges of the map’ is still malleable but even in this situation I don’t think a player should expect the GM to add their suggestions if they can’t find a way to satisfyingly integrate it

Why not? I'm genuinely curious. I do this all the time, both because Dungeon World tells me to, and because I enjoy doing it. Sure, a lot of the setup came from working with the players, but (for example) the good-guy thieves' guild organization, the Silver Thread, only came into existence because the Bard said that's the group he ran with back before his family got their big break.

As long as the expectation isn't incredibly over-dramatic, it's almost always possible to get it in. Yes, the player should have realistic expectations, but "realistic expectations" is a very weak requirement in most cases.

To give examples, relevant to your own stuff:

When the party Ranger "found God," we collaborated to develop the religious group he had joined. This region reveres different "facets" or "aspects" of an infinite being they call the One (or, sometimes, refer to by Their "prime" aspect, the Great Architect, the aspect representing the One's creation and sustaining of the universe.) Several such facets have been named: the aforementioned Great Architect, the Unknown Knower, the Stalwart Soldier, the Soothing Flame, etc. But none of those suited, so we collaborated, and developed the Resolute Seeker. Where the Stalwart Soldier is the aspect representing defense of home and hearth and tenacity in the face of life's troubles, the Resolute Seeker is a hunter in the dark and the shining light that guides the lost home. Developing this was super fun, and while I have yet to make direct use of the Resolute Seeker's devotees, I'm sure I'll find a good reason sooner or later. That's an example of inventing a (sub)religion.

I invented the city of Al-Maralus when the party wanted to head north to check out stuff about the jungles beyond the Tarrakhuna. They've made several acquaintances who are from there, and I've decided (in a very soft touch kind of thing) that people from the Al-Maralus area have more Moroccan-styled names, while people from the Al-Rakkah area (where the PCs are from) have more Arabic-styled names. A subtle difference, but meant to indicate things like cultural cross-pollination and the like.

Or, when the Bard went and studied with the Safiqi priesthood in order to learn how to cleanse poisons just as he could already cleanse mental enchantments. He studied the lives of the saints, and took inspiration from a saint who happened to be one of his ancestors, St. Shanadar, an itinerant healer and theologian. That's a hero, albeit a long-dead one, invented from whole cloth by a player.

These things aren't actually that hard!

 

[BookTenTiger]

That's why you shouldn't establish too much information. You can't--even in principle--establish everything. Establish only what is needful, what is useful, and keep loose and flexible with the rest.


Only if you try to fill in every inch of the map. You might be surprised how liberating it is to, as they say, "draw maps, leave blanks."


Why not? I'm genuinely curious. I do this all the time, both because Dungeon World tells me to, and because I enjoy doing it. Sure, a lot of the setup came from working with the players, but (for example) the good-guy thieves' guild organization, the Silver Thread, only came into existence because the Bard said that's the group he ran with back before his family got their big break.

As long as the expectation isn't incredibly over-dramatic, it's almost always possible to get it in. Yes, the player should have realistic expectations, but "realistic expectations" is a very weak requirement in most cases.

I think there are just different styles of DMing. Some like to spend time fully detailing their world, others find joy in building it "live" during the campaign.

I'm definitely a blank map DM. I usually figure out the starting location and a few key features of the campaign world, and then fill the rest in as we play. During Session 0 I'll plop some guild halls, temples, or cities onto the map based on character backgrounds or backstories. I really enjoy the collaborative, improvised feel of building the setting as we go!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think there are just different styles of DMing.

Oh sure, not all methods are for all people. I'm just responding to what sounds like excessive skepticism about the very idea of the whole "draw maps, leave blanks" approach--that it's mostly unworkable or only works in an extremely limited and narrow sense.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Oh sure, not all methods are for all people. I'm just responding to what sounds like excessive skepticism about the very idea of the whole "draw maps, leave blanks" approach--that it's mostly unworkable or only works in an extremely limited and narrow sense.

Oh I have no issues with the draw maps leave blanks conceptually but (and i say this as someone who doesn’t DM (or even get to play)) I value a setting that is constructed coherently and with deliberation and intent, and there being blank spots that will be filled with anything someone wants to be there because it’s free space to create in runs counterproductively to that in my mind.

Having a single architect to turn all the world building ideas into a single product is preferable IMO as they know what all the cards on the table are and how they relate to one another, a player while having no ill intent when they ask ‘hey can i put a thieves guild here’ does not know what adding that would mean for anything else in that city.

EDIT: i'd much rather the situation of 'hey DM, is there a thieves guild available in the world for my backstory?' 'not currently but i can find an appropriate place to fit one in somewhere for you,' rather than 'hey DM, i took the liberty of inserting a thieves guild into this city for my backstory' 'what? that city? one of the most notoriously strict law enforcing places in the continent?' 'uh, i didn't know that but sure, just figure it out for me somehow'
obviously exaggerated but you get the point

 

[cbwjm]

I think there are just different styles of DMing. Some like to spend time fully detailing their world, others find joy in building it "live" during the campaign.

I'm definitely a blank map DM. I usually figure out the starting location and a few key features of the campaign world, and then fill the rest in as we play. During Session 0 I'll plop some guild halls, temples, or cities onto the map based on character backgrounds or backstories. I really enjoy the collaborative, improvised feel of building the setting as we go!

This sounds like me, main area is fairly well detailed, but areas outside that might just have some sort descriptor, I have a continent which is effectively "Here be giants". It ties into the backgeound of my world, but doesnt need much in the way of detail, unless the players undertake a sea voyage...

 

[aco175]

I would love to have some backstory to weave into the main plot along the way, but it hardly happens. If I run a campaign book, then the whole plot is there for levels 1-15 or whatever and it becomes harder to weave something in. The other problem is that a lot of the PCs come from far away and their whole family is dead from whatever and now they are all alone in the world.

I wonder if I look for a background starter to hand out to the players. It could have something where they list a friend, family, enemy, etc... Then I would have more to go on.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

For years I've been encouraging players to contribute to the world building. With mixed results. But my current game is going very well (except for the scheduling.)

For my current campaign our session 0 was a brainstorm about the game and the game world. What sort of adventures were wanted. Level of seriousness. Themes. And of course diegetic things such as organisations, individuals, the sort of supernatural beings that exist.

Then with character creation the players got to add more details - NPCs, places, organisations, etc. from their backgrounds.

This all went very well. Everyone had fun doing it. Everyone has been very happy with the results.

During play people have thrown out ideas for NPCs, some new, some pre-existing, that have been incorporated.

Our last session wasn't even gaming per se. We had a chat about things we were liking. What other things they would like to see. What they'd like less of.

Doing this has really increased player buy-in for the game.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I've actually changed in this respect, becoming less collaborative over time. I used to be more excited by the idea of a world with shared ownership and everyone's tastes represented, but it was just never that fun or coherent, and litigating creative control and tone was consistently painful.

Maybe with the right other people it would be more fun, but right now I want to focus on my own worldbuilding with only the additions necessary for fulfilling play (personal elements to the characters.)

 

[bloodtide]

I always let the players freely add rumors, stories, legends, tall tales and such. Though they get no grantee that it will be an "offical" story or whatever, so NPCs won't know it. And sometimes stories might be true in one way or another. Generally based on the quality the player puts into it.

For really good trusted players, they might just feel creative and makes something like an location or a NPC they might do so and just give it to me to use. Sometimes they will ask to make something.