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

[FrogReaver]

Depends on the dm

 

[Lanefan]

Other: as a player I want you to

a) have your world-setting-system nailed down before play starts, at least to the point required for us to make our characters (e.g. if we can play Clerics then you have to have your pantheons locked in so we know what deities are available) and then

b) know your world and system well enough that we can't tell during the session whether you're winging it or running off prep.

 

[TheSword]

To be honest having foreshadowing, clues and a chance to intervene in events that will be disastrous if I and my fellow heroes don’t step in is really important to me. I think more important than combat.

It’s easy to improv a session if that session revolves around a couple of fights. Stick the monsters in a room with the party and let them duke it out. Rinse. Repeat.

Roleplay/Intrigue based sessions and Exploration based sessions require more input. There has to be important and relevant details to discover for exploration to be meaningful. Same for intrigue - thought has to go into what the NPC wants and how they will behave.

I also can’t abide conflict between PCs. Banter is fine and some light hearted wilbaldry but when half the session is taken up with two players facing off I lose the will.

 

[Stormonu]

I'd prefer the DM have at least basics written down (and the more detail the better) for what they expect is the logical course of action the party will take. I don't mind the DM making up things on the fly, as long as it doesn't feel like they're pulling it out arbitrarily out of their behind.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Roleplay/Intrigue based sessions and Exploration based sessions require more input. There has to be important and relevant details to discover for exploration to be meaningful. Same for intrigue - thought has to go into what the NPC wants and how they will behave.

As a GM, I find the social/intrigue work better with the least prep. If I try to plan out a lot of things, they are doomed fail (or I might try to force it, which has never gone well). Stick with a short list of motivations and resources for the major players and then wing it based on the players' actions.

I usually don't define why group X hates group Y or who did what, so that when the PCs inquire I can get sympathy or a rise out of players as needed.

Be zen, have no desires of my own, be true to the NPCs motivations, make up minions as needed based on the "resources" constraint, and always write down their name/race/faction to maintain versimilitude.

 

[Theory of Games]

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)

I'm wondering why this is even relevant since players aren't doing the prep? The first time a player tries to tell me how to prep my game, that's one less player at the table. I don't get to tell them how to RP their characters and they don't get to tell me how to prep or run my games.

GMs get their agency just like players get theirs, right?

 

[Lanefan]

As a GM, I find the social/intrigue work better with the least prep. If I try to plan out a lot of things, they are doomed fail (or I might try to force it, which has never gone well). Stick with a short list of motivations and resources for the major players and then wing it based on the players' actions.

I usually don't define why group X hates group Y or who did what, so that when the PCs inquire I can get sympathy or a rise out of players as needed.

Be zen, have no desires of my own, be true to the NPCs motivations, make up minions as needed based on the "resources" constraint, and always write down their name/race/faction to maintain versimilitude.

The bolded is where I fail.

I can't write and talk at the same time, and if I'm winging it that almost always means I'm doing a lot of talking.

 

[overgeeked]

Minimal or none. The more prep the more likely the referee will insist on sticking to it, so the prep isn’t wasted, and railroad the players.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

The only difference between Salient Detail and Minimal Detail is the improvisational skill of the DM.

If you're amazing at improvising, Minimal Detail looks Salient to the players. If you're bad enough at improvising, even Extensive Detail could look Minimal to the players.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

I'm wondering why this is even relevant since players aren't doing the prep?

You're overanalyzing this - players are allowed to have preferences on what type of DMs they like, and he's just asking what style people enjoy more