How I Learned To Stop Worrying About Game Prep

View attachment 86610​

One of the things that eternally plagues game masters is the subject of game prep. How do we find that balance between having more material than we will ever need, and having a session come to a stop because there wasn't enough prep done? This is something, I think that most game masters deal with regardless of how long of a time they have been sitting in the game master's chair. Really, as long as a game entertains everyone at the table, you've done the right amount of prep. However, the question will always remain.

I've been gaming since 1979, and by about 1980 or so I started GMing more or less full time. In the "old days" the answer to "How much do I prep?" was answered by the very robust publishing schedule of most role-playing game publisher. For example, I played a lot of the Marvel Super-Heroes role-playing game from TSR in college, and the years afterwards. I didn't read as many Marvel comics as I did (do!) read DC comics, so I was always at a disadvantage with the Marvel universe because of that. Because of the fact that TSR published so much material for the game between adventures and roster books, they managed to fill in a lot of the blanks for me with their official material. Many of the TSR published settings for AD&D around that same period gave you a lot of material to work with, regardless of whether you played in the Forgotten Realms or Al-Quadim or the Planescape settings, you had a lot of your prepwork done for you.

Publishers like White Wolf took this tact as well, sometimes giving you more material than you might ever even need as a GM.

Unfortunately, while we are in a different sort of golden age of riches as gamers, the day of the overabundance of pre-made material is in the past. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it sometimes requires adaptation from those of us who have been gaming for a longer time. I like a low prep approach to gaming as a GM, since I'm not 11 years old anymore, I don't have the time to spend on game prep that I once did (nor do I really have the desire, either). Sometimes my preferences for low prep games interferes with my running of older games at times, the techniques that work for newer games don't always work in older games.

This is why I was attracted to a system like Fate from Evil Hat Productions. I've played and run Fate games since Spirit of the Century debuted years ago, and the approach of the game has been becoming my default approach for a few years now. The first rule of game mastering is that no idea that you have (regardless of the amount of prep that you put into a game session) will survive its encounter with the players. They will zig when the story zags. But the nice thing about the system is that when this happens all that you need to do is come up with a couple of aspects, a skill or two (approaches if you use Fate Accelerated like I do) and roll with it. Games like the many, many variants of the Basic Roleplaying Game or the open content of Mongoose Publishing's fantasy RPG Legend (or their version of the Runequest rules from which Legend was derived) make that easy too. Come up with a couple of skills on the fly, give them percentages and worry about filling in the spaces later.

With our ongoing Marvel Super-Heroes game I find myself taking NPCs and working them into something close enough to work with. Our campaign is loosely based in the Marvel Universe, which works mostly because the players don't have a super detailed level of knowledge about the world, so that gives me plenty of wiggle room. Besides, the longer the campaign goes on, the less it has to do with the Marvel Universe proper anyway.

So, how do you balance these things out when you want to be a low prep sort of GM? There's a few guidelines that come from how I run a game:

• Know your system. This is probably the most important one. You hear a lot of people talk about "internalizing" a game system. What this means, for me, is that you have developed a high degree of system mastery in your chosen game system. One of the reasons that I like to use the Marvel Super-Heroes RPG is because I have run it long enough that I know the system really well, and can run it without having to flip through books trying to find something. I'll have a few pages of notes, NPCs written out if the game is complex enough to need them in advance, and then everything else during our sessions have me make situational rulings. I will use the game's universal table to resolve things, and come up with similar resolution ideas on the fly. But to do this, you have to know the system.
• Know your genre. This is almost as important as knowing the system that you're running. I've read comics for longer than I've played role-playing games. I have enough comic plots nearly memorized to be able to repurpose them for campaigns for years. If I don't, I can read a trade collection before a session and use the ideas in our game. Most GMs have read enough fantasy novels, or seen enough fantasy movies, to be able to do the same things. The trick is to find the things that the players don't know, so they won't think that you're just repurposing someone else's story.
• Be able to be flexible about things. One of the basic skills of a GM is that you need to be able to learn how to spin things out on the fly. If you can't be flexible as a GM, if you can't make things up on the spot as a reaction to what the players are doing, you are going to have a hard time being a low prep GM.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but they are a good starting point. Not everyone is going to want to be a low prep GM, but there will be those times when it will be needed and you might want to know what to do.

I have a friend who is always amazed when I run an evening's game with just some notes in my gaming Moleskine and a copy of the Fate Accelerated rules. Sometimes I'll have a brief idea of what I want to use for the setting, and other times I'll see what bits and pieces the players give up, that excites them.

Recently, on Free RPG Day, I ran a three hour session of Fate Accelerated for eight people (only about half of whom I actually knew). The idea was that the whole game would be generated on the spot, and play would roll out of what the players and I created. Fate's game creation rules are helpful for this, because they quantify a way to make up a setting at the table. I started with some prompts for the game. I wrote up a set of basic genre cues on index cards which said things like "A Space Ship Adventure…but…" The players filled in the "but…" with "all the characters are robots." We were off. For the next few minutes we outlined the details of the setting: everything took place on a sentient AI-driven biomechanical space ship, except the ship's AI was getting senile and things were slowly starting to malfunction. While the players made up their characters I put together a few other details: the ship was on a ten year exploratory tour, beaming back information to a central command that would be used later for voyages with ships that were occupied with people. The ship itself was built with planned obsolescence in mind, and the "falling apart" was planned from the beginning. Within about half an hour we were ready to go, and we played for another two and a half hours, until we got to a stopping point. The game was still left open-ended, so that if we had all so desired we could have spun it into an ongoing game.

This shows the basic concepts of low prep play in action. If this is something that you want to give a try, you now know where to start. The genre of the game, the system that you use all figure into how you do this. Now you know.
What sort of prep do you do as a GM?

 

[Celebrim]

Each of these would likely generically qualify as "prep" (and they all facilitate GMing best practices and fidelity to principles) but if you did a Venn Diagram of some sort, they would be discrete enough to surely have a better label attached to each (at least if you're trying to optimize explanatory power/clarity for prospective MCs).

Perhaps so, but this brings us to perhaps the least interesting topic we could possibly have - what are we going to now label ideas that we all now clearly understand.

I offer "preparation" as the label for the superset of activities that are err... preparing to run a game. We can device a label for each of your circles on the Venn diagram. If you don't like "preparation", feel free to invent some new word for it and say that technically speaking the superset of preparatory activities is "whatever not so obvious word you'd prefer to use", and I'll be happy to use it to refer to all those preparatory activities collectively.

And then, having finally defined our terms, we can go on to talking about how the different ways you prepare for a game impact how you expect the game is run and indeed what sort of game you are able to run. It's that conversation I'd be most interested in, so by all means, come up with your term for the superset of .... whatever word you think has a broader connotation that preparation does.

 

[Celebrim]

double post bug

 

[Manbearcat]

Perhaps so, but this brings us to perhaps the least interesting topic we could possibly have - what are we going to now label ideas that we all now clearly understand.

I offer "preparation" as the label for the superset of activities that are err... preparing to run a game. We can then devise labels for each of your circles on the Venn diagram. If you don't like "preparation" for the sum total, feel free to invent some new word for it and say that technically speaking the superset of preparatory activities is "whatever not so obvious word you'd prefer to use", and I'll be happy to use it to refer to all those preparatory activities collectively.

And then, having finally defined our terms, we can go on to talking about how the different ways you prepare for a game impact how you expect the game is run and indeed what sort of game you are able to run. It's that conversation I'd be most interested in, so by all means, come up with your term for the superset of .... whatever word you think has a broader connotation that preparation does.

I can think of some utility for discretizing all this stuff:

1) General communication for gamers in forums like this and at the table between participants.

2) Clarity in game design/hacking/reverse engineering/extrapolating.

3) Deeper understanding of things like (a) "what play experience is this game trying to engender", (b) "how is play/conversation structured and why", (c) "why PC build mechanics and reward cycles/attrition models are set up this way versus that", and (d) "how do the rules and play agenda facilitate (a) and (b) and why its important to hew to rule x, y, and z. (which also connects to 2 above)."

4) Clarity in how genre tropes/logic can manifest to create background color, characterization, and actual conflict in which the players are faced with interesting decision-points that their PCs are invested in/care about.

---

I think players brand new to TTRPGs, GMs that are inclined to port over stuff from one game to the next/hack, and prospective players of a new game certainly gain aid from headings/labels (like the below) in both the format of the book and in conversation alike. Perhaps you don't? I don't know. But if I'm given a lot of subtly interconnected (prep) stuff in a giant (sometimes obtuse or opaque) pile, I long for digestible, siloed chunks. When I'm talking to someone about something at a technical level, I definitely value intuitive, systemitized nuance.

Play Agenda
Inspiration/References
GMing Principles
The Say of the Rules
GM Best Practices (for this game and why)
What to Avoid (for this game and why)
Changing the Game/Hacking
How to Prepare to Improvise (how to handle your mental overhead, how to deploy cognitive shorthand, etc)

 

[S'mon]

I think it's fairly unrealistic for most RPGers to expect that the fictions they create will be as objectively compelling as professionally written and produced TV or cinema - even fairly ordinary TV or cinema.

Many of my games are more compelling, at least for me. But they're also different from those
art forms. It's more about taking components (eg tropes) from the existing dramatic fiction, and
making something new out of them.

 

[Celebrim]

I can think of some utility for discretizing all this stuff:

Which is cool, because I never argued otherwise. Indeed, the very fact that we need to categorize them I would cite as evidence to support my view. So by all means, lets categorize the different sorts of preparation you could engage in, and give them useful labels.

 

[pemerton]

Many of my games are more compelling, at least for me. But they're also different from those
art forms. It's more about taking components (eg tropes) from the existing dramatic fiction, and
making something new out of them.

I think that's at least consistent with what I'm saying.

When I enjoy Star Wars, or the X-Men movie, the director and screen writer is not important except as (perhaps) part of the explanation for why the movie was good. But when I enjoy my RPGing, it's not just accidental that it's my game - that's fundamental to the whole enterprise.

You seem to be agreeing with that to at least some extent. (I think?)

 

[S'mon]

I think that's at least consistent with what I'm saying.

When I enjoy Star Wars, or the X-Men movie, the director and screen writer is not important except as (perhaps) part of the explanation for why the movie was good. But when I enjoy my RPGing, it's not just accidental that it's my game - that's fundamental to the whole enterprise.

You seem to be agreeing with that to at least some extent. (I think?)

Yes, I think we're in agreement there.
It's not purely "this one is mine" though. My PBP and text-chat games especially tend to have a lot of drama and "deep roleplay" type stuff, and characters often with I think more depth than you see in most genre fiction. I definitely get emotionally involved with the characters. But it's still a very different sort of art form than a book, TV show or film.

 

[innerdude]

GM-ing is hard. Correction: GM-ing well is hard.

If being a good GM could be directly correlated to "prep," then most of us would have good GMs all the time. And based on what I read here and elsewhere, good GMs are the exception, not the norm.

I was asked by a friend to join their 5e campaign recently, in addition to my primary group. It's a group where the GM is running "Curse of Strahd" literally straight by the book. To the point that he will actually read the description text boxes. This is a 45-ish year old, working professional male. His baseline "preparation" was to read through the adventure path several times, take copious notes, and have a bunch of 3x5 index cards for reference.

Yet in spite of his prep, the actual gameplay is lifeless, dead, and hollow.

So why is that, if he's put in an "acceptable" amount of prep time?

The issue is that prepping to GM isn't helpful if it isn't done with the right perspective. Real prep isn't simply spending time delving into the system, or reviewing/creating encounters and stats. I've said it before, but being a good GM is more akin to being the director of a play---the difference is that the script isn't written beforehand.

But just because the script isn't written beforehand doesn't mean the same principles of directing a play apply. As a GM you are still responsible for the overall construct of the action, drama, and thematic/genre sensibilities that will exist within your "play". And the word "construct" is entirely key here---it is something that must be intentionally built. The choice to "prep" without intentionally trying to design a specific kind of construct is still a choice to design a construct; it'll just be one without any real guiding direction or vision (and will invariably suck).

It's the difference between a group of actors standing in place on stage, holding scripts in hand and reading to the audience, and that same group of actors being in costume, moving around on stage (using blocking), and having real props and sets.

And to be clear, "the rules" are only a single aspect of the construct. They can often be a foundational aspect, but they are only one aspect. The group's written and unwritten social contract is part of that construct. The sources and inspirations you draw from, and how widely versed you are within those sources---whether they be factual/historical, fictional, scientific, artistic---are part of that construct.

A GM who fails to understand this concept---that the group experience is one that must be built, and you as the GM are largely responsible for the giving that construct its basic form---is never going to be good GM, regardless of how much "prep time" they spend.

The reason it's hard to be a first-time GM---or an "any time" GM, for that matter---is for this reason. Now granted, you can "shortcut" the process of building the construct a bit when you know the rules really well, and have a broad base of knowledge and inspiration, and have a solid, functioning group contract. But just because you can take shortcuts in building the construct doesn't mean it needn't be built at all.

Someone complaining, "Why can't they just create a system that's easier to GM without all the prep?" is someone who hasn't understood this concept yet. Yes, system makes a difference, but you're still responsible for the entirety of the construct. Barring unusual circumstances, I'd much rather play with a GM who groks this concept and preps for an hour a month, as opposed to a GM who preps 25 hours a month but hasn't a clue about how to build the construct.

 

[Celebrim]

[MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION]: I like and agree with a lot of what you said, but don't share a language with you for discussing it.

There is buried in your description all sorts of different approaches to solving the problem of making your campaign not be "lifeless, dead, and hollow". For example, someone reading a sentence like "It's the difference between a group of actors standing in place on stage, holding scripts in hand and reading to the audience, and that same group of actors being in costume, moving around on stage (using blocking), and having real props and sets.", who might reasonably conclude that what is needed is better costumes, better acting, and better props. And buying or building props to use in your game is a sort of preparation for the game, albeit it a very different category of one than we usually think of when we say "prep", that is going to have a big impact on how the gameplay of the game actually ends up coming across.

But I think you agree with me that what is important is this thing you call a "construct" (and which I admit I don't fully understand what you mean), and that merely buying cool props and miniatures won't necessarily make your game not suck (any more than adding more special effects magic will make your movie not suck).

I concur fully that prepping well is just one of several qualities required of a GM, and that effort alone isn't the only thing that can be missing.

For example, there isn't necessarily anything wrong from reading from a script (at times). But two different readers of the same script can make the same passage moving or "lifeless, dead, and hollow" Are you a good reader? If you are, then you can probably read text right from the page. If you aren't, you probably need to leverage a different technique, which might involve knowing the room well enough to improvise a description. On the other hand, if you stutter to improvise a description but are a fluent reader, you might want to add to the text. Different speakers make different things work for them. Heck, if we are going to make analogy to acting or public speaking, maybe you need to "rehearse your lines".

GMs earn XP and buy skills too.

 

[innerdude]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], thanks for the words, I'm trying to think of another way of using the metaphor of directing a theater production (of which I've acted in two dozen over my lifetime) . . . .

Think of it like the difference between just reading the script of a play, and actually attending a live performance of that play. That thing that happens when you as an audience member pay your money and go sit in a theater for 2+ hours has only the most superficial of resemblances to the thing that happens when you sit at home and read the script. It's an entirely different construct---it has been constructed, put together, by those involved, with an overarching vision to the whole thing provided by the play's director.

The GM's role is much the same. There's an entire swatch of creative energy, vision, perspective, etc., that gets put into a play performance by the director, and in my opinion GM's should see their role as being much the same. While the actors in the play also contribute a great deal---they add their characterizations, voice, body movement, etc.---it is the director's vision that is the key.

Granted, the metaphor gets a bit murky when you start talking about player control over the setting. Because in an RPG, it wouldn't be anything out of hand for a player (i.e., an actor in the play) to suggest mid-performance (i.e., mid-session) that they want to suddenly change the set to be a boat, or insist that a new character should be added to the script. And that's the power of creativity we all love in RPGs!

But the heart of this idea is that it's the director's job to bring in the disparate elements and create the cohesive whole that will eventually become the live performance. The sets, the decorations, the lighting, the costuming, style choices, etc., all fall on the shoulders of the director. Yes, the actors, stage managers, costumers, etc., all have input to the process, but ultimately it's the director's final say. And ultimately, if a show falls flat, it's the director's fault, because they were the ones in charge of casting, making the set design decisions, etc.

GM-ing is much the same way. It's the GM's job to bring together the rules, the chosen setting, the understood genre tropes and conventions, the players' varying outlooks/attitudes, their educational knowledge and experience, and run a game that everyone enjoys. A good GM has to be willing to shoulder that responsibility, and also shoulder the responsibility of knowing that if the group isn't having fun, it really is their fault and no one else's. Because if the group isn't having fun, it's because of decisions the GM made, or if he or she didn't make them outright, tacitly agreed to.

Being a stage director takes a lot of disparate skills. It takes an eye for drama, for spacing and positioning, for color and artistry. It takes a knowledge of the material and its contexts. It takes an ability to get people to buy in to your vision. I think being a GM requires many similar traits, if not applied in exactly the same ways. In this, I think the goal of most good directors is to please their audience and participants alike----as should be the goal of a good GM.

On a side note: I think there needs to be a distinction made between "experienced" GMs and "skilled" GMs. It's a general truth that greater experience leads to greater skill, but this isn't always the case. We all have heard stories (or participated in them) of "experienced" GMs who had been doing it for years who were still unskilled. And for me, part of that must mean that simply "doing GM-ing" doesn't build skill, or prepping for sessions/campaigns doesn't necessarily build skill if the preparation isn't done from the right perspective and intent.

I read your point earlier that more prep time should naturally equate to greater success in GM-ing. That may often be the case, but not necessarily so. Rather, I'd say that greater skill in GM-ing leads to greater success. Skilled GMs may find they need to spend less time in prep, because they've already honed skills that allow them to do that, whereas unskilled GMs haven't developed their abilities yet to allow them to perform well without high amounts prep.

My point is (I think) that skilled GMs don't arise, regardless of how much "prep time" they put in, until they recognize the larger vision of what their role actually entails. Until they recognize that they are responsible for building a creative construct in which others will participate and enjoy, they are unlikely to develop the necessary skills regardless of how much "prep" they do. Spending prep time without an understanding of how your prep time is going to serve the larger "performance" in which your group will engage I find to be largely fruitless.