I'm invested in the Return of the Lazy DM method for prep. Typically I sketch a few likely scenes for the next game with words, then deconstruct those sketches so i now have encounters and settings and leads ready to be remixed at the table. For instance i might have sketched a scene of meeting a suspicious farmer and his cows on the way to market, and a separate scene with a hungry giant who is blocking the road until it gets fed, but at the table it turns into a hungry giant who is dragging cows down the road to its cave. Maybe the same farmer shows up and offers the PCs one cow if they save the others from the giant. Maybe the farmer got fatally bonked on the head by the giant and now there's a hue and cry going up. There are a lot of ways to improvise a story with the players if you have story pieces ready to mix. Summing up, I prep for improvisation. I'm not really lazy per se, but I actively avoid preparing things I can't use when the players derail their own plans and mine.
Return of the lazy DM is an amazing ressource. I've been a DM for 30+ years and always felt I needed something to help me between "all improv: my notes are two lines" and "these scenes are so great they'll play all of them, wanting or not".
@@rrupt At my gaming shop I put out a local scale map, and a few N/pc settlements. A young green dragon found a nice fishing spot around a river bend with ravine hill sides with a wonderful view. To .. flex .. the dragon's muscles, it clawed, scratch, pulled, and scrap a broad wagon trail road. Honestly the young adult green dragon though it was fun to take someone's wagon to play with after eating the mules. Young Green had a basic ideal on how human cut through a forest to create trade roads to collect and move around wealth. So it wanted its own .. dragon .. road crossing bridge. Lay back and collect road tolls. a.) roll 1d8 on everyone that wants to draw the dragon into their own political military conflicts. b.) How good was the dragon setting up the road to bypass a few days of local trave dealing with the riven bend hills ? Is it worth traveling on ? c.) Did any of the PC decided to help the dragon build the road, as in to trade in .. favors. d.) Dragon is just another Xp side snack for the PCs or n/pcs to take down for lunch. e.) Human war band sent out by one of the few local nobles visit the dragon, " Take this as a bribe, or we will just kill you for a trophy." f.) Humans come out to the dragon having teenage fun, " It takes this amount of time to cut down, move timber, dig & level ground. It takes this amount for livestock to feed them. ...etc. " List of twenty or more things that involves creating a road and sending the timber back for other craft projects or firewood. Pay the dragon equal to human labor, then explain how payment plans work. Because it takes time for the materials to grow or be mined, crafted, and moved to given location. ( takes 1d10 years to pay off what the dragon built, or the time needed to repair the landscape and dredge the river bend back to proper former fishery production.) Flip out dragon and apply a different monster, or just have a lumber camp clearing a road building project. The camp is dealing with monsters or human bandits, humanoid raiders.
I learned GM'ing from my Dad. Build elaborate detailed worlds with many possible plot hooks. Then when it comes time to play, toss out plot hooks to the players and then make it up spontaneously with the players as they make choices. It means that there are a lot of answers and details out there.. but the plots aren't necessarily fully flushed out.. just the plot hooks. Everything in the world around the characters changes as the characters do things. The trick is not to form the story for the players.. let them do what they want.. but in my spare time i keep fleshing out the world. And if something gets abandoned that's fine, things just happen "off screen" until the players return to it or not. It works for me because it means I'm always prepared with the big world stuff and get to be surprised and play with the players as they play through their stories/scenarios/campaigns.
Brilliant analysis Daniel. I’m a definite “somewhere in the middle” DM. I was a railroad engineer in the late 70s and 80s but now I over prep cuz I love it. It’s part of my enjoyment in the game. However, older and maybe wiser, I now treat the campaign like a point crawl. I paint a picture of my world setting, NPCs, lore, etc but they have many options. I push them to discuss and make group decisions. Part of this is b/c my players are newbs and not experienced PCs nor DMs. I try to lead them to choices. You’re absolutely correct in the need to understand the friends at the table. And the ultimate test remains whether we are all having fun on a Friday night! Thanks. 👍🏼
I like what you said about improvising details during play - that IS the game when you're refereeing! And when it comes to utilizing random tables, let yourself be surprised!
couldn’t agree more! that part really opened my eyes as a serial over-planner :) sometimes i find i can get disconnected from the game in a way, when i should actually be immersed in with the players!
I am in the first camp, more because I have been doing it so long and wrote things down as I went. I run a sandbox and the players can go anywhere they want. I just have most or the details worked out already so things flow as they go.
I feel like "Solitary Fun" would be better. "Lonely" has a negative connotation and implication that you desire to do it with others that I don't think appropriately describes the activity.
Thanks for the great video. I play DnD for 40 years. I tried both ways and I found out that I am not very good at improvising; so, although I learned a bit of improvising, I don't feel comfortable with it and try to avoid it. I can do a tavern and two or three NPCs, but not more. I play on Greyhawk, a world I really like the atmosphere, and you still have to put a lot of work into it, which is fun for me. I would never start a world of my own, because I would lose myself into world building and would probably never start a campaign there. Lately, I created the city of Monmurg (15,000 inhabitants), and drew every single house, against all advice you can find, but I loved it. Also did about 30 main NPCs with full class stats, also against all advice, but it was fun, and I estimate that my players will probably fight at least half of them.😅 Bottomline, I love to prepare, but don't have the time, and I mostly dislike improvising, but learned to like it sometimes in small doses.
I may have shared this before about my breakfast with a player concerned that I may burn out? That I put to much into my encounters. “Why can’t you just have something simple like running into a troll?” In less than five minutes I produced a simple story of the troll who loves this fishing hole he found, how he may have come here and those who interacted with him. I commented that I do this because my players often ask those very questions. So, I find possible answers that ultimately lead to other adventures. So, I mull over ideas and jot things down for future reference for such an occasion. I may never use it or it may be waiting for years before I do.
I used to draw up maps, encounters and NPCs just for the fun of it back in the AD&D days. Did that for a lot of games I collected but didn't get to play with a group.
I'm in the middle and my memory is decent enough that I can recall the meat of what I have planned. Often, though, it doesn't make it onto paper until the players are headed that way or they ARE there. On the improvised side, if a player keeps talking about it, it implies to me that THAT is what they want to see (my current campaign features a fighter that is utterly convinced a lichking of somesort is hiding around every corner - they may regret voicing that), so I tend to lean into things. My greatest satisfaction is when, post-session, a player tells me, "I didn't think you'd let that fly." A technique I use is that at the end of each session, I get a rough plan for next, so I can better plan the next session. Thank you for your videos.
Most DM’s have to utilize both of these at times, but I am definitely on the heavy prep side of things most of the time. My improv for world building is weak, but witty banter is an A+!
Hi Daniel! In my opinion prepration is key for being a GM. However, you can't prepare everything, but having a "prework" makes a lot asier to improvise. So something in between a littl bit sided to the preparation is my option. But every tablen and GM are different, so ther's n "right answer"
I'm running a sandbox campaign using the Dolmenwood setting. It's very satisfying to have detailed material ready, as it's great to see the game unfold and have the security of having a response for any decision the players make. That said, I absolutely don't like forcing any path, and when I play at tables where the GM forces a path, I enjoy the game much less; in fact, I even stop caring about the game. In the case of Dolmenwood, even with all the detail in the setting, it's necessary to improvise quite a bit, and I find this aspect of the game incredibly fun. I don't know if I would personally spend so much time creating so many details, but it's great to have them available!
I kinda run my games the same way! Prep for me ideally is just contingencies that flow from previous player actions- and at the table, their actions are the primary driver of downstream events which I just roll with
I think a DM should be able to do both: plan and improvise. This is similar to your "middle style." However, it takes practice to be well-rounded at both. So, if you’re good at one, practice the other first. There’s no such thing as over-planning. Planning is reading and writing, and these are good things. You can burnout from planning though. And I think many people who say overplanning is bad, are talking about burnout. I also see planning as pre-game prep and improvising as in-game skill. Great channel!
I'm definitely a lonely fun kind of DM, I spent hours hunched over my campaign world as a kid, usually until 2 in the morning! Recently, I ran a 3-4 year Call of Cthulhu campaign, and did more of a way of world building as you describe in this video, I'd let the characters go where they wanted, and would then quickly design the town or what have you before the next session! It worked great.
I do all the worldbuilding at the begining, improvise other areas as they explore it and as for sessions I write down bullet points of things related to a quest that they're doing and obstacles without writing solutions and I mostly improvise the rest depending on what they want to do
Nice to hear that you enjoy improvising, Daniel. I do enjoy it myself when it works, but I guess I don't trust myself to do too much of that. Unlike you, I'm kind of obsessed with world building and can do it for hours, so prepping various scenarios for the plyers to encounter is fun for me. However, they always come up with something I didn't expect and I have to make something up on the spot and guess what, that's fun as well! I play in a very open world, so my players have a lot of autonomy and I encourage them to exercise it. That often leads to surprises for me. There are certain types of players who seem content to wait for hooks and follow through with them while others are more often coming up with unexpected interests and I don't want to shut that down.
I always start by making a home location that the campaign will start in. This location will be detailed with npc names, occupations and all the important details. It will also have a map. Since at the start the PCs usually don't travel, the biggest area I would map is a day's travel in each direction. Only the first scenario is scripted, to allow the players to familiarize themselves with the setting. After that the action develops based on NPC motivations and characters' actions. If the characters go to a new location, I will have some generic NPCs they can meet there, and usually come up with names on the fly, based on a list of random names. If they decide to stay longer, the place will also get a map and become increasingly detailed as time goes on. I am not averse to improvising something if I feel it makes sense, but if it doesn't (a wizard in a random dilapidated hamlet), either it's not there, or there's a twist (he's really a chaos cultist in disguise).
I'm pretty strongly on the planner side. I think a large part why is that when I'm at my most imaginative and have my best ideas isn't while I'm running the game. It's usually while I'm out on a run, or a long drive, and then I note those down when I get home and make them part of my campaign. Improvisation is definitely one of my weaker skills (I think coming up with dialogue on the spot is my least favorite part of the game) so I try to have defined enough of the area, the important NPCs, and their motivations that I have a good sense of what they'll do in various circumstances. But also like you mentioned, world-building is fun in itself to me, so that's not a burden.
I think I, like most DMs, don't really fit into either extreme. But I also do a lot of both. I do really love worldbuilding so I will have the starting duchy (actually a barony in my current game) fleshed out in the terms of who are the major figures, what are some of the big problems they're facing, what are their goals etc, and I will have some adventures and dungeons placed on the map However I also intentionally leave a lot of the map blank aside from terrain and some sort of general idea (never more than a sentence or two) of what's in there. And in addition I always have there be more to an area than just what is on the map. The end result is I end up with a setting that I know well, but that also has a lot of flexibility for emergent storytelling, and there are vast swathes of area for me to place that orc horde I rolled up when doing rumour tables, or that quest I wrote after being inspired by a tale from Welsh Mythology I was reading yesterday I should state that this was a description of what I do, not a prescription of how it's done. It works for me, but it would also give a lot of DMs a headache, and also isn't the best method for a busy DM. It works so well for me because I have a brain dead job and can think about my DnD campaigns during my 12 hour workday with a shorter work-week to write it down and make finishing touches, and because I enjoy thinking about my campaigns. I would very strongly advise against spending as much time as I do in prep for anyone who is more pressured for time or who just doesn't enjoy spending their free time on a campaign that they aren't going to play for several days in advance.
This is a really great way to think about how to approach running games. You're right most people fall in the middle. I find myself enjoying worldbuilding alone better and I don't enjoy improvising all the time. I spend a lot of time developing my world including royal lineages, continent formations, weather patterns, factions, etc. and seeing how the players interact with those things. I find it easier to form story beats when I know where and why everything is. NPC motivations become very apparent to me so it makes any improvising I need to do much easier. Granted, this is a campaign setting I've been running for literal decades and i probably wouldn't put this much effort into something I wouldn't get years of enjoyment from. Awesome video!
I have done the 100% homebrew and run published modules and I have to say I lean into the prep ahead category. I am currently running Goodman Games' OAR module for The Temple of Elemental Evil using DCC rules and we are 11 sessions in. I have enjoyed the fleshed out campaign and being able to read ahead and have exciting set pieces prepared. It also helps stoke my crafting, giving me specific items to craft and miniatures to paint. I suffer from decision paralysis sometimes when I homebrew because I want to do too much, so it helps to have a module give me direction.
Great video! I build a small hex map with a few locations detailed and I use a setting. The characters tell me which direction they want to go and then I build the world in that direction. I mild prep. A few lines for each location for rumors or hints, then I prep that location in detail as the characters decide to do stuff. The characters might know about a dragon lair, but I do not actually build the lair until the players say, next session let's go hit the dragon lair. I use factions and numbers appearing from the 1st edition monster manual. That tells me if it's a lair or something else. Then I run the factions according to their intents. I am most interested in how character actions impact the world. Really fun.
im also a mixture of both styles, i prepare a few key things that might happen to move the party forward and have some key npcs and monsters handy but the rest i mostly create reactive to my players
Two of my friends are very much in the world builder side, though they do lean towards creating stories. One had to undo some of his worldbuilding as he realized he was planning a railroad on accident. My own style is much more improvisational. I find that having random lists of npc names to pull from if the players ask can cover that aspect, as well as not tying certain locations down geographically. there may be a wizards tower in the area, so if the players wander outside of town i'll roll on a random chart and they could bump into that tower or other locations. My biggest advice for those who do world build is to remember that nothing is set in stone until the players encounter it, so if there's something they clearly want to find, like a wizard or a thieve's guild, unless you've already said it doesn't exist, consider adding it in for your players to interact with.
Learning how to design, prep and run adventures is something that I see get more and more attention lately. Books like So You Want To Be A Game Master, the lazy DM books, etc are becoming more and more common. They're also getting better and better. Considering that the games won't happen without this work, it really is a shocking thing that it has taken 50 years to get really good advice on how to think about game design and prep. We've been stumbling into practices that work for so long without the ability share that knowledge easily. Personally, I'm in the middle as well. I like using random tables during prep to spark the ideas for an encounter, but I don't like taking the time during play to roll on tables and start improvising. If I'm improvising at the table it's because of emergent things in play and input from players.
Not running D&D but I'm a GM since 2.5 years now and so far I would say I'm 7 parts Planner and 3 parts Impovisor. When I know my players want to infiltrate a building I plan the whole building, how many watchman, location for cameras, the security levels, everything. But I don't know how my player are going to infiltrate the building and there comes the impovisaton. Or I know my players want to rescue this NPC from the elemental plain of fire, so I prep where the NPC is, why they are there, what are they doing, are they still alive, how could the players find them, but I don't know when or how the players are getting to that plain. I know how one could do that, and depending on their research they find out how they might be able to. But to kill an angel was thier idea.
I have gone completely improvisational, but I only run one shots or up to 3 shots. Just taking cool notes for call backs later is what is required. My prep is practice and knowledge of theme. We all take regular turns at GM.
Here's what i do: 1) Worldbuild extensively. For example, I've created a world with 8 locations (islands), 4 factions, 4 rumors, 5 religions / gods, & 3 prominent people. All of this is created before the game starts, and gives the players something to go off of when creating their characters. 2) Fill in the details & roll the encounters as i go. There is no predetermined plot. There are actors in a living, breathing world. The players will need to have their own motivations for their characters. 3) Expand the depth of the world as i go based on how the characters interact with it.
I build a very detailed area they are in with many possible scenarios. I build out the immediate adventure area around it and random tables for hat can be added to on the spot. So I do both. I never let what I created stop them with an iron wall from doing what they want. But they also know they are going to be walking around in a fleshed out world. It does take a while. I am now in a French style city that took me 4 and a half months to create. The players got a bound player's guide to the city that is 223 pages. My own GM's book is in a 3 inch folder at about 500 pages. But they can do anything they want. I am a little nuts. Definitely not a storyteller in that it is the player's story. But I am ready whichever way they go. I have tables that can produce a scenario out of whole cloth if they go down an unexpected path. This is my life's hobby so I know I am a little nuts. But it is all fun for me.
Planner and improviser are both legitimate ways to run the game. The improviser style is probably harder to do *well,* because when you're making things up completely on the fly it's easier to overlook contradictions and harder to consider several possible options and then choose the best. But in the end, every DM *must* improvise, because the players will always do something unexpected, and the DM must adjust accordingly. The planner DMs should look at their notes more as a massive aid to improvisation than as the be-all and end-all of the adventure. For example, when a character accidentally drops an incriminating letter, the DM must improvise whether the guard who picks it up knows how to read; the planner simply has the advantage that he knows that most fighters in this kingdom are illiterate, or that this king is a fan of the classics and thus is likely to choose literate guards. As a planner DM myself, I advise other planners to distinguish between parts of the world that are "baked" and parts that are "raw," i.e. those that have already been revealed to the players and now form part of the essentially unchangeable canon of the world, and those that exist only in your mind and notes, and thus can be rearranged if needed to suit the changing situation of the campaign.
I have changed my approach in that I am an amalgam of the two as well. I am a lover of improvisation (that’s the actor/comedian in me) and I love world building. But my world building is more as we go now yet I have a core that is in the background that can morph as the players explore. Part of my world building is derived from images I look through on websites. Players like loose parameters.
In-between. I have a lot of loose stuff prepped. Some stuff targeted to each character and a little bit of each town in the region outlined. I have a couple small narratives that will grow depending on players' investment. The world doesn't revolve around them but the game does.
When I came back to RPGs in 2017, my improv skills were awful. I wrote everything for a session into a Google doc and panicked inside when I had to come up with NPCs or encounters on the fly. But I started with a town and dungeon, and I built a little sandbox for my players to play in. As time has passed, I've now run several campaigns in that little sandbox and I mix both improv and scripted elements. Now I have a refrigerator full of prepared ingredients that I can pull out at any time that have marinated across dozens of campaign games and convention one-shots, and though the results are rarely the same, the flavors begin to pop as soon as I bring them to the table.
I am definitely in the middle. When I start a new game, I usually build a core group of npcs that will be contacts for the players. I flesh them out enough to have an idea the sorts of information and/or help they can provide, as well as the sorts of things they may ask the characters. I like to have a pretty good "skeleton" of the area at the very least, because that gives me a springboard for improvisation. I will want to know who wields power where, how well liked they are, and the main groups or types of people that dislike them. Even if I haven't set a location for them, I want to know what other peoples (civilized or otherwise) are in the area, and what their relationship or opinion is of the place the player characters start. The last long running game of mine started with a pretty fleshed out small trading post/small village on a frontier lake. I didn't have an adventure, but I started with the setting and improvised from there until an adventure developed.
I am more of the improviser. Thirty-five years ago, when I was first learning to play D&D, I tried doing the whole world-building thing. I crafted a small handful of fully detailed worlds, and each of them I thought was going to be "my" world that I used for every game I DMed. But at the time, nobody was interested. Everyone in all the groups I was in at that time fell into one of two camps... either (a) if the game isn't in Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk it's not D&D, or (b) the best games do not have a defined world and the players and DM explore it together in a hex-crawl. The other big thing everyone I played with liked was the episodic campaign. We did not have big plot lines. One DM tried to run the group through the Temple of Elemental Evil, and after exploring the moat house the group decided to go off and do other things and forgot about the plot. We all liked shorter, drop-in adventure modules, and a couple of our DMs were good at creating quick adventures from random story hooks. Since then, I have read and reread years worth of Dungeon Magazine, and countless published modules, for D&D and for other game systems. Now, I am an entirely improv DM, but I generally start my players somewhere in the world of Greyhawk and I lean heavily on my memory of the adventures I've read. If the characters want to go a certain direction, I have a map I can give them, and I have things they can do, and I will pull out maps and quest hooks from Dungeon or from official modules or from other games, and I intermix that with randomly generated dungeon maps and random plot hooks. If this leads to 2 or 3 encounters with the same type of creature (for example Githyanki), and a player starts trying to connect them, then I will run with that and create a specific quest to deal with a rising threat and that might be a longer story arc that stretches across a level or two, but then we move on.
4:53 I’m the preper (leaning towards the middle similar to you). I enjoy the prep work. Never use all of it but it’s fun for me. And I don’t railroad BUT my players like a story of some kind. Which is fine by me (as is the opposite of being “open world”).
I will talk more about how I do GMing in a video I am composing for here on UA-cam; will include a shout out to this one in that one. The gist though--at least as is relevant to this question--the gist is that I prepare even my throwaway stuff that's supposed to be "low-effort" as though I am playing a solo rpg. I play as the character of, or as characters in, the world. And then, when I run game for my players, I run it the same but with turns focused mostly on them, so that both their games and mine can crash into each other interestingly. And I think I am doing it this way, because that is how actually creating together actually looks to me, as opposed to "creating together" in ways that mirror the "commander-soldier" or "boss-employee" model.
I like finding mini games to include in a session (like BWB’s Lockpickery) that spices up what’s happening in the game. Oh, you’re a stars Druid? Roll 2d12 and we’ll read the omens in the sky. You’re trying to gamble with the gang leader to earn a conversation with him? Here are the rules for Crowns, the conversation will go as long as you make your wagers, it ends when you fold.
I'm the Planner/World Builder. However, I leave some elements loose. I won't railroad though; I'll let them ignore plot hooks and forge their own way. But the world will move with some major plot points. If the player's don't help a nation with a BBEG, then it may fall to darkness; and the repercussions will follow. I do want to make some smaller, less world-shattering one shots and campaigns in the future, ala Sword and Sorcery with an open ended road
For me, it's dependent on the group. Newer players usually need a little bit of railroading. To donthis i need to have planned events. Usually, i take from other games to get them started. I live world building but once the players understand that their characters have full agency over what they do. Then i have to improvise more often because they do unexpected things. For instance, i had a new ask what he could do in the game, and i told him anything. So he killed a random townsperson. Needless to say, he lost that character, but it gave me a great opportunity to give him an influential villain to control in the background. Other players think that i create encounters and try to balance them so they are doable. I've had a lvl1 fighter try to take on a t-rex, and he lasted one turn. So i gave hik a rewind and let him sneak on past, lol. So im somewhere in the middle, but i lean more toward world building prep. Mostly for my solo games, where i test different areas of my game. Pro tip if you dont like coming up with npc, the BECMI gazetters have 100s of npc for each major race (humans, dwarves, elves, etc.)
Maybe a third, the "author", who hasn't done all the large-scale worldbuilding but who plan lots of detail along one planned storyline. And they have the biggest risk of railroading.
I take two approaches, and mash them together. I am the Architect, and I am the Playwright. (I set the Stage, but that stage has been set-dressed for the players to experience) and their decisions change the Fate of nations...
I have my cake and eat it too. I tell my players I have everything planned out but they are free to go and do whatever. That way when I make things up on the spot, it feels more "real" to them, and they don't think that I am just handing out candy to them
Improv skills are critical, and need to be practiced like anything else. As for my approach, It tends to vary by system. I always need more prep when I’m running dnd, but for some systems my only planning is some bullet points.
I'm definitely a planner, but I do both. I would improvise more but I run out of brain power, way quicker these days. I like having good tables to roll on to prompt my improvisation. I have lots of books of tables and decks of dungeons and npcs. If I have time I will plan, if not I will improvise.
I once planned a scenario and the players didn't really engage with it, then I rolled up a wandering centaur who was really drunk and they loved that guy
I've been running Old School essentials adventures for my 2 players. But overall I am more of an improviser. I would rather work up elaborate systems for improvisational material, than try and make it ahead of time. I keep considering creating my own basic dungeon geomorphs, just so that the dungeon map is created on the spot, and I don't need to create that ahead of time either. I want to say that I've also seen some oracle cards somewhere that have several things on each card, such as verbs, nouns, names etc, so as you play you can draw a card for the needed thing. I was thinking of making my own for those cards. Then NPC names, plots, dungeon room descriptions can be just a draw away.
I'm definitely on the improvisor side. Not to the full extent. I usually have a few ideas of things to point the players at. I try to have a few NPC notions in mind. From there, though, I'm usually just as surprised by what happens and where we end up as they are. I keep pretty good track of things, though. At least, I haven't stacked two towns on top of each other or anything.
I learnt by saying I was able and throwing myself I the deepend 😅 Improv is huge. Tables would be key but I don't even really use them. I'm blessed with a quick imagination though. I think improv has become a huge part of the experience for me though. I'd say this and that would help buy I just procrastinate and then jump in feet first. It's like pantsing to plotting.
I think i to am in the middle. Id call myself a tables GM where I prepare a bunch of likely people or scenarios with quest hooks and stuff and if a player walks into the are and does something I think warrants it I roll on the table. But I always enjoy having a plan or info.
I like the topic of discussion, but there are many ways to DM or GM, just like there are many types of players. I’ve played at a lot of tables and the DMs had unique personalities and referee styles, although they showed some similarities. When I started refereeing D&D, I didn’t like the title Dungeon Master. After the cartoon debuted, I created the DM character in the game for when a random encounter with an NPC just wasn’t going to work. As a referee I observe the character and players. They help me to build the world that is fun and challenging. I never railroad because I think that takes away character agency. I don’t overwhelm the players with my world because it just may not be interesting to them, however, the world has its ways that do affect encounters and consequences. I enjoy improvisation as long as I have prepared knowledge of the world. I want what is happening to make some sense even though it may be something that is extremely rare. A good balance of order and randomness (law and chaos?) gives comfort to the players as a respite from the bizarre. Also, I change my GM methods based on the players’ personalities and their expectations.
The players in my current long term campaign like to have a few background storylines that they can interact with if they want to (and if they then it'll interact back!). Whilst I can improvise scenes/encounters I prefer to have some main NPCs, locations, and story elements (think in terms of faction turns) already decided on. I did try to improvise some of that (and still do where I have to) and found it very difficult to incorporate foreshadowing and twists in the "plot" in a consistent manner. In terms of the world I have the local area quite well detailed (at least thought about in my head even if not documented) but it gets increasingly fainter and fuzzier the further out it goes from the current location.
Started as a planner, leaned more and more into improv after I didn't like how forced it felt. Less like play and more like homework. I like now knowing what's around the corner too! If I plan everything, there are no surprises left to enjoy. Less prescribed than tracking landscape, more preparing points across the map.
I take the akira toriyama aproach. During the android/cell saga of dragon ball z, he didnt plan all that much during that time. Just took it week by week. I improvise and most of the time my players think i planned it. But i do know my players are having fun and i am having fun with them
I find myself falling in between the two camps. For instance, I will build the regions towns in each town, specialty, and what it trades in and then leave everything else for the party to discover on the way. Mainly because I’ve had parties become wandering merchants out of the blue and leave a lot of my prepared work completely useless to me at that point.
It’s funny, but I used to feel I didn’t have enough time and energy to engage in deep world building and planning. I relied a skeleton of a setting and adventure, and improvised the rest in session. Worked well for years. But as I’ve gotten older, I don’t reliably have the cognitive juice and creativity at 9 pm on a Sat night like I did when I was 30. So I do more prep in the days between sessions to support by game-night self. I don’t plan more than a couple sessions in advance, but I like to have NPCs and some setting descriptions and encounters ready to roll.
I am also much closer the the improvisation style. And I certainly don't think that is a burden. Hell, If there is a river or a town and I have nothing for it, then I give it to my players to name it. I like giving ownership to the players, they can create the world with me and thus make it their world. But I use usually no random tables, since my focus is not to emulate a world and thus have things that are plausible, instead I use theme as factor to assure consistency. And I am very transparent about the themes I am going for, thus the players can buy into these and express their characters accordingly to the theme we are exploring.
You HAVE to do both! For the world, country, town, ect its best to have the information at least roughly sketched out. The trick is, you only want to DM in One world, ie, stop making "New" campaigns. Im not saying you have to adventure in the same place, but everything that you ARE or HAVE dmed in the past, should be part of one continuum. Even if it everythings seems to end with a TPK, or all your players quit, or move away ect. Always Run the same campaign universe. Ya, you might start a new group of players in a different town or local,but that town or local should be a part of your ongoing world. You may improvise some or most of it, but once its been improvised, it has happened as is part of your world, and maybe what happens come backs into play or affects the future of a group of players, 10 years into the future, who have no knowledge of the other players or PC from the past. Players have to be able to make their own decisions, and you have to react to what they do, and maybe the world is affected by what they do, or maybe not. Lets say a group of characters wipe out a cave of orcs, then leaves to go else where. 10 years in the future, either game time or real time or both, who's to say that the cave have not be reoccupied.. If you re-run that cave, even if for a totally different group, repopulate it differently, and dont try to run it the "SAME" way. One of the problems with modules, is that they both give the impression that you start and end the module, but is also is not run as a living place. For me, modules are very restricting as a DM, and for the characters. most modules actually teach bad dming and playing, For me, even if I plan something, the game never goes the way I thought it would. the best thing for me is to have general ideas, then during game night, if those ideas happen, I can flesh them out either on the spot (improvise), or later (Planning) but planning often leads to more improvising. they go hand in hand. Over the last several years, I have started 3d printing and painting both miniatures ( mostly monsters) as well as dungeon tiles ( magnetized of coarse so I can actually use them on the fly. It has changed a lot for me. I also have experimented with different mapping programs over the years, none of which I really like! and even after decades, my worlds map is only marginal, but I have a general idea, of whats where, even though I cants really hexcrawl on it like I would like to. Never truly been able to hexcrawl but over the many years, its something that I have really wanted to do. If I could do it right ( in my mind) which may or may not actually interest the Player's ( Arg) but anyways, the world that I actually share with my brother, who originated it, is always there in my mind.
I like to Improv. I am somewhere in the middle, I will come up with a basic idea for the session and then let the players take it from there. Any noteworthy things that happen will be noted in case I need to refer back to them. But, other than that I just improv most of it. The bigger question is though -- what would Batman be like as a DM?
I enjoy world building. I want my world and encounters to make sense even in ways that the players may never learn about. Plus the creative process is enjoyable - that alone time fun. But I'm also not a very detailed oriented guy, in general or as a GM. I want to know in broad strokes how everything works: the history, the politics, the factions, the role of magic, etc. and what the major cities/towns/fortresses are in a region but I don't need to know all of the fine details in advance. I think you need enough of a framework in place that it's possible to improvise within it.
People often talk about naming NPCs. Aside from major characters I think it's unimportant. How often do you walk into a store and ask the person behind the counter what his name is? It doesn't really matter what the innkeeper's name is unless the PCs are staying at the same inn for many game sessions. The idea that an NPC will immediately introduce himself by name is a silly trope IMO.
I guess I would be considered a ‘hybrid’. I have a world that I’m currently fleshing out and making a campaign guide as I go, but I’m leaving it fairly empty compared to other guides I’ve read. Yes I have maps with cities and geographic features and kingdoms and all that, but there’s a ton of space to create as we go. Or to use probably my favorite thing in the game: tables to roll on for what’s going to happen next. And my parties tend to be full of players who want to go some direction they probably shouldn’t anyway, so why not roll up whatever horror they wish to encounter? But seriously, I think the lonely fun leads me into group fun because it gives me a frame to build on but not a complete project. That way I can be a grand master of lore, but also let my players create something other than mischief😂
Myself, I am down on what I do. When I all myself to over prep I feel bad about the branches of the trees not used, even when I re use them years later. I find most of my players enjoy the improv (LARP was mostly that) and then feel bad about bad names and forgetting those details the players enjoyed. It seems responsive world growth is enjoyable for the players. Yet every group, every game session can be different from the last. Just as a social player may show up wanting to do combat as a way to vent it is hard to predict what will work well in that next moment. The ref/DM/GM/Storyteller is only in charge until 'Game on' and then they are in the same rollercoaster.
Great video. I think a possible problem with the "pure improviser" is that they railroad in a more subtle way. The things they are less good at improvising or personally uninterested in can very often be unsatisfying, bland dead ends. That's railroading by proxy when you realise the stuff they like is deeply imagined and rewarding.
Definitely enjoy the world building and planning of being a DM, but the reality with my group is that half the stuff is scrapped or changed to be more fitting or fun and that doesn't irk me its just how it is which doesn't make all my planning any less fun in the first place.
i think im definitely in the camp for whom *having* to come up with things on the spot is a burden. i stressed myself out pretty bad the first few times i ran games because i thought i had to do it that way. in my case i think it is neurodivergence related - my brain just doesn’t move as fast when there is a lot going on, such as during a game, so it makes more sense to come up with ideas when i’m alone and can focus all my energy on that task. it makes things more interesting for the players because i’ve had time to think through things properly, and it’s less stressful for me.
I have to have pre-planned as much as possible and then adapt based on player actions. I don't like improvising based on the one-two paragraph description in my campaign setting book. That is how I like it, but it doesn't mean I'm right and you’re wrong.
Improvisation of a game is greatly influenced by the complexity of the system. In my RPG Back to the Dungeon RPG, it's easy to improvise as well as plan adventures out.
I’m not sure I totally agree. Of course I’ve only played about 100 systems, so I’m sure there must be some that are too complex to improv. But I haven’t run any.
@@BanditsKeep almost any of the 3E D20 systems. Can't just whip out a Complete NPC with those systems, especially not High Level as it takes over 20 minutes to make a complete character.
@@EldradWolfsbane I'm sure you would agree, that will depend on what is required of the NPC. If it's a rando in the tavern that the PCs pick a fight with, how much do you really need to know about the NPC? Slap down an AC and some HP and give him a smidge of combat ability and call it good. Personally, I prefer to have my BBEG's planned out in advance, but as I think about it, the same goes with a High Level random encounter. If you know the classes well enough you should be able to improv a moderately challenging high level NPC. Again, whip up a believable AC, add some HP, a few level appropriate magic items and start slinging level-appropriate spells / abilities. Will it be a good encounter? Maybe, maybe not. But you are improv'ing already, so you could make the NPC as challenging as you want in order to keep the players entertained.
I have a rough outline but I always improvise each session you have yo. I hate modules and dungeon crawls. Small dungeons are ok but it gets boring. Last campaign I improved everything on the fly. It lasted a year in real time.
I feel the GM needs to have well prepared pieces that can be pulled out as PCs engage the world and these need connections to other things. PCs have choice and consequences. Ignore a plothook might allow a minor villian to grow into a major villian. I think improv is vital but it draws from rather than replaces good prep.
I guess I'm pretty far towards the improvisation end of the spectrum. I think a large part of the reason has to do with where i play, and has evolved out of necessity. I play at 2 different FLGS, at fairly large tables, where not only is attendance inconsistent, but we can gain new players and lose players at any time. I could have 4 players one week, 11 players the second week, and 6 the third week... where none of the 6 were present the first week. Obviously, trying to stick to a rigid set of encounters would require either easymode that made it boring or deathmode that would eventually lead to a tpk. My basic approach is to have a consistent theme to the world and story, announced before it begins. That way everyone knows the basic movement of the campaign, and agrees to it. From there, I'm basically equipping myself with a few encounters each session that i can drop anywhere. I try to have the plot development encounters a bit more detailed, and then a few throw away encounters that can be tossed in anytime things slow down. I use several digital tools to track my combat, and keep notes on plot development. With the general aim of the campaign agreed upon at the start, and encounters queued up when i need them, I'm left fairly free to respond to the players and read their reactions to know what to do next.
Railroading has nothing to do with the style of game you run (sandbox/linear), or the type of DM you are (prepper/non). Any DM can railroad by too frequently making you solve challenges one way (theirs). Making content for your players to experience is never railroading. Choosing which direction to go is insignificant compared to brainstorming up solutions to challenges. No one ever says "oh remember when we got to choose left and fight the goblin camp instead of right and deal with the undead in the swamp? Man! That was awesome!" No, it's always the tricks you pulled on the encounter that surprised your DM and made it memorable. Improvisers are a huge waste of time unless they have an eidetic memory. They don't design encounters to be a challenge, making combats empty and meaningless. They waste time by having to look stuff up when an encounter happens, and fumble through it. I will not play in this style of DM's game. These types of DMs also like to nerf abilities on the fly, and play favorites with the rule of cool (especially on themselves), and have to save the players deus ex machina or make the monsters behave irrationally. My character does not matter in this game. I've never in my 40+ years of gaming seen a proper sandbox style game work where there is a meaningful game to it (story, goals, a living world). It usually ends up with pointless wandering, just one encounter after the other, and the game dies a slow death around level 7 as the DM gets burnt out. Someone else starts up a game, and we never go back to the other game. Rinse, repeat. Games dying out was our tables biggest complaint. Published adventures solved it, giving DMs content, goals, and an end goal that took us to high levels. Very fulfilling, and we are finishing up our 6th campaign using them. And although Witchlight only took us to level 7, it was still very fun. I want tactical combat that matters, not improvised. I want my character's actions to matter and affect the world, more than just survive this encounter. I want goals to achieve rather than "do whatever you want" - that means nothing I do matters. I want encounters to lead to other encounters as we find clues to uncover a plot. I want the story line to have an end goal with many subgoals and side stories to get there. I want closure on my game before we quit playing. I run my games with a handful of prep. I have a few encounters lined up just in case the players do something unexpected (and they frequently do). And I have the next couple areas fresh in my head. I always have to do a lot of improv, no matter how much I prep. My players are free to do whatever they want, but ignoring certain challenges will result in things getting more difficult. The world doesn't stop for them. Great video, love the thoughts.
My friend I love your videos but i disagree the work put into creating encounters or even the back story of the Bandit captain that the PC's just one shot before he can even get his sword bloody is not a waste. Would you call a beautiful sculpture that no one ever sees a waste? Art is the expression of the soul and things crafted from the soul are never a waste... Plus I just save them for other campaigns LOL XP dont tell my PCs :X
I'm invested in the Return of the Lazy DM method for prep. Typically I sketch a few likely scenes for the next game with words, then deconstruct those sketches so i now have encounters and settings and leads ready to be remixed at the table. For instance i might have sketched a scene of meeting a suspicious farmer and his cows on the way to market, and a separate scene with a hungry giant who is blocking the road until it gets fed, but at the table it turns into a hungry giant who is dragging cows down the road to its cave. Maybe the same farmer shows up and offers the PCs one cow if they save the others from the giant. Maybe the farmer got fatally bonked on the head by the giant and now there's a hue and cry going up. There are a lot of ways to improvise a story with the players if you have story pieces ready to mix. Summing up, I prep for improvisation. I'm not really lazy per se, but I actively avoid preparing things I can't use when the players derail their own plans and mine.
Return of the lazy DM is an amazing ressource. I've been a DM for 30+ years and always felt I needed something to help me between "all improv: my notes are two lines" and "these scenes are so great they'll play all of them, wanting or not".
@@rrupt At my gaming shop I put out a local scale map, and a few N/pc settlements.
A young green dragon found a nice fishing spot around a river bend with ravine hill sides with a wonderful view.
To .. flex .. the dragon's muscles, it clawed, scratch, pulled, and scrap a broad wagon trail road. Honestly the young adult green dragon though it was fun to take someone's wagon to play with after eating the mules.
Young Green had a basic ideal on how human cut through a forest to create trade roads to collect and move around wealth.
So it wanted its own .. dragon .. road crossing bridge. Lay back and collect road tolls.
a.) roll 1d8 on everyone that wants to draw the dragon into their own political military conflicts.
b.) How good was the dragon setting up the road to bypass a few days of local trave dealing with the riven bend hills ?
Is it worth traveling on ?
c.) Did any of the PC decided to help the dragon build the road, as in to trade in .. favors.
d.) Dragon is just another Xp side snack for the PCs or n/pcs to take down for lunch.
e.) Human war band sent out by one of the few local nobles visit the dragon, " Take this as a bribe, or we will just kill you for a trophy."
f.) Humans come out to the dragon having teenage fun, " It takes this amount of time to cut down, move timber, dig & level ground. It takes this amount for livestock to feed them. ...etc. "
List of twenty or more things that involves creating a road and sending the timber back for other craft projects or firewood.
Pay the dragon equal to human labor, then explain how payment plans work. Because it takes time for the materials to grow or be mined, crafted, and moved to given location. ( takes 1d10 years to pay off what the dragon built, or the time needed to repair the landscape and dredge the river bend back to proper former fishery production.)
Flip out dragon and apply a different monster, or just have a lumber camp clearing a road building project. The camp is dealing with monsters or human bandits, humanoid raiders.
I learned GM'ing from my Dad. Build elaborate detailed worlds with many possible plot hooks. Then when it comes time to play, toss out plot hooks to the players and then make it up spontaneously with the players as they make choices. It means that there are a lot of answers and details out there.. but the plots aren't necessarily fully flushed out.. just the plot hooks. Everything in the world around the characters changes as the characters do things. The trick is not to form the story for the players.. let them do what they want.. but in my spare time i keep fleshing out the world. And if something gets abandoned that's fine, things just happen "off screen" until the players return to it or not. It works for me because it means I'm always prepared with the big world stuff and get to be surprised and play with the players as they play through their stories/scenarios/campaigns.
@@LB_adventurer ❤️100%
This is how I like to run games
Exactly same.
I enjoy all of Bandit’s Keep videos 🎉
Thank You!
Brilliant analysis Daniel. I’m a definite “somewhere in the middle” DM. I was a railroad engineer in the late 70s and 80s but now I over prep cuz I love it. It’s part of my enjoyment in the game. However, older and maybe wiser, I now treat the campaign like a point crawl. I paint a picture of my world setting, NPCs, lore, etc but they have many options. I push them to discuss and make group decisions. Part of this is b/c my players are newbs and not experienced PCs nor DMs. I try to lead them to choices. You’re absolutely correct in the need to understand the friends at the table. And the ultimate test remains whether we are all having fun on a Friday night! Thanks. 👍🏼
overprepping because we love it is exactly what it's all about.
I like what you said about improvising details during play - that IS the game when you're refereeing! And when it comes to utilizing random tables, let yourself be surprised!
'allow yourself to be surprised' is key to my enjoyment. why should the players be the only ones to experience that? :P
couldn’t agree more! that part really opened my eyes as a serial over-planner :) sometimes i find i can get disconnected from the game in a way, when i should actually be immersed in with the players!
I love that this video highlights the validity of bith positions, and that you don't go about it like all those "let me tell you the Right Way" videos
Thanks! I think the “right way” is just what is fun for you and your group.
I am in the first camp, more because I have been doing it so long and wrote things down as I went. I run a sandbox and the players can go anywhere they want. I just have most or the details worked out already so things flow as they go.
Nice
As a player, I like discovering my character through play. As a DM, I like discovering my campaign through play.
Same here
You just coined the term “Lonely Fun” for me-words which gave shape to a formerly-unnamed core value in my life. Lovely video, Daniel!
I believe I first heard it from Jason of the Nerd’s RPG Variety Cast
I feel like "Solitary Fun" would be better. "Lonely" has a negative connotation and implication that you desire to do it with others that I don't think appropriately describes the activity.
I use solo play to world-build and set up NPCs...essentially creating ideas and areas or altercations that can be used if players go into those areas.
Thanks for the great video. I play DnD for 40 years. I tried both ways and I found out that I am not very good at improvising; so, although I learned a bit of improvising, I don't feel comfortable with it and try to avoid it. I can do a tavern and two or three NPCs, but not more. I play on Greyhawk, a world I really like the atmosphere, and you still have to put a lot of work into it, which is fun for me. I would never start a world of my own, because I would lose myself into world building and would probably never start a campaign there. Lately, I created the city of Monmurg (15,000 inhabitants), and drew every single house, against all advice you can find, but I loved it. Also did about 30 main NPCs with full class stats, also against all advice, but it was fun, and I estimate that my players will probably fight at least half of them.😅 Bottomline, I love to prepare, but don't have the time, and I mostly dislike improvising, but learned to like it sometimes in small doses.
I can imagine creating such a city and NPCs could be a load of fun
I LOVE ALL Bandit's Keep videos!
Thank You!
I may have shared this before about my breakfast with a player concerned that I may burn out? That I put to much into my encounters. “Why can’t you just have something simple like running into a troll?” In less than five minutes I produced a simple story of the troll who loves this fishing hole he found, how he may have come here and those who interacted with him. I commented that I do this because my players often ask those very questions. So, I find possible answers that ultimately lead to other adventures.
So, I mull over ideas and jot things down for future reference for such an occasion. I may never use it or it may be waiting for years before I do.
Yes! This is what planning is all about! Well said!
I used to draw up maps, encounters and NPCs just for the fun of it back in the AD&D days. Did that for a lot of games I collected but didn't get to play with a group.
Proud to be an Improviser. It's so much easier than you think and really serves the players, as it gives them tonnes more freedom.
For sure
I'm in the middle and my memory is decent enough that I can recall the meat of what I have planned. Often, though, it doesn't make it onto paper until the players are headed that way or they ARE there. On the improvised side, if a player keeps talking about it, it implies to me that THAT is what they want to see (my current campaign features a fighter that is utterly convinced a lichking of somesort is hiding around every corner - they may regret voicing that), so I tend to lean into things. My greatest satisfaction is when, post-session, a player tells me, "I didn't think you'd let that fly." A technique I use is that at the end of each session, I get a rough plan for next, so I can better plan the next session.
Thank you for your videos.
Most DM’s have to utilize both of these at times, but I am definitely on the heavy prep side of things most of the time. My improv for world building is weak, but witty banter is an A+!
Witty banter is always a plus!
Hi Daniel!
In my opinion prepration is key for being a GM. However, you can't prepare everything, but having a "prework" makes a lot asier to improvise. So something in between a littl bit sided to the preparation is my option.
But every tablen and GM are different, so ther's n "right answer"
I'm running a sandbox campaign using the Dolmenwood setting. It's very satisfying to have detailed material ready, as it's great to see the game unfold and have the security of having a response for any decision the players make. That said, I absolutely don't like forcing any path, and when I play at tables where the GM forces a path, I enjoy the game much less; in fact, I even stop caring about the game.
In the case of Dolmenwood, even with all the detail in the setting, it's necessary to improvise quite a bit, and I find this aspect of the game incredibly fun. I don't know if I would personally spend so much time creating so many details, but it's great to have them available!
I kinda run my games the same way! Prep for me ideally is just contingencies that flow from previous player actions- and at the table, their actions are the primary driver of downstream events which I just roll with
Cool
I think a DM should be able to do both: plan and improvise. This is similar to your "middle style."
However, it takes practice to be well-rounded at both. So, if you’re good at one, practice the other first.
There’s no such thing as over-planning. Planning is reading and writing, and these are good things. You can burnout from planning though. And I think many people who say overplanning is bad, are talking about burnout.
I also see planning as pre-game prep and improvising as in-game skill.
Great channel!
I'm definitely a lonely fun kind of DM, I spent hours hunched over my campaign world as a kid, usually until 2 in the morning! Recently, I ran a 3-4 year Call of Cthulhu campaign, and did more of a way of world building as you describe in this video, I'd let the characters go where they wanted, and would then quickly design the town or what have you before the next session! It worked great.
That’s awesome, both types of play are rewarding to be sure.
I do all the worldbuilding at the begining, improvise other areas as they explore it and as for sessions I write down bullet points of things related to a quest that they're doing and obstacles without writing solutions and I mostly improvise the rest depending on what they want to do
Nice to hear that you enjoy improvising, Daniel. I do enjoy it myself when it works, but I guess I don't trust myself to do too much of that. Unlike you, I'm kind of obsessed with world building and can do it for hours, so prepping various scenarios for the plyers to encounter is fun for me. However, they always come up with something I didn't expect and I have to make something up on the spot and guess what, that's fun as well! I play in a very open world, so my players have a lot of autonomy and I encourage them to exercise it. That often leads to surprises for me. There are certain types of players who seem content to wait for hooks and follow through with them while others are more often coming up with unexpected interests and I don't want to shut that down.
Nice
Thanks Daniel! I’ll keep a scrap sheet next time when I have encounters and such
Let me know how that works for you
I always start by making a home location that the campaign will start in. This location will be detailed with npc names, occupations and all the important details. It will also have a map. Since at the start the PCs usually don't travel, the biggest area I would map is a day's travel in each direction. Only the first scenario is scripted, to allow the players to familiarize themselves with the setting. After that the action develops based on NPC motivations and characters' actions. If the characters go to a new location, I will have some generic NPCs they can meet there, and usually come up with names on the fly, based on a list of random names. If they decide to stay longer, the place will also get a map and become increasingly detailed as time goes on.
I am not averse to improvising something if I feel it makes sense, but if it doesn't (a wizard in a random dilapidated hamlet), either it's not there, or there's a twist (he's really a chaos cultist in disguise).
I'm pretty strongly on the planner side. I think a large part why is that when I'm at my most imaginative and have my best ideas isn't while I'm running the game. It's usually while I'm out on a run, or a long drive, and then I note those down when I get home and make them part of my campaign. Improvisation is definitely one of my weaker skills (I think coming up with dialogue on the spot is my least favorite part of the game) so I try to have defined enough of the area, the important NPCs, and their motivations that I have a good sense of what they'll do in various circumstances. But also like you mentioned, world-building is fun in itself to me, so that's not a burden.
The way you described your DM style is mine to a T. Absolutely feels most comfortable for me!
Nice!
I think I, like most DMs, don't really fit into either extreme. But I also do a lot of both. I do really love worldbuilding so I will have the starting duchy (actually a barony in my current game) fleshed out in the terms of who are the major figures, what are some of the big problems they're facing, what are their goals etc, and I will have some adventures and dungeons placed on the map
However I also intentionally leave a lot of the map blank aside from terrain and some sort of general idea (never more than a sentence or two) of what's in there. And in addition I always have there be more to an area than just what is on the map.
The end result is I end up with a setting that I know well, but that also has a lot of flexibility for emergent storytelling, and there are vast swathes of area for me to place that orc horde I rolled up when doing rumour tables, or that quest I wrote after being inspired by a tale from Welsh Mythology I was reading yesterday
I should state that this was a description of what I do, not a prescription of how it's done. It works for me, but it would also give a lot of DMs a headache, and also isn't the best method for a busy DM. It works so well for me because I have a brain dead job and can think about my DnD campaigns during my 12 hour workday with a shorter work-week to write it down and make finishing touches, and because I enjoy thinking about my campaigns. I would very strongly advise against spending as much time as I do in prep for anyone who is more pressured for time or who just doesn't enjoy spending their free time on a campaign that they aren't going to play for several days in advance.
This is a really great way to think about how to approach running games. You're right most people fall in the middle. I find myself enjoying worldbuilding alone better and I don't enjoy improvising all the time. I spend a lot of time developing my world including royal lineages, continent formations, weather patterns, factions, etc. and seeing how the players interact with those things. I find it easier to form story beats when I know where and why everything is. NPC motivations become very apparent to me so it makes any improvising I need to do much easier. Granted, this is a campaign setting I've been running for literal decades and i probably wouldn't put this much effort into something I wouldn't get years of enjoyment from. Awesome video!
Your campaign sounds awesome
I have done the 100% homebrew and run published modules and I have to say I lean into the prep ahead category. I am currently running Goodman Games' OAR module for The Temple of Elemental Evil using DCC rules and we are 11 sessions in. I have enjoyed the fleshed out campaign and being able to read ahead and have exciting set pieces prepared. It also helps stoke my crafting, giving me specific items to craft and miniatures to paint. I suffer from decision paralysis sometimes when I homebrew because I want to do too much, so it helps to have a module give me direction.
That makes sense
Thanks for the video, your channel inspired me to start a second youtube channel about D&D in addition to my main channel about ebay.
Nice!
My DM style is to place points of interest in the world, make situations pointing to them, and then improv as the players explore.
Sounds fun!
@@BanditsKeep It's kept my players mostly interested for a while now, so I think they're agree!
Of course you're connected with KR King! Two of my favorite channels for all things GMing. Can't wait to check out the podcast.
Thanks! Yes, KR is great
Great video! I build a small hex map with a few locations detailed and I use a setting. The characters tell me which direction they want to go and then I build the world in that direction. I mild prep. A few lines for each location for rumors or hints, then I prep that location in detail as the characters decide to do stuff. The characters might know about a dragon lair, but I do not actually build the lair until the players say, next session let's go hit the dragon lair. I use factions and numbers appearing from the 1st edition monster manual. That tells me if it's a lair or something else. Then I run the factions according to their intents. I am most interested in how character actions impact the world. Really fun.
im also a mixture of both styles, i prepare a few key things that might happen to move the party forward and have some key npcs and monsters handy but the rest i mostly create reactive to my players
Two of my friends are very much in the world builder side, though they do lean towards creating stories. One had to undo some of his worldbuilding as he realized he was planning a railroad on accident. My own style is much more improvisational. I find that having random lists of npc names to pull from if the players ask can cover that aspect, as well as not tying certain locations down geographically. there may be a wizards tower in the area, so if the players wander outside of town i'll roll on a random chart and they could bump into that tower or other locations. My biggest advice for those who do world build is to remember that nothing is set in stone until the players encounter it, so if there's something they clearly want to find, like a wizard or a thieve's guild, unless you've already said it doesn't exist, consider adding it in for your players to interact with.
Learning how to design, prep and run adventures is something that I see get more and more attention lately. Books like So You Want To Be A Game Master, the lazy DM books, etc are becoming more and more common. They're also getting better and better. Considering that the games won't happen without this work, it really is a shocking thing that it has taken 50 years to get really good advice on how to think about game design and prep. We've been stumbling into practices that work for so long without the ability share that knowledge easily.
Personally, I'm in the middle as well. I like using random tables during prep to spark the ideas for an encounter, but I don't like taking the time during play to roll on tables and start improvising. If I'm improvising at the table it's because of emergent things in play and input from players.
Cool
Not running D&D but I'm a GM since 2.5 years now and so far I would say I'm 7 parts Planner and 3 parts Impovisor.
When I know my players want to infiltrate a building I plan the whole building, how many watchman, location for cameras, the security levels, everything. But I don't know how my player are going to infiltrate the building and there comes the impovisaton.
Or I know my players want to rescue this NPC from the elemental plain of fire, so I prep where the NPC is, why they are there, what are they doing, are they still alive, how could the players find them, but I don't know when or how the players are getting to that plain. I know how one could do that, and depending on their research they find out how they might be able to. But to kill an angel was thier idea.
I have gone completely improvisational, but I only run one shots or up to 3 shots. Just taking cool notes for call backs later is what is required. My prep is practice and knowledge of theme.
We all take regular turns at GM.
Here's what i do:
1) Worldbuild extensively. For example, I've created a world with 8 locations (islands), 4 factions, 4 rumors, 5 religions / gods, & 3 prominent people. All of this is created before the game starts, and gives the players something to go off of when creating their characters.
2) Fill in the details & roll the encounters as i go. There is no predetermined plot. There are actors in a living, breathing world. The players will need to have their own motivations for their characters.
3) Expand the depth of the world as i go based on how the characters interact with it.
I build a very detailed area they are in with many possible scenarios. I build out the immediate adventure area around it and random tables for hat can be added to on the spot. So I do both. I never let what I created stop them with an iron wall from doing what they want. But they also know they are going to be walking around in a fleshed out world. It does take a while. I am now in a French style city that took me 4 and a half months to create. The players got a bound player's guide to the city that is 223 pages. My own GM's book is in a 3 inch folder at about 500 pages. But they can do anything they want. I am a little nuts. Definitely not a storyteller in that it is the player's story. But I am ready whichever way they go. I have tables that can produce a scenario out of whole cloth if they go down an unexpected path. This is my life's hobby so I know I am a little nuts. But it is all fun for me.
Planner and improviser are both legitimate ways to run the game. The improviser style is probably harder to do *well,* because when you're making things up completely on the fly it's easier to overlook contradictions and harder to consider several possible options and then choose the best. But in the end, every DM *must* improvise, because the players will always do something unexpected, and the DM must adjust accordingly. The planner DMs should look at their notes more as a massive aid to improvisation than as the be-all and end-all of the adventure. For example, when a character accidentally drops an incriminating letter, the DM must improvise whether the guard who picks it up knows how to read; the planner simply has the advantage that he knows that most fighters in this kingdom are illiterate, or that this king is a fan of the classics and thus is likely to choose literate guards.
As a planner DM myself, I advise other planners to distinguish between parts of the world that are "baked" and parts that are "raw," i.e. those that have already been revealed to the players and now form part of the essentially unchangeable canon of the world, and those that exist only in your mind and notes, and thus can be rearranged if needed to suit the changing situation of the campaign.
I have changed my approach in that I am an amalgam of the two as well. I am a lover of improvisation (that’s the actor/comedian in me) and I love world building. But my world building is more as we go now yet I have a core that is in the background that can morph as the players explore. Part of my world building is derived from images I look through on websites. Players like loose parameters.
In-between. I have a lot of loose stuff prepped. Some stuff targeted to each character and a little bit of each town in the region outlined. I have a couple small narratives that will grow depending on players' investment. The world doesn't revolve around them but the game does.
When I came back to RPGs in 2017, my improv skills were awful. I wrote everything for a session into a Google doc and panicked inside when I had to come up with NPCs or encounters on the fly.
But I started with a town and dungeon, and I built a little sandbox for my players to play in. As time has passed, I've now run several campaigns in that little sandbox and I mix both improv and scripted elements.
Now I have a refrigerator full of prepared ingredients that I can pull out at any time that have marinated across dozens of campaign games and convention one-shots, and though the results are rarely the same, the flavors begin to pop as soon as I bring them to the table.
I am definitely in the middle. When I start a new game, I usually build a core group of npcs that will be contacts for the players. I flesh them out enough to have an idea the sorts of information and/or help they can provide, as well as the sorts of things they may ask the characters. I like to have a pretty good "skeleton" of the area at the very least, because that gives me a springboard for improvisation. I will want to know who wields power where, how well liked they are, and the main groups or types of people that dislike them. Even if I haven't set a location for them, I want to know what other peoples (civilized or otherwise) are in the area, and what their relationship or opinion is of the place the player characters start.
The last long running game of mine started with a pretty fleshed out small trading post/small village on a frontier lake. I didn't have an adventure, but I started with the setting and improvised from there until an adventure developed.
I am more of the improviser.
Thirty-five years ago, when I was first learning to play D&D, I tried doing the whole world-building thing. I crafted a small handful of fully detailed worlds, and each of them I thought was going to be "my" world that I used for every game I DMed. But at the time, nobody was interested. Everyone in all the groups I was in at that time fell into one of two camps... either (a) if the game isn't in Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk it's not D&D, or (b) the best games do not have a defined world and the players and DM explore it together in a hex-crawl.
The other big thing everyone I played with liked was the episodic campaign. We did not have big plot lines. One DM tried to run the group through the Temple of Elemental Evil, and after exploring the moat house the group decided to go off and do other things and forgot about the plot. We all liked shorter, drop-in adventure modules, and a couple of our DMs were good at creating quick adventures from random story hooks.
Since then, I have read and reread years worth of Dungeon Magazine, and countless published modules, for D&D and for other game systems. Now, I am an entirely improv DM, but I generally start my players somewhere in the world of Greyhawk and I lean heavily on my memory of the adventures I've read. If the characters want to go a certain direction, I have a map I can give them, and I have things they can do, and I will pull out maps and quest hooks from Dungeon or from official modules or from other games, and I intermix that with randomly generated dungeon maps and random plot hooks. If this leads to 2 or 3 encounters with the same type of creature (for example Githyanki), and a player starts trying to connect them, then I will run with that and create a specific quest to deal with a rising threat and that might be a longer story arc that stretches across a level or two, but then we move on.
Sounds awesome
4:53 I’m the preper (leaning towards the middle similar to you). I enjoy the prep work. Never use all of it but it’s fun for me. And I don’t railroad BUT my players like a story of some kind. Which is fine by me (as is the opposite of being “open world”).
Cool
I will talk more about how I do GMing in a video I am composing for here on UA-cam; will include a shout out to this one in that one.
The gist though--at least as is relevant to this question--the gist is that I prepare even my throwaway stuff that's supposed to be "low-effort" as though I am playing a solo rpg.
I play as the character of, or as characters in, the world.
And then, when I run game for my players, I run it the same but with turns focused mostly on them, so that both their games and mine can crash into each other interestingly.
And I think I am doing it this way, because that is how actually creating together actually looks to me, as opposed to "creating together" in ways that mirror the "commander-soldier" or "boss-employee" model.
In some ways this has asynchronous vibes. I like it
I like finding mini games to include in a session (like BWB’s Lockpickery) that spices up what’s happening in the game. Oh, you’re a stars Druid? Roll 2d12 and we’ll read the omens in the sky. You’re trying to gamble with the gang leader to earn a conversation with him? Here are the rules for Crowns, the conversation will go as long as you make your wagers, it ends when you fold.
Nice
I'm the Planner/World Builder. However, I leave some elements loose. I won't railroad though; I'll let them ignore plot hooks and forge their own way. But the world will move with some major plot points. If the player's don't help a nation with a BBEG, then it may fall to darkness; and the repercussions will follow. I do want to make some smaller, less world-shattering one shots and campaigns in the future, ala Sword and Sorcery with an open ended road
For me, it's dependent on the group. Newer players usually need a little bit of railroading. To donthis i need to have planned events. Usually, i take from other games to get them started.
I live world building but once the players understand that their characters have full agency over what they do. Then i have to improvise more often because they do unexpected things. For instance, i had a new ask what he could do in the game, and i told him anything. So he killed a random townsperson. Needless to say, he lost that character, but it gave me a great opportunity to give him an influential villain to control in the background.
Other players think that i create encounters and try to balance them so they are doable. I've had a lvl1 fighter try to take on a t-rex, and he lasted one turn. So i gave hik a rewind and let him sneak on past, lol.
So im somewhere in the middle, but i lean more toward world building prep. Mostly for my solo games, where i test different areas of my game. Pro tip if you dont like coming up with npc, the BECMI gazetters have 100s of npc for each major race (humans, dwarves, elves, etc.)
Playing however you play, is right not wrong. (Could not resist telling you.)
I love every video by Bandit's Keep!
Thanks, I appreciate the support
Maybe a third, the "author", who hasn't done all the large-scale worldbuilding but who plan lots of detail along one planned storyline. And they have the biggest risk of railroading.
I haven’t played with anyone like that, but with the right buy in, I could see that being fun
I generate high level elements per Travis Miller's guide "Building a Sandbox Campaign for Classic Fantasy Adventure Games" then improvise accordingly.
Cool
I take two approaches, and mash them together. I am the Architect, and I am the Playwright. (I set the Stage, but that stage has been set-dressed for the players to experience) and their decisions change the Fate of nations...
I have my cake and eat it too. I tell my players I have everything planned out but they are free to go and do whatever. That way when I make things up on the spot, it feels more "real" to them, and they don't think that I am just handing out candy to them
Indeed
Improv skills are critical, and need to be practiced like anything else. As for my approach, It tends to vary by system. I always need more prep when I’m running dnd, but for some systems my only planning is some bullet points.
I'm definitely a planner, but I do both. I would improvise more but I run out of brain power, way quicker these days. I like having good tables to roll on to prompt my improvisation. I have lots of books of tables and decks of dungeons and npcs. If I have time I will plan, if not I will improvise.
I once planned a scenario and the players didn't really engage with it, then I rolled up a wandering centaur who was really drunk and they loved that guy
Nice!
I want to do more planning, but mostly I prepare mechanics (write tables, create faction systems, etc.) to facilitate the game and still surprise me.
That’s a good technique- creating tools to help you create
I've been running Old School essentials adventures for my 2 players. But overall I am more of an improviser. I would rather work up elaborate systems for improvisational material, than try and make it ahead of time. I keep considering creating my own basic dungeon geomorphs, just so that the dungeon map is created on the spot, and I don't need to create that ahead of time either. I want to say that I've also seen some oracle cards somewhere that have several things on each card, such as verbs, nouns, names etc, so as you play you can draw a card for the needed thing. I was thinking of making my own for those cards. Then NPC names, plots, dungeon room descriptions can be just a draw away.
Making your own cards would be pretty cool as you can shape the overall vibe.
I'm definitely on the improvisor side. Not to the full extent. I usually have a few ideas of things to point the players at. I try to have a few NPC notions in mind. From there, though, I'm usually just as surprised by what happens and where we end up as they are. I keep pretty good track of things, though. At least, I haven't stacked two towns on top of each other or anything.
I learnt by saying I was able and throwing myself I the deepend 😅
Improv is huge. Tables would be key but I don't even really use them. I'm blessed with a quick imagination though. I think improv has become a huge part of the experience for me though. I'd say this and that would help buy I just procrastinate and then jump in feet first. It's like pantsing to plotting.
Nice!
I think i to am in the middle. Id call myself a tables GM where I prepare a bunch of likely people or scenarios with quest hooks and stuff and if a player walks into the are and does something I think warrants it I roll on the table. But I always enjoy having a plan or info.
I like the topic of discussion, but there are many ways to DM or GM, just like there are many types of players. I’ve played at a lot of tables and the DMs had unique personalities and referee styles, although they showed some similarities. When I started refereeing D&D, I didn’t like the title Dungeon Master. After the cartoon debuted, I created the DM character in the game for when a random encounter with an NPC just wasn’t going to work. As a referee I observe the character and players. They help me to build the world that is fun and challenging. I never railroad because I think that takes away character agency. I don’t overwhelm the players with my world because it just may not be interesting to them, however, the world has its ways that do affect encounters and consequences. I enjoy improvisation as long as I have prepared knowledge of the world. I want what is happening to make some sense even though it may be something that is extremely rare. A good balance of order and randomness (law and chaos?) gives comfort to the players as a respite from the bizarre. Also, I change my GM methods based on the players’ personalities and their expectations.
The players in my current long term campaign like to have a few background storylines that they can interact with if they want to (and if they then it'll interact back!). Whilst I can improvise scenes/encounters I prefer to have some main NPCs, locations, and story elements (think in terms of faction turns) already decided on. I did try to improvise some of that (and still do where I have to) and found it very difficult to incorporate foreshadowing and twists in the "plot" in a consistent manner. In terms of the world I have the local area quite well detailed (at least thought about in my head even if not documented) but it gets increasingly fainter and fuzzier the further out it goes from the current location.
That makes sense
Started as a planner, leaned more and more into improv after I didn't like how forced it felt. Less like play and more like homework. I like now knowing what's around the corner too! If I plan everything, there are no surprises left to enjoy. Less prescribed than tracking landscape, more preparing points across the map.
Cool
Please expand on the "I build the world WITH my players"
Sure - if you check out my video called your players are the campaign that has a bit more of my thoughts if not technique
I take the akira toriyama aproach. During the android/cell saga of dragon ball z, he didnt plan all that much during that time. Just took it week by week. I improvise and most of the time my players think i planned it. But i do know my players are having fun and i am having fun with them
I find myself falling in between the two camps. For instance, I will build the regions towns in each town, specialty, and what it trades in and then leave everything else for the party to discover on the way. Mainly because I’ve had parties become wandering merchants out of the blue and leave a lot of my prepared work completely useless to me at that point.
Makes sense
It’s funny, but I used to feel I didn’t have enough time and energy to engage in deep world building and planning. I relied a skeleton of a setting and adventure, and improvised the rest in session. Worked well for years.
But as I’ve gotten older, I don’t reliably have the cognitive juice and creativity at 9 pm on a Sat night like I did when I was 30. So I do more prep in the days between sessions to support by game-night self. I don’t plan more than a couple sessions in advance, but I like to have NPCs and some setting descriptions and encounters ready to roll.
I am also much closer the the improvisation style. And I certainly don't think that is a burden. Hell, If there is a river or a town and I have nothing for it, then I give it to my players to name it. I like giving ownership to the players, they can create the world with me and thus make it their world. But I use usually no random tables, since my focus is not to emulate a world and thus have things that are plausible, instead I use theme as factor to assure consistency. And I am very transparent about the themes I am going for, thus the players can buy into these and express their characters accordingly to the theme we are exploring.
You HAVE to do both! For the world, country, town, ect its best to have the information at least roughly sketched out. The trick is, you only want to DM in One world, ie, stop making "New" campaigns. Im not saying you have to adventure in the same place, but everything that you ARE or HAVE dmed in the past, should be part of one continuum. Even if it everythings seems to end with a TPK, or all your players quit, or move away ect. Always Run the same campaign universe. Ya, you might start a new group of players in a different town or local,but that town or local should be a part of your ongoing world. You may improvise some or most of it, but once its been improvised, it has happened as is part of your world, and maybe what happens come backs into play or affects the future of a group of players, 10 years into the future, who have no knowledge of the other players or PC from the past.
Players have to be able to make their own decisions, and you have to react to what they do, and maybe the world is affected by what they do, or maybe not. Lets say a group of characters wipe out a cave of orcs, then leaves to go else where. 10 years in the future, either game time or real time or both, who's to say that the cave have not be reoccupied.. If you re-run that cave, even if for a totally different group, repopulate it differently, and dont try to run it the "SAME" way.
One of the problems with modules, is that they both give the impression that you start and end the module, but is also is not run as a living place. For me, modules are very restricting as a DM, and for the characters. most modules actually teach bad dming and playing, For me, even if I plan something, the game never goes the way I thought it would. the best thing for me is to have general ideas, then during game night, if those ideas happen, I can flesh them out either on the spot (improvise), or later (Planning) but planning often leads to more improvising. they go hand in hand.
Over the last several years, I have started 3d printing and painting both miniatures ( mostly monsters) as well as dungeon tiles ( magnetized of coarse so I can actually use them on the fly. It has changed a lot for me. I also have experimented with different mapping programs over the years, none of which I really like! and even after decades, my worlds map is only marginal, but I have a general idea, of whats where, even though I cants really hexcrawl on it like I would like to. Never truly been able to hexcrawl but over the many years, its something that I have really wanted to do. If I could do it right ( in my mind) which may or may not actually interest the Player's ( Arg) but anyways, the world that I actually share with my brother, who originated it, is always there in my mind.
I like to Improv. I am somewhere in the middle, I will come up with a basic idea for the session and then let the players take it from there. Any noteworthy things that happen will be noted in case I need to refer back to them. But, other than that I just improv most of it.
The bigger question is though -- what would Batman be like as a DM?
I enjoy world building. I want my world and encounters to make sense even in ways that the players may never learn about. Plus the creative process is enjoyable - that alone time fun. But I'm also not a very detailed oriented guy, in general or as a GM. I want to know in broad strokes how everything works: the history, the politics, the factions, the role of magic, etc. and what the major cities/towns/fortresses are in a region but I don't need to know all of the fine details in advance. I think you need enough of a framework in place that it's possible to improvise within it.
People often talk about naming NPCs. Aside from major characters I think it's unimportant. How often do you walk into a store and ask the person behind the counter what his name is? It doesn't really matter what the innkeeper's name is unless the PCs are staying at the same inn for many game sessions. The idea that an NPC will immediately introduce himself by name is a silly trope IMO.
I guess I would be considered a ‘hybrid’. I have a world that I’m currently fleshing out and making a campaign guide as I go, but I’m leaving it fairly empty compared to other guides I’ve read. Yes I have maps with cities and geographic features and kingdoms and all that, but there’s a ton of space to create as we go. Or to use probably my favorite thing in the game: tables to roll on for what’s going to happen next. And my parties tend to be full of players who want to go some direction they probably shouldn’t anyway, so why not roll up whatever horror they wish to encounter? But seriously, I think the lonely fun leads me into group fun because it gives me a frame to build on but not a complete project. That way I can be a grand master of lore, but also let my players create something other than mischief😂
I should observe when the rest of my group are the most engaged, and try to work out how to give them that
That makes sense
Myself, I am down on what I do. When I all myself to over prep I feel bad about the branches of the trees not used, even when I re use them years later. I find most of my players enjoy the improv (LARP was mostly that) and then feel bad about bad names and forgetting those details the players enjoyed. It seems responsive world growth is enjoyable for the players. Yet every group, every game session can be different from the last. Just as a social player may show up wanting to do combat as a way to vent it is hard to predict what will work well in that next moment. The ref/DM/GM/Storyteller is only in charge until 'Game on' and then they are in the same rollercoaster.
Indeed
In novel writing vernacular, I believe the terms are "plotter" and "pantser" 🤣
Interesting
Great video.
I think a possible problem with the "pure improviser" is that they railroad in a more subtle way. The things they are less good at improvising or personally uninterested in can very often be unsatisfying, bland dead ends. That's railroading by proxy when you realise the stuff they like is deeply imagined and rewarding.
That’s an interesting point
Definitely enjoy the world building and planning of being a DM, but the reality with my group is that half the stuff is scrapped or changed to be more fitting or fun and that doesn't irk me its just how it is which doesn't make all my planning any less fun in the first place.
That makes sense - planning in and of itself can be fun
i think im definitely in the camp for whom *having* to come up with things on the spot is a burden. i stressed myself out pretty bad the first few times i ran games because i thought i had to do it that way. in my case i think it is neurodivergence related - my brain just doesn’t move as fast when there is a lot going on, such as during a game, so it makes more sense to come up with ideas when i’m alone and can focus all my energy on that task. it makes things more interesting for the players because i’ve had time to think through things properly, and it’s less stressful for me.
I can definitely understand that
i find that i am more in the first camp. any pointers for how to eschew notes and planning and get better at improvising?
I have to have pre-planned as much as possible and then adapt based on player actions. I don't like improvising based on the one-two paragraph description in my campaign setting book. That is how I like it, but it doesn't mean I'm right and you’re wrong.
Improvisation of a game is greatly influenced by the complexity of the system. In my RPG Back to the Dungeon RPG, it's easy to improvise as well as plan adventures out.
I’m not sure I totally agree. Of course I’ve only played about 100 systems, so I’m sure there must be some that are too complex to improv. But I haven’t run any.
@@BanditsKeep almost any of the 3E D20 systems. Can't just whip out a Complete NPC with those systems, especially not High Level as it takes over 20 minutes to make a complete character.
@@EldradWolfsbane I'm sure you would agree, that will depend on what is required of the NPC. If it's a rando in the tavern that the PCs pick a fight with, how much do you really need to know about the NPC? Slap down an AC and some HP and give him a smidge of combat ability and call it good.
Personally, I prefer to have my BBEG's planned out in advance, but as I think about it, the same goes with a High Level random encounter. If you know the classes well enough you should be able to improv a moderately challenging high level NPC. Again, whip up a believable AC, add some HP, a few level appropriate magic items and start slinging level-appropriate spells / abilities. Will it be a good encounter? Maybe, maybe not. But you are improv'ing already, so you could make the NPC as challenging as you want in order to keep the players entertained.
I have a rough outline but I always improvise each session you have yo. I hate modules and dungeon crawls. Small dungeons are ok but it gets boring. Last campaign I improved everything on the fly. It lasted a year in real time.
Nice
I feel the GM needs to have well prepared pieces that can be pulled out as PCs engage the world and these need connections to other things. PCs have choice and consequences. Ignore a plothook might allow a minor villian to grow into a major villian. I think improv is vital but it draws from rather than replaces good prep.
I guess I'm pretty far towards the improvisation end of the spectrum.
I think a large part of the reason has to do with where i play, and has evolved out of necessity.
I play at 2 different FLGS, at fairly large tables, where not only is attendance inconsistent, but we can gain new players and lose players at any time. I could have 4 players one week, 11 players the second week, and 6 the third week... where none of the 6 were present the first week.
Obviously, trying to stick to a rigid set of encounters would require either easymode that made it boring or deathmode that would eventually lead to a tpk.
My basic approach is to have a consistent theme to the world and story, announced before it begins. That way everyone knows the basic movement of the campaign, and agrees to it.
From there, I'm basically equipping myself with a few encounters each session that i can drop anywhere. I try to have the plot development encounters a bit more detailed, and then a few throw away encounters that can be tossed in anytime things slow down. I use several digital tools to track my combat, and keep notes on plot development.
With the general aim of the campaign agreed upon at the start, and encounters queued up when i need them, I'm left fairly free to respond to the players and read their reactions to know what to do next.
Nice
Railroading has nothing to do with the style of game you run (sandbox/linear), or the type of DM you are (prepper/non). Any DM can railroad by too frequently making you solve challenges one way (theirs). Making content for your players to experience is never railroading. Choosing which direction to go is insignificant compared to brainstorming up solutions to challenges. No one ever says "oh remember when we got to choose left and fight the goblin camp instead of right and deal with the undead in the swamp? Man! That was awesome!" No, it's always the tricks you pulled on the encounter that surprised your DM and made it memorable.
Improvisers are a huge waste of time unless they have an eidetic memory. They don't design encounters to be a challenge, making combats empty and meaningless. They waste time by having to look stuff up when an encounter happens, and fumble through it. I will not play in this style of DM's game. These types of DMs also like to nerf abilities on the fly, and play favorites with the rule of cool (especially on themselves), and have to save the players deus ex machina or make the monsters behave irrationally. My character does not matter in this game.
I've never in my 40+ years of gaming seen a proper sandbox style game work where there is a meaningful game to it (story, goals, a living world). It usually ends up with pointless wandering, just one encounter after the other, and the game dies a slow death around level 7 as the DM gets burnt out. Someone else starts up a game, and we never go back to the other game. Rinse, repeat. Games dying out was our tables biggest complaint. Published adventures solved it, giving DMs content, goals, and an end goal that took us to high levels. Very fulfilling, and we are finishing up our 6th campaign using them. And although Witchlight only took us to level 7, it was still very fun.
I want tactical combat that matters, not improvised. I want my character's actions to matter and affect the world, more than just survive this encounter. I want goals to achieve rather than "do whatever you want" - that means nothing I do matters. I want encounters to lead to other encounters as we find clues to uncover a plot. I want the story line to have an end goal with many subgoals and side stories to get there. I want closure on my game before we quit playing.
I run my games with a handful of prep. I have a few encounters lined up just in case the players do something unexpected (and they frequently do). And I have the next couple areas fresh in my head. I always have to do a lot of improv, no matter how much I prep. My players are free to do whatever they want, but ignoring certain challenges will result in things getting more difficult. The world doesn't stop for them.
Great video, love the thoughts.
I am an improvisor that is trying really hard to become a planner
Nice - it’s always good to stretch our style and technique muscles
They should make a GM Political compass
Like an alignment chart
I'm very much the kind of DM/GM/referee who worldbuilds for the fun of worldbuilding. I make my world, and then let my players run amok in it.
Nice!
My friend I love your videos but i disagree the work put into creating encounters or even the back story of the Bandit captain that the PC's just one shot before he can even get his sword bloody is not a waste. Would you call a beautiful sculpture that no one ever sees a waste? Art is the expression of the soul and things crafted from the soul are never a waste...
Plus I just save them for other campaigns LOL XP dont tell my PCs :X