Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7721084" data-attributes="member: 4937">[MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]: I understand, and I'm quite aware that that is the sort of statement that makes people uncomfortable.But I'm afraid I still have to stand by it.&nbsp; There has been a trend I've been seeing over the last few years that basically amounts to, &quot;If you play our game, then you don't have to do any prep.&quot;&nbsp; And I find that statement to be particularly harmful, because it would be astounding - and to me literally unbelievable - if being a Game Master was the one thing you could be skillful at without preparation.&nbsp; I might buy the statement, &quot;In our system, we will teach you processes to prepare for play and processes of play that will make your preparation very efficient and effective.&quot;, and such a thing would be a good thing to teach and educate prospective GMs of your system in.&nbsp; But to be honest, while I've seen some good ideas about processes of preparation presented in systems like FATE, I don't think I've seen anything that leads me to think you could get by just doing that sort of preparation.&nbsp; I think the whole 'no prep' thing is a fad, contrary to the highest standards of DMing, and I'd encourage any GM I met that wanted to get better at what they do to prepare more.&nbsp;&nbsp; However, that said, I also agree that there is more to DMing than just hard work.&nbsp; It's possible, even probable, to inculcate in yourself bad habits through poor preparation.&nbsp; For example, it's lethal to your skill as a GM to fantasize to much about how cool a scene is going to play out, and the exact particulars of how a scene is going to play out.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's lethal to your skill as a GM to engage in any ego tripping about how cool your story is going to be when this particular things happens.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's lethal to your skill as a GM to insist that having prepared something, that is going to be what is played during this session.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's lethal to your skill as a GM to fantasize about how impressed your players are going to be by the lethality and coolness of a particular NPC or monster, and how tense the combat is going to be.It's likewise true that you could prepare a ton of stuff, and it all be crap.&nbsp; The length of a novel doesn't determine its quality.&nbsp; Until you've gotten feedback, you don't have opportunity to learn from your mistakes.&nbsp; And you have to be willing to learn from your mistakes.But that's all bad preparation and bad attitude as a GM, not an inherent aspect of preparation.However, I will say of all this sugar coated crap about how you can be a low prep GM, this article was one of the best and least offensive because far from telling players to just show up and wing it, it actually encouraged them to change how they looked a preparation.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's core advice - &quot;Know your system.&quot;, &quot;Know your genera.&quot;, &quot;Prepare to be flexible.&quot; - is actually very good advice on how to prepare.&nbsp;&nbsp; But that's very different than saying you shouldn't, and &quot;low&quot; isn't the same as &quot;none&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7721084, member: 4937"] [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]: I understand, and I'm quite aware that that is the sort of statement that makes people uncomfortable. But I'm afraid I still have to stand by it. There has been a trend I've been seeing over the last few years that basically amounts to, "If you play our game, then you don't have to do any prep." And I find that statement to be particularly harmful, because it would be astounding - and to me literally unbelievable - if being a Game Master was the one thing you could be skillful at without preparation. I might buy the statement, "In our system, we will teach you processes to prepare for play and processes of play that will make your preparation very efficient and effective.", and such a thing would be a good thing to teach and educate prospective GMs of your system in. But to be honest, while I've seen some good ideas about processes of preparation presented in systems like FATE, I don't think I've seen anything that leads me to think you could get by just doing that sort of preparation. I think the whole 'no prep' thing is a fad, contrary to the highest standards of DMing, and I'd encourage any GM I met that wanted to get better at what they do to prepare more. However, that said, I also agree that there is more to DMing than just hard work. It's possible, even probable, to inculcate in yourself bad habits through poor preparation. For example, it's lethal to your skill as a GM to fantasize to much about how cool a scene is going to play out, and the exact particulars of how a scene is going to play out. It's lethal to your skill as a GM to engage in any ego tripping about how cool your story is going to be when this particular things happens. It's lethal to your skill as a GM to insist that having prepared something, that is going to be what is played during this session. It's lethal to your skill as a GM to fantasize about how impressed your players are going to be by the lethality and coolness of a particular NPC or monster, and how tense the combat is going to be. It's likewise true that you could prepare a ton of stuff, and it all be crap. The length of a novel doesn't determine its quality. Until you've gotten feedback, you don't have opportunity to learn from your mistakes. And you have to be willing to learn from your mistakes. But that's all bad preparation and bad attitude as a GM, not an inherent aspect of preparation. However, I will say of all this sugar coated crap about how you can be a low prep GM, this article was one of the best and least offensive because far from telling players to just show up and wing it, it actually encouraged them to change how they looked a preparation. It's core advice - "Know your system.", "Know your genera.", "Prepare to be flexible." - is actually very good advice on how to prepare. But that's very different than saying you shouldn't, and "low" isn't the same as "none". [/QUOTE]

Verification