So, to be clear, you think that other people's opinions as to what they find fun/not fun (and why) are subject to criticism? That's not really a good way to approach the topic, or at least not in my experience (see what I did there?).

No, not what they find fun or not. That's their opinion and it's fine. I don't mind that you don't like collaborative world building. What I'm disagreeing with, and why I've asked for your experience with such games, is the claims you've made about the style of play. You have attributed things to the style rather than to your ability or comfort when playing that way. I mean, you said it's not viable.

When you make these claims, you sometimes add "... in my experience" as a qualifier. I don't see how this doesn't make your experience directly relevant. You keep brining up your experience... why should I not ask about it?

The operative word in that sentence is "seem." You've decided that you've done more and know better, and so your opinion is more valid than my own. I don't think that's a very constructive way to engage in a dialogue, at least where what's fun and what's not in concerned.

I've asked you to share your experiences. You've made some assertions and then backed them up with some examples that don't really seem all that relevant to collaborative world building. Until you offer some details on that, I don't think the conversation is going to become more constructive.

Since experience is so important, can you demonstrate that you have as much as you say you have? Because so far you haven't really put forward anything to support the idea that you're the expert that you claim to be.

Sure. I believe @Manbearcat already offered some of these details as I have played weekly with him for the past few years. But I also have a longstanding group that I play with in both a weekly online game, and a biweekly face to face game.

In that time I've played 5e D&D, Starfinder, Call of Cthulhu, Star Trek Adventures, Delta Green, Marvel Superheroes, Blades in the Dark, Stonetop, Dogs in the Vineyard, A Thousand Arrows, Mouse Guard, and The Between.

I've also run several games in that period: 5e D&D, Mothership, Blades in the Dark, Galaxies in Peril, Alien, Band of Blades, Spire, The 13th Fleet, Stonetop, and Heart.

Collectively these games run a pretty wide gamut of world building methods. In the case of Mothership, Galaxies in Peril, and Heart, collaborative world building was extremely high.

Mothership is an OSR flavored game with pretty traditional roles and authorities among the participants; there's nothing stopping a GM from being the sole source of world building, and I think the game largely defaults to that expectation. For our game, I wanted to see what we could come up with as a group by making characters with just the genre basics in mind. Once the characters were created, I took their background elements and ideas and then made that the setting, with a few bits of my own, and a couple of additional suggestions. This is an example of using collaborative world building in a game that doesn't really expect you to do so.

Galaxies in Peril comes with a pretty standard superhero setting... Mandela City... but I was playing with the playtest material that lacked setting details and just had the playbooks to work with. So we came up with our own setting. I had the players each come up with a faction for the world in addition to their characters. We then looked at everyone's origins and determined they were all connected in some way. Two of the factions the players offered became the major antagonists of the setting, and the third was an ally to the PCs. It all came together pretty organically, and I can say that I would not have come up with the setting the way it was on my own. This is an example of collaborative world building in a game that expects some level of it to happen, though in this case, we had to do a lot more than is typical.

Heart is different in that there is a default setting, but it's loosely defined and so the details are largely filled in during play by the entire group. This is similar to a lot of the games listed above (Blades in the Dark, Stonetop, and its sister game of Spire, most notably). Where Heart differs is that the game revolves around characters delving into a living tear in reality called the Heart. The best way to describe this is that it is a living dungeon that shapes itself based on the wants and needs of those who enter it... but it really doesn't understand people, and so things are twisted and off. What this means for play is that the players create their characters and then I create the locations and beings that they face in the Heart based on their wants and desires. The dungeon (such as it is) is shaped by the players' ideas. This is an example of a game that absolutely relies and thrives on collaborative world building.

So there's some examples, each a bit different than the other. I can comment on how it works for the other games listed, too, if you like. But I figured better to start off with a digestible amount.

If you have some questions, or similar examples to share, that'd be great.

You don't get to decide what concerns are valid and what's not, at least not for anyone else. Which is really the issue here, since you seem to think you have some sort of authority on the subject.

Actually, I do get to decide. In my opinion, your conclusions about collaborative world building seem underinformed and aren't as universally true as you have put forth. I'm willing to revise that opinion, but so far you've not offered anything to make me do so.

Sure, but when you decide that it does, and so other people's opinions aren't valid (because they're underinformed or based on fear), that's not going to lead to any sort of useful dialogue, I'd wager.

I said I wanted others to decide for themselves. I've stated my position. I'm not speaking for anyone else.

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7prrWqKmlnF6kv6h706GpnpmUqHywsMOiq6Kdo2K2r3nFmqWtmaOuerSx062gp5%2BjYsGpsYycmKydXZa0orXNrKtmm5%2BjwKq%2F056lnLFebH1zfpZqZqmno6l6en6UbGxwaA%3D%3D