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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9530904" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I don't really see much difference in the above.As someone who played with heavy DM prep for many years, I can say that I actually find a looser approach to be far more efficient as far as time commitment, and also far less likely to cause contradictions with established lore. Defining only the "broad strokes" ahead of play really helps alleviate a lot of the concerns, though it does rely on comfort with introducing new elements on the fly.So this is the kind of control that I'm talking about. I get that this has been the paradigm of play for decades. But I don't find this kind of thing to be anywhere near as disruptive as many claim. Or maybe I should say "as many suppose" since most often these concerns come from folks who have never played this way.No, I understand that quite well. I played that way for a good twenty years. I prepped my little DM's heart out. Spent hours by myself coming up with ideas for play and cool setting elements and NPCs and all that stuff.And I found that very often that prep became paramount to play. I had devoted a lot of time to it and did so with a fun game in mind. So that commitment... that amount of control over what would be introduced into play... would at times make me prioritize the setting over the PCs. Most of the time, there was no conflict... if you asked my players, most of them wouldn't describe it as ever being problematic to them in any way. But as you touch on in your post, as the GM, I have a broader view.It's a tough thing to realize that all the prep time spent on worldbuilding doesn't actually enhance play all that much. That you can establish a lot of things on the fly as needed and they'll be just as compelling for play as if you spent hours alone scribbling into a notebook.</blockquote>

Verification