GM Tip: Reduce Prep, Increase Engagement

Mouse said: Rob M. said: So I apologize if I swing this in the not-the-direction you are currently discussing but I wanted to chime in on the "no myth" vs "plotted story arc" methods of GMing. In the past, I have been a very plot focused GM. Playing Star Wars and Dark Sun were my two favorites because I was enchanted with the stories and adventures. But alas, my players often didn't like the feeling of Railroading. I scoffed at this, how could I be railroading when they asked for "an adventure?" Well I figured out for myself (my personal understanding) that by laying out these fantastic stories that had to happen in some semi-specific fashion, I was taking away their enjoyment. So, I stopped playing for a while. It sounds like you are confusing a plotted story arc with forcing players from one thing to another. Interesting situations with offered adventures that the players may choose from as they please also requires a lot less prep and is as far removed from railroading as possible without replacing the exploration of the setting, NPCs and so on that is used in No Myth. Just a note. No Myth doesn't really say anything about exploration. It's possible to explore just fine in a No Myth game. It's a big part of Dungeon World, which strives to recreate old school dungeon crawling, without the parts that make that excruciating. And, as the original post points out, No Myth tends to work well in a clearly defined genre, such as Star Wars, in which players can more easily get on the same page about how the PCs, the opposition and the world tend to operate. But that can be achieved even without having a great deal of the game world planned or plotted in advance.

@Mouse: I think of modules as being a railroad. Climb on board and follow the story to its otherwise inevitable end. I spent a lot of my early GM time either running these premade adventures, or writing them in the same fashion. Mainly because that was all I had seen done. I was engaged with the game and story as a player and as a GM when I took that role. When I matured I used the same basic "sticky note" idea as you mentioned. But it still plays out like a modern plot driven RPG game, a'la Mass Effect or Red Dead Redemption. Sure players can pick and choose which side stories to play, but eventually they have to follow the plot to its end or the GM has to abandon it as a motivator. What I eventually went to was more like laying out a scene in my fiction writing. I set up some goals, or plot points, that I wanted to see happen and then let the players get there or not as it played out. Like I mentioned though, it wasn't until I ran into DW that I took my most recent step and figured out why my players and I weren't happy with things before. I kept my players from becoming engaged because I already knew all the answers to the story and they were just working towards the end that had already been written. In my mind, that is railroading. Sometimes, the ending might have had a few options, but I already knew them. With the DW model - Ask questions, use the answers - there is much more to learn and reveal organically. My players are engaged because if they aren't, there simply isn't a story. So for me, the No Myth style is the one I prefer. It still allows me to make maps and plots, but it demands that I "leave blanks and play to find out what happens." @Paul: I really enjoyed the canon of SW and DS, so it was hard to get away from it. SW fans can be very picky about the story you are playing, citing canon all the time, etc. but DS gave you permission as a GM to make it up. The Wanderer's Journal was written as if the author had experienced the setting first hand, revealing only what could have been experienced or heard in rumor. It was the rumor part that made it easy to move away from canon for me. The entire book fit the No Myth model by allowing anything to be fact or fiction in the setting. So I played several campaigns from both the canon and non-canon perspectives. [edit: I changed some unintended subjects in my text to reflect what I actually meant. Rather than unintentionally attacking Mouse. Sorry about that. I really meant to show how changing my play style has brought my group together, not criticize anyone else's style.]

@Rob - Apparently I didn't make myself clear once more. I am not prepping the beginning, middle and end of a situation / adventure - just the conflict and think of what would happen if the PCs wouldn't interfere. Character actions&choices (as well as the players') being meaningful is incredibly important to me exactly because of that 'ugh, its all just going to end in whatever the DM planned' feeling and I firmly reject the idea that I am railroading :) Damnit I didn't want to post in these threads anymore but if I don't it feels so bloody onesided.

I edited my text above Mouse. You and I are saying the same thing (as far as the important stuff is concerned) we just aren't saying it the same way. No more posts from me, promise. Dead horse and all :)

Jason Z. said: -snipped- Thanks for passing on the tips, and the links. That's good info.

Like many, I used to have major league preset storylines with huge beautiful prescripted events and big speeches and ... and.... and...... blah... blah... yeah no. 5ish years ago, I checked myself into rehab for that. Now, I'm down to an outline, with 5 Major plot points. No more. If my players discover the plot points? HALLELUJAH I GET TO TELL MY STORY!!!! If not? Well, I'll throw Dragons at them until they figure something out, or die hysterically. I try to prep battles and NPCs... but I'm a glutton for punishment and have that one guy in my campaign who wants to punch everyone ( Shout out Jason F.) so I just sip my coffee, eat my Xanax out of my pez dispenser, squeeze my stress ball, and pray that my OCD doesn't cause me to have an aneurysm before the session is over. You don't get to argue with the writer of the book about how the book reads. You can choose when to put it down and when to pick it up, but aside from that you're on the pain-train brother. A better example would be: You turned on the game, now sit back, do some side quests, AND PLAY MY STORY DAMNIT. I'm considering a playmodel for future campaigns with a persistent world where the story is gonna happen with or without their input, it's just a lot to wrap the brain around and trying to find a way to deliver news to PC's is more troublesome than you'd think (i.e. "a town crier is running a few streets over shouting while you sit in the tavern enjoying your mead. Roll for listen...... natural 1..... YOU DROWN IN YOUR MUG BECAUSE YOU WERE TOO INTENT ON TRYING TO LISTEN THOUGH YOU DON'T HAVE EARS) (i.e. 2: "As you're coming down the stairs from your room in the tavern, you pass two seedy looking fellows discussing something in whispers. Roll for listen..... NATURAL 1... ... WELP.... They notice you trying to listen in on their conversation and draw weapons. Roll init.") I feel that if I just "give" them the information, it's too.... well, it's too choo choo for my tastes. You want the gold? Get on that corner and WORK IT GIRL!