Quote from: AsenRG;924536Says who? You, the unknown Internet guy I don't know and who has never seen my game?
Should I believe you, or my players, I wonder:p?
Oh wait, that one is easy;). Of course I should believe my players!

Says who? You, the unknown Internet guy we don't know and never seen game?
Should I believe you, or my own experiences, I wonder:p?
Oh wait, that one is easy;). Of course I should believe my own experiences and you know reality!

I got into low prep because the games I was running didn't offer modules and I didn't have crazy unlimitted time for prep. Also I didn't have a lot of access to modules for games like CoC, they existed but I didn't have them.

After almost four decades of gaming I find I need less prep anyway. That is a lot of practice. I prep the world more (because I love world building) and the adventure less (because the players are going to mangle it anyway).

As for thinking my games are better than they are, the reverse is more likely the case. I have run games that I thought were terrible and had players tell me how much fun they had far more often than thinking I ran a great game and had players not really enjoy it.  Really player enjoyment is the only metric of game quality that matters.

Quote from: Sommerjon;924590See, this is me agreeing with Krueg's comment that it is more System Mastery than Zero Prep.  I even went so far as to leave the corner cases in.

What I am talking about is not the same as System Mastery. It not enough to have mastered the rules of a game, you have to internalize the setting and/or the genre as well. Where system mastery matters the most is in developing a sense of what NPCs and monsters can do. Even that is unimportant if the system is well designed for the setting and genre.

A well designed system in this context means it reflects the reality of the genre or setting a way that a person who know the genre or setting but never has played the game can use the stuff 'as is' and it works as expected.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;924547For example, I know that I have a tendency to make questioning NPCs ineffective in mystery scenarios. Due to some bad experiences in my early days as a GM, I'm paranoid about about ruining a campaign by revealing too much of the mystery early on. So I end up defaulting to NPCs who know nothing or bite down on cyanide capsules or whatever. So one thing I make a point of prepping in detail is a breakdown of what various NPCs know. I get a ton of value out of that. Another GM who doesn't have this particular weakness when improvising could easily find that sort of prep completely useless.

A technique I recommend is to start using random tables. However it not quite as simplistic as that. You need a specific random table that reflect your sense of the odds of the NPCs reacting. However once developed it very useful in breaking you out of any bias you have in that element. And once you get a sense of the odds and along with whatever tweaks you discovered, you will find that you no longer need the table and just vary it yourself. Thus what you used to have to write down in prep you can now adlib. And note this won't be a total replacement as there will be things that are just that intricate or detail that it pays to write it all down first. However it will make you more flexible to handle the unexpected and that the key value.

Quote from: Sommerjon;924590See, this is me agreeing with Krueg's comment that it is more System Mastery than Zero Prep.

That can't be right (or Wright); CRKrueger hates System Mastery as much as he hates the Space Shuttle and so I'm sure he would never admit to using it.

Quote from: rawma;924598That can't be right (or Wright); CRKrueger hates System Mastery as much as he hates the Space Shuttle and so I'm sure he would never admit to using it.

Ooo, cross-thread drama, whose "emotional hot button" got pushed, really?

Seriously though, Shadowrun (even going as far back as 2nd) is definitely a system that can reward "System Mastery" this got to modern levels as we know them today with 3rd Edition (kinda like some other game).

But, in this case, it's not just "System Mastery", but like Estar said "Setting Mastery" (of Shadowrun Seattle), and "Genre Mastery" (of Shadowrun) and "GM Mastery" (of how to run a Shadowrun adventure) all combined together.

System Mastery = "Setting Mastery" + "Genre Mastery" + "GM Mastery" + "Rules Mastery"

Quote from: CRKrueger;924602Ooo, cross-thread drama, whose "emotional hot button" got pushed, really?

Not mine; I just thought it was amusing.

Quote from: Headless;924582Can some one tell me what illusionism is?

It's the forced choice of the stage magician; you think you have a choice but you don't really. As Sommerjon said, it's three doors where you always get the one that the GM chose for you to get, although I wouldn't say that it always involves giving the players the bad choice of the three.

Quote from: Sommerjon;924587

Quote from: Headless;924582Can some one tell me what illusionism is?

You have 3 doors and one bad choice to make.  No matter which door you open it is the bad choice.

See also:

• There are three doors and one good choice. No matter which door you open it is the good choice.
• The GM has prepared Ye Olde Wizards Tower. When you leave town, it doesn't matter what direction you take or where you go, because the next tower you see is Ye Olde Wizard's Tower.
• The GM has prepared an ambush by the infamous bandit known as the Ghost and his gang of highwaymen. No matter which road you take you are ambushed by the Ghost and his gang.

Quote from: Sommerjon;924467This is what I know about the Zero Preppers, their games are not nearly as good as they think they are.

'As good as we think they are' is overstating it.  As long as my table comes back, I believe that my zero prepping (which in reality takes about 5 minutes usually) is good enough.  At the end of the day, when it comes to having fun with friends, isn't that all we need?

And frankly, your assumption that our egos are that big or fragile makes me wonder if you're not projecting a sense of insecurity on all of us.

Quote from: Bren;924618See also:

• There are three doors and one good choice. No matter which door you open it is the good choice.
• The GM has prepared Ye Olde Wizards Tower. When you leave town, it doesn't matter what direction you take or where you go, because the next tower you see is Ye Olde Wizard's Tower.
• The GM has prepared an ambush by the infamous bandit known as the Ghost and his gang of highwaymen. No matter which road you take you are ambushed by the Ghost and his gang.

I've never done this, I usually have three or four separate ideas, and I always end up tossing or changing, assuming the players go back and explore another thread, the rest.

Quote from: CRKrueger;924602Seriously though, Shadowrun (even going as far back as 2nd) is definitely a system that can reward "System Mastery" this got to modern levels as we know them today with 3rd Edition (kinda like some other game).

I cant quite say SR rewards system mastery so much as you need to know at least the basics of how all the gears work to make a competent character since the system was too damn narrow in character gen and which put defined caps on how far you could go once in the game. The system didnt reward mastery. It rewarded being aware of the limitations.

Quote from: estar;924596A technique I recommend is to start using random tables. However it not quite as simplistic as that. You need a specific random table that reflect your sense of the odds of the NPCs reacting. However once developed it very useful in breaking you out of any bias you have in that element. And once you get a sense of the odds and along with whatever tweaks you discovered, you will find that you no longer need the table and just vary it yourself. Thus what you used to have to write down in prep you can now adlib.

The root of the problem isn't the NPC reaction -- that's a symptom. The root of the problem is determining what information will spoil a campaign. There's really no way to randomize that process, because it requires intelligent analysis. (Although creating a random table of "information known by henchmen" is one technique I've used to efficiently prep this material.)

Quote from: Bren;924618See also:

• There are three doors and one good choice. No matter which door you open it is the good choice.
• The GM has prepared Ye Olde Wizards Tower. When you leave town, it doesn't matter what direction you take or where you go, because the next tower you see is Ye Olde Wizard's Tower.
• The GM has prepared an ambush by the infamous bandit known as the Ghost and his gang of highwaymen. No matter which road you take you are ambushed by the Ghost and his gang.

Ill take another stab at this and see if it rings true with anyone.

Zero Prep GM - "hmm, ok the party is leaving town and heading north along the old road. Oh! I know what would be cool! Maybe Ye Olde Wizard's Tower, perfect. Ok, gang you see an old tower up ahead."

Railroading GM - "hmm, ok the party is leaving town and heading north along the old road. What do I have in this area? Oh yeah, Ye Olde Wizard's Tower, that would work but wait, its on the south road. What does it matter? They don't know where it is, Ill just move it. Ok gang, you see an old tower up ahead."

Seriously, some of you guys really see the two as all that different? The first approach is fine, even considered innovative and superior while the latter is a crime?

From a player's stand point they are identical and frankly, the reason each is used is the same as well. TO SAVE TIME on prep. The only real difference is that Ill lay my money on the railroaded pre-planned encounter being more thorough, detailed and well thought out.

Honestly, if you have no trouble whipping up the world in front of the players at a moments notice, you shouldn't have any trouble modifying the world in same way.

Quote from: rgrove0172;924667Ill take another stab at this and see if it rings true with anyone.

Zero Prep GM - "hmm, ok the party is leaving town and heading north along the old road. Oh! I know what would be cool! Maybe Ye Olde Wizard's Tower, perfect. Ok, gang you see an old tower up ahead."

That's not how I tend to improvise. We've been down this road before, but you don't seem to be heeding what some of us are saying.

QuoteRailroading GM - "hmm, ok the party is leaving town and heading north along the old road. What do I have in this area? Oh yeah, Ye Olde Wizard's Tower, that would work but wait, its on the south road. What does it matter? They don't know where it is, Ill just move it. Ok gang, you see an old tower up ahead."

I really don't do that. As a GM I find illusionism aesthetically displeasing and a bit lazy. As a player I abhor it, since it makes my decision as to which road to take completely irrelevant and a total waste of time. Which means my paying attention to your setting was a complete waste of time. Because I don't get (and thus can't anticipate) a wizards tower because that makes sense for the location, I get a wizards tower because the GM is a lazy fuck who can't be assed to create something appropriate for the actual choice I did make and just goes with his lazy-ass plan to meet Mr. Wizard.

QuoteSeriously, some of you guys really see the two as all that different? The first approach is fine, even considered innovative and superior while the latter is a crime?

Yeah they are different. Contrast the following.

• GM: So the players are going north. What makes sense for them to encounter on the north road? I might roll on a custom norther wilderlands encounter table or I might reason as follows. Well north of the city is wild terrain. No law there or existing barons. Hey a wizards tower sounds reasonable and it might be interesting. "You see a spooky old tower ahead..."

• I have prepared an encounter at a wizards tower. What the players want or chose is irrelevant because a wizards tower is what the players get next come hell or high water. Their choice is irrelevant. Their knowledge of the setting is irrelevant. The author wants a wizards tower and by god they are getting a wizards tower whether they want it or not.

QuoteFrom a player's stand point they are identical...

They aren't identical though they may look identical to the naive or the clueless. And some players won't complain or comment on the difference because they just don't care that they are on an amusement park roller-coaster where all the ups, downs, and turns are preordained by the GM.

But some players do care.

Quote from: Bren;924680Yeah they are different. Contrast the following.

• GM: So the players are going north. What makes sense for them to encounter on the north road? I might roll on a custom norther wilderlands encounter table or I might reason as follows. Well north of the city is wild terrain. No law there or existing barons. Hey a wizards tower sounds reasonable and it might be interesting. "You see a spooky old tower ahead..."

• I have prepared an encounter at a wizards tower. What the players want or chose is irrelevant because a wizards tower is what the players get next come hell or high water. Their choice is irrelevant. Their knowledge of the setting is irrelevant. The author wants a wizards tower and by god they are getting a wizards tower whether they want it or not.

You're two choices aren't identical. But none of those details existed in the example. Just that they were going North and the GM changed the world. Not that the players chose to go North due to some knowledge of the setting, or to avoid anything in particular. Yes, once you change the situation, the situation is different. Without all the stuff you added to the example to make the GM's decision undermine the player's decision, it isn't an amusement park roller-coaster where the ups, down and turns are preordained by the GM. It's just a moment where the GM had put a thing here, but decided to move it to there. The GM should be free to change details that the players haven't encountered yet. Why not? Maybe the GM had written that his NPC king had red hair and a lisp, but then decides that he wants him to have dark hair and one-eye. Unless he's undermining some choice I made, why should I care?