For those who prepare, I can see how much they care about the game.
Work is work, and when the evidence is there, it's hard to argue that
there has been some tender, love, and care in making a great game
happen. I think the strength of these DM's lies in their maps, puzzles,
complex battle sequences, etc. Down side? Perhaps overly complex systems
and frigidity can create an environment that stifles the players.For the "on the spot" DM's, some upside may be their proven expertise of the game. Knowing the rules and mechanics of the game well enough to roll with the punches as they come creates an organic style of play that is both respectable and impressive. Some strengths, in my perspective, lies in these DMs' abilities to role play NPCs more effectively and validate players freedom to "do what they want". I think some problems arise when the impromptu results don't add up over time to something meaningful to the story/ environment of the game/ preferred environment of the players. Plus, it's easy to blur the lines of an impromptu DM and a lazy one.
Your thoughts?
As a DM who walks the line between the two styles you mentioned, I very much agree. I try to make a very detailed world as a solid background to work off of, which assists both impromptu and planned DMing. It worked well with my pirate game, and most of the problems with that game was based on the fact that there was ten players. -Green
ReplyDeleteThe best pen and paper RPGs are ones in which the players help shape the narrative and the world. Best pre-prep IMO is discussion about what players want to do in a game (ie: what a character is like).
ReplyDeleteA DM that is sufficiently prepared is a DM that I would like to play under. At least when going through a campaign. There is a certain forethought and vision that is required to construct and maintain a campaign. I do not think that players can get invested in a world that is inconsistent in it's content. However, "on the spot" DM shines when it comes to one-shot games. With one-shots, the DM and the players can have a good bit of fun. Players don't know what to expect and they won't leave the table with any expectations due to them possible never coming back to this setting again. (Or at least for a good while)
ReplyDeleteA fantastic issue Snow, and a great point by Mr. Rodriguez! I am personally torn on the matter. I always prefer to play under the prepared DM, the one who knows their world inside and out, and who has prepared enough outside of the immediate scope of game to be able to catch the inevitable curveballs thrown by his players.
DeleteBut I know for a fact that several of the most enduring, ongoing plot points in most games were on the spot inventions. One of my most sinister villains and one of my best, most engaging dungeons were invented impromptu. (Points to Mr. Rodriguez if he can pick out which they are. :D)
I think that the middle road leaning more on the prepared is by far the best DMs. I tried my best to serve as that example (or warning depending on a given week) and have been blessed by getting to see many of the folks I introduced as adults to the game become excellent DMs. Probably in spite of me, but either way I'm reaping the rewards and the good feels.
Being in the middle is the best way to DM. One day I hope to be that kind of story teller. I lean towards the "on the spot DM". I have changed a lot though from the last time I have DMed a game. I can tell the story and keep the players entertained throughout the game. What I am bad at is giving players crazy detailed maps, handouts and the kitchen sink. What I try to do is just tell a good story and hope to give some escape to my players.
ReplyDelete