Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[Scott Christian]

Are we assuming that the boatload of prep is specifically relevant to play? Lots of prep isn't really. There's also the question of actual deployment at the table. Is Laura a good GM? Can she keep all that prep straight and deploy it at the optimum time? Is Liam a masterful GM who's played this game and thus setting hundreds of times and thus the improv isn't quite so improv-y? Can you even name three games where the GM does no prep whatsoever?

As you can see, the list of rapid-fire questions approach is both annoying, and revealing. Your extreme examples are bit wonky I think. I'm guessing you went extreme for emphasis, but I don't think it's that helpful.

I have three main points here. One is that prep, regardless of magnitude is useless without a skilled GM, and no guarantee of internal consistency. Second, that an experienced GM, and here I mean specifically experienced with the kind of setting at hand, is perfectly capable of managing high internal consistency with minimal prep. Third, that unless we unpack what you mean by prep we are missing some key information.

I agree that prep of magnitude X, generally, and in the hands of a capable GM, will lead to more consistency within the confines of that prep. If it's the right prep, it might even help when the players inevitably step off-piste. But's that's as far as it goes.

An exploration of what you mean when you say prep should prove interesting and fruitful (as there's a lot of different nuts in that particular bag).

I can agree, all those questions are valid. But they are all also irrelevant to my claim. The example wasn't extreme. I just gave a common example: One GM preps a lot and the other is all improv. Which one would have greater internal consistency over the course of a campaign? Common sense tells us the one who preps probably will.

Are there outliers? Sure. Does it matter if one is a great GM and the other is terrible? Yes. I specifically said that when I gave the analogy of teaching and time management. Some people just have "it."

As for prep, I have gone down this road before, and I know it really doesn't matter what I say. I can give my experiences as a player (I am lucky - all the campaigns I have played in have been great!), and explain how the GM prep made the world feel real and succinct. I can give you my experiences of using my campaign setting has way more internal consistency than games where I GM in a generic fantasy world. But it really doesn't matter. Things like: cosmology, religion, species, food, geography, economy, etc. can all come into play when playing an RPG. Comparing a person who has spent time working the connecting threads out for those things or someone just making stuff up (or letting players make stuff up) is always going to lead to me thinking the former will have greater internal consistency.

I also believe, and I admit, I might be wrong here, that the person that has built those threads might lean a bit better on the pacing scale. But again, on that claim, I admit I might be wrong.

 

[zakael19]

You know how we enforce internal consistency in my hundreds of hours low-prep game? Lots of notes to reference the fiction on, a Miro board with copious play centering tidbits to refer to, and a game with the systems and setting primed for low/no prep play.

It's certainly got a lot more consistency on character motivations, growth, world building, NPC interactions, and more then the games I've run in the past where I spent hours prepping all sorts of "what if" and "oh crap gotta detail this" stuff. And when we stop to answer a question about the world's details together as a group, everybody has the final thing fixed in their heads because we all contributed.

 

[Fenris-77]

I can agree, all those questions are valid. But they are all also irrelevant to my claim. The example wasn't extreme. I just gave a common example: One GM preps a lot and the other is all improv. Which one would have greater internal consistency over the course of a campaign? Common sense tells us the one who preps probably will.

Are there outliers? Sure. Does it matter if one is a great GM and the other is terrible? Yes. I specifically said that when I gave the analogy of teaching and time management. Some people just have "it."

As for prep, I have gone down this road before, and I know it really doesn't matter what I say. I can give my experiences as a player (I am lucky - all the campaigns I have played in have been great!), and explain how the GM prep made the world feel real and succinct. I can give you my experiences of using my campaign setting has way more internal consistency than games where I GM in a generic fantasy world. But it really doesn't matter. Things like: cosmology, religion, species, food, geography, economy, etc. can all come into play when playing an RPG. Comparing a person who has spent time working the connecting threads out for those things or someone just making stuff up (or letting players make stuff up) is always going to lead to me thinking the former will have greater internal consistency.

I also believe, and I admit, I might be wrong here, that the person that has built those threads might lean a bit better on the pacing scale. But again, on that claim, I admit I might be wrong.

I'm not actually contesting the idea that good prep by an experienced GM leads to internally consistent setting deployment. I was only pointing out that there is a lot more going on than just do prep, profit. Some GMs are wizards with their prep, while other end up mangling sessions as they try to keep everyone colouring inside the lines. The issue of what, exactly, 'good prep' looks like is an interesting question.

I don't think that good GMing is simply a matter of having it, or not. I think that experience and a reflective approach to ongoing GM practice means a lot, and I think this includes prep.

Another important point is that some games are purpose built to alleviate the need for deep prep, and their structures and systems all work to that end. Experience in running those systems, and what prep helps and what does not, is where the internal consistency comes from. Less and better prep is a perfectly reasonable item on the list you built.

If I were to sum up my position here, it would be "just doing prep isn't enough." That doesn't make it bad of course. Frankly, I like prep, and I probably prep more for minimal prep systems than some folks, but part of that is I'm well aware of my own learning skills and GM skills, and I've found that writing stuff down often means I don't actually need to consult the prep during play. We all have our little differences and whatnot.

 

[zakael19]

I'm not actually contesting the idea that good prep by an experienced GM leads to internally consistent setting deployment. I was only pointing out that there is a lot more going on than just do prep, profit. Some GMs are wizards with their prep, while other end up mangling sessions as they try to keep everyone colouring inside the lines. The issue of what, exactly, 'good prep' looks like is an interesting question.

Yeah, running Blades in the Dark a few times taught me that the way it structures a city-by-districts with a handful of points of interest and a general vibe + some factions details means that I've always got enough scaffolding to frame out the next bit for a party regardless of what they do. I've recently been adding in the CfB moments as a free-form brainstorm of the flavor bits I want to drop in on the players that all circle back to the overall questions of play.

So for my Thursday night Daggerheart game, when they wanted to go to a city next and follow up on some leads there, I sat down and fleshed out the one sentence description of a city I had in my extremely high level setting guide into 10 Districts, each with a short paragraph telling the vibe and 3-4 POIs (2-3 sentences each).

I think that was oh, an hour or two of focused prep. I've now run almost 20 hours of play / six sessions off that. If I was playing a FITD that had already detailed all that? 0 - 10 minutes of prep with the same result.

 

[Scott Christian]

I follow the rules of the game I'm playing.

For instance, 4e D&D connects treasure parcels to levels. So when I was GMing 4e D&D, as the PCs accrued XP on their way to their next level, I would introduce treasure - most often in the form of gifts or "power ups" rather than loot - in accordance with the treasure parcel economy.

But levels were gained as the XP rules dictate, and XP were awarded as the rules for encounters (including skill challenges), quests, and free roleplaying dictate. There was no need for levels to be gained "on time".

When it comes to scenes, my approach again follows the game. When I GMed Wuthering Heights, I didn't have any scenes in mind until the players had generated their PCs. Then I framed the first scene, at the bookshop. The actual play post explains how I did that, and also how subsequent scenes followed on. None was planned in advance: they couldn't have been, given how the game works.

Burning Wheel is the same as Wuthering Heights in this respect, and this is also one way that I've approached Marvel Heroic RP.

When I was primarily GMing 4e D&D, I would often come up with ideas for scenes in advance of play: mostly either combat encounters or skill challenges. I would use them when the developing situation in the game made it appropriate to do so. (One result of that was that some of my prep - in particular, I remember a scene involving Scarecrows, a type of automaton from (I think) the 4e MM3 - never got used.)

I don't think about "spotlighting" when I think about scenes that I might run or prep. I rely on my players to take care of that!

I agree with all this. Use the ruleset given to you if they have rules for such situation. And it is obvious we've played at different types of tables. I don't think I have ever gone into a campaign in the last twenty years without at least discussing how long it will be.

You read my Wuthering Height session report. Where was the inconsistency? (I mean, we even Googled the distance from Soho to the Thames to make sure we got that bit right.)

I didn't notice any internal consistency. But it's difficult to notice any internal consistency when you are just reading a summary of one session, in a game that has a very specific setting, run by someone who seems to know the setting well. So I do not doubt that your internal consistency is good.

But internal consistency shows up during play; when the GM is describing a building or NPC or geographical location or meal or music or (fill in the blank). It appears when the player asks questions about those things too. All those things bleed into the tone, mood, and theme of the story being created. And for me, both as a player and GM, they matter.

I've got serious doubts that the typical GM's prepped culture is internally consistent at all, at least by my standards. I find most fantasy cultures very implausible.

As far as the town, kingdom etc are concerned, I think you're assuming a pretty specific approach to play. One to which "play to find out" techniques may not be well suited.

You can definitely believe that. And if that is the case, then I guess nothing is really internally consistent unless you have experienced it in the real world. That's ok. It is a valid claim.

 

[Scott Christian]

I'm not actually contesting the idea that good prep by an experienced GM leads to internally consistent setting deployment. I was only pointing out that there is a lot more going on than just do prep, profit. Some GMs are wizards with their prep, while other end up mangling sessions as they try to keep everyone colouring inside the lines. The issue of what, exactly, 'good prep' looks like is an interesting question.

I agree. There is a lot more to it. And the question about prep is interesting. So, would you mind answering it? I love to learn how others prep. To me, it's like watching Bob Ross paint. It's always like - Wow, he got that from just a straight line! That is awesome!

I don't think that good GMing is simply a matter of having it, or not. I think that experience and a reflective approach to ongoing GM practice means a lot, and I think this includes prep.

I agree with you here. There is still a learning curve here. But the "it" factor is definitely one that can't be ignored. Some people can learn from their GMing experiences for years, and then a first time GM can step in and already be better than them. It's not fair, but it is certainly true.

Another important point is that some games are purpose built to alleviate the need for deep prep, and their structures and systems all work to that end. Experience in running those systems, and what prep helps and what does not, is where the internal consistency comes from. Less and better prep is a perfectly reasonable item on the list you built.

100% agree.

If I were to sum up my position here, it would be "just doing prep isn't enough." That doesn't make it bad of course. Frankly, I like prep, and I probably prep more for minimal prep systems than some folks, but part of that is I'm well aware of my own learning skills and GM skills, and I've found that writing stuff down often means I don't actually need to consult the prep during play. We all have our little differences and whatnot.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is always interesting to me, although lurking on the BITD subreddit and discord I see a lot of similar things.

The core flow of BITD, once you’ve made an engagement roll generally is:

• PC says they want to do a thing towards the score objective.
• GM checks fictional situation and says if there’s risk (if not, do it and frame the next Scene).
• if risk, player says how they do it and picks and action, avoiding being a weasel.
• P&E stuff happens (what you’ll get) here if needed (almost all the time, we move with Risky/Standard or deploy an item/ability to boost effect).
• roll the dice to see what you get and how bad the risk manifests. Resist as desired.
• GM frames a new scene showing how the fiction evolves.

As far as i remember, the only space in which the game actively suggests soliciting player input on consequences is Bargains - which is a complication that’ll happen regardless. And that’s up to the table and GM to do, I only reached out if I didn’t have a good idea in the moment because 5 minds are more creative then 1.

So I have similar "writers' room" experiences with Blades than others have described here, and it is indeed interesting that the rule text does not really seem to require that. But still it often seems to lead to that. I am not quite sure why.

Perhaps it is just that that the GM needs to make up so much stuff on the spot (complications and stuff) that it is appealing to outsource some of that to the players. Also I think the vagueness of the skills and the players trying to justify why certain skill will solve the situation already opens the door for it.

 

[Fenris-77]

I agree. There is a lot more to it. And the question about prep is interesting. So, would you mind answering it? I love to learn how others prep. To me, it's like watching Bob Ross paint. It's always like - Wow, he got that from just a straight line! That is awesome!

I agree with you here. There is still a learning curve here. But the "it" factor is definitely one that can't be ignored. Some people can learn from their GMing experiences for years, and then a first time GM can step in and already be better than them. It's not fair, but it is certainly true.

I design and publish my own stuff, so to some extent the answer here comes from that experience as well as prep I do for my own personal games.

I think, in short, that the answer is gameable material. Any prep I do that isn't immediately useful at the table is probably a waste of my time. A caveat, there's nothing wrong with short histories of X if it will help you contextualize that thing when you deploy it in play. Generally though, I don't really do history, or anything more than just enough historical type prep. Even my published setting is short on chunks of history and long on cool evocative details that serve to build out the setting.

So for my own games I focus on factions, NPCs, monsters and what some games call moments (little evocative bits that help maintain feel or theme or whatever). I like to draw little mind maps to show possible connections between elements (both new and previously introduced). All of this is focused on being able to describe stuff as evocatively as possible at the table while keeping the elements integral to the established setting logic.

Obviously exactly what I focus on really depends on the system, the events of previous sessions, and whatever analog to adventure fronts are in play. So basically, cool stuff that seems likely to actually see the table in this session. I really like a good NPC because they are information bearers and they are portable in a way that a location isn't without quantum assistance.

 

[zakael19]

Perhaps it is just that that the GM needs to make up so much stuff on the spot (complications and stuff) that it is appealing to outsource some of that to the players. Also I think the vagueness of the skills and the players trying to justify why certain skill will solve the situation already opens the door for it.

Yeah idk, the book is widely accepted to have some serious organizational issues which maybe results in people getting a little lost with what it expects? Later FITD games are clearer (the usual upside of building on somebody else's base). But the skills are not vague at all, the game has pages of strong examples and discussions on what Sway and Skulk and Finesse look like, and how "if you're trying to do X, maybe Y would be better."

Speaking of the book, I just went through and extracted a handful of tidbits where I think that depending on table I can see where y'all might be coming from:

And then the other players chime in and suggest an alternative position or effect level, or the player revises their statement to something more or less daring, or everyone just nods and we’ve shifted into using the mechanic.

The main thing to remember is that the group works together to set the goal, position and consequences of each roll. (p163, triggering the action roll)

Which is followed a few pages later by:

What’s the point of this shift into a mechanic, anyway? Why not just talk it out? The main reason is this: when we just talk things out, we tend to build consensus. This is usually a good thing. It helps the group bond, get on the same page, set expectations, all that stuff. But when it comes to action-adventure stories like Blades in the Dark, we don’t want consensus when the characters go into danger. We want to be surprised, or thwarted, or driven to bigger risks, or inspired to create a twist or complication. We want to raise our hands over our heads and ride the roller coaster over the drop.

When the mechanic is triggered, the group first dips into being authors for a moment as they suss out the position, the threats, and the details of the action. Then, author mode switches off and everyone becomes the audience. What will happen next? We hold our breath, lean forward in our seats, and let the dice fall.

So maybe if you're not drawing that distinction there between: we all work together to understand the risk and outcome to ensure it makes sense to the table and then: the dice roll and what happens happens? Because like, when I've played OSR games there's tons of the first bit! We talk and plan and try and figure out risks and ask the GM questions about how we understand things and maybe it's not as concrete as BITD does, but the kinda "coming to consensus on a plan of action based on the fiction and then carrying it out" feels similar. A key difference being that in Blades we always turn to the dice and let them speak.

 

[Fenris-77]

An example from something I did for publication. This is the set-up for an adventure of mine called Unseen Alchemeticals. The important part here isn't write-up to the left, but the faces in the crowd sidebar. The GM is probably going to need NPCs, so I made sure there were at least some seeds to get things rolling. Gameable material ftw.