Every RPG session plays in some kind of setting. It could be a single dungeon, a single room even, a moment in time, or an entire world for more traditional campaign games. It is this latter group that concerns me at the moment, because it is what our current D&D game uses. Like many DMs, I have my homebrew setting. I've been working on it since November 2005, with that special theme, a backstory, some politics, geography, deities, and such.
Traditionally, the setting, like much, or almost all, of the world, was securely within the grasp of the DM. When the players go to a new place, learn a new historic fact, or talk to an NPC, it's always the DM's creation being described to them. I can imagine that there are DM that would balk at giving up this control, especially when it concerns their own setting. They might be afraid of not having any more say over what will be done with the product of perhaps many years of hard work, that the players might break it.
During our first session last Friday, I did the exact opposite: I let them run wild. I had told my players beforehand that while I did have a basic structure and some of the big, global things (some countries, the backstory, deities), everything else was open. There were free to invent as many elements as they pleased. Why? Because I like to improvise and capitalize on my player's ideas, because I was drained by working on five stories simultaneously and needed new ideas, and because it seemed fun.
And because the rewards are huge. My players were able to construct character backgrounds as they saw fit, with plenty of tasty flavor to scavenge for future adventures. In their starting town, every single player created a notable NPC they had a personal connection to, immediately populating the place with a colorful side cast, as well as some prominent or important buildings (they live in the house of an old cat lady). This makes the players, not just the characters, invested in the world they are playing in.
And really, I haven't given up total control. I set up the framework, and I had told them that I retain the right to change or even veto any idea. I'm hoping that I would never have to shoot down an idea, and rather run with it and see how it turns out. It's liberating, it's fun, it's less work for me, and everybody wins.
Have you had similar experiences with letting players construct parts of your setting? Have you tried this method before, or considered trying it?
Qi
Traditionally, the setting, like much, or almost all, of the world, was securely within the grasp of the DM. When the players go to a new place, learn a new historic fact, or talk to an NPC, it's always the DM's creation being described to them. I can imagine that there are DM that would balk at giving up this control, especially when it concerns their own setting. They might be afraid of not having any more say over what will be done with the product of perhaps many years of hard work, that the players might break it.
During our first session last Friday, I did the exact opposite: I let them run wild. I had told my players beforehand that while I did have a basic structure and some of the big, global things (some countries, the backstory, deities), everything else was open. There were free to invent as many elements as they pleased. Why? Because I like to improvise and capitalize on my player's ideas, because I was drained by working on five stories simultaneously and needed new ideas, and because it seemed fun.
And because the rewards are huge. My players were able to construct character backgrounds as they saw fit, with plenty of tasty flavor to scavenge for future adventures. In their starting town, every single player created a notable NPC they had a personal connection to, immediately populating the place with a colorful side cast, as well as some prominent or important buildings (they live in the house of an old cat lady). This makes the players, not just the characters, invested in the world they are playing in.
And really, I haven't given up total control. I set up the framework, and I had told them that I retain the right to change or even veto any idea. I'm hoping that I would never have to shoot down an idea, and rather run with it and see how it turns out. It's liberating, it's fun, it's less work for me, and everybody wins.
Have you had similar experiences with letting players construct parts of your setting? Have you tried this method before, or considered trying it?
Qi
No comments:
Post a Comment