D&D 5E Down to six pages of prep work

[Talmek]

It's an easy* way to manage encounters

Easy* being relative to experience in DM'ing. As a newer DM for 5e I find that managing each encounter individually and being able to keep track of monster HP, status and whose turn it is through this method requires only some front-end work rather than trying to do it while the PCs are there in front of us. I also think it feeds into OCD behaviors (guilty) because it allows a certain amount of structure for each encounter.

 

[Grainger]

There's clearly a happy medium of prep time to play time. Unless you railroad the players, there's always the chance that your prep goes out the window anyway, so you probably shouldn't do too much (e.g. my players recently choose not to meet two major NPCs for whom I'd done tons of prep, and for whom I was sure I'd dangled enough hooks; fair enough, but frustrating for me). Really, the trick is to think about the game world so that you have a sense of the sorts of things that might happen, whatever (reasonable) path the players will take.

That said, as a player I wouldn't enjoy playing in a game where the DM did little to no prep - I'm pretty sure I would detect it, and it would feel like the world wasn't sufficiently real - (unless the DM knew the world inside-out, either because it was a long-established setting, or because he/she did a great deal of thinking about the world between sessions; for me this counts as prep, even if nothing is written down specifically for that session).

 

[ranger69]

It seems that there is no one right way to prep.
Each DM has his own method. However I like looking at threads like this as there are often ideas that you can use or adapt.
I have run sessions with no written prep, but with thought beforehand as to what the session is likely to bring up.
If in doubt use conflict. It doesn't have to be combat. Perhaps a shopkeeper short-changes a Pc, or accuses the PC of passing forged coins.
OR a PC chatting to a attractive bartender is accused by the bartenders partner of being too forward.
Accusations of cheating at gambling games are often interesting also.

 

[Grainger]

Perhaps a shopkeeper short-changes a Pc, or accuses the PC of passing forged coins.

I love that idea; it could amount to nothing, but it could easily spiral into something major; I could see my earlier player groups ending up in fights with the town guards, and being run out of town, and outlawed, simply over such an every-day incident. You just need to pick the right player/character to be wronged.

 

[AriochQ]

I have been playing D&D since 1977, most of that time as DM. IMHO, you need to strike a balance between planning on spontaneity. I try to design adventures like a story. I will plan out specific encounters for each play session, but not necessarily where and when they will occur. I like to allow the players free reign as much as possible.

For example, in one encounter the players were to meet a tinker (who will be relevent to the story arc in the long term). I write up notes for the encounter, including a good description, information I want her to give the characters, and answers to specific questions. The actual encounter can happen at any point, and I usually determine that based on adventure pacing (I try to mix combat and non-combat encounters).

For combat encounters I do the same, providing setting details and also include a rough list of creatures. I will usually tweak the actual encounter on the fly based on party status. I sometimes roll treasure ahead of time, other times I let the players roll and just use the tables.

I currently use Scrivener to track my campaign, having seperate sections for each adventure (broken down by scene/encounter), NPC's, and any other info or resources that could be helpful. We currently play monthly, and most of the time spent preparing is short spurts where I flesh out the framework of encounters I usually already have in mind at the end of the prior session.

I guess overall, my philosophy is don't get bogged down in mechanics (especially in 5E). Tell a good story and the mechanics won't matter nearly so much.

 

[Tormyr]

It's an easy* way to manage encounters

Easy* being relative to experience in DM'ing. As a newer DM for 5e I find that managing each encounter individually and being able to keep track of monster HP, status and whose turn it is through this method requires only some front-end work rather than trying to do it while the PCs are there in front of us. I also think it feeds into OCD behaviors (guilty) because it allows a certain amount of structure for each encounter.

If I may make a suggestion: drop this. Use 1 thing to track initiative that everyone can see and 1 thing to track hp and statuses. Hits and misses don't need to be tracked.

For initiative, I have a magnetic white board with magnetic dry erase name badges that I made. One of the players takes initiative from everyone, writes the number on the badge, and rearranges the badges in order. I tell the player the initiative of monsters they can see and keep those that they cannot see a secret until they are revealed. Everyone can see the board, and it helps when I accidentally skip someone because they know it is their turn.

For monsters, you generally have a printout of the stat block or are using the monster manual. For sources that you can write on, just record the statuses and hp of each creature next to the stat block. For sources you do not want to write on, use a post-it next to the stat block.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm sure your prep time will continue to fall as you get more accustomed to the new edition.

For the longest time, I wouldn't prep D&D and many other games, at all. Stats were a pain to pull together and write down, and would often end up needing to be adjusted on the fly, anyway, so I got used to skipping the prep and ballparking/adjusting the stats as I ran the game. Works great for sandboxing, obviously. That probably reach a crescendo with 3e, which was so involved and intricate that I only ran one relatively short (if successful) campaign in 3.0 before deciding to just play - a decision that felt particularly right as the community shifted more and more towards reverence for RAW (my one 3.0 campaign used a number of rules variants that, I'm guessing, would not have been easily accepted in 3.5). 4e I started running with Encounters and had a published adventure to work with, not something I usually did, but I found I didn't need to modify it on the fly like I was accustomed to doing, so, when I started running an original 4e campaign, I started doing the prep work for it, which, between encounter guidelines that gave fairly consistent results and the monster builder tool, was surprisingly easy.

With 5e, I find I'm back to my more accustomed style of adjusting combats on the fly when I run from a module, or just making them up as I go when the players jump the rail and I decide to throw something at them. I did try running the first few sessions of HotDQ 'by the book,' and (since I was going to run two of them again at a convention) also tried using the encounter guidelines to 'fix' them ahead of time. Neither worked out well, the encounter guidelines are more complicated than they need to be, and don't deliver consistent results. It's easier, and, I think, gives better results, to just have a basic idea of a possible encounter (goblins hiding in the rocks; skeletons emerge from niches in the wall; you walk into a gelatinous cube; whatever) and iron out the details as it progresses. Running TotM, it's even easy to adjust the number of monsters in an encounter on the fly, since the players don't have the luxury of just counting the minis you put out, and you're under no obligation to use precise numbers in your descriptions. Seems to be working well - when I get run.

 

[Grainger]

I only just worked out that TotM is "Theatre of the Mind"; I've seen it used in other posts (I'm not sure if it was by you). Perhaps Wizards should be using the acronym ToteM (or perhaps not).

 

[Agamon]

It's an easy* way to manage encounters

Easy* being relative to experience in DM'ing. As a newer DM for 5e I find that managing each encounter individually and being able to keep track of monster HP, status and whose turn it is through this method requires only some front-end work rather than trying to do it while the PCs are there in front of us. I also think it feeds into OCD behaviors (guilty) because it allows a certain amount of structure for each encounter.

Have you considered a magnetic whiteboard? I've used one to track initiative and conditions since the early 3e days. I use a handheld-sized one that came with magnetic strips that hold cardboard tags you can write on. So each PC gets a tag, then I have "Enemy 1," "Enemy 2," etc, for foes, as well as colored magnets for conditions. I let one of the players do the tracking (less work for me) and just mark in my notes which baddie is which number. Works great with no up front work.

 

[Agamon]

I only just worked out that TotM is "Theatre of the Mind"; I've seen it used in other posts (I'm not sure if it was by you). Perhaps Wizards should be using the acronym ToteM (or perhaps not).

That's okay. HotDQ looks like the grill menu from Dairy Queen to me...