There are two kinds of prep: One of them is only needed in small amounts but more is always better; the second is survivable in small amount, but always harmful, and more is always worse. The first kind involves developing a good feeling for what and who is in your setting, understanding that a lot of it might never see the light of day at the gaming table. The second kind involves preparing specific encounters, 'hooks' or even whole plots that you expect to unfold in a certain way, which always involves you implicitly or explicitly making decisions for the players.

People sometimes argue that you need to prepare plots and story lines and encounters because - I am translating here - we live in a degraded age of brass where most players are flabby, disinterested goons who can't be bothered to make a single decision or develop a single interest for themselves. Perhaps, but I don't think you are even playing a roleplaying game at that point - the activity has devolved into something more like a B-grade fantasy movie that you are asked to picture in your own head, and that has a (very) small chance of getting stopped before the big reveal at the end, through some unforeseen technical difficulties.  Unfortunately, this is what lots of people think rpg's are because that's what commercial modules give them. So that is what they think they are supposed to create when they sit down to prepare for a gaming session.

On the other hand, if you don't put some thought into your setting, you are also selling the whole thing short. It's fun to dream up cool places and critters, whether the players interact with them or not. Yesterday I wrote up a group of dragoons who are the elite troops in city I run, along with the rules of a kind of gladiatorial contest you have to go through to join them. I don't have any idea whether anyone in the play group has any interest in joining this troop; in fact, they probably aren't even aware that they are who they are, just based on the casual encounters they've had. But, I liked creating it, and it is there if the players ever wander that direction. On the other hand, if I want to take control of and generally fuck up my game I'll railroad them into having to join this troop for some stupid made up reason, and thus force the group to spend an evening playing through my little conceit about the gladiatorial fights.

I love prepping games.

For me, its about immersing myself in my world, or the published setting. When reading settings, I build out my own notes, to learn it, to personalize it, and to emphasize what I enjoy most about.

Fortunately, I avoid heavy crunch games (or even mid-crunch really), so my prep is mostly about the Who? / What? / Where? / When? / Why? / How? of the adventure.

In fact, when I have had to run zero prep games, AKA, the GM didn't show at a convention event, I relied upon sending everyone to grab snacks and I spent my 5 minutes jotting down answers to the above questions and I easily can run a 4 hour session off my head as long as I had pregen PCs or the players brought their own.

But the caveat is I don't play crunchy stuff with lots of rules, detailed NPC stats, etc. Most of my GMing is OD&D, Gamma World, Traveller, Warhammer Fantasy, etc. My 4e D&D may be the most prep, but I mostly cut and paste stat blocks...or build out my own shorthand. When I play Palladium stuff, but I've homebrewed it down to the basics. And more and more, I've just been using the Mechanoids system for my Rifts/Phase World games.

I don't know how you easy prep for crunchy games. In the past, those games ate lots of my prep time with mechanical issues. I didn't enjoy that.

Quote from: Octiron;920599I've found that keeping a list of random ideas and short scenarios to spring on players when the opportunity presents itself is better than a written adventure, but that is still sort of preparing.

Agreed and Welcome to theRPGsite!!

We've been getting some fresh blood in the past few weeks. That's awesome. Looking forward to hearing more about what RPGs you enjoy.

But of course, your favorite game suxxors, unless it is my favorite game, but in that case, you are playing it wrong!!

Quote from: Spinachcat;920928I don't know how you easy prep for crunchy games. In the past, those games ate lots of my prep time with mechanical issues. I didn't enjoy that.

Having a set of Poor, Average, Good, Excellent stats for typical NPCs that you can then slightly customize (or use as is) allows fast prep for more detailed systems. Runequest 3 made good use of that technique. I've done something similar for NPCs in Honor+Intrigue.

Quote from: Bren;920943Having a set of Poor, Average, Good, Excellent stats for typical NPCs that you can then slightly customize (or use as is) allows fast prep for more detailed systems. Runequest 3 made good use of that technique. I've done something similar for NPCs in Honor+Intrigue.

Yes. Also, having made and played enough characters for a system, the appropriate stats can be familiar and not require going through the steps & math.

I've done zero prep games.  Sit down with one or two players and they tell me the setting and situation.  For instance, High Fantesy fetch quest etc.  and I go from there.  

There was no system, their was no setting until we started playing.  The first one didn't work great, she wanted to go to an Ice world, and she didn't quite know what to make of the glacier, but then neither did I.

After that they worked great, easier settings and more practice on my part.

They were prep for an Amber Game I never got off the Ground.  I wanted to get my players enthused and introduce some characters and themes.

Most of my session-by-session prep is minuscule. Often no more than a quick line of notation on a scrap of paper.

If I were to take a que from some that have commented on my posts I would say something like - "playing with zero prep doesn't sound like roleplaying, its more like a practice in improvisational and cooperative story telling. Fun but not the same thing." I wont say that though as I know how aggravating such comments can be.

I will say however that the idea of a GM making up the world, locations, characters, encounters, plot hooks, interactions and so on, off the cuff and out of the nether regions at the moment they are needed would not fill me with confidence as a player. Some people here have accused my approach to GMins as 'story telling'. Im afraid I would have to use that same description for a complete game emerging randomly from the mind of the GM at the table. I find the idea of a prepared and fleshed out world waiting my decisions as a player much more attractive.

Please, Im not trying to offend anyone, just voicing my opinion. No need to pull out the pitchforks and torches.

Prep is indeed a deeply personal decision, some enjoy it as much or more than the game (me) others consider it a necessary evil and still others have devised ways to play without it. Like everything else in this weird ass hobby, to each their own.

Quote from: rgrove0172;922147If I were to take a que from some that have commented on my posts I would say something like - "playing with zero prep doesn't sound like roleplaying, its more like a practice in improvisational and cooperative story telling. Fun but not the same thing." I wont say that though as I know how aggravating such comments can be.

I will say however that the idea of a GM making up the world, locations, characters, encounters, plot hooks, interactions and so on, off the cuff and out of the nether regions at the moment they are needed would not fill me with confidence as a player. Some people here have accused my approach to GMins as 'story telling'. Im afraid I would have to use that same description for a complete game emerging randomly from the mind of the GM at the table. I find the idea of a prepared and fleshed out world waiting my decisions as a player much more attractive.

Please, Im not trying to offend anyone, just voicing my opinion. No need to pull out the pitchforks and torches.

Prep is indeed a deeply personal decision, some enjoy it as much or more than the game (me) others consider it a necessary evil and still others have devised ways to play without it. Like everything else in this weird ass hobby, to each their own.

I make no-prep games in a prepped sandbox. In a sense, yes, I am frontloading the preparation, but many a adventure has been had because I know the region so well, that I can react to anything my players throw at me. I am ridiculously lazy though, so the stuff I have prepped is about as dense on information as Judges Guild modules. "The local gangs are constantly at war with each other, they've divided the town into four underground zones of influence." This line gave me about 30 hours of gameplay and still has some open threads.

At some point, you are so good with clichés and baseline scenarios, that you can make no-prep games seem like prepped ones. The rest is merely reacting reasonably in accordance with the parameters of the established campaign setting.

I started playing RPGs in 1974 but never really ran a true module until maybe the 1990's. Most times I would start with a base world map (sometimes drawn in 5-10 minutes, sometimes a few hours) and a couple of dungeon maps (early Judges Guild or hand-drawn, now I can just Google one in seconds), and just play. I had a few resources like the City-State of the Invincible Overlord as a guide, but most of my adventures were home made and often details were  improvised on the spot.

Part of my own personal problem is that I don't have a great memory, and when I have to read a huge module to prep for a game I tend to forget a lot or have to take notes. This can require a lot of work and diminishes my own fun level. I had that problem when I ran 5E through Adventurer's League at the local game store, where I needed a lot of prep time but as the campaign progressed I started to fall behind. Toward the end I was reading each part just before we played, which I'm sure made the game a lot less fun for my players.

I think for me the key is the rules set and how familiar I am with it. I can improv OD&D with ease, but 5E is a little harder because of the number of rules. An NPC or monster in OD&D can be created in moments, to really get it right in 5E takes longer. With a decent NPC list and/or monster book, however, I can usually "wing it" with almost any RPG and I like adventures that way.

Quote from: rgrove0172;922147If I were to take a que from some that have commented on my posts I would say something like - "playing with zero prep doesn't sound like roleplaying, its more like a practice in improvisational and cooperative story telling. Fun but not the same thing." I wont say that though as I know how aggravating such comments can be.

You can, but you'd be laughed at:). So it's better not to say it, indeed, or aggravating would be a good way to describe it...

QuoteI will say however that the idea of a GM making up the world, locations, characters, encounters, plot hooks, interactions and so on, off the cuff and out of the nether regions at the moment they are needed would not fill me with confidence as a player. Some people here have accused my approach to GMins as 'story telling'. Im afraid I would have to use that same description for a complete game emerging randomly from the mind of the GM at the table. I find the idea of a prepared and fleshed out world waiting my decisions as a player much more attractive.

I play with next to zero prep.
Yet the world is always prepped before you reach it, and never shapes differently in answer to your intentions (of course, the results of your decisions have to change it). I just shape it as seems logical to me;).
Whether I shaped it that way 3 months ago, 3 days before the session, or 3 seconds before you reached it, while describing the ornaments on the door (which might or might not be pre-prepared, themselves) is of virtually zero consequence.

I think you assume that lack of content prepared between the sessions means the setting is shifting to accommodate or block the characters, while in reality, I consider this an anathema to my Refereeing style.

Quote from: AsenRG;922265I think you assume that lack of content prepared between the sessions means the setting is shifting to accommodate or block the characters, while in reality, I consider this an anathema to my Refereeing style.

While you don't do that, some people do. Another thing some people do is to use the speculation of the players in their impromtu creation. In this case, even if the GM is fair the world will be different than it would have been if it was created ahead of time and sans player input. (Which is not to say that "different than" is worse than. Only that it is different both in outcome and in ontology.

Quote from: AsenRG;922265You can, but you'd be laughed at:). So it's better not to say it, indeed, or aggravating would be a good way to describe it...


I play with next to zero prep.
Yet the world is always prepped before you reach it, and never shapes differently in answer to your intentions (of course, the results of your decisions have to change it). I just shape it as seems logical to me;).
Whether I shaped it that way 3 months ago, 3 days before the session, or 3 seconds before you reached it, while describing the ornaments on the door (which might or might not be pre-prepared, themselves) is of virtually zero consequence.

I think you assume that lack of content prepared between the sessions means the setting is shifting to accommodate or block the characters, while in reality, I consider this an anathema to my Refereeing style.

Your right, that probably is my assumption. I admit it may not be the case but it seem hard to avioid.

Quote from: Bren;922268While you don't do that, some people do.

Hence me posting to signal that this isn't the only option:).
And you know that if you ask me, people that do that just create a bad name for the rest of us, low-prep GMs;).

QuoteAnother thing some people do is to use the speculation of the players in their impromtu creation. In this case, even if the GM is fair the world will be different than it would have been if it was created ahead of time and sans player input. (Which is not to say that "different than" is worse than. Only that it is different both in outcome and in ontology.

Yeah, and I don't do that, either. But I suspected rgrove assumes that the low-prep style always goes together with one of these.
And I really want to make it abundantly clear that such is not the case at least with some of us;). Besides, it's not like GMs who prepare aren't prone to pulling the same kind of tricks...quite the opposite, I've found! (Typical excuse being "how could I let my preparation go to waste?", IME).

Quote from: rgrove0172;922282Your right, that probably is my assumption. I admit it may not be the case but it seem hard to avioid.

Why, no, it's not hard to avoid...as long as you decide in advance that you don't want it. Otherwise, yes, you might not notice it happening.
In a roundabout way, the fact the people taught me to use railroading and illusionism when preparing for sessions, probably helped me to avoid at least this pitfall:D!

And I don't want it exactly because I want to present "an existing world", not "a world that bends according to your whims" (unless we're playing Amber and you're are in the Shadows, or something equivalent, like "spirit journeys"). That's why I said the world isn't going to shape itself depending on your intentions, in my earlier post. Please note: when you carry them out, the world will react to your actions, as always. But there won't be 12 guards in the room because you've found a way to slaughter 8 in the first round, and I want you to get a "challenging fight", or some such. If there were six of them, I'll roll the dice and see where they fall. If they confirm your plan, expect me to comment OOC "there's no kill like overkill", and that's going to be it.
But if you had no plan and those three guards are going to be a tough fight for you, there are still going to be three guards. In fact, depending on whether they heard you approaching, they might be in different state of readiness, including laying out an ambush for you.

Quote from: AsenRG;922440Yeah, and I don't do that, either.

If you are getting input from your players while improvising that input will have an affect. And sometimes you will a different result than you would have gotten without their input. That outcome is the reason that brainstorming is a thing.

Quote from: Bren;922527If you are getting input from your players while improvising that input will have an affect. And sometimes you will a different result than you would have gotten without their input. That outcome is the reason that brainstorming is a thing.

I'm totally serious and not even discussing your point. At least, not yet.
Now,would you define "input while improvising", because I'm honestly not sure what you mean here?