rpg

I am split on that one.

A known setting an do a lot for engaging with the player (the cliché about the Vampire players having long discussion about the lore), and the setting is definitely a reason why i would join a game over another, if I see a GM promoting a collective setting creation I wouldn't apply for that game.

However, even in rigid setting, there is a lot of room for player brought element. So you're a Noble ? What does your fief look-like. So you're a robber ? How do you sell your loot ?, what does your favourite tavern look like which ease the GM job and gives players some control on the game world.

So While I don't agree with Build the whole setting together, I definitely expect the players to bring their own elements to the table

When I encounter a GM who has like pages of lore, I'm always like "Would you rather write a book?"

Stuff like this can be very good, but be aware there are some players who hate this. Some people just want to be told a story, and if you ask them to be too creative they'll have a bad time. Sometimes it's because they're new and nervous, but sometimes that's just how they are.

Also some players just routinely have difficult ideas that don't mesh with the group. Like everyone else is vibing on a serious dark modern day vampire political game, and they're like "I want to be a ninja turtle from Mars with a reanimated dead fish for a head". Like, what. Maybe some people enjoy "zany" off-theme stuff. Not me.

Or the player that always wants to be themselves. Or an amnesiac.

Gosh I've had so many players I didn't enjoy.

Anyway. Player input is also built nicely into Fate, both in campaign creation and scenes. I'm a fan. Spend a fate point and declare a story detail like "every Razer Space Technology office has a helipad with a chopper ready to go. It's because the CEO is weirdly hands on and loves helicopters."