On Meaningless Detail, GM Entertainment and Low Prep Play

I used to be quite fond of elaborate site-based stories, webs of character interaction and other ways to flesh out the setting to that PCs to travel hither and thither. Consequently, I loved buying setting material, published adventures and the like.

Then I realized it served almost no useful purpose.

One of the criticisms levelled at metaplots are that it appeals to people who are in it to read about games instead of run them. There’s certainly some truth to this, but it applies at least as much to traditional adventures and static settings.

When you run a game in the conventional style, most of the setting or site is “backstage.” The PCs won’t have any meaningful interaction with lots and lots of the existing material of anything written close to published standards. As GM, you’re supposed to buy into the whole thing because that way you can use the material no matter where the characters actually go. These days, this makes about as much sense to me as buying a casino so that you can win at the slots.

Having pruned back my prep to a an hour or two on the day of play (and notes afterwards), I’ve noticed virtually no gap in quality. I’ve been thrown for the occasional loop, but for the most part my typical game prep is:

1-2 pages of possible plot arcs and trivia for the whole campaign — general brainstorming.
1-2 pages of setting.
1-2 pages/session
a page of notes.

I often skimp on some of these. There are times when the group wants to sit and talk in character, or explore one “bit” in greater detail. Occasionally I go back and rewrite something when the players do something that demands it.

I suspect that many, many games work like this. Why, then, is this GMing style never really represented? Simple: all that other crap exists to entertain him/her in addition to everything else.

There are lots of other examples. Most NPC stats don’t really matter much unless you’re into hardcore tactical play (and must be “fair”). I suspect that barking about metaplot mostly comes from GMs who find it more entertaining to read adventures. They’re just two different genres of entertainment for the GM.

Theory about low prep play is pretty lousy, since it’s either lumped in with railroading (often by folks who exalt dungeoneering, where characters are literally mapped onto a chart of activities, or “Narrative” types who bludgeon the players with hard-coded genre) or feared because it requires improv skills and confidence that people prefer to replace with academic discourse. As I’ve mentioned before, gamers find discussing improv skills so distasteful that it has to be diluted into lame GMing advice to be at all palatable.

I believe that academic approaches are useful, but the problem highly structured theory has here is that it circumscribes useful tactics. If a player has a cooler idea than me about how to resolve a dilemma, I’m able to choose whether or not the narrative payoff would be more fun than being strict about the challenge. But from what I’ve read that’s like, “Crossing the streams,” d00d, because it autocratically shifts play in favour of an allegedly incoherent play agenda.* This is easy in low-prep mode because there’s just not as much stuff contingent upon how something plays out or where it fits. As long as I don’t contradict myself (and check my session notes!) I’m good to change my mind.

There’s more to be said about low prep. I’ll get back to it some time. Right now I’m tightening up my command of the Awakening rules for the con.

* Goddamn, I wish that this kind of writing would treat players as people who have a friendly social relationship instead of as an ant farm or folks in need of guidance counselling. I should write something some time about the “implicit GM” I find in lots of RPG writing, including that which advocates changing the GM/player structure.