D&D General To Prep or Not to Prep - A Players Perspective

[TheSword]

A poll here spun off from the Who buys Modules thread.

I’m interested to know what expectations players have of their DMs. Rather than what DMs think they should have to do (or not have to do)

For reference the four grading are

Extensive detail - the level described in a very detailed campaign/module or a regular module where the DM has gone through - tailored to their party and filled gaps. There is little randomness or what is has been curated to specific encounter tables for that location and the majority of encounters are detailed. Maps are mapped, NPCs are fully realised and detailed. They have agendas and events will transpire unless PCs intervene. Clues and foreshadowing are liberally spread throughout. Players will have to give warning at least a session in advance of their intended next course if it isn’t clear and will need to cleave pretty closely to the prepared campaign area.

Salient detail - The level of details as found in a typical 5e/Paizo campaign/module. Areas are detailed but there are gaps. There are potential encounters and events detailed. Many NPCs and foes will be stat block only or refer to a stat block and further details are left for the DM to improvise. Same for location details. Future events are planned out assuming NPCs are free to enact them. Some of these events are foreshadowed and some clues can be found. Players can go off in unexpected directions but it will likely require a session or two foreword thinking.

Minimal detail - The level of certain rare sparse modules. Where little more is provided than an outline, some headlines of an encounter and a rough idea of what foes and NPCs will be found. Descriptions of locations are likely to be an overview. Most NPC/foe details will be winged on the fly. As will treasure. Players can go in most sane directions without notice and the DM will likely have a enough to fill a session. There is likely to be little forward thinking of events and relatively few clues. There may be quite a lot of procedurally generated information to fill the gaps.

No detail - the game is entirely dependent on what the players want to do. The world is your oyster but it will all be made up as you go. Encounter charts out of the PHB/DMG.

If there are other grades I’ve missed off - spread the word.

I’ve deliberated put General D&D so this doesn’t get derailed by games systems that are purely improvisational and have that as their central theme. They’re not relevant here.

 

[Charlaquin]

For me, as a player, I don’t have a strong preference for how much the DM has prepared in advance, so long as they can maintain the feel of a persistent and consistent world. Some folks are really adept at doing this with improvisation, some need heavy prep to pull it off. Most are somewhere in-between. I think the Dungeon World advice of “draw maps, leave blanks” is a good rule of thumb, but from a player perspective the important thing is that regardless of your level of preparation, you shouldn’t seem obviously unprepared.

 

[payn]

A lot of this depends on the system and length of campaign for me.

If its a one shot, then minimal detail will suffice. I think the set up and go is most important there.

If its a module meant for a few sessions or levels, then salient detail will work. Should fit the setting and interest of the PCs.

If it's intended to be a long running campaign spanning the entirety of the leveling process, then I am going to want extensive detail. A players campaign guide at minimum, superb set up and go, and a detailed metaplot that is interesting.

I'd likely not go for a no detail pitched game as they have not been to my liking. A completely spontaneous GM has never been satisfying experience for me.

I voted down the middle with Salient as I figured its the best middle ground for my interests.

 

[Oofta]

Like @Charlaquin, it just depends on the DM. They may have a broad outline, with only a handful of details laid out or they may have everything carefully annotated and planned out with detailed maps predrawn. The latter can, in some cases, mean we're on a more linear path but as long as they're clear on the type of game we're playing I'm okay with it.

People should lean into their strengths and understand their limitations. If a DM needs those meticulous details ahead of time, it's likely because they understand that they wouldn't be effective at a high improv game. That's okay.

 

[Voadam]

As a player I just want the DM to feel comfortable. If that is all improv as we go or weeks of prep I am down for whatever.

It is all behind the screen stuff for me, all that matters is what I see as a player and I will work off of that.

 

[el-remmen]

Just gonna give a ditto to @Charlaquin and @Oofta. I voted "Other."

 

[payn]

As a player I just want the DM to feel comfortable. If that is all improv as we go or weeks of prep I am down for whatever.

It is all behind the screen stuff for me, all that matters is what I see as a player and I will work off of that.

Absolutely. If a GM feels like they have to adjust their style ill offer to take over or politely excuse myself if im odd man out.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Minimal detail - The level of certain rare sparse modules. Where little more is provided than an outline, some headlines of an encounter and a rough idea of what foes and NPCs will be found. Descriptions of locations are likely to be an overview. Most NPC/foe details will be winged on the fly. As will treasure. Players can go in most sane directions without notice and the DM will likely have a enough to fill a session. There is likely to be little forward thinking of events and relatively few clues. There may be quite a lot of procedurally generated information to fill the gaps.

FWIW, this isn't rare outside of the 5E space. (And even in the 5E space, Arcane Library adventures -- including the most popular adventure on DMs Guild -- work this way.)

It's so common with Old School Essentials (currently the biggest OSR game) that terse adventures are often referred to as "OSE house style," but you see the same thing in Pirate Borg, Mothership and other systems.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Salient for certain. I would also be happy with Extreme. Its no less what I expect from myself when I GM.

 

[Piperken]

...for how much the DM has prepared in advance, so long as they can maintain the feel of a persistent and consistent world..but from a player perspective the important thing is that regardless of your level of preparation, you shouldn’t seem obviously unprepared.

Peoples tools/methods will be different, so exact prescriptions will vary. It might help orient some of the talk around what organized table-running vibes feels like to players. Also mentioned earlier in topic:

As a player I just want the DM to feel comfortable.

My initial response as a player, was to pick either Extensive or Salient on the poll, but when I read the characteristics in every choice, I found aspects in each one, that fell under general expectations I'd value as a player:

• NPCs are fully realised and detailed. They have agendas and events will transpire unless PCs intervene. Clues and foreshadowing are liberally spread throughout.
• ...curated to specific encounter tables.
• Maps are mapped.
• There are potential encounters and events detailed.
• Players can go off in unexpected directions.
• There may be quite a lot of procedurally generated information to fill the gaps.

etc.