Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 9845213" data-attributes="member: 6993955">Are we assuming that the boatload of prep is specifically relevant to play? Lots of prep isn't really. There's also the question of actual deployment at the table. Is Laura a good GM? Can she keep all that prep straight and deploy it at the optimum time? Is Liam a masterful GM who's played this game and thus setting hundreds of times and thus the improv isn't quite so improv-y? Can you even name three games where the GM does no prep whatsoever?As you can see, the list of rapid-fire questions approach is both annoying, and revealing. Your extreme examples are bit wonky I think. I'm guessing you went extreme for emphasis, but I don't think it's that helpful.I have three main points here. One is that prep, regardless of magnitude is useless without a skilled GM, and no guarantee of internal consistency. Second, that an experienced GM, and here I mean specifically experienced with the kind of setting at hand, is perfectly capable of managing high internal consistency with minimal prep. Third, that unless we unpack what you mean by prep we are missing some key information.I agree that prep of magnitude X, generally, and in the hands of a capable GM, will lead to more consistency within the confines of that prep. If it's the right prep, it might even help when the players inevitably step off-piste. But's that's as far as it goes.An exploration of what you mean when you say prep should prove interesting and fruitful (as there's a lot of different nuts in that particular bag).</blockquote>

Verification