While I suspect most of us acknowledge or practice this, I don't recall seeing it mentioned in the thread so here goes: I feel that even in "full prep" sandbox play there is no assumption that all potential hot spots require the same amount of detail.

In practice, the small village my PCs have been haunting the last few session is probably vastly more detailed than the capital city they couldn't possibly reach in less than a month of travel.  Political or social importance is not equal to game importance.

Similarly, drop-in encounters or lairs can be swiftly improvised using a variety of tools.  However, the dungeon (whatever the size) your players have explicitly stated they intend to explore can only benefit from some extra planning.

I do not propose that the world wrap around the whims of the players, only acknowledge the practical limits of what a DM can prepare in a new sandbox-style game.  Those of you that have been running the same setting for a decade or more are free to ignore.

Quote from: Settembrini;384089I´m a top-down person. I always had troubles with DMs who´d just prepare the "seven hexes" but YMMV.

It's all a question of perspective.

For my current wilderlands-based sandbox I wrote about 6 pages of background notes which laid out the broad history of the local hexmap (one sheet of hex paper) and put together a 2 page briefing for players. That gave me a broad foundation for building the first 25 hexes (roughly 3 hexes deep around the starting position because I'm using a granular scale).

The point is that you should prep broad and only worry about deep prep for the places in your campaign world where the PCs are going to be focusing their immediate attention. When they start focusing their attention beyond their immediate point of origin, you can extend the deep prep to follow.

PCs head west? Then prep west and leave the east lightly sketched in.

PCs interested in the God of War? Then prep the God of War and don't worry too much about the God of the Harvest yet.

IMO, it's the only sane way to manage prep.

Quote from: winkingbishop;384198While I suspect most of us acknowledge or practice this, I don't recall seeing it mentioned in the thread so here goes: I feel that even in "full prep" sandbox play there is no assumption that all potential hot spots require the same amount of detail.

Exactly. And the players will tell you where you need the detail.

Tip 1: Ask the players what they're planning to do next.

If they tell you, "We're going to follow up those clues on the Clan of the White Claw." Then you know exactly what you need to be prepping for the next session.

Tip 2: Pay attention to what the players are interested in.

For example, in my current campaign I knew the PCs were going to wake up an in an inn with partial amnesia. I laid out about 20-30 "regulars" -- other guests, frequent visitors to the common room, the staff, etc. I gave 'em a couple sentences of detail each. After a couple sessions I knew which NPCs had "clicked" with the players and I knew which ones hadn't. Guess which ones got full stat blocks?

Quote from: LordVreeg;384101And I did not ask about Tolkien's work as an RPG.  I asked if you though his efforts were wasted.  He wasn't trying to write an RPG, and so I was not asking about it in that light.  

Because he wasn't prepping for an RPG it's a little difficult to see the application.

But if you think of Tolkien as playing a solo game with himself and look at how he actually developed Middle Earth, I think the analogy becomes clear: He started with languages because that's what interested him. When he needed some rudimentary cultures to provide context for those languages, he created them. Then he started providing more and more history for those cultures. He flitted around that history and revised it as he pleased. When he wrote The Hobbit he lifted large chunks of the material he'd already created to fill in the blanks, but only later figured out that The Hobbit was actually connected to all of this other stuff he had created.

Because he was driven by whatever caught his interest at the moment, he actually left the development of Middle Earth in a very disjointed state: Some of it was hyper-detailed. Other bits were essentially vast voids which were barely sketched in at all. Occasionally he would toss off random comments that he only figured out how to fit into the wider scope of his world much later one (Queen Beruthiel being perhaps the most famous example). Some stuff was never made consistent with the rest.

Now, instead of "solo play", let's provide Tolkien with a group of players: Instead of being guided by his own whimsy about what he wanted to develop next, he's also being guided by the whimsies and interests of his players.

The point is: "Yes, that prep is great." But you don't need 40 years of work in order to get started.

If you want a gaming example of the same basic process, check out M.A.R. Barker.

Quote from: CRKrueger;384109If you don't prep, you're relying on your characters going along with the fact that this is an illusion.  They're not walking down the street to the tavern you didn't mention because they know you don't have it prepped.  Your skeleton works because your players willingly suspend disbelief.  Can they have a crazyass fun time? Yes.  Would it have been even better with prep? probably.

I think there are two points to be made here:

(1) By prepping smarter instead of harder you can generally stay ahead of your players without a "shit-ton" of work.

(2) My players rarely know when they've actually managed to "breach my prep". This partly comes from knowing the "basic rules" of the world really well; partly from being willing to improv; and partly from having systems for procedural content generation.

In fact, my current group often thinks they've managed to get ahead of my prep when, in fact, they haven't. They seem to enjoy it, so I just quietly nod and flip the page to the map I've had sitting in the binder for a couple of months.

Quote from: Benoist;384092Hey! Welcome Justin. Do you know how many times we linked your essay on dissociated mechanics around here?

Hopefully in good ways.

Folks in this thread might be interested in the series I just started posting today: It'll be delving into the nuts-and-bolts of how to structure non-linear scenarios.

I think this is where a lot of people get hung up: As a structure, plots make sense. We've been studying plots since we were in grade school. Effective structuring for non-linear material, OTOH, can be a bit tougher to grok.

Quote from: winkingbishop;384190How do you post your thumbnails in that format?

All the way at the bottom of your reply to thread window there is a Manage Attachment button that opens a window.

Quote from: estar;384230All the way at the bottom of your reply to thread window there is a Manage Attachment button that opens a window.

Bitchin.  Found it, thank you.

Quote from: Justin Alexander

Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreeg \
And I did not ask about Tolkien's work as an RPG. I asked if you though his efforts were wasted. He wasn't trying to write an RPG, and so I was not asking about it in that light. [/QUOTEBecause he wasn't prepping for an RPG it's a little difficult to see the application.

But if you think of Tolkien as playing a solo game with himself and look at how he actually developed Middle Earth, I think the analogy becomes clear: He started with languages because that's what interested him. When he needed some rudimentary cultures to provide context for those languages, he created them. Then he started providing more and more history for those cultures. He flitted around that history and revised it as he pleased. When he wrote The Hobbit he lifted large chunks of the material he'd already created to fill in the blanks, but only later figured out that The Hobbit was actually connected to all of this other stuff he had created.

Because he was driven by whatever caught his interest at the moment, he actually left the development of Middle Earth in a very disjointed state: Some of it was hyper-detailed. Other bits were essentially vast voids which were barely sketched in at all. Occasionally he would toss off random comments that he only figured out how to fit into the wider scope of his world much later one (Queen Beruthiel being perhaps the most famous example). Some stuff was never made consistent with the rest.

Now, instead of "solo play", let's provide Tolkien with a group of players: Instead of being guided by his own whimsy about what he wanted to develop next, he's also being guided by the whimsies and interests of his players.

The point is: "Yes, that prep is great." But you don't need 40 years of work in order to get started.

If you want a gaming example of the same basic process, check out M.A.R. Barker.

No.
Christ, is this that hard?
The point of the original comment was asking if the backstory and detail in Tolkien's work was wasted, or if it made his literary works deeper and easier to immerse into.
He wasn't writing it as an RPG, so there are vast differences in how he did things AS A WRITER and how he would have done them as a GM.  So comparing how he did the detail work is not my point (it can be your point, but you quoted me....). How he did things is irrelevant to what I am trying to get accross.

Did he need to do all the backstory and history?  No.  His prose and imagination would have stil created a heck of a series of books.  But it is my ascertation that the level of depth and detail already present made his works as beloved as they are.  What is relevant is not how he did it; it is the effect it had.

Quote from: Originally Posted by CRKruegerIf you don't prep, you're relying on your characters going along with the fact that this is an illusion. They're not walking down the street to the tavern you didn't mention because they know you don't have it prepped. Your skeleton works because your players willingly suspend disbelief. Can they have a crazyass fun time? Yes. Would it have been even better with prep? probably.  

I'm in this camp, guys, because I've done both the full on improv, the partial improv, and the 50% improv that even the most detailed of games still entails (the PCs will always need some improv...one of the needed skill sets, no one is denying that).
Getting ahead and staying ahead of the PCs is one thing.  Creating enough interwoven depth is another thing altogether.  Of course, you need to flesh details out ahead; that's why I am still awake tonight after practise, to flesh out the Iambic TrebleHorn Bardic Inn in the Bazaar section of Steel Isle Town for my online group.  But I'll draw my liquor menu from previous prep here, the players know that Bardic Taverns are different in a few ways from normal ones.  We all have to prep in the direction that players are moving toward, that's pretty fundamental.
Prepping smarter and harder is real secret.  Same as any other art or hobby, 90% perspiration, 10% inspiration...more  and better prep makes the game better.  You can have a great game without it, but I still think it makes almost ANY game better.

Quote from: LordVreeg;384235But it is my ascertation that the level of depth and detail already present made his works as beloved as they are.  What is relevant is not how he did it; it is the effect it had.

Except, of course, it is relevant. Because you're insisting that this level of depth and detail can only be done during prep.

My point is that Tolkien didn't spend decades "prepping to write Lord of the Rings". He spent decades creating whatever he felt like creating and, over time, the details accumulated.

When you apply that example to roleplaying games it means that you don't have to do a "fuckton" of prep work: You can just start playing and the details will accumulate.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;384272When you apply that example to roleplaying games it means that you don't have to do a "fuckton" of prep work: You can just start playing and the details will accumulate.

You (and others) are missing Lord Vreeg's point. You DO NOT have to do a lot of prep (or any) but if you DO your campaign will be better for it. Plus there have been suggestions on how to make the best of the limited time that you have.

Quote from: estar;384297You (and others) are missing Lord Vreeg's point. You DO NOT have to do a lot of prep (or any) but if you DO your campaign will be better for it. Plus there have been suggestions on how to make the best of the limited time that you have.

This. Plus, Vreeg's not talking about prep before the campaign exclusively. He's talking about all sorts of prep during the game, while the campaign unfolds, as well, and it's true: you can sort of do without it, but if you put in some time and attention into the details, the campaign will be better for it. The argument clicked with me when I realized that, even if you start with Seven Hexes and make shit up during the first few games, you'll still keep track of this stuff over time, and make sense of it all between games, so that whatever you come up with during the game doesn't feel like it's just wrecking what you came up with two weeks prior.

So yeah. Even in that scenario, over time, you end up with some prep that, if taken care of, will end up benefitting the whole of the game later on.