One of the main reasons I play RPGs, play video games, or read books is that I love to explore.  I want to go places and see what's there.  Learn about the history and the culture.  Maybe kill something and take its stuff while I'm there.  Creating the setting with the DM puts the kebosh on that for me as a player.  I already know what's there so exploration is pointless, and no fun.  Co-creation seems like it would be something that would be more appropriate in the realm of collaborative storytelling.  Thinking about it, co-creation in RPGs seems like a long step towards storygaming.

Quote from: Mishihari on March 14, 2025, 05:52:50 AMOne of the main reasons I play RPGs, play video games, or read books is that I love to explore.  I want to go places and see what's there.  Learn about the history and the culture.  Maybe kill something and take its stuff while I'm there.  Creating the setting with the DM puts the kebosh on that for me as a player.  I already know what's there so exploration is pointless, and no fun.  Co-creation seems like it would be something that would be more appropriate in the realm of collaborative storytelling.  Thinking about it, co-creation in RPGs seems like a long step towards storygaming.

In my experience, even in worlds with lots of detail already created, like Star Wars or Middle Earth or real-world history, there's still room for lots of exploration. I might already know plenty about those settings in general, but it's easy to explore new material created by a given creator.

In the same way, for example, my last D&D setting was one that I co-created with my son Milo. We discussed jointly a lot of high-level things like gods, races, language, and so forth. But he wouldn't know anything about an adventure that I made in the setting, and I wouldn't know anything about an adventure he created. Almost all of the stuff we co-created is public to all players.

I've played in a number of co-created and/or rotating-GM games, and exploration was a big part of adventures in all of them.


EDITED TO ADD: This isn't the standard for my games. In most of them I'm the traditional world-creator. As a minor caveat, even in traditional games, it's common for players to have a hand in bits of background related to their character - like who their character's family is or what their hometown is like. I'm not sure what JoannaGeist is driving at in saying that the setting is created by GM and players. To JoannaGeist - it would be better to unpack more what you're talking about instead of zippy one-liners.

I've had players expand in-game lore through collaborative discussions of their characters, but generally unless it's FATE or something I'd assume most games function like mine in that the DM has to approve said expansions to their world.

Some of this comes down to GMs getting frustrated that PCs aren't noticing the quest hooks they painstakingly set up.

Players getting to edit or add to the world is always terrible. It gets to degrees of worse depending on how much power the players get.

The ideal world doesn't come from players getting to do whatever they want with the world, or with the DM and players having an equal say in the world. Or from the DM having sole and total power over the world.

The ideal is a scenario where the players have NO say over the world (except for what their PCs do in the world), where the DM has limited powers over the world, and where effective generators manage the day-to-day of playing in the world.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2025, 12:12:39 PMThe ideal is a scenario where the players have NO say over the world (except for what their PCs do in the world), where the DM has limited powers over the world, and where effective generators manage the day-to-day of playing in the world.

I agree about 99% of the time, EXCEPT in certain instances. I played in a pretty extensive sandbox campaign for several years and one of the characters was a self-professed scholar. The DM had the world worked out in fair detail, but the PC would sometimes come to conclusions and spout "history" to explain a situation. A lot of times this would be worked into the actual history of the world, sometimes it wouldn't, depending on the DMs whim. So I think things like, "Ahhh yes, I remember Sir Bob, his uncle Herbert wore foppish yellow hats when hunting wolves" is the sort of thing that adds flavor to the game and is essentially inconsequential; it also saves the DM from having to come up with backstories for some NPCs. I am terrible with names, so I usually let my players decide on them if they're inclined, for instance.

So, it CAN be a good thing if the players have total buy-in to the DMs world and understand what he's trying to do. Alas, a lot of players are just jackasses who would use said opportunities to fuck everything up.

The real problem is that too many people have completely fucked up ideas of what "railroading" even is.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMIt eliminates the DM to Player dichotomy. By allowing players input into how the game setting is created, it weakens DM fiat.

Explain how it does this. My "fiat" hasn't been weakened in my current game at all.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMAn RPG is a role paying GAME. Not storytelling. You want to tell a story, go write a book.

I have not said anything to the contrary. "Players contribute to the game's setting" and "Players play in the game" do not contradict each other.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMWithout a clear distinction between DM and player, rules arbitration becomes murky and the DM can't perform one of his primary functions: referee.

The distinction remains clear after the players contribute elements to the setting.
Rules arbitration is exactly the same whether the players put things in the world or not. The resolution mechanics are unchanged. I'm not prevented from adjudicating in any way.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMNot only is it his role to create a game world, but it's just as important for him to act as rules interpreter and arbiter of said rules.
There is no rules by committee, nor game world by committee.

The roles of participants in the game are decided by those participants. I want the players to contribute, so they do.
I'm still the arbiter of the rules after the players contribute ideas to the setting. The players have nothing to do with adjudication.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2025, 12:12:39 PMPlayers getting to edit or add to the world is always terrible.

It's been pretty great, actually.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2025, 12:12:39 PMThe ideal world doesn't come from players getting to do whatever they want with the world, or with the DM and players having an equal say in the world. Or from the DM having sole and total power over the world.

The ideal is a scenario where the players have NO say over the world (except for what their PCs do in the world), where the DM has limited powers over the world, and where effective generators manage the day-to-day of playing in the world.

The ideal world is the one I create together with my friends. They should get a say in the nature of the game they agree to play in their free time.

I don't want power over the world. I want to run a fun game that my friends enjoy playing. I am currently achieving that goal, so I don't see any reason to use your approach.

Learn to let go. You don't have to be in control. If you don't trust your players to contribute to your game, you shouldn't be playing with them.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 01:56:23 AM

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMIt eliminates the DM to Player dichotomy. By allowing players input into how the game setting is created, it weakens DM fiat.

Explain how it does this. My "fiat" hasn't been weakened in my current game at all.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMAn RPG is a role paying GAME. Not storytelling. You want to tell a story, go write a book.

I have not said anything to the contrary. "Players contribute to the game's setting" and "Players play in the game" do not contradict each other.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMWithout a clear distinction between DM and player, rules arbitration becomes murky and the DM can't perform one of his primary functions: referee.

The distinction remains clear after the players contribute elements to the setting.
Rules arbitration is exactly the same whether the players put things in the world or not. The resolution mechanics are unchanged. I'm not prevented from adjudicating in any way.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMNot only is it his role to create a game world, but it's just as important for him to act as rules interpreter and arbiter of said rules.
There is no rules by committee, nor game world by committee.

The roles of participants in the game are decided by those participants. I want the players to contribute, so they do.
I'm still the arbiter of the rules after the players contribute ideas to the setting. The players have nothing to do with adjudication.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2025, 12:12:39 PMPlayers getting to edit or add to the world is always terrible.

It's been pretty great, actually.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2025, 12:12:39 PMThe ideal world doesn't come from players getting to do whatever they want with the world, or with the DM and players having an equal say in the world. Or from the DM having sole and total power over the world.

The ideal is a scenario where the players have NO say over the world (except for what their PCs do in the world), where the DM has limited powers over the world, and where effective generators manage the day-to-day of playing in the world.

The ideal world is the one I create together with my friends. They should get a say in the nature of the game they agree to play in their free time.

I don't want power over the world. I want to run a fun game that my friends enjoy playing. I am currently achieving that goal, so I don't see any reason to use your approach.

Learn to let go. You don't have to be in control. If you don't trust your players to contribute to your game, you shouldn't be playing with them.

It sounds like to me from the description you've given of your group, you situation is unique compared to the rest of us. I get the impression that your group is very young, impressionable, and doesn't know anything different. If your method works for you, that's fine. Do not expect the same method to work with other groups, because it will most likely won't.

I can say for a fact your "Cooperative game world building" wouldn't work for mine. My players are too experienced with decades of gaming under their belts. They would do whatever they could to take that sort of game play and manipulate it to their advantage. I would do the exact same thing.

It wouldn't be done out of spite. It's done because the DM allows it to happen. You give a player an inch, and they'll take a mile.

I think this comes down to how someone approaches the game. It's obvious you come at it from a "cooperative" approach, where the players with their characters, along with the DM, are on this journey together. They players have a say so on how the game world unfolds in play, which is fine, as long as you can keep it under control.

My game, and most people here, take the old school "DM vs player" approach. The DM is the referee and the game world creator. The players create their characters and are set loose to interact within that world. They do things and it's up to me as DM if they can or can't do it. I don't have to worry about keeping things under control, because I've already set the limits on what characters can an cannot do.

Basically, what works for you won't always work for others and vice versa.

Have fun.

Quote from: blackstone on March 17, 2025, 08:08:46 AMIt sounds like to me from the description you've given of your group, you situation is unique compared to the rest of us. I get the impression that your group is very young, impressionable, and doesn't know anything different. If your method works for you, that's fine. Do not expect the same method to work with other groups, because it will most likely won't.

Baseless conjecture. Given the immaturity displayed by your description of your players, I could as easily claim the same of you and your group.

Most of my players come from a decade or more of 2e, 3e, and pathfinder.

Quote from: blackstoneI can say for a fact your "Cooperative game world building" wouldn't work for mine. My players are too experienced with decades of gaming under their belts. They would do whatever they could to take that sort of game play and manipulate it to their advantage. I would do the exact same thing.

I'm sorry you're too inexperienced to have grown out of this behavior.

Quote from: blackstoneIt wouldn't be done out of spite. It's done because the DM allows it to happen. You give a player an inch, and they'll take a mile.

It's done because you choose to do it. Choose differently.

Quote from: blackstoneI think this comes down to how someone approaches the game. It's obvious you come at it from a "cooperative" approach, where the players with their characters, along with the DM, are on this journey together. They players have a say so on how the game world unfolds in play, which is fine, as long as you can keep it under control.

You seem to have confused "contribute ideas to the setting" with "determine which events take place during the game", like most everyone who has replied to me. Are you not reading my posts that clarify this, or do you not understand the distinction?

I don't need to "keep anything under control", and I certainly don't need your advice. I don't want to control the game. I want to adjudicate the results of player decisions, and determine how the non-player elements behave.

Quote from: blackstoneMy game, and most people here, take the old school "DM vs player" approach.

Quote from: blackstoneThe DM is the referee and the game world creator. The players create their characters and are set loose to interact within that world. They do things and it's up to me as DM if they can or can't do it. I don't have to worry about keeping things under control, because I've already set the limits on what characters can an cannot do.

This is the same for my games, with the sole exception that the players can contribute ideas for stuff that exists in the world, based on their character concept.

Quote from: blackstoneBasically, what works for you won't always work for others and vice versa.

Yes, obviously. I don't think I ever claimed that other people should play the way I do.

In all fairness, unless it's a storygame (I have minimal experience there) I feel most games will have DM as both primary world builder and final arbiter of what goes into a world. It just doesn't work very well otherwise, in the sense of conflicting creative visions and weaker overarching themes, unless you happen to be blessed with an abnormally awesome group of players. Even then, some system of arbitration is required.

That said, any game world with integrated player characters will likely have at least some player impact on the world prior to play, in the sense of at least a smidge of backstory. This backstory will to some degree be influenced by player interest, and will be confirmed by the DM. Sometimes the DM may reveal backstory facts in play, but then it's up to the players to act out dynamics and flesh out some of the specifics.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 10:38:26 AM

Quote from: blackstone on March 17, 2025, 08:08:46 AMIt sounds like to me from the description you've given of your group, you situation is unique compared to the rest of us. I get the impression that your group is very young, impressionable, and doesn't know anything different. If your method works for you, that's fine. Do not expect the same method to work with other groups, because it will most likely won't.

Baseless conjecture. Given the immaturity displayed by your description of your players, I could as easily claim the same of you and your group.

Most of my players come from a decade or more of 2e, 3e, and pathfinder.

Quote from: blackstoneI can say for a fact your "Cooperative game world building" wouldn't work for mine. My players are too experienced with decades of gaming under their belts. They would do whatever they could to take that sort of game play and manipulate it to their advantage. I would do the exact same thing.

I'm sorry you're too inexperienced to have grown out of this behavior.

Quote from: blackstoneIt wouldn't be done out of spite. It's done because the DM allows it to happen. You give a player an inch, and they'll take a mile.

It's done because you choose to do it. Choose differently.

Quote from: blackstoneI think this comes down to how someone approaches the game. It's obvious you come at it from a "cooperative" approach, where the players with their characters, along with the DM, are on this journey together. They players have a say so on how the game world unfolds in play, which is fine, as long as you can keep it under control.

You seem to have confused "contribute ideas to the setting" with "determine which events take place during the game", like most everyone who has replied to me. Are you not reading my posts that clarify this, or do you not understand the distinction?

I don't need to "keep anything under control", and I certainly don't need your advice. I don't want to control the game. I want to adjudicate the results of player decisions, and determine how the non-player elements behave.

Quote from: blackstoneMy game, and most people here, take the old school "DM vs player" approach.

You should read what Gygax actually wrote some time.

The DM can do anything, and there is no victory condition.

Quote from: blackstoneThe DM is the referee and the game world creator. The players create their characters and are set loose to interact within that world. They do things and it's up to me as DM if they can or can't do it. I don't have to worry about keeping things under control, because I've already set the limits on what characters can an cannot do.

This is the same for my games, with the sole exception that the players can contribute ideas for stuff that exists in the world, based on their character concept.

Quote from: blackstoneBasically, what works for you won't always work for others and vice versa.

Yes, obviously. I don't think I ever claimed that other people should play the way I do.

You're being argumentative and arrogant. I wasn't giving advice to you on how to run your game. I'm simply saying that what you do works for you, and that's fine. It just won't work for everybody. There is no right or wrong way here.

-never said anything about "winning" or "losing. The "DM vs players" : DM presents obstacles to overcome and the players must overcome them. That's it. Don't lecture me about what EGG said. I'm fully aware.

- saying me and my players are "inexperienced" is laughable and arrogant. It's just a different style of play.

-also, to presume that you can give me advice how to run MY table is hypocritical of you, because you clearly stated that I shouldn't, even though I wasn't.

But you giving the impression that your way is superior is just simply arrogant.

Plus, we're onto you Domina. We all know this is a sock puppet account for you.

I never said my method is superior. Screenshot the post or retract your statement and apologize.

I'm still not thinking Domina has a sock puppet account. Because if so, they would presumably be either banned on their main account or using both accounts. That and the effort level of JoannaGeist's postings seem higher. Especially the fact that they seem to edit them and have actual image attachments here and there.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 11:12:25 AMI never said my method is superior. Screenshot the post or retract your statement and apologize.

I mean, in all fairness, none of us would be talking about how we do it if there wasn't some degree of belief that our way was a solid method and/or most useful for us. That said, you did say he should probably choose differently with respect to either his actions as a DM or a player?

Likewise, I do think both of you consider your methods superior, because otherwise why would you be using them.

Also both of y'all seem to think that the other has immature players or something. Irregardless, y'all both have valid styles of play, so no point wasting your time arguing over it. 

I think we all got some interesting info and ideas out of the exchange.