D&D General Zero-Prep D&D Game?

[overgeeked]

improvising is just planning and executing the plan at the same time

Not if you’re using the standard definitions of either improv or planning.

 

[prabe]

I think going truly zero-prep is a fool’s errand. Even a hypothetical perfect improviser can only ever produce something of approximately equal quality to a well-planned adventure, because improvising is just planning and executing the plan at the same time. It’s better, in my opinion, to focus on maximizing efficiency of prep. Spend your prep time on things that can easily be adapted to unexpected situations. Rough outlines, random tables, enemy rosters, lists of names you can pull out on short notice, multi-purpose maps, that kind of thing. Prep you don’t use this week becomes prep you don’t have to do next week, and that extra prep time can go to preparing yet more highly adaptable content to keep in the back pocket.

The thought I've seen expressed, that seems to suit my thinking best, is on the lines of "Prep what you don't feel comfortable improvising at the table." One of the things I like about that is that different people will have different comfort ranges, so there's really not a wrong answer--or, really, a single correct one.

I'm also a big fan of reusing prep the PCs didn't get to, provided it's still relevant. Prep a thing, run it for a few sessions: That works for me.

 

[overgeeked]

The thought I've seen expressed, that seems to suit my thinking best, is on the lines of "Prep what you don't feel comfortable improvising at the table." One of the things I like about that is that different people will have different comfort ranges, so there's really not a wrong answer--or, really, a single correct one.

I'm also a big fan of reusing prep the PCs didn't get to, provided it's still relevant. Prep a thing, run it for a few sessions: That works for me.

Exactly. The version I use and have seen a few times is “prep to improvise.” It encapsulates the concept wonderfully.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not if you’re using the standard definitions of either improv or planning.

How so?

 

[overgeeked]

How so?

They're opposites. One precludes the other by definition.

If you're planning, you're not improvising.

If you're improvising, you're not planning.

 

[Charlaquin]

They're opposites. One precludes the other by definition.

If you're planning, you're not improvising.

If you're improvising, you're not planning.

Which is why I didn’t say improvising requires planning, I said it’s making and executing a plan simultaneously. If you didn’t have a plan you would be acting randomly. Good improvisation does follow a plan, it’s just a plan made up as you go.

 

[prabe]

Exactly. The version I use and have seen a few times is “prep to improvise.” It encapsulates the concept wonderfully.

While there's probably a difference between "Prep to improvise" and "prep what you don't feel comfortable improvising at the table," they do seem very similar in spirit, and I have no quibbles.

 

[Reynard]

I think going truly zero-prep is a fool’s errand. Even a hypothetical perfect improviser can only ever produce something of approximately equal quality to a well-planned adventure, because improvising is just planning and executing the plan at the same time. It’s better, in my opinion, to focus on maximizing efficiency of prep. Spend your prep time on things that can easily be adapted to unexpected situations. Rough outlines, random tables, enemy rosters, lists of names you can pull out on short notice, multi-purpose maps, that kind of thing. Prep you don’t use this week becomes prep you don’t have to do next week, and that extra prep time can go to preparing yet more highly adaptable content to keep in the back pocket.

I disagree with this because of the input of the dice and the players. As long as you are good at that sort of improv, I think the result will be inherently better than prep done solo.

 

[bedir than]

My next campaign is set in a rough & tumble frontier land of raw elemental power (lot of geysers, hot springs, tornadoes, etc). But it's also intended to be a backup to the main campaign. We may just get 30 minutes or less of warning for a player group of 1-3 people.
Here's more about the campaign.

So I needed a random encounter/scene table to help in those situations without intentional prep (MT Black definition).

Here's the not-yet final organized chart

 

[Charlaquin]

I disagree with this because of the input of the dice and the players. As long as you are good at that sort of improv, I think the result will be inherently better than prep done solo.

I mean, even the most prepared DM in the world will still have unexpected things happen due to the input of the dice and the players, as you say. However, I think a well-prepared DM will be better equipped to come up with an appropriate response to an unexpected situation than an unprepared one will. I think both skills are essential for a good DM. And I think a great DM knows how to focus their prep on shoring up the things they’re less good at improvising. That’s part of the “maximizing efficiency of prep” I was talking about.