Preparations and GM styles

[SDragon]

A couple of weeks ago, Vreeg and I were having a pleasant conversation about the Steel Isle Game, Guildschool, and our respective GM'ing styles. He pointed out that SIG was a good indicator of the level of planning he puts into his games. Frankly, I think that all of his work shows this high level of dedication.

One thing I mentioned is that my own GM'ing style is completely different. I tend to be much more reactive than proactive, and tend to put in very little preparation. This does have some noticeable negative impacts, but it also seems to prevent me from populating worlds entirely with villagers running around and randomly wondering what's happening in the cave to the East. Okay, sure, sometimes there might be one of those villagers, but only when the game has hit a lull big enough to actually require a little push from the GM.

This got me to wondering about how much work most GM's put into their games. Since Players are typically notorious for ripping apart just about anything their GM plans, I also wonder about how much of that work actually gets used. While my group seems more likely to take advantage of my snacks than of my plots, I know that not every group is the same. So I have to ask, how do you and your group handle setting things up?

[Steerpike]

For me it varies greatly from session to session and the style of play.  For one-shots (like no stats theatre) I tend to prepare very extensively since there's not a lot of time for players to meander.  For my Cadaverous Earth campaign I prepared the world quite thoroughly, whereas for Goblin I tended to improvise a lot more and only had a few notes here and there to guide the plot.

[Elemental_Elf]

My personal style has always been focused on the following principle:

"The player's character are the stars, not your story, not your characters and definitely not your 'plans'."

I am a "Big Picture & Improv the small bits" kind of DM. My goal as a DM is to provide enough story elements that the players can craft the story they want.

I've been involved in a lot of 'campaigns' that were just an excuse the DM used to tell (read: Force) real people to play (read: Listen to) his Drizzt fan fiction...

Those kinds of "campaigns" just aren't fun for the players. I'd rather see the players craft the story they're characters want to tell then force them down a strict story I devised late at night while chortling about how great a writer I am...  

[Nomadic]

I think a few of you got a taste of my style once. It was the only time I've run anything in any cbger's presence that could actually be called a game. Was on IRC and I randomly injected a plot hook into the chat and a couple people took it and ran with it we RP'd out a little chase scene in the warehouse district of some backworld in Mare Eternus. Of course someone as a joke tossed in a comment about catgirls but I turned it on them and wove it back into the story (and that's how a couple of us ended up running a few sessions of Maid RPG). Anyhow though that's how I work, by the seat of my pants. The most serious planning that goes into my sessions is a basic skeletal framework so that I don't contradict myself or let the game get all tangled up. If I try to take something that requires serious planning I tend to fail horribly as I'm very spontaneous in how I work. I see roleplaying as a collaboration between the DM and the Players crafting a story about a group of people and how they affected the world around them.

[Ninja D!]

I like to create the world in extreme detail so that when I want to run a game in it, I don't need to do much work. I'll already have important characters in place and my notes will mostly related to who is involved with / knows about what.

Running online games, I like to let the players direct entirely where things go. You can make that work well in play-by-post because you have more time to react.

While running a live group, which I haven't done in years, I like to have "adventures" or "quests" that serve as goals and directions. I like to take adventure modules and modify them heavily (often making them unrecognizable and really only using them for rough inspiration). This works best if the players are interested in a bit more of an old school D&D style or if the characters are some kind of servants, in the military, or otherwise all serve the same patron.

[SDragon]

I think a few of you got a taste of my style once. It was the only time I've run anything in any cbger's presence that could actually be called a game. Was on IRC and I randomly injected a plot hook into the chat and a couple people took it and ran with it we RP'd out a little chase scene in the warehouse district of some backworld in Mare Eternus. Of course someone as a joke tossed in a comment about catgirls but I turned it on them and wove it back into the story (and that's how a couple of us ended up running a few sessions of Maid RPG). Anyhow though that's how I work, by the seat of my pants. The most serious planning that goes into my sessions is a basic skeletal framework so that I don't contradict myself or let the game get all tangled up. If I try to take something that requires serious planning I tend to fail horribly as I'm very spontaneous in how I work. I see roleplaying as a collaboration between the DM and the Players crafting a story about a group of people and how they affected the world around them.

IT WAS YOU!

I was just asking Llum and TMG about this, because I had forgotten who it was with. That was fun. We should do that again sometime.

That's pretty much how I run my games, as well. I'm actually a little surprised that, with one exception, the first few posters in this thread have a similar approach. I mean, when you consider that we go through the effort of building ENTIRE WORLDS, I guess I expected more people here to treat their games with the same level of detail.

[Elemental_Elf]

That's pretty much how I run my games, as well. I'm actually a little surprised that, with one exception, the first few posters in this thread have a similar approach. I mean, when you consider that we go through the effort of building ENTIRE WORLDS, I guess I expected more people here to treat their games with the same level of detail.

To me, World Building, though enjoyable, has its place - which is definitely secondary  to the player's and their characters while at the table.

[Kindling]

My normal method is kind of a big freestyle. Once character creation is done, I will quickly brainstorm a situation in which the PCs can meet. I then let them spend a little time getting to know each other before a Bad Thing happens. The significance of and motivation for the Bad Thing can be worked out later (in fact, everything can be worked out later, as at this point the players need only get a vague impression of "terrible events being set in motion")

Then, between that first session and the next I will roughly come up with an idea for what should happen next, as well as coming up with a few possible reasons for why whatever shit's going down is going down. I have sometimes written out my session "plans" in this kind of format:

Cannibal horror from beyond the grave! - Can our heroes defeat the fiend that feasts on the flesh of the living?
Black-hearted betrayal! - Imprisoned by the rebel prince!
Escape through the catacombs! - What terrors await in the darkness beneath Castle Grave?

et cetera.

However, last time I ran a game, it was a one-shot, and I prepared basically everything, including a selection of pre-made characters for my players to choose from. This worked surprisingly well, but if I doubt I'd have the time/patience to do this for every session if I was running a campaign - not to mention, had my players decided to simple walk away from the main quest of that one-shot, I would have been somewhat at a loss!

[Nomadic]

IT WAS YOU!

I was just asking Llum and TMG about this, because I had forgotten who it was with. That was fun. We should do that again sometime.

Maybe I'll drop in on IRC unannounced one day and do another. :)

[Superfluous Crow]

I have a few DM-relevant skills, but creating a mental overview of my campaign is not one of them. My preparations are therefore of a limited nature and mostly spent on a few interesting ideas to drive the feel and tone of the session as well as a general idea of the plot. Character personalities are mostly done on the spot, even if the concepts are done beforehand. In the campaign I'm running right now, for example, I have three major NPC's waiting in the wings and a good idea of where the plot is headed, I only need to find a way to link where the characters are now to where I want them to be.
I have mostly run campaigns for new or newish players so I haven't had much experience with proper sandbox GM'ing, but I'm planning on giving the PC's free reins as soon as they have got their hands on the planned McGuffin.    

[Lmns Crn]

I overplan. I overplan by spectacular, crushing margins.

Here's the thing: I like to run complex games. I like to give the players huge amounts of information, huge amounts of options, and some difficult choices to make. For me, I've discovered (through brutal trial and error) that I can't just wing it; I have to sit down and plan it in advance.

Since I also like for players' choices to drive the action, this means that a lot of the time, I make plans for contingencies that never happen, or I have to radically re-adapt old unused material so that it's still relevant. God, some day I should scan the pages of my numerous GM notebooks, just to keep it all for posterity.

So, I end up spending about two or three hours planning and thinking about the game for each one hour I spend actually running it, I think. And about 50% of my planning doesn't get used. It tends to make for games that are intricate, interesting, and short-- as I have an unfortunate tendency to burn right the hell out.

[LordVreeg]

A couple of weeks ago, Vreeg and I were having a pleasant conversation about the Steel Isle Game, Guildschool, and our respective GM'ing styles. He pointed out that SIG was a good indicator of the level of planning he puts into his games. Frankly, I think that all of his work shows this high level of dedication.

One thing I mentioned is that my own GM'ing style is completely different. I tend to be much more reactive than proactive, and tend to put in very little preparation. This does have some noticeable negative impacts, but it also seems to prevent me from populating worlds entirely with villagers running around and randomly wondering what's happening in the cave to the East. Okay, sure, sometimes there might be one of those villagers, but only when the game has hit a lull big enough to actually require a little push from the GM.

This got me to wondering about how much work most GM's put into their games. Since Players are typically notorious for ripping apart just about anything their GM plans, I also wonder about how much of that work actually gets used. While my group seems more likely to take advantage of my snacks than of my plots, I know that not every group is the same. So I have to ask, how do you and your group handle setting things up?

In my years of GMing, I've done all sides of this.  I am capable of running a game from nothing; as a matter of fact, my whole secondary ruleset came from that over the summer.  Rules, setting, game, from naught to spot, fast as you can think it , I did it.  And back in college, we were gaming so much in between classes and work that my game prep time was negligible.

However, that is not my ideal format, I have found.  
I also must add in that there are 2 types of game prep; background and game related.  Background is creating towns and ffacts and political groups and histories that affect everything, but are not part of the direct plotline.  Background prep is done partially for enjoyment, but also because it goes a great distance to creating a more internally consistent and deeper world, which has the tangible benefit of increased player immersion.  
As I grow more involved, machiavellian, and as I have time for less and less other hobbies, I tend to spend more time plotting and filling in details of the plotline directly affecting the players.  Because as with all things intellectual or skill-based (says Mr. Guildschool), the more you do it, the better you get at it.
There is nothing like that rare occasion when the players, instead of opting for an outlandish, destructive, backwards solution, actually move within the confines of the flowcharts and details you have written.  It's like living within the covers and chapters of a well-written book, as it is being written.  When my Igbarians chased down the Terrors of the Knife, or when they were able to logically figure on searching the basement under the Steel Libram (not to mention following the clues there), it sends shivers down my spine.
I also think that Players can sense the detail level, and when they do, they believe in you more, and fall deeper into the game.

But that is just my opinion.

[Lmns Crn]

I also think that Players can sense the detail level, and when they do, they believe in you more, and fall deeper into the game.

But that is just my opinion.

Oh, certainly.

[Weave]

My personal style has always been focused on the following principle:

"The player's character are the stars, not your story, not your characters and definitely not your 'plans'."

I am a "Big Picture & Improv the small bits" kind of DM. My goal as a DM is to provide enough story elements that the players can craft the story they want.

This.

I like to create the world in extreme detail so that when I want to run a game in it, I don't need to do much work. I'll already have important characters in place and my notes will mostly related to who is involved with / knows about what.

And this.

When I DM I create an outline of where I want them to be at certain points in the story. How they get there is entirely up to them; in fact, sometimes they skip over those points and go to the next one. No big deal, I can roll with the punches for the most part. Hell, half the time they make their own better subplots just through NPC interaction and the choices they make. I never intended to have them be wanted by both the Cyrian law force AND the Dalgandis Crusaders, but damn is it fun. I like to make things cinematic, highly magical, even mysterious; keep the experienced players on their toes. A lot of the time adventures play out similar to movies, with high action and crazy stunts. But as EE mentioned, their characters are the stars, NOT my story. My story is a suggestion as to how their characters could really live out their "being stars." Admittedly, it took me some time to realize that. In my early stages, gaming was simply a means for me to have other people experience my "brilliant" stories; that got thrown out the window fast when I started gaming with a more involved group of people, and I realized that having fun was really my primary goal. Having fun, the memories, the storytelling, the plot-making - thats really done by everyone at the table, not just me. It's like looking at a movie and only crediting the director for it... there's a lot more involved than we always notice.

I also like to make my worlds meticulously detailed. The PCs wanna go through the Fey'Varah Forest instead of crossing the Goldenglow Mountains? Sure! Let me just look at my notes and see how I can switch things up... okay, got it. Here's the map you bought from the cartographer; tell me the path you guys want to take.

I love that. Not only do I present them with a prop (and I do love making hand drawn maps), but I really let them choose where they want to go. I'm giving them the power to choose their direction. All I have to do is glance down at my notes, maybe whip up a few new encounters, and BAM, new adventure (it's a little more complicated than that, but nonetheless very easy to do).

Now, I don't detail the whole world. I just detail the parts the PCs are gonna be around. When I prepare for a whole new campaign (and I usually make big, yearlong campaigns) I look at the area they're starting in and see if I have enough notes lying around to paint a good picture of the surrounding area. If not, I make them. I usually plan big campaigns months ahead of time to make sure I can fully detail everything.

That's my style.

[Weave]

I also think that Players can sense the detail level, and when they do, they believe in you more, and fall deeper into the game.

But that is just my opinion.

Oh, certainly.

Fully, 100% agreed.