Running a tabletop roleplaying game like Dungeons and Dragons puts the players front and center. It's a team effort, with players and the Game Master weaving stories together through choices and actions. But what happens to the game world when nobody's playing? Does it freeze, waiting for the players to come back? What if a character leaves the game, or worse, everyone's character dies? This is a common challenge, but I found some great ideas on how to handle it from the game Darkest Dungeon. This piece dives into how Darkest Dungeon inspires us to create TTRPG worlds that keep living and evolving, whether or not the players are there to see it.

Town Needs Help

For those not familiar, Darkest Dungeon is a turn-based role playing game where the player sends heroes on quests into nearby dungeons, controlling them to defeat foes and return with loot. Players may use the loot to better the town and to improve the heroes, giving them the edge against the dark forces they face. But heroes only have so much durability in the Darkest Dungeon.

As you send the same heroes back on adventures, they will accumulate a variety of scars from their travels. Characters can take both health damage and stress damage, the latter of which can lead to a mental break for a character. See too many horrors and suddenly the paladin has turned to cowardice, looking to flee the dungeon. Additionally, characters can accumulate positive and negative quirks, which are mental and physical traits that will help or hinder them in the future. The daring rogue might become more stealthy in the darkness, but also develop a terrible cough that can stun him in combat on occasion. While most of this can be cured through rest and treatments one thing cannot be cured in Darkest Dungeon: death.

If a character dies while adventuring, that is it for them. Their character falls, and they lose any of the items they had. The accumulation of skills and resources they had are lost. But fear not, because there are always more adventurers. Players do not play as any individual in the party in Darkest Dungeon, but instead act more as a hybrid quest giver and town mayor. So while a particular Crusader or Vestal might fall, there will be more for you to hire in time. Simply put, the world continues whether a particular hero (or heroes) interact with it or not, and that is an excellent point to remember in TTRPGs.

A Player on the Stage of Life

Players are some of the main characters in the story you tell at the table. They are how your players interact with the world you are creating together, their own injection of free will and storytelling in the greater canvas you all are painting. But that does not mean that the story will not continue out in the background if they are not involved with a particular location. The world does not stop turning just because someone is not involved in it. Even more importantly, a story does not cease because a single character has left the party or died (their player included). As they say in theatre, the show must go on. For a tabletop roleplaying game this is very true, the world will keep turning. But what implications does this have?

A great example of this comes from my current Curse of Strahd game, The Mists of Barovia. During this game, the players have interacted heavily with the citizens of Barovia. One town in particular, Krezk, has seen a lot of influence from the party. Some players have made decisions that have had great impacts on the town and its people. That means that these stories will play out with them or without them, but with the mindset that the town itself will continue on no matter what.

(Curse of Strahd spoilers below).

When my party arrived in Krezk, they found a town that looked peaceful on the surface but was hiding a dark secret. The child of the town's leader had turned into something monstrous. My players took on the challenge, revealing the secret and facing the horror head-on. Their actions led to a change in leadership, influenced by the choices they made. When they came back later, they saw the town had changed in ways that reflected their earlier decisions, but also moved on in its own direction. This showed everyone at the table, myself included, that the world of our TTRPGs doesn't just wait around for the players; it keeps living and changing, with or without them.

Upon returning, the party found that the town had undergone some radical changes. When the party had chosen a new leader for Krezk, the Warlock had implied that they were chosen by the Morning Lord, Barovia’s God of the Sun. This character was so influential, in fact, that it became something that the town embraced. The party returned to a Krezk changed, focused on serving the Morning Lord, being lead by the Morning Lord’s Chosen. This gave the party a bit of influence in the town, but it also seemed to push it in a particular direction. After this first decision the party made choices, but nothing as influential. But the town continued to grow and change without their influence. But what if the party had not gotten involved?

Going back to the beginning, you may ask yourself what would have happened if my party of adventurers never got involved in the inner workings of Krezk. Maybe they never looked into what was killing the livestock. Or if they did, they kept the secret of the Burgomaster, wanting to let the town on its own. Or maybe they did everything, but did not help install a Burgomaster. Would any of this happened at all, or would the town remain static in the background. Well, to answer that see the following:

Illya's Unchecked Hunger: If the party had not intervened to stop Illya's growing hunger, Krezk's already limited resources would have been stretched to breaking point. Illya, driven by insatiable hunger, would eventually escape into the wilds of Barovia, leaving a trail of destruction in his wake, posing a dire threat until confronted by either Strahd or the adventurers.
Discovering Illya's Secret Without Action: Discovering Illya's condition but choosing inaction would result in a temporary reprieve for Krezk's livestock. However, Illya's inevitable escape into the wilderness would occur sooner, potentially casting the party in a negative light under Strahd's watchful gaze, eager to exploit their lack of intervention for his own purposes.
Leadership Void in Krezk: Choosing not to select a new leader for Krezk would have left the town in a state of temporary turmoil. Despite the hardships, the resilient people of Barovia are no strangers to adversity. Over time, they would have found a way to endure and rebuild, underlining the innate strength and perseverance of Krezk's citizens.

Each scenario underscores the principle that the world of your TTRPG evolves with or without direct player involvement, driven by their decisions and the natural course of its own narratives.

The scenarios outlined above highlight a critical aspect of our TTRPG worlds: they move on, with or without player intervention. The situation in Krezk—ranging from Illya's tragic fate to the town's leadership dynamics—was set into motion long before the players arrived. Their involvement could steer the outcome in various directions, but the absence of their intervention wouldn't halt the progression of events. The story of Krezk, like many others in the realm of TTRPGs, is a testament to a world that is alive, pulsating with its own rhythms and narratives, independent of the adventurers' path. This dynamic serves as a powerful reminder of the depth and realism we strive to achieve in our games, where characters and settings exist beyond the immediate sphere of player influence.

Consider then, the further ramifications if a pivotal character, such as the party's Warlock who had significantly influenced Krezk's trajectory, were to meet their end in the perilous lands of Barovia. Upon their return, the party would witness the lingering effects of their comrade's actions, yet those influences might wane without their continued presence and guidance. The town, initially swayed by the Warlock's charisma and leadership, might gradually revert to its old ways or struggle to find a new direction. This potential shift underscores a universal truth within our narratives: while life and stories persist, communities and individuals naturally gravitate towards familiarity and stability unless compelling reasons prompt them otherwise. Krezk, and places like it, demonstrate resilience and the tendency to adapt, evolve, or simply survive, reflecting the ongoing dance between change and constancy—a dance in which our players are but one set of participants among many.

Can you recall a session where the world moved on without the player characters, and they came back to find unexpected changes? How did your players react?

Tips

I have some tips for you to use when you want to make sure your world exists independently of your players, but without removing them from the story entirely.

Plan Out Local and Regional Stories: When you are working on building your campaign, remember to think about the stories playing out regardless of the player. A scheming noble will continue to operate if players investigate them or not. Try to think about what happens if the party does not get involved.
Unchosen Adventure Hooks Play Out: Just because your players do not choose to take a job does not mean that the events involved in it will cease to exist. In the case of Krezk and Illya, there would have been events that happened if the party did not get involved. Notice that I don’t use the word consequences, because that can imply fault. The world exists, and will continue.
Player Impacts Start Strong but Fade: In my Curse of Strahd game, the party Warlock was able to manipulate Krezk through some continued influence. Had he stopped, the town would have started to drift back to normal. Just like this, player influence should start to fade away if they do not continue to involve themselves.

Which of these tips do you find most useful for keeping your world alive and engaging? Are there any you’ve already been using without realizing it?

Final Thoughts

A lot of this article might look like it is telling you to make the adventurers in your story matter less, and that their actions should have less of an impact, and can feel against the concept of having a collective storytelling experience at your table. My rebuttal to this is that by making the world a real, living entity that requires sustained player interaction to change you do a few things.

First of all, this method makes the player’s actions and focus more important. Imagine if a party spent an adventuring day clearing out a bandit’s den. They catch or kill the leaders and rid the town of that particular threat. Will that solve all the problems of the town? Maybe in the short term, but it will leave a vacuum in the framework of the town, one that someone else will fill. But imagine if instead the party does a few more jobs for the town. Maybe later on they find the reason the bandits exist is a corrupt noble, who is financing them so he can keep a larger standing army and have more control. The players then deal with that, and some other jobs related to the betterment of the town. Because your adventures have put more effort into fixing the town, they will make a noticeable change. In short, you are telling your players that hard work and determination pays off, and giving them that satisfaction.

Secondly, you are helping to manage some of the work you will need to do to run a game by having stories that play out in the background without heavy influence of the party. If you have a party like I do, you know they will want to get involved in everything. Any town they enter, they will find something that hooks them in. As a Game Master you want this, it makes the world you play in interesting. The players have fun, and you get to build stories. But if you want to make a real living world, that would mean doing large rewrites any time your party shows up at a town, some of which they may never return to. By having the world changes based on how much your party puts into it, and having places they ignore return to normal, you prioritize the storytelling you have to do.

Reflections and Conversations

As we ponder the delicate balance between a world that lives too independently and one that enriches our storytelling, I invite you to join the conversation:

Have you ever experienced a moment in your TTRPG where the world felt too alive, possibly overshadowing the players' actions?

How did you recalibrate to ensure the players remained the story's focus?

Conversely, can you share an instance where the dynamic nature of your game world significantly enhanced the players' experience, making them feel like an integral part of a living, breathing universe?

How did this improve your story?

Considering the caution and the inspiration we've discussed, how might you fine-tune your approach to world-building in future sessions?

Are there lessons from today's discussion that could help you strike that perfect balance between a world that evolves and one that amplifies player agency?

Conclusion

As game masters and storytellers, we craft vibrant, living worlds that breathe life into our games. These realms are more than just backdrops for our players' adventures; they're dynamic settings that continue to evolve, telling their own stories even when the spotlight isn't on them. By drawing inspiration from games like Darkest Dungeon, we learn the art of creating a world that moves forward with or without player interaction. This approach not only enriches the narrative depth but also respects the unpredictable nature of collaborative storytelling, making every session more immersive and meaningful.

Now, I invite you to reflect on your own experiences: How have you seen static worlds impact your gameplay? Can you share a moment when dynamic world-building truly enhanced your TTRPG sessions? By embracing the concept of a world that lives and breathes independently of our players, we open the door to endless narrative possibilities and ensure that our tales are as boundless as our imagination.

Creating Living Worlds in TTRPGs: Lessons from Darkest Dungeon