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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9466910">That poll doesn't really get at the issue of low prep improv though. I think by framing it as extensive, salient and skeletal, the latter just comes across as the GM doing the bare minimum out of laziness, not doing low prep because the group wants to have a more freeform approach to adventure structure. My answer on this is the amount of prep should be determined by the campaign, the group and the GMs comfort level. Prep is a big ask for people. They spending a lot of their spare time preparing for a game they are going to run. My approach as a player is to be open to the kind of game the GM wants to run, and that they are good at running. Some GMs do well with a much more structured approach, some do much better finding the adventure in reaction to the party. There are also lots other types of approaches. Many sandboxes for example may have a lot of prep on the front end but be low prep once the game gets started. And there are games that are designed to be low prep and bake that into the mechanics. I can say as a player I am less of a fan of there being a planned adventure of the evening. If that is how the GM wants to do things, I will do so happily. I am not going to tell a GM or players how they ought to do things. But if given a choice, I tend to be happier when the GM is low prep in terms of adventure structure (I don't mind them prepping setting details that might come up) and is responsive to what the players decide to do (an adventure path for example is just not my cup of tea, and an adventure that is built around everything feeling like a neat story in the end, is not my cup of tea either). I like being surprised as a player. I also like being surprised as a GM</blockquote>

Verification