[any] DMs, players and world building

[Thurbane]

Hi all,

I just have a question for the other gamers on the forum. A point came up in another thread, and I’m curious to find something out. In the games you’re involved with, how much of the “world building” is done by the DM, and how much do the players contribute?

From my own experience, I’ve never been in a group where players are expected to (or expect to, for that matter) contribute to the world creating process. The norm in my groups has been that the DM generates the world, which the PCs then interact with. The only influence the players have on the world is caused by the actions of the characters in game.

I hadn’t really thought about the fact that some groups may do it differently. The idea of players getting involved in world building intrigues me. Does anyone play in games like this? If so, what have your experiences been?

Cheers - T

[Devils_Advocate]

Well, to start with, the PCs are part of the world, so that's already one thing that the players add by default. Having a backstory is also generally considered good, and a backstory is probably gonna detail the PC's interactions with some other people, so that's some NPCs contributed. Maybe an extended family. Possibly a fairly important and influential one, if it's a higher-level game. I don't think that even making up a small town would generally be frowned upon.

Alternately, a backstory may add details to NPCs, families, religions, cities, etc. that are already a part of the setting. But the point is, character creation by its very nature provides details about things in the gameworld, to a greater or lesser degree.

[Kylarra]

For me, the basic framework is laid out by me, but incidental and smaller details can be fleshed out with the addition of backstory from the players. Generally, I make heavy use of Sure, why not. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitlekzrxgx4f?from=Main.SureWhyNot).

[drengnikrafe]

For me, the basic framework is laid out by me, but incidental and smaller details can be fleshed out with the addition of backstory from the players. Generally, I make heavy use of Sure, why not. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitlekzrxgx4f?from=Main.SureWhyNot).

+1 this.
I built one city completely. It became annoying to reference my notes every time they asked "is there a (something) shop?", or "(Them) We go to the tavern. (Me) which one?". It's much easier to just agree to anything within reason.

[Dienekes]

As designated GM I create about 90% of it in practice though I could do a lot less if my players wished to add more complex backstories and locations.

In essence, I go through the ground details. Which are the major nations, how they interact, who's at war with whom, where are the magic folk, ect. The players then develop their characters and we discuss how they interact with the world.

For example one of my players said he may have been the illegitimate child of the major Thief Lord in the starting city. So congrats he got to design the bases of the resident Thief Lord, and after that he became a recurring NPC

Another player claimed to be from Providence City and made it a complete Utopia with a fully capitalistic and working social structure. I took him aside pointed out that the game was based on pseudo-medieval themes and had a large crapsack world mentality. So together we designed a city that worked out for both his character and the world. Later on this city was visited in the campaign.

[Ogremindes]

I haven't done much world building at all, but two axioms about making settlements come to mind:

1: Why is it here?
2: Where does the water come from?

Using these two you can turn a handful of ideas for cities into a fairly well fleshed-out map.

lessee... it's a trade city, inland. So I'll need a couple of other inland cities and a port linked to it, just placeholders for now. Now water... an aqueduct would be cool, so... some mountains over here, with a river coming down. Now that river will feed into the port city, but neither of the other two, otherwise why would goods go by road? Now, that city up there could be a mining town, so stretch the mountains over that way...

[Bibliomancer]

In general, if a player wants to create a country or major faction around their backstory, I'd encourage them. This only happens sometimes though. Most of the time, I create most of the world (or use a pre-set campaign setting like Eberron).

However, they don't necessarily know everything about their chosen faction...

[Otodetu]

Dm makes the world, and the players tend to influence it over time.

[Drakevarg]

Personally, as a HUGE fan of worldbuilding, I prefer to meticulously build my world by hand. Then I make the mistake of letting PCs into it and they start knocking everything over.

It's kinda akin to the guys at Toho who had to build those meticulous replicas of Tokyo, only to have some guy in a huge rubber suit stampede through it. For the average model-builder that'd leave them in tears; for these guys, it's their job.

[Swordgleam]

In my experiences, the DM builds most of the world and the players fill in bits that involve their PCs' backgrounds.

However, this: Dawn of Worlds (http://www.clanwebsite.org/games/rpg/Dawn_of_Worlds_game_1_0Final.pdf)

It's a world-building game. It's fantastic. Play it. Use it. Love it.

[Dimers]

Heh, I love quoting myself. From the introduction to gameplay in the system I'm building:

"I want to make it exciting, deep, an engaging experience for all players. To this end, players are welcomed and encouraged to participate in world-building and description. Any time you feel you can make the game more real and present, by describing environment, playing the part of an NPC, or acting in-character in ways not covered by my rules list, I will do what I can to work with you and integrate your piece into what I know of the world. I ask that you not add major components 'on the fly', such as new species, power structures (governments, religions, etc.), or unique beings – if you have a good idea we can discuss it between sessions.
There will be times I might ask your help in roleplaying an NPC, as well. It’s more important to me that a character be played well than that all decision-making power and out-of-character knowledge remain strictly in my hands." (I say this because I can't RP well without preparation.)

I actually intend to hand off more than just NPC portrayal. I want my group to decide what the weather's like, what colors greet them in a new town, what kind of events are happening in the lives of people around them ... I've got this concept for "DMing by Mad Libs", y'see, where I ask at the end of a session for input on what the next session will include, questions like:


What will the characters smell during the next session?
What symbol will they see?
What kind of man or woman will they meet?
What emotion will highlight their experiences?
What place will become important?
What animal or monster will appear?
What number will influence the party?
What institution will come to the fore?
Which character will one of these things happen to? (including NPCs)
What magic effect will be witnessed?
What weird sensation will come over a character? (including NPCs)

[Zincorium]

A lot of my favorite games involve a huge amount of back and forth- at the beginning of a game, there's a huge quantity of 'here there be dragons' on the map, and most of the cultures are really general feels with a few details for spice.

The players throw out ideas, like 'what about orcs as vegetarian wandering mercenaries?', and the DM adds onto it, 'well, that would mean they adopt a lot of customs from anywhere they work for a while, and are probably feared but grudgingly accepted' and so forth. You have to take good notes and/or have players who aren't sticklers for detail, admittedly.


What you end up with is the players haven't ruined anything- in fact, they're less likely to attempt and upset things because they have a personal stake in making the setting work. Yeah, you could set the town on fire, but that kooky old alchemist lady you thought up? Yeah, she'd disappear.

Honestly, the appeal of this approach is one of the reasons I don't enjoy running published settings as much as homebrews- there's some terra incognita, but someone has already explained it officially even if the players aren't aware of it.

[The Corinthian]

Hot ****, Dimers -that's the best idea I've heard all week!
*steals*

[Satyr]

I am more of the authority-fixated gamemaster, so I usually don't let any pesky players (and their dog) spoil my neat little scheme of a new seting. For the ways I run games, often with a strong focus on exploration and discovering new and breathtaking stuff work better if there are things players don't know. I like to cooperate when creating a setting, but than it is a cooperation between two - or more potential Gamemasters, and there is not the usual hierarchy between players and gamemasters.

[Totally Guy]

I'm running a Burning Wheel campaign. It has it's own mechanics for world definition through player Wises and NPC generation called Circles. Like knowledge skills but backwards.

Yesterday I allowed the following:

Illness-wise, "Uncle Brian's madness is not a mental illness but in fact a common illness brought on through chemical deficiency". The roll failed, so the player wasn't able to tell. (I as a GM did not plan some kind of medical history for this NPC.)

Circles, "I know an NPC guard who's a little overweight, his name is Piggy". The roll succeeded and thus Piggy the guard showed up to help the party.

Guard-wise, "Piggy has a jar of sweets in the cupboard in his room". The roll failed so they discovered that Piggy kept his mother's ashes and urn in his cupboard and they'd misremembered. (As a GM I didn't plan on there being an NPC called Piggy. Let alone that he would have a jar of candy. Now he has some vague character history as we know his mother is dead.)

I was particularly pleased with my players generating Piggy. Out of nothing I've got an NPC with a vague air of tragedy.

I don't claim to understand how the real world works and how all the people in it work in its entirety. There's going to be gaps and I'm pleased that I've found a system that lets us fill them cooperatively.