Which are you, The plan everything out GM, or the Ad lib?

[zarionofarabel]

Even the most linear adventure, say Tomb of Horrors will provide different experiences to different groups. There will be a lot in common but how they dealt with or failed to deal with different traps and the different solutions that they applied to the Tomb will all be different. You'll have a lot in common, but you will have different transcripts of play. So even a linear adventure allows for Expression and has different walks through it on the "micro" level.

Well, yeah. That's the inherent advantage of an ad lib style. The entirety of the events of the campaign, both micro AND macro, can be drastically affected by choices the players make. I'm not saying that games with planned plotlines completely lack player agency, but ad lib games definitely offer a heck of a lot more agency. Plus, with an ad lib style a GM can tailor everything in the campaign for specific PCs/players. With a plotline game, the campaign is more about the story the GM wants to tell than the story the PCs make. Which, if all the YT vidoes I've watched in recent times, is what a lot of players want. It's the crux of the reason why I GM ad lib (plus laziness) style, because I don't want to make a story for the players to play a part in, I want the players to make their own story.

A couple of reasons. First, a lack of prepped material means that the only thing on offering is what the GM imagines at the moment.

So? It doesn't really matter if you make it up beforehand, or in the moment, it's all the same. You, as GM, are just making stuff up!

And secondly, a lack of prepped material makes it much easier for a GM to force outcomes of scenes to be whatever the GM imagines is the most fun.

So GMs who prep stuff are trying to make stuff that's less fun?!?

Lack of prepped material tends to reduce the amount of "Sign Posts" - that is the number of things in the setting that players can interact with in order to find novel things in the setting. If you are improvising, the tendency is to provide zero to one sign posts.

Maybe in someone else's game. My games are usually overstocked with things the players can interact with as the contents of the setting are limited only by my imagination. I don't want to sound like a jerk, but imagining things for PCs to do in any setting is super easy, at least for me. Basically any story element that you can think of that would fit the theme and genre of the setting can exist. All a player has to do is express an interst in such a thing and voila! Said thing poofs into existence! As for telegraphing what PCs "should be" doing, well, I simply don't do that as there is never a time when the PCs "should be" doing anything specific. I also try to telegraph things PCs "could be" doing by imagining things that are "happening in the world" then somehow informing the players of said happenings. Again, easy as pie, as I simply tend to "think on things" in between sessions, so I have a smorgasbord of ideas rattling around in my brain at all times.

There are either no clues what to do next or just the one clue. The more you spend detailing the setting the more "sign posts" you have to lead to areas that you probably don't consider when improvising.

I don't feel the need to tell players what they "should be" doing. It's up to the players what they want to do in the setting. Like I said above, providing content is super easy, just make something up! Plus, I don't need to bother creating content for anything the players are not actively engaging, allowing me to focus completely on the things they are engaging.

In both cases, players can head off into the fog without a clear or intended sign post and you have to improvise. In my recent game the players wanted to find out how the terrorist organization was getting information about caves since they knew from briefings that the organization used caves in which to hide and lose pursuers. While that was an "obvious" thing to do, I hadn't recognized this as a "Sign Post" when I prepared, so I had to improvise. The choices and density of information I could provide when improvising was certainly less than if I had prepared for this path ahead of time. And the number of alternative paths to what I was improvising was reduced compared to exploring a path which had more details.

Well that sucks! I've never found my ad lib content lacks in density or breadth of choice compared to things I "daydream" beforehand. In fact, my ad lib stuff, in retrospect, is consistently better than the crap I think about between sessions. Perhaps the urgency of improvising content kicks my thinking machine into overclock mode! So, yeah, I don't know about other improv GMs, but my ad lib content is far better than anything I would end up prepping. If I were to limit myself to stuff I prepped, my games would definitely suffer for it, and my players would probably be quite disappointed.

The players don't get fewer choices to make when you detail the setting more. They get more.

Only if their choices aren't artificially, or subconsciously, limited to prepared content. If their choices are limited thusly, then an ad mib game would inherently offer far more variety of choice, simply because nothing is "set in stone" and anything is possible!

More importantly, they get more signals about what choices that are available. With few signals they tend to only go in obvious directions and that makes it really easy to consciously or unconsciously steer the players through a very linear series of bread crumb paths. The fact that those linear bread crumb paths were improvised on the fly doesn't make them less linear, nor does it mean the players had more choice just because you hadn't planned head of time for them. GMs without prep invariably thump down one sign post that then the players just follow along to the only location they can "see".

No. At least not in my experience. In fact, I have found the opposite to be true. If players know that a GM prepares stuff ahead of time, they try to look for the "correct path" to follow, almost always latching on to the first "signpost" they are given. As the first "signpost" in most plotline games is, more often than not, the only "correct" one. If the players know that all paths are an option, because any event can possibly happen, they forge a path without considering anything other than what they want to do, free of restrictions.

The less of the world that preexists the players interacting with it, the less agency the players actually have. If nothing comes into being until the players interact with it, then everything that is created is created in response to the GMs biases about the current path the players are on and the GM has vastly more options than one that has prepped if the prepared GM feels staying true to his preparation is a contract.

Yeah...no...just...no. Having prepared material definitely doesn't equate to more agency. Besides, in reality, nothing, prepared or not, exists until the players interact with it. If you have a hundred pages of prepped material the players never interact with, it effectively doesn't exist. Plus, if the GM is "staying true" to the material they have prepared, then that would probably limit agency as it would limit player choice to only those that conforms to the prepared material. Ad lib doesn't have anything to "stay true" to, so choices simply can't be limited, as there is nothing to limit them.

Think about chasing after a criminal. If I prep ahead of time how the criminal plans to make a getaway, then the criminal has limited choices and the players can make choices that thwart him. But if I don't prep ahead of time how the criminal plans to make the getaway, then I'm inventing resources for the NPC knowing now what choices the players are going to make. In effect, I'm always simply deciding by fiat whether I want the players to succeed now or not, since the criminal could have whatever plan would thwart the PC's particular choices. I can never know whether I would have, on behalf of the criminal, made the same choices while blind to the PC's actions or intentions or schemes.

See, and in a situation like this it wouldn't be my ad lib fiat that decides whether or not the criminal escapes. If it's a literal "chase" then it would be the system rules and applicable randomizers that would decide the outcome. At least, in the games I GM.

I don't decide the outcome of questionable events by GM fiat. That's literally what the game system is for, to decide the outcome of events where the PCs have the ability to affect the outcome. I wouldn't set up a scenario where the PCs have the ability to stop a criminal from escaping, and then decide the result by GM fiat. The rules of the game, and the players choices and dice rolls, decide the outcome.

Sorry mate, but much of what you claim are things that make a prepped game "better" than an ad lib game, are downright false. I do agree that an ad lib game can be railroaded, it's not something that's exclusive to linear adventure style games. In my experience however, linear games tend to suffer from the phenomenon far more often than ad lib games. Though, I will admit, ad lib games do suffer more often from being somewhat aimless at times. Both styles of play have their advantages and disadvantages, but to infern that one is inherently better than the other is disingenuous.

All that being said, if it makes you feel any better, linear games seem to be the norm. I've only recently got back in to the "social media" aspect of the TTRPG hobby, and YT especially is chock full of videos by folks that are obvious proponents of linear play. Far more that those that espouse ad lib play, as far as I can tell anyway. Cheers!

 

[The Sigil]

In the earliest days of 3e, I ran a campaign that was extremely heavy on prep. Every monster and NPC had lovingly crafted statblocks. Every DC for traps, challenges, etc., was carefully tuned. I always had detailed notes to refer to when the PCs encountered something. My players loved it.

Same group, one year later, with me one newborn child later... I no longer had time for prep, so when combat started, I picked foes' ACs and HP based on "what felt right." I had very loose notes with major plot points and improvised everything smaller. My players loved it.

So the answer is, "I've done both" and "both are fine." I used to prefer super-prep because it made me feel "safe" because I could point to my notes - but I finally realized that when it comes to MECHANICS the difference between "prep" and "not prep" was really only how far in advance I decided what the target rolls are (and what the damage/HP of the enemies are) - as long as I don't decide AFTER the PCs make their roll (at which point it becomes GM fiat) it doesn't really make a difference.

So now I'm a fan of "hybrid" prep. Story beats, plot points, memorable locations, lore, cool magic items, I set all that stuff up in advance to make sure it all makes sense. If I have time to stat the mechanics, I will, but if not, I'll do something like the "index card RPG" system where all DCs in a room are the same and I just set the DC on the fly.

Also, I should clarify, I don't "railroad" but instead I set up NPCs with motivations, factions with goals, etc., then sit back, throw in the PCs, and I simply make adjudications about how the PCs' actions interact with the above to ripple consequences through the game world AFTER the PCs take their actions (if I decided beforehand that would be railroading).

 

[Clint_L]

It's a linear adventure is it not? I mean, as long as the players want to follow the prepped plotline.

It is not. Did you not read the rest of what I wrote? Because I don't see how you could read what I wrote about players making unexpected choices and needing to have contingencies prepared and get "linear." When I prep a ton of potential encounters and story hooks for a town, as I am doing right now, that's the opposite of "linear."

I'm not sure you're arguing in good faith.

 

[Clint_L]

Well, yeah. That's the inherent advantage of an ad lib style. The entirety of the events of the campaign, both micro AND macro, can be drastically affected by choices the players make. I'm not saying that games with planned plotlines completely lack player agency, but ad lib games definitely offer a heck of a lot more agency. Plus, with an ad lib style a GM can tailor everything in the campaign for specific PCs/players. With a plotline game, the campaign is more about the story the GM wants to tell than the story the PCs make. Which, if all the YT vidoes I've watched in recent times, is what a lot of players want. It's the crux of the reason why I GM ad lib (plus laziness) style, because I don't want to make a story for the players to play a part in, I want the players to make their own story.

I don't think you understand what people are describing as prep.

I view my role as "playing the world." If I am ad-libbing, it really is the me, the DM, running the show, just in an impromptu way. The narrative belongs entirely to me.

But when I prep a location so that I know what different NPCs are doing, what the local politics are, basically what motivates people, along with random event/encounter tables tuned to that area, there is a world in which the player choices (and luck) make all the difference. I'm not just changing things on the fly, which is really me in control, I've set boundaries on myself.

So when the players make a choices, I'm not going "Hmmm...what would be a fun/interesting/dramatic response" (me in control, changing the story to fit my preferences), I'm going "According to my prepared world, what makes sense to happen next?" It's up to me what the world looks like to start, but then I am significantly locked in, so the players have true agency. Their choices can force the story. I can't just change things to get what I might see as a "better" result.

What you are describing sounds to me like a complete lack of player agency.

 

[zarionofarabel]

So when the players make a choices, I'm not going "Hmmm...what would be a fun/interesting/dramatic response" (me in control, changing the story to fit my preferences), I'm going "According to my prepared world, what makes sense to happen next?" It's up to me what the world looks like to start, but then I am significantly locked in, so the players have true agency. Their choices can force the story. I can't just change things to get what I might see as a "better" result.

Cool...that's exactly what I do too! I guess the difference is it all just exists in my head instead of being written down on a piece of paper. [Bolded relevant part for clarity]

 

[zarionofarabel]

It is not. Did you not read the rest of what I wrote? Because I don't see how you could read what I wrote about players making unexpected choices and needing to have contingencies prepared and get "linear." When I prep a ton of potential encounters and story hooks for a town, as I am doing right now, that's the opposite of "linear."

I'm not sure you're arguing in good faith.

Sorry, I mistook what you said to mean you prepped plotlines for the PCs to play through. If you mean like "worldbuilding" specifically then I totally understand. I too engage in worldbuilding, though because of my laziness I usually use published settings or the setting that comes with a specific game, so a large amount of the world is already created by someone else. Then I just come up with lesser details specific to the situation or area the PCs are in. I mean, I don't write it down on paper, it just floats around in my brain, but it's detail none the less. Once stuff actually gets used and becomes "the reality of the situation" by being something that "has happened" in the narrative, then it gets added to the session AAR, and ultimately, becomes part of the emerging story.

 

[TheSword]

I don't think you undertsand what people are describing as prep.

I view my role as "playing the world." If I am ad-libbing, it really is the me, the DM, running the show, just in an impromptu way. The narrative belongs entirely to me.

But when I prep a location so that I know what different NPCs are doing, what the local politics are, basically what motivates people, along with random event/encounter tables tuned to that area, there is a world in which the player choices (and luck) make all the difference. I'm not just changing things on the fly, which is really me in control, I've set boundaries on myself.

So when the players make a choices, I'm not going "Hmmm...what would be a fun/interesting/dramatic response" (me in control, changing the story to fit my preferences), I'm going "According to my prepared world, what makes sense to happen next?" It's up to me what the world looks like to start, but then I am significantly locked in, so the players have true agency. Their choices can force the story. I can't just change things to get what I might see as a "better" result.

What you are describing sounds to me like a complete lack of player agency.

This is exactly my DM style. I prep extensively. Factions, Organisations, Locations, NPCs, monsters and events.

What the PCs then do happens in that context. Decision making becomes easier because my prep work provides the inspiration for rational and logical outcomes.

 

[GM Lent]

These days I run DCC modules in my weekly Road Crew game. I rarely read through them ahead of time, though, so I end up doing a LOT of improvising.

So maybe call it "guided ad-lib?"

 

[Celebrim]

@zarionofarabel: I'm going to only respond to a limited number of claims in your post, just to avoid argument without structure.

So? It doesn't really matter if you make it up beforehand, or in the moment, it's all the same. You, as GM, are just making stuff up!

It matters a lot.

Plus, if the GM is "staying true" to the material they have prepared, then that would probably limit agency as it would limit player choice to only those that conforms to the prepared material. Ad lib doesn't have anything to "stay true" to, so choices simply can't be limited, as there is nothing to limit them.

See, and in a situation like this it wouldn't be my ad lib fiat that decides whether or not the criminal escapes. If it's a literal "chase" then it would be the system rules and applicable randomizers that would decide the outcome. At least, in the games I GM.

Let's focus on a concrete scenario and the different ways that it could work out.

Have you ever played a game like Scotland Yard? This is a board game in which the players cooperate against a secret keeper who plays the villainous Mr. X who is trying to escape the players chasing him. The game plays out on a stylized map of London with cabs, buses, and trains that each character can take to travel from one point to the next each turn. Each player has a certain amount of resources and Mr. X disappears stealthily as the players chase him, turning up only at predefined moments, while trying to stay a step or two ahead of his pursuers. It's great game. And it has well, lots of prep.

Imagine trying to run a similar game as the secret keeper without prep. You have no map. Each turn you are drawing new connections on the map. The players have no idea where each connection is going to go. They can't plan ahead. You have to decide at each step what connections exist for both Mr. X and the players to take. You also have to decide when Mr. X will appear. Who would possibly think that your ad hoc game provided more agency for the players than the prepared one? Who would possibly imagine that game balanced? Why would anyone think the outcome of the chase was decided by anything but your fiat?

In an RPG, the situations in a prepped game is even more constrained. In "Scotland Yard" one of the things that balances Mr. X with those chasing him is Mr. X has unlimited in game resources - that is he always has the train ticket or bus face he needs. But in any reasonably RPG scenario the escaping criminal has only limited resources - minions, transportation, hit points, spell slots, bullets, whatever. For example, in a prepared game, you could write, "Four blocks from the antiquities store, Mr. X has stashed a small motorcycle, which he intends to use as a getaway vehicle on the crowded streets." If you are improvising, you have to decide when Mr. X can find his motorcycle, or you might not think of the possibility of a motorcycle until you are some ways into the chase. Depending on the game system the writers might even encourage to invent a motorcycle on the spot in response to a die roll by the players or to heighten the dramatic tension. And yes, that creates a certain sort of game that could be fun, but you can't claim that the Schrodinger's Motorcycle that isn't anywhere until you place it gives more agency to the players to stop Mr. X than a game where the motorcycle exists in a certain place.

Or imagine something more immediate. The PC's spot the villain on his motorcycle and give chase. Imagine the difference between having prepared the city street with its traffic and the events and improvising them on the fly. This turns out to be exactly like the scenario of trying to play the game 'Scotland Yard' without prep, just with a different sort of map. What obstacles you place in the way of each character are now up to you to decide at each moment. Whether the semi crosses and when and whether the fruit seller comes out in front of the players with his cart and so forth is all something you have to think about on the fly. It's strikes me as impossible to improvise this with the same level of detail as you would if you had prepped.

I can think of a certain Dungeon magazine adventure where the PC's are chasing a criminal through the docks and there is a chase that occurs by jumping from the deck of one boat to the next. I think it would be impossible to improvise that scene on the fly and be as fair or as interesting or give the players as much agency as if you put the map down on the table and said, "You are here and here is Mr. X how do you want to get to him?" Especially when if you didn't have prep you'd be improvising at each step where the complications would occur, like which boats have hidden obstacles and what those obstacles are and so forth. The idea that I have this prep limits the players ability to make meaningful choices more than a situation where I have nothing prepared just doesn't work once you remove it from the realm of nebulous theory crafting and actually start talking about real situations that come up.

You said you resolve a chase using the applicable game rules and randomizers. That tells me you don't really run chases. You've never had the PC's galloping behind a carriage being attacked by wights down a twisting mountain road, trying to intervene before the carriage doors are ripped off, or the roof is bashed through, or once the driver is killed the carriage careens off a cliff or out into the stony woods and the baron and baroness are killed. Because if you ran those sorts of scenes frequently, you'd know that a) most games don't really have a lot of good rules for them and b) a lot of the outcome depends less on the rules than on the map. Imagine how much you have to decide at that point that constitutes the map of the scene. All the different characters, hit points and hardness of the carriage, the map of the mountain road, the monsters, etc. More prep in that scene doesn't give the players less agency. What it does is take away some of your own agency. You have to commit to something.

The biggest myth you are pushing is that nothing set in stone means unlimited opportunities. If nothing is set in stone there are zero meaningful choices. You are in cloud cookoo land. Anything can happen. Only after things start happening does the player have some meaningful choices, but even then it's like trying to play Scotland Yard without a board or with a board that changes according to the secret keeper's fiat.

Besides which, to be frank, no improv GM I've ever encountered is actually creative enough to do any of this. Improvisation almost invariably ends up involving no map and no real travel. The style is less sand box with a map to explore than it is a Shakespearian stage the players are on where the drapes and props come and go when the scene shifts. You can go anywhere but everywhere is basically the same, just new characters come onto or exit the stage. Exit stage left, arrive stage right. And to the extent that anything is dense, it's probably someone else's prep that they are bringing into the situation to make up for the lack of their own.

 

[ReshiIRE]

I prep to improvise. About 30 minutes or so of prep for a 3 hour game using the eight steps.

I'm still surprised you're able to do it that quickly.

Like, don't get me wrong. Return of the Lazy Dungeon Master has made me a MUCH better GM, along with taking player feedback into account. I've modified your methods as you gave them and I found them a powerful, great tool.

But I find I still need a good amount of time - though not as much as I used to, in many scenarios - to plan things out properly, so I can ad-lib and keep track of my notes during the game. Especially for descriptions of areas - that still alludes me - making sure encounters are interesting (Pathfinder 2e being a system where you have to think about levels and how they fit with your party changes up that section), and finding cool equipment and items to give out.

Still - those eight steps are pretty powerful. The loose intro, scenes and secrets and clues together really reformed how I used to run sessions and lay out my notes; with my own further modifications, I've really got a much better grasp on how to fit NPCs and locations into it all.