Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="polyhedral man" data-source="post: 7721655" data-attributes="member: 6901380">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: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 <a href="https://nodrpg.com/" target="_blank">Nod</a> 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.</blockquote>

Verification