I actually don’t encourage the basic idea of a player getting super invested in a single character. They should be invested in the story itself, as the story shouldn’t be overly focused on the individuals. Individual characters die, but the game goes on.

Only in one-on-one games do I really think that an individual character is really important. The game is essentially a biography of the character, or a report of one of his missions. In these types of games, I think the emotional investment can be shared more evenly. The time investment is still heavily biased toward the DM.

It has resulted ( so far ) in likely the best series of game sessions we have ever played. ( Well, except for that 8 hour one-shot where their 80′s gangster characters ended up battling bio-enhanced monsters on a space station… )

This strikes me a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, however. As a player I need some information on the game I’m playing in to make informed decisions about my character. Conversely, the GM who tries to make a campaign focused (rightly so) on the characters needs a fair about of information on said characters as well.

As a matter of example, we’re discussing two potential games for this Saturday. I’d love to sit down and do some deep thought on the type of character I want to play but a) the game hasn’t been selected yet and b) the overriding theme/goals of the campaign haven’t been articulated. Both of these defy me putting in any real work or emotional investment towards a character at the moment. I certainly don’t want to start down one path and find out that I’m headed in the completely wrong direction (different game, widly different tone and theme).

It’s not for lack of trying; I want to…I just can’t yet.

This strikes me as similar to the “flashlight vs. lightbulb” analogy, and is one of the common mistakes I see in GMing – forgetting who the stars are.

I think a lot of this is due to the kinds of gaming discussions that have been going on in the gaming communities. A lot of that is due to sites like this, especially like treasure tables, because they don’t focus on rules and minutia but themes and ideas that relate to gaming in general.

That’s why being a GM is so much tougher than being a player.

…at least in games where the GM is the only one who defines/controls the world outside the PCs’ immediate influence.

Anyway, the good news is that as long as the action is fun for most everyone involved, the particular focus – narrow/PC or broad/world – probably doesn’t matter. I would guess that mixing things up, even intertwining them, helps accomplish this goal.

Mona was describing Gary Gygax’s approach to building/creating World of Greyhawk for his own personal gaming group (not the published Greyhawk setting, but the one for his own legendary backporch sessions).

Mona described that Gygax took a bullseye approach to building Greyhawk. Very focused on the city and the immediate environs itself, but as he got away from the center, the less and less detailed it became. His three=ring binder was thick with stuff that really mattered to the players.

Anyone who’s played in Greyhawk knows its fairly expansive. But the real focus has always been on the city itself. (Unlike REalms, which spans a continent, or Dragonlance, which captures an entire war).

In building a homebrew world, or adapting a published setting, I think the DM is best served by taking the same focused approach as the player, putting details into what matters. It’s those little details that give rise to meta plots anyway.

Anyway, that’s my 2 cents worth.

Ironically, gamer expectations often flip these around. As GMs, we want our players to be expansive (more emotionally invested in our campaigns than in their own characters), while players want us to be focused (wrapping plots and scenes around their specific characters).