How I Learned To Stop Worrying About Game Prep


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?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

OK. This is going to sound like I'm attacking, but I'm not. I'm genuinely trying to figure out where the line is.
Some GMs spend a lot of time thinking and relatively little time taking notes and generating documents, and basically store everything 'in their head'. Other GMs rigorously document all their ideas. But it's all preparation even if you aren't spending most of the time generating documents.
So, if I spend time in the shower thinking about how to screw over my players, that's prep? Does that include the dozens of campaigns that I've pondered without actually running them, whether or not I've written anything out?

I've been listening to Savage Worlds podcasts, lately, even though I've never played it and don't expect to in the foreseeable future. Does that count as game prep? What about listening to the Manifest Zone podcast (Eberron), even though I'm running Curse of Strahd, at the moment, and probably will be for the next 6 months? I might actually run Eberron, at that point, but I've also got two custom fantasy settings I've been pondering for a couple years, plus both Shadowrun and some flavor of urban fantasy are getting discussed in my group.

Speaking of those home brew settings... I'll probably only get to run one of them, if either. Should I count either of those thought trains as prep? If so, now or only when/if I run it? In the 35 years I've been gaming, I've probably "created" literally scores of settings and/or campaign plots that never had more written down than would fit on a Post-It note. Do they count?

I've done three different magic systems for Fate, in my head, just to see what sort of balance and feel I could get out of it. Does that count? I picked up the Dresden Accelerated book to read on vacation because I'm a fan of the novels, but most folks in my group are adamantly opposed to playing in a novel/movie setting. I got some ideas from the book, but that wasn't why I picked it up. Do I count that?

I get the argument that all of those qualify as prep work. They definitely prepare me for running a game, in an abstract sense. They don't prepare me to sit down for a particular campaign/session, though. None of that lets me sit down at a table on a given night and have an actual plan for what's going to happen that night. In a certain sense, whatever happens this week at the table qualifies as prep work for next week's session -- it'll definitely be more concrete than any of the above.

In that case, I'm extremely high prep. Gaming is my hobby. Over the years, I've pretty much conditioned my brain that "slipping into neutral" means running through game ideas. There are very, very few days that go by where I don't do some sort of "prep".

Instead, I think of most of that stuff more like "conditioning". I have a black belt in karate. As part of that, I spar. Sometimes, I prepare for a sparring match. I watch how the fighter moves against others, whether he prefers punches or kicks, straight lines or circles. If there's time, I'll try out certain moves to break through defenses, to make sure they feel right and are fluid. I might bounce ideas off my wife (also a black belt). Most of the time, though, I rely on the conditioning I've done to make sure the moves are in there. I watch as they move against me and bring out what seems appropriate. Occasionally, that means I get my butt handed to me -- then I prepare. Most of the time, though, it works out better for me than if I overthought it.

Same holds true for GMing. I've got stuff up there. I spend time conditioning to GM. The moves are there. But, I haven't planned for this session.

Earlier this week, I sent out an invite to a Fate Accelerated one-shot. I told the players that we'd just make up characters that night, since it shouldn't take more than 20 minutes for everyone to a) come up with a phrase that summarizes their character; b) tell me something else interesting, but potentially problematic; and c) arrange six descriptive "approaches", top-to-bottom. All genres are open. All power levels are open (since Fate self-levels, once you have the baseline). There is literally no way to prep beyond being comfortable with something best described as a pamphlet. I'm very comfortable with this and find the idea freeing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I no more need to prep games beforehand than I need to prepare what I might need to say in a conversation with friends down the pub. It turns out I'm capable of holding a conversation with my friends without prep, whether it's a game or not. The last game I ran for about 18 months, had about 90 minutes prep in the whole time. One of the group called it their best role-playing experience of the last 25 years.

So anyone telling you that an unprepped game can't be a good game is describing their own limitations. There's no correlation between prep and quality or prep and fun or prep and entertainment.

The one correlation that does exist is between prep and control. People write down words to control what is said, and to limit the range of what can be said. My experience of games is the same. The more prep a game has, the worse it gets for any player with any interest in having a say in it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OK. This is going to sound like I'm attacking, but I'm not. I'm genuinely trying to figure out where the line is.

No, go ahead and attack. I won't mind. Honestly, when you open up with a disclaimer like that, it's the disclaimer that is the most offensive part of the post. None of the rest would bother me at all.

So, if I spend time in the shower thinking about how to screw over my players, that's prep?

Potentially. If you come up with concrete ideas that you implement in a game session, then yes, that's definitely preparation. I'm not exactly sure what "screw my players" over means in this context, but if it is things like figuring out how to make a skirmish tactically interesting, figuring out how the BBEG would respond to learning of the players activity, figuring out how the notary devil is going to work the contract he tempts the player with, brainstorming a dastardly trap and so forth, and then you actually do that thing (or decide, no that's a bad idea, I'll do this instead) - then yes you preparing for the game. I mean, literally, you are.

Does that include the dozens of campaigns that I've pondered without actually running them, whether or not I've written anything out?

None of those count until you actually run one of those campaigns, at which point all the pondering you did would count as preparation for the campaign.

I've been listening to Savage Worlds podcasts, lately, even though I've never played it and don't expect to in the foreseeable future. Does that count as game prep?

Only if you run Savage Worlds or steal ideas from the podcasts to use in something you do run. I don't think this is nearly as hard as you are making it. Are you literally thinking about a game you are running, or are you thinking about something that eventually makes it into a game you run? Then it's either preparation or became preparation the moment it became applicable to your game.

So, for example, the martial arts system I created for Battletech when I was 17 doesn't count as preparation for anything despite the fact I wrote like a dozen pages detailing close combat in Battletech. It never saw any use in anything, nor did any of that brainstorming, nor did the system I created for abstracting the abilities of a Mech for use in a grand operational level Battletech game.

But, when I spent some time writing down notes for what sort of things could be considered 'heretical' in a cosmopolitan polytheistic society did literally become preparation for the game I'm currently running when it became part of the inspiration for my current campaign. I have actually made use of the notes I wrote down in this game. The fact that I made them years before I even knew I would be running a game or incorporating them in a game doesn't mean that they weren't part of the preparation for the game, because they became part of the lore and backstory of the world that is driving the story's conflict.

Likewise, when I watched a video about the construction of Roman baths, and then did some reading and research about Roman baths and their different layouts and how they worked and how they were a manifestation of their societies mores and a shaper of them, even though at the time I didn't think I was doing preparation for a game and thought I was just indulging my love of historical minutia, at the moment six months or so later that I needed to improvise a scene and decided that a bathhouse would be an appropriate and cool mini-dungeon, that research quite literally became preparation for the session I ran that night. I had a map in my head instantly, knew what sort of things could be found inside, and very quickly stocked the map mentally with the sort of innocent bystanders and evil minions of the BBEG that might be within. There is nothing abstract about my argument at all. If your time thinking, researching, and planning actually enables you to run a session, then it is preparation.
 

I'm genuinely trying to figure out where the line is.
That's why I asked upthread about published monsters, maps, plot hooks, etc.

If selecting from among those things in the course of play, and then using the selected one, counts as "no prep" then no prep GMing (or perhaps "pretty light prep" - becoming familiar with some Monster Manuals and choosing some maps and vignettes/plot hooks) doesn't seem all that hard.
 

Celebrim made some very valid points. Also, Mercule brought up this notion of "conditioning", which is a very useful thing to consider.


The line can get blurry, but it seems like we can agree that the qualifying differerence between "prep" and "conditioning" is that the former is targeted towards a specific session or campaign. It's time spent with the intention of assisting or improving that campaign or session.


In my mind low prep means that you're spending 30-0 minutes to prepare for a session.
I wouldn't mind if the preparation time for a campaign was longer, as long as it set me up nicely so that I could run a session that is up to my standards with so little prep time.


For people that feel like they're doing low-prep and delivering good sessions, there's a question i'd like to ask that i think would be very interesting to answer:
Do you feel you can create a framework that another GM can use to reach similar levels of low prep?
If not, why not? A lot of the advice in the OP and comments would also apply to heavily-prepared games.


What makes it difficult to answer is that two different GMs may have different tastes and definitions of what's a satisfactory session.
Also, their groups may have different tastes.
And people may not be aware of the parts of their "conditioning" / strengths / skills / tastes / individual play style that make their particular approach to low-prep work for them.


For me personally, my default/neutral is similar to what Mercule descibed:


Gaming is my hobby. Over the years, I've pretty much conditioned my brain that "slipping into neutral" means running through game ideas. There are very, very few days that go by where I don't do some sort of "prep".


At the same time, when I do meet my old group and run a game for them, I'm plagued by too much prep, which I see as a necessary evil, much like Celebrim described.


There's a few times when I managed to deliver low prep sessions.
Thinking back, these were all sword and sorcery sessions. And in all cases, there was a single player (different person each time though).


In one instance, it was an adaptation of a Conan the Barbarian comic book story.
The one game that has helped me do this consistenly (in all other cases) is Nod by Simon Carryer.
I think it's one the most underappreciated games out there.


My framework for trying to get someone to play low prep would be to hand them Nod (by default it has multiple GMs, but I could comfortably run it by folding all the GM responsibilities to a single GM) and also making sure they were familiar with AW moves. Bryce Lynch's criteria for selecting modules would also go far (he blogs at tenfootpole.org).
These are all part of what I'd consider to be a framework. The material isn't messing about, it helps you hit the ground running. Nod has it. Bryce mercilessly looks for that quality in his reviews. And then the ability to wing it, escalate, adapt: AW moves is second to none for giving a structured approach to this (at least from what I've seen so far).


I'd read Fate accelerated in the past, and I remember I really liked the rules but I've never run it.
Dungeon World is in my to-do list, as is Symbaroum.


My 2 cents.
 


I suppose, but that also makes the term "preparation" fairly meaningless, if not redundant with being a basic human. :erm:

Really? So, if a person spends time thinking, researching, and planning for an examination, then by your definition that was not preparation?

"I'm not at all prepared for my History exam. I only spent 20 hours this week reading, studying, and planning for it. I did no preparation at all."

There is absolutely nothing wrong with drawing maps and flowcharts, and by all means take notes so you won't forget any of the incredible ideas you came up with while brainstorming. But that's not the end all, be all of preparation.

And perhaps maybe more to the point, if that's what you think "preparation" is, but you happen to be not very good at drawing maps or figuring out flowcharts or writing intro text to a room or encounter or whatever you think "preparation" is, perhaps you are much better off switching to a sort of preparation that suits your skills. If the sort of preparation you were doing made you rigid, inflexible, and unimaginative - then switch to a sort of preparation that allows you to improvise well.

How you prepare for a game is at least as important as the rules of the game in shaping how a game will play. I feel that we as a community need to talk more about how to prepare to play well. FATE, in my opinion, rather than advertising itself as a game that you don't have to prepare for, needs to call itself out as a game that tries to teach you how to prepare to play it well and efficiently, and then try to be that game.

I get this weird idea that some people in the thread are still locked in 1977 era thinking. In your mind, preparation still means that "drawing a minimum of six maps and stocking them with an assortment of monsters traps and treasure". That sort of preparation creates a particular sort of game, and every game that prepares in the same way will play very similarly regardless of the rules we use to play it. But we've come a long way since 1977 in the diversity of games we are capable of playing, and the ways we must prepare for those games are equally diverse.
 

Really? So, if a person spends time thinking, researching, and planning for an examination, then by your definition that was not preparation?
I would say that your previous exposition on your views regarding what constitutes preparation applies far more broadly than this.
 

I would say that your previous exposition on your views regarding what constitutes preparation applies far more broadly than this.

Maybe, but the part you quoted does not.

And I would say that if you I find me defending my actual words (as I just did) rather than something else you think that I said, then perhaps the problem is your understanding of what I was saying isn't as strong as what you think it is.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top