I think the game itself though is a different type of game. I'm pretty open to trying things but again a D&D campaign for me is a commitment of time and energy and I want the biggest bang for my buck so I tend to favor what I like a lot in those situations.
100%, man, absolutely.
Well by minimizing ad libbing, it means the world pre-exists the PCs. It is a living breathing world.
But... it's not. It's still exactly as made up either way.
I think a way to think of it is a book analogy...which would you prefer an author who just off the cuff tells a story that he makes up from scratch or would you prefer an author who spends time crafting the story which you then consume as a book. Now I'm not saying it would be impossible for me to enjoy an off the cuff story made up from scratch but the odds astronomically improve that the well crafted book will be better.
Analogy to books don't really work for many reasons (difference in how they're authored being a major one), but, to lean into it, I don't really care how it's written -- my question is "do I enjoy it." It's really about the story -- is a compelling story told? If so, I don't care how it's crafted.
Again, what usually strikes me about these claims is that they really seem to go to being able to have the ability to embrace skilled play -- ie, that the players have a chance to excel because the fiction is largely fixed in place and they can work towards advantage with cunning action declarations. And, to be absolutely clear, this is 100% cool and fine! This kind of play has been around since the beginning, and it's 100% valid and not at all a bad thing. I'm not trying to say this is bad at all, just pointing out that the complaint about when fiction is authored goes to this play objective and not really to the many reasons that are usually cited.
So again, when I've played in games where the DM makes it up as he goes I've left the session, my last one by the way, feeling code and not like I had much fun. Obviously, if the ad libber could fool me utterly then it wouldn't matter but I don't see myself being fooled too many times. Definitely not across an entire campaign.
I'm betting it's because you felt like the GM made things up to thwart your actions and/or allow actions, and this felt unfair. Thing is, the GM is doing this in prep, too, they're just not reacting to your action declarations by making things up then, but rather evaluating against what they've already made up. And that's a 100% valid distinction, but the idea that it's because of when the fiction is written is not really the point.
There are entire game systems where you cannot prep (like, really can't, the system will fight any prep), and they generate detailed, deep, immersive worlds, they just do it through play.
Well now you've digressed into player characters. I've given up fighting the player knowledge battle by trying to keep the books from them. I just rename and change up a lot of things so that it remains new each campaign. They may figure out something is a troll eventually but again perhaps trolls are somewhat in the collective knowledge of society. Dragons breathing is definitely something that most peasants know not because they've seen a dragon but have heard the legends.
The GM is a player as well. The same thing holds.
When I play the monsters, I have a reason for their existence and I have their motives and plans mapped out. I then go through some scenarios. I ask questions. For example, if the orc chieftain hears swords clashing in the next room what does he do? If I say he charges into battle, I don't change that up when the players deliberately set a trap for him and clang their swords. I try to assess the monsters intelligence and other factors like instincts, cleverness, craftiness, etc... Those things decide how I devise their response plans.
This goes to a concept called advocating for the character -- you root the character in their desires and declare actions with that as a primary goal. It works for any player, GMs included. It's a tad orthogonal to division of knowledge, which, as I said, can't actually be eliminated. Sometimes, it's easy to "separate" things out, but that doesn't prove much -- easy cases are rarely strong cases.
There may come times when I have to make a decision. Sometimes I dice for that decision based on probabilities. I try to avoid just choosing the obvious course given DM knowledge versus monster knowledge.
I don't really pay much attention, and just advocate for the character. Again, the goal of separation of knowledge is impossible, and I'm not sure much is gained by pursuing it rather than other principles of play, like advocating for character.
I do enjoy our conversations and the fact that we can debate this issues civilly.
100%!
