Prep work? What stinking prep work?

[Mark CMG]

So, two out of three falls recommends less prep work?

 

[SiderisAnon]

Session Prep Work vs. Campaign Prep Work

I have been DMing since 1985 and I will agree that the amount of session prep work I do has gone down a lot. I rarely run modules. When I do, I run them fast and loose. I make up NPC stats as I go, adjusting them mid-run if needed. Spell lists tend to use fairly standard "common" spells in my game, and I usually pick spells on the fly.

In truth, I often run a session with little more than an interesting idea and possibly a few notes scribbled on a piece of paper. Sometimes, I show up with nothing and just start making stuff up till the players get interested, and then keep things going where they lead.

There are two places I do session prep work. The first is names. I SUCK at coming up with names on the fly, so I tend to use randomly generated name lists and then assign various NPCs. The other place I do prep work is if I decide ahead of time to have a prominent puzzle or mystery. I generate handouts and such to help that sort of adventure along.

Frankly, I've spent more time printing and mounting Skeleton Key Games map tiles than I've spent prepping for a lot of session.


The only exception to the above is if I run a module for the RPGA. (Though I do this rarely anymore because of how my local RPGA group is.) In this case, I read through the module, making notes in the margins and highlighting important bits. I only do this because you're supposed to run the module "as written" as opposed to starting with the basic principle and turning it into something the original author probably wouldn't recognize.


Where I do most of my "prep" work is for the campaign itself. I started with a couple of hundred page long campaign guide, which incorporated the races and classes I was using, my house rules, and lots of setting information. I will add to that as the campaign progresses, or as either the characters or my imagination travels to new areas and I write more matieral.

I also use item cards for most magic items and most treasure. I spend time generating those in batches, and only have to prep for a session with them if I want something unique. Since I wing it so much, the players often get their cards at the next session because I didn't know before hand that the new item was going to be there.


As for following the rules, I completely agree with you. Once I'm familiar with the rules, I just run things. The only time I look up rules is when incorporating new material or when the rules lawyer in the group is starting to get uppity and I feel a need to slap him down on some point so that he stays quite for a few sessions. I prefer to run the game with as few rule books around as possible.


Unfortunately, I have to agree with the OP on quality DM's. I know three DM's who can keep my interest for more than a session and one isn't even in the country anymore. The only good thing is that because I've been the DM far, far more than I've been the player, I tend to enjoy DMing more.

 

[twofalls]

Its great that your players trust you like that. They must enjoy your game. How often do PCs die? If you are doing it on the fly, do you feel you are adjusting things to keep the PCs alive? Would they challenge you if a PC died?

Actually the death rate with my low level PC's is rather high, and its mostly because I make most fights difficult. I don't WANT my game to rotate around combat, so my players try to think thier way out of fighting. D&D is a combat game though, so it still happens at least once most sessions. As the players level up thier characters they have fewer fatalities, and of course if you get high enough they can generally be raised. I've not been accused yet of being a killer GM. I've brought up the mortality rate several times with them and "checked in" to make sure they are ok with things and the response has been that it keeps the game exciting. I've run a number of 3 - 4 year long campaigns and of an avg of 7 starting characters tyically 2 actually live to see the end.

 

[Henry]

...I write down the damage my players do in combat like I am keeping careful track to see how close they are getting to the monster's death threshold, but in reality I am just narrating the story and will kill it off when it is the most exciting to do so.

While that works fine for the most part, I think I'd balk when the baddie starts taking over 200 points of damage and still hasn't fallen yet. I could see, however, keeping track of damage, figuring a critter would probably have about X number of hit points with Y number of hit dice, and pick a plausible point to keel over. I've done that before on the fly, too.

 

[twofalls]

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who likes to run a session by the seat of my pants. As far as GMing getting old, the more creativity I allow myself the more fun I have with it. Where I get my real kicks however, is when that one magical session happens and my players are completly into the game, aborbed and focused. Seeing them after session smiling and chatting excitedly about the game and leaving my house so animated just makes it all so very satisfying to me. Ultimatly, I think the GM's I prefer are the ones who truely love to entertain thier friends with storytelling. When your time behind the screen is in service to your friends, and you see that you really made them happy because you told a good story for them to play in... that is the sweetest part of this hobby.

I wish I had a chance to play with the people who posted here, it sounds like you are the types who love to entertain.

 

[twofalls]

While that works fine for the most part, I think I'd balk when the baddie starts taking over 200 points of damage and still hasn't fallen yet. I could see, however, keeping track of damage, figuring a critter would probably have about X number of hit points with Y number of hit dice, and pick a plausible point to keel over. I've done that before on the fly, too.

This is exactly what I do Henry. You have to be reasonable when running your game. You have to know the game and it's system well enough to keep it all plausible and the illusion that you are playing by the rules intact. When the Orc sentry at the mouth of the cave shrugs off the PC wizards fireball and sneers at him, and then attacks for 2 pts with his sling... plausability flies out the window and so does your game and player trust.

 

[Bardsandsages]

I think the amount of prep shrinks as you become familiar with the game mechanics and setting. I've got a huge portfolio of NPCs I've used over the years, and they get recycled with new names and personalities as needed. You collect maps and they get reused. As far as the rules, I sometimes ignore them if it helps add a "cinematic effect" to a game. But my players know that if they expect me to "ignore" a rule for them, that means the monster gets to ignore the rule as well. Once the game is running, it's pretty much on autopilot. My only concern becomes keeping track of where the bad guys are, what they would realistically know about the players, and what monster is behind door number 1.

 

[twofalls]

As far as the rules, I sometimes ignore them if it helps add a "cinematic effect" to a game. But my players know that if they expect me to "ignore" a rule for them, that means the monster gets to ignore the rule as well.

Thats the thing, in my group there is this combo of trust and illusion. My players (bless thier hearts) trust me to run a good game. I perpetuate an illusion (apparently more successfully than I had realized) that I am playing strictly by the rules. I even allow my players to correct me on occasion and change a call I made to more accuratly reflect to rules just to maintain the illusion (and so that they know they have a voice in keeping me on track, rpgs are cooperative). Now there are a couple of players in the game that have caught on to my methods, but they seem content to run with it.

My only concern becomes keeping track of where the bad guys are, what they would realistically know about the players, and what monster is behind door number 1.

Yep, this is my biggest Bugaboo, lazyness. I invent so much stuff sometimes very rapidly, and if I don't resolve it then and there (ie. the bad guy LIVES instead of being captured and foiled, killed, etc) I need to jot down a note to remind me of his name... his class or race, etc. Often I fail to do this and that comes to bite me later, I can usually fudge it but yeah, keeping track of things is really just all about jotting down notes in game to organize later, but I am really bad about doing that. I am lucky in that I am pretty good at puling ethinic sounding names and making them feel correct out of thin air, I am LOUSY at remembering them two weeks later!

 

[Imaro]

Another trend I've discovered in myself is a tendency to completely ignore the rules but leave my players feeling like I am following them very closely. I know the rules (we still play 3.0) very well, and most of the time (nearly all the time) I can't be bothered with them. The monsters I use are either old favorites I know well, or more often concoctions off the top of my head to fit the moment. I write down the damage my players do in combat like I am keeping careful track to see how close they are getting to the monster's death threshold, but in reality I am just narrating the story and will kill it off when it is the most exciting to do so. I use the rules when the players need to interact with them, like grappling... how many magic missiles a caster can toss, etc. So I petty much don't ever prep monsters either...

I invent spells on the fly, I make rules calls (educated calls of course) as needed, and pretty much just invent the game as I go mostly with themes and ideas I dreamed up either in reaction to the players or sometimes ideas I thought about the week before the game.

Yeah I use to do this when I ran 3.x games, but it got to the point where I asked myself if I'm not using all these rules that I paid for, why not just play in a rules-light(er) game. I play C&C now and gotta say my prep time is way down from when I played 3.5, and it's less hand-wavey. I gotta ask how well do your PC's know the rules of the game, and would it be different if one or more of them we're running games as well? Also how do you apply rules, in a fair manner, like grappling if you don't have anything written down for an antagonist?

Actually the death rate with my low level PC's is rather high, and its mostly because I make most fights difficult. I don't WANT my game to rotate around combat, so my players try to think thier way out of fighting. D&D is a combat game though, so it still happens at least once most sessions. As the players level up thier characters they have fewer fatalities, and of course if you get high enough they can generally be raised. I've not been accused yet of being a killer GM. I've brought up the mortality rate several times with them and "checked in" to make sure they are ok with things and the response has been that it keeps the game exciting. I've run a number of 3 - 4 year long campaigns and of an avg of 7 starting characters tyically 2 actually live to see the end.

See I was with you till about right here. My players(and I have to admit me as well) would have a fit if it ever came out that their PC died on a hand-wavey encounter. I feel if your going to challenge the PC's with the possibility of death it should definitely be "by the book" or an agreement between the DM and player that they are ready to retire that character. Otherwise isn't this just a DM telling the story he wants too and making it appear that the PC's are actually shaping the adventures?

 

[Metus]

I write down the damage my players do in combat like I am keeping careful track to see how close they are getting to the monster's death threshold, but in reality I am just narrating the story and will kill it off when it is the most exciting to do so.

I think that's hilarious, since I'm guilty of having done that, and I always feel so bad afterwards like I'm cheating the players. I try not to do that simply because of the guilt.

I could get away with that for things like creature hit points, but for inventing spells on the fly, I know the players would be all over me about it, searching for the caster's spellbook and wondering why the spell wasn't in there.

I also find that to be so true. It's one thing if they're fighting a monster, but if I'm using a spell that they haven't heard of and theoretically should have access to? Well by God, they will find it or give me crap about it.

Personally, I basically do no prep work. I mean, I spend a few minutes to get an idea in my head, and then run the game. I do end up referencing some books sometimes because of that, and a lot of my DMing style revolves around responding to what the players end up doing. Obviously I can't plan for every contingency, so I plan for none and then just come up with something when they save the princess or burn down the orphanage or whatever.

Because some people put so much work into prepping for DMing, I do feel bad about it. One thing I worry about is what Devyn said:

One downside that I have noticed is that IMHO, my GM'ing style has become "entrenched", and I no longer push myself the way I used to do. Seemingly without exception, my players have been very happy with the games I run and keep coming back for more. But for me, I've been less than satisfied on a number of occasions. Which is the main reason reason why I'm begining to work on an entirely new campaign in a new system that I have never used before and a play-style that is decidedly not standard D&D fantasy.

I don't mind personaly getting old ... but I'll be damned if I'll let my GMing become "old".

That does worry me, if I'm getting "stale."