How much do you prepare your adventures, and how good is your "improvisation?"

[Vartan]

When I was DM-ing very regularly, and had more free time to think on the game, I found that my best sessions were the ones which came off the cuff. As I've gotten older, though, I find that the opposite is true: my games are better in proportion to how much preparation I perform. Ive found this to be true for other GMs in my situation (mid-to-late 20s, full time jobs, social obligations, etc.). One of my good GM friends recent;y spent six months laboring over some tourney modules for Shadowrun 4E, and when our group playtested them they said it was the best time they've had at the table...and he said it was the smoothest time he's had running a game.

What are your experiences with preparation, and with "off-the-cuff" DMing? What are some good tricks for both game styles?

 

[Edheldur]

Actually, I don't prepare sessions or adventures anymore. Instead, I just prepare encounters relative to the relevant plots and subplots and that's it.

Each encounter is designed with all the relevant info (from statblocks, spell lists, general tactics, background, resolution, misc information learned from it) and are also designed to be drop-as-needed. So, I may drop one or two, depending on the mood of my players, or may add one bonus encounter and things like that.

So far, it has worked great.

 

[Thurbane]

I spend anywhere from 15 minutes to 3 hours preparing for a session, depending on the nature of the session and real life concerns.

I also like to think I'm reasonable at "winging it" when I need to.

I like to have a stockpile of things ready for the unexpected - lists of NPCs, pregenerated enouncters etc.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

I do not prepare much for my sessions, other than knowing the general stuff that will happen. That allows me to go with the flow much better, and frankly, I think I am very good at that.

 

[wolfpunk]

I like to find multiple pre-made adventures (2-3) that can be used from the same starting point, and then I let the party decide which one they want to do and go with it, less railroading, and still doesn't require a lot of prep time, maybe an hour or two.

 

[Vartan]

So what makes for a good "improvisational" GM? In my experience I've found that it really depends on...well, experience. If you're really into the settings and rules, and you're really warmed up from regular GM-ing, then it's easier to improvise than if you only run a game every once in a while. I think of it this way--GM-ing is a skill which must be practiced regularly, and it comes more naturally to those who do so. Those who don't--or, in my case, can't--practice regularly benefit from lots of preparation.

 

[pogre]

I prepare encounters fairly carefully, but most of the rest is "off the cuff" these days. I probably was a little better when I fully wrote out every adventure, but I refuse to put in that kind of time these days. I use NPC Designer a lot to crank out stat blocks.

 

[Arkhandus]

I improvise most of the stuff in my games. I stat up and write descriptions for most of the important NPCs (like ones that will be traveling with the group for a bit and might get involved in combat, or ones they may go to for assistance of some sort, in case I need to know what spells or items they should have available; don't want to accidentally include a too-powerful NPC in a place where one really shouldn't be bothering to hang around).

And I usually prepare monster/enemy stats, or choose which ones I'll be using from the Monster Manual or whatever, beforehand. But I also have the occasional truly-random encounter. I improvise NPC stats once in a while where needed, and it usually goes alright. I prepare a bit of material on any given town or other significant landmark, but generally improvise. Only for the occasional game where I have lots of prep time or energy/enthusiasm do I make a lot of detailed preparation material, as I did for my first game DMing.

Overall I'd say I'm fairly good at improvisation as a DM, though not great (I really do think that moderate or significant preparations are best, I just don't have the time and focus anymore to do that much usually).

 

[Phlebas]

improvise the minor stuff, random encounters or unexpected detours, but i try to prepare each mini-adventure (maybe an hour or two each?) that will last a couple of sessions. Quite often i'll do two or three of these over a weekend, knowing that it will last me for a month or two. I will try to re-read and flesh out the encounter just before every session (night before or the half hour between getting home from work and the first player arriving)

Main reason i prepare is that I want to link each mini-adventure into the campaign plot, and also get each PC involved in both main & sub-plots and I found when i was improvising more that I kept forgetting to mention the clues at the right time, or was making it so obvious their was no thought involved from the party

My campaign is farily heavily house ruled which gives it a unique flavour but does mean i can ony steal ideas rather than complete adventures from published sessions, especially at higher levels where the low magic setting really affects the CR's .....

 

[EP]

When I first started my current campaign, I wrote down and planned out everything to the exact detail - what would happen in the event of, how the NPCs would react, a full-blown plan of attack in response to this possible situation, all that. What I found is that the players would come up with something to completely thrown all those plans out the window and force me to come up with responses I hadn't expected.

Now all I plan out at the technical details: maps and room descriptions, NPCs, traps, and anything where I know for a fact that something or someone will be there. I familiarize myself with the major NPCs and remember their motivations as well as their spells and feats, but nothing else beyond that. Then I write up a two-page summary of the evening I have planned and that's it. Everything else is made up on the spot and who knows what will come along in the process. In doing so, we have had some of the best games in a long time because both the DM and players get a sense of unexpected.

I think that's the best type of improvised gaming: all the technical stuff is planned and ready at a moment's notice, but no strategy. There is a background plot and the wheels of the story are in motion, but how the PCs enter the fray and unravel the evil mastermind's plans should be completely left up to them. When I confront my players with a problem, they know that only they can figure it out because I haven't even figured out how they'll get through it.