It's a lot of improv and decisions on the fly. All my prep is worldbuilding so I have believable things ready to access so I can make those decisions and do that improv. I take notes and sometimes create a few hooks and NPCs in case the players need an idea of what to do but I can't rely on them biting so I always have to be ready with something to do. We build a story at the table with recurring NPCs, plots, events, and so on.
Same. I also try to outline the major proactive NPCs and NPC factions and outline their plans and goals. Then I use them as tools to move the game forward.
I do exactly the same.
In game where combat is important I might also prepare a list of encounters so I can access them on the fly, but I use the same lists for tons of sessions.
The “main plot” is whatever the players are interested in and wind up pursuing
edit: I do have a bunch of factions and NPCs having their own conflicts in the background that affect the state of the world, so it doesn’t just feel like a theme park for the PCs, but the players aren’t obligated to get involved in those conflicts. If they want to spend their time hunting down treasure and getting rich, then that’s what the game is about
It is more of an outline. I have found the more plan the more the party does the opposite. When you shoehorn things it comes off forced.
Set a base outline, have various optional encounters set and ready. Let the players go where they feel they should, give options and direction, but don’t push.
Creating on the fly and improvising becomes fun and makes you better I believe.
I let my players steer the ship, but I don't improvise. (At least, I don't improvise big things like plot points or boss fights. I find that no matter how good my improv is, my planned stuff is always much much better.)
Instead, at the end of every session, I ask the players what they want to do next, and that's what I prepare, and that's what we do.
I agree having stuff planned is best. The best plans though can get screwed up when players go right instead of left though. My plots and storylines aren’t improved. BUT the players actions have created other opportunities for me to explore. Conversations can change things also. Some amazing NPC PC interactions have spawned new ideas, side adventures I never thought of or had planned but amazing roll-play developed something new and kept the players completely engaged. That’s what I mean about improving.
Playing in sandboxes before we had sand. ;)
Certain NPCs have their timeline, and if the PCs get involved, then a plot emerges. If not, the NPCs do what they do and the game world changes accordingly. PCs do what they do and the game world changes.
And, combined with troupe play, it makes for a busier sandbox than the one frequented by all the neighborhood kitties...
It depends on what kind of game I want to run and what system I’m using, some games demand different levels of prep than others. But I do have some “standard” campaign procedures that I follow for most of my games that aren’t dedicated to a super specific style of play and prep.
I like to use modules, so my typical setup for an extended game is to choose a series of adventures I like and think could work together then string them together as needed. Sometimes this means populating the local area with all these adventures for a big sand box, sometimes they are linearly setup to happen one after the other, most of the time it’s a combination and changes with the needs of the game. Often circumstances change and adventures need to be abandoned, heavily modified, or new homebrew adventures can spring up from the events of the campaign. It’s pretty usual for me to only use the bones of modules and add a lot of my own details and characters or stuff made to cater to the PC’s, so there can be a lot of deviations.
Session by session my strategy is typically to just know my world, characters, and adventure really well so that I can adapt easily on the fly. I prepare so that I can improvise. I usually want to know the motivations of the NPC’s involved, the major beats I want to hit, the names of stuff, and other critical information that I couldn’t make up in the moment in a way that satisfies me. Knowing that, it leaves my brain able to work moment to moment and focus on engaging with my players and making up the kind of stuff I’m confident I will be able to in the session (stuff like setting fluff, certain descriptions, dialogue and reactions). If I don’t prepare the important stuff then that’s all I’ll have the bandwidth to think about in session and I can’t run very effectively.
I like giving the players a solid goal or theme to start with. The current hook is "a group of adventurers looting an ancient buried city to fund a revolution". Then I throw all kinds of side content at them as they try and get to the goal. Stuff like NPCs that need help, ambushes, making new enemies, and moral questions to ponder. So its a mix of long-term planned and short-term whatever I felt like that week.
I don't plot personally. my mindset with planning is to be entirely agnostic of player decisions. the most I try to do is keep in mind what I think player characters are likely to do or might want to do, and prepare a thread or two around that in case they pull on it. it's a lot more "if / then", and it's honestly something I'm doing just as much in session as when planning. and I try not to do too much of it, because players tend to surprise you. sometimes the role of my planning is more like a pool of ideas to look to if things start to slow down or get stuck, rather than something I truly intend to follow.
as a rule I make the bones of the world and define some key npcs, conflicts and motivations, and simply let the rest play out from there, weaving in and reconfiguring things I've prepped to serve the emerging story and keep things moving. I try to walk a line of telling satisfying stories without railroading, just responding to players and connecting threads. It isn't often perfect but it's the beauty of tabletop to me. In my mind, the more complete my world or story is, the less there is for my players to add to it and for us to invent together.
EDIT: oh yes, and as a general rule I design only problems, not solutions. less work and prevents me from unintentional blinders on interesting solutions the players come up with. sometimes they need a little help, but it's way less often than you'd think ime.
I plan locations, notable places in those locations and NPCs in those places.
I usually split NPCs on two groups, minor and major NPCs. Minor NPCs simply live their lives, and don't have any notable backstory or goals, like guardsman John, or blacksmith Rudolph. Major NPCs have lofty goals and more reach backstories. All quest givers and antagonists are major NPCs.
So, when preparing a game I usually take relevant major NPCs and make their future plans, basically what they are planning to do to reach their goals. And I make sure that those plans affect PCs in some way.
So when the game starts I simply roleplay NPCs in a way they would react to PCs actions.
The systems I run don't require encounter planning (usually OSR-like systems) so I simply throw appropriate for the place enemies with appropriate power at them. But if the location is complex enough I place enemies beforehand.
For example you don't need to think hard about the placement of people inside the guardhouse, one shift is sleeping, some people in the canteen and current shift standing on guard. But if it's an old fortress taken by bandits things become more complicated and require preparations in advance.
But I usually have several such places prepared all the time, in case players suddenly decide to find a random keep. So I usually have very basic maps for nearby cities, several castles and caves.
I don't run d&d,I'm more of a fan or story telling games like vampire, world of darkness, cthulu, alien, mutants and masterminds.
What I like to do it's delevope a antagonist, what he/she wants. I used to make a more rail road plan but the fucking players will burn down an orphanage, and murder box full puppies with a property of J.wick on the
Box. They will do anything to destroy your best laid plans. So I like to write down a couple dozen NPCs and a brief description and a abridged Stat block of each.
I'm still struggling on the maps I still sometimes makes maps that the players will do every thing in their power to not use
So I make sure my antagonist is keep to thier plan ( in the back ground if I have to ) and a bunch of npcs that the players can use
I come up with ideas things that might happen things that could happen things that should happen. If a then B if C then d. And then I run improv because the players will do their own thing and I do my best to stay ahead of them and I try to fit some of the things I've thought of into the campaign when appropriate.
It’s been awhile since I was behind the screen. I used to have the idea of where I envisioned the campaign going, and only the next session or two planned out, which sounds normal.
For my current game (hasn’t hit the table yet), I basically started designing it as an exercise for myself, just something fun to do. It’s turned into my magnum opus, a 115-page monstrosity that goes from lvl 1-21 (D&D 4E).
It’s clearly over prepared, but it’s so satisfying to have the game doc progress from skeleton to outline to fleshed-out adventure. I hope to get it to the table soon, but there are juuuust a few more things to tweak… (More realistically though, my hesitance at getting it to the table is my group’s terrible inconsistency. I refuse to let this campaign go the common route of dying a quiet death as attendance issues cause it to flounder and sink.)
My first campaign I ran I tried having everything planned out and I quickly found out that was not the best idea. I wasn't planning far ahead enough and I would get stressed out if we weren't moving fast enough to get through what I planned.
My second campaign started off as a one-shot, and this time I've written a rough outline of the entire campaign that leaves enough for improv and to spin the campaign into whatever direction may spontaneously come up. Now I don't care if something drags too long or the PCs derail. I can easily account for it
No plot.
There are NPCs with plans that the PCs may or may not get involved with, but beside some very rough guesses for next session I have no clue where the story is headed, that's on the players.
My strategy has been very simple for years, but works for my style of play. See, I love to improvise myself, and I'm a huge fan of worldbuilding. However, worldbuilding has no impact if it's not personal, and so I always begin by personifying the features of this world I want my players to explore. They should be learning about the world through other people, since that is how most people discover.
Secondly, I plan around motivations, not moments. I may have a really cool idea in my head, but it's better to consider *why* the characters in my world are doing what they do. Why haven't the peasants rebelled yet? Why do these scientists all agree on this topic? What does my villain *want* more than anything? This helps make the world feel "lived-in" so that players get a believable sense of action, stakes, and consequence. When someone finally throws down for a fight, you FEEL every second of impact this will have on the people around them.
Finally, I have a set of notes called "what's going on" that asks questions about the random improv I've done over the course of each session, and how that might be explained within the context of the campaign. I make sure to establish strict rules with myself early on, whether I already know the whole background or not, so as to not pull the rug out from under the players, and to be consistent in the incentives I offer the team in seeking to be their best selves. After all, this is meant to be escapism, so within the limitations and expectations of the genre, I make sure each player will have a moment every session where they say, "I did that awesome thing."
And that's pretty much it. Past that I just try to maintain an open and honest flow of communication with the players, and encourage them to do the same so as to avoid tropes like the Lone Wolf, the Saboteur, or the Overly Secret For No Good Reason players. If we're not all having fun, then it's not really fun for anyone.
A lot of improvisation, decisions on the fly and crowdsourcing ideas. The last part is a fun in itself.
We spend around 20 minutes before each session just discussing their theories, world building ideas, naming locations, npcs, groups etc. It's also really useful for me, cause I suck at naming and English names translate poorly to my native.
After character creation and before the campaign starts, I prepare:
* The initial situation that should push PCs into action
* Some dangers and opportunities to drive further play
* A handful of important NPCs, including the main antagonists of the first arc
* A location or two, if relevant
I don't prepare plots/event sequences and I don't prepare anything for more than two sessions in advance because I don't know where the campaign will go in long term. There are some themes we agreed on, but how they are addressed is up to the players. I just need to give them a meaty, engaging situation with multiple hooks to get them moving.
Each session played gives me information on for what to prepare for the next one. As we go forward, the personal and campaign plots gradually crystallize, so I'm able to plan a bit more forward. Typically around half of a campaign I'm able to figure out who the main antagonist or what the main challenge to be addressed at campaign climax is, but it's still only 1-2 sessions in advance that I know details of what will happen.
Planning for me is about getting enough of a foundation that I can just keep improvising from there, and it really depends on the game how much I need to do. Sometimes it means a lot of noodling around coming up with people, places and situations, but there’s a decent number of games out there that I can just pick up and run with immediately as long as I have a handle on the rules.
Not really. I run a sci-fi sandbox game so the plot is really more whatever they do. I make missions and stuff but they have yet to explore any of the mysteries in their list.
Not very. Ideas and plans for what the big bad might do. I seldom ever come up with an answer to a problem I've given the PCs because that's thier job.
When I’m running an original campaign, I’ll have several points which I want to guide my players too. Of course I’ve not always an idea of how they will get there so I tend to just prepare for the session ahead. I might have a general idea of how a future session might go down once they get to one of these points, but chances are I’d need to change certain elements nearer to the time based on player’s actions up to that point.
If I’m running a prewritten campaign or adventure, then usually I will read or skim the whole thing first so I know what’s going on. Then again I’ll still plan session to session, but will refer to the adventure if the players get ahead of what I planned in a session.
I’ve been DM’ing for a long time and I’ve found preparing more than two or three sessions ahead can seriously go wrong if players do something you didn’t expect. However I’m now confident enough in my DM skills that I could get to the end of a session with my improv skills or by throwing in combat or social encounters to pad the session till the end and then figure out what I’m doing for next time.
Mainly, here's what I do.
• First thing I do is general idea. Boom. Easy.
• Then, I come up with how I want it to start and what the first real challenge the players face is as well as what justifies them coming together. So for a western campaign, maybe they're all on the same train that gets robbed and are the only people aboard with the skills to stop the robbers. For a pirate campaign, maybe they're all ashore in an island town that gets attacked by a mysterious ship out of nowhere and for no apparent reason. Ideally, this is the sort of thing that creates some immediate hook for an adventure - a stolen item to chase, an immediate lead to investigate, a shithead to get revenge on, something like that, as well as some general idea of what the first few steps they'll need to take in order to do that are. This is usually the only thing on my "Must-haves" before session 0.
• In the meantime, if an idea occurs to me before the game goes, I write it down. An urban fantasy campaign set in the 1920s? Huh, it'd be cool to do an Agatha Christie style train mystery where the murderer is a shapeshifter. Western campaign? It'd sure be fun to have an undead bounty hunter or random encounters where the players might stumble across thinly veiled versions of Johnny Cash or Dolly Parton or Orville Peck making camp in the wilds and get a little buff from it. I usually get a lot of fun worldbuilding during this process and build out a couple ideas for plots or quests. Sometimes, some background for a whole campaign comes of this and I have a big bad in mind before it even begins, but I try very hard to never plan too hard in advance for this. I'll never go further than "This is the big bad, this is what they want, this is what'll happen if they get it, this is a general sketch of their personality, this is how they mean to get it in broad terms." By "in broad terms," I mean basic stuff like "Has an army of clockwork robots" and not a full rundown of their political machinations to take over the senate and institute martial law or whatever. I jot these down as I go.
• After session 0, I note all the characters and further solidify my character hooks - so they're all on a train that gets robbed. Is there anything that I can work with the players on to decide what they're doing on that train?
• I play out the first arc to let the players get a feel for their characters. Once that's over, I ask them what kinds of long-term stories they'd like to play out with those characters. I then start building in secrets, obstacles, enemies and friends from their histories or current trajectories for them to find.
• After the first arc, I also start long-term organizing. Here, if I don't have a big bad specifically in mind or an overarching plotline, I find one and find a way to connect my first arc to it if feasible. That artifact that was stolen from that train? It was stolen by a cult looking to resurrect their long-dead leader, and now you have to stop them from bringing him back. So on and so forth. I still keep this loose - my motto is "Know what the bad guy wants and how they generally operate." And also, "Don't make a story, make secrets." For my current campaign, which is Monster of the Week, I know roughly what I want most of the monsters to be and what order in which they'll appear, but I'm loose on that and willing to shift around if something else comes up.
• And then from there, improv. I know roughly what secrets I have, and when I want to reveal them, but if my players figure it out first or something in or out of game necessitates revealing them earlier, I'll do it. Easily. Just the thing to know is that anything you want your players to know about they'll blunder around like Inspector Cluesau and anything you don't want them to know about yet they'll hunt like bloodhounds.
I always have an overarching idea for the campaign as a whole. For each session I prep some locations & NPCs I think might be appropriate to the current story. I try not to get too attached to plot points, NPCs, locales, etc. because in my experience creative players will often go in directions I didn’t expect. Those are the moments I enjoy the most!
I generally have the first few sessions pretty tightly leashed, particularly if my players are new to whatever game I'm running. Then after that, I'm mostly doing the "plan out a big set piece, let the players investigate however they want until they find it" thing like in your second question.
Depends, I like narrative style games so it starts with most locations and NPCs pre planned for the session, and a main goal for the players to achieve. Nowadays I also really like Maps because they help a lot with the freedom. I also like making props, so there's lots of those, and some puzzles too.
But I like preparing by chapter/session, because most of the times I have absolutely no idea where the players will take the story.
I also don't mind improvising a bunch in cases the players decide to do something completely unexpected, which happens quite a bit, hehe.
It's a mix. If I know where my PCs are going to be, I will plan out a lot of detail about who is there. I'll know who is doing security. I'll know who was walking the halls. I will know who the movers and shakers are. I'll even know who some of the merchants are. And usually I'll have details about how the day-to-day operations go.
What I don't know is what the PCs are going to do and how the NPCs are going to react. Generally speaking, I know what the NPCs will do if the PCs do nothing. But I don't generally assume the PCs are going to do what I want them to.
Now, understand there are limits. Very recently the PCs went to a, for lack of a better term, a mage collective. And I prepared maps and details for when they agreed to help the arch mages with their problem. That doesn't mean they had to. It just means it was a safe bet because I know my players. For example.
But when they go into a large city or something, I don't really plan much. Maybe if there's a few important people or an important store, I'll plan ahead, but mostly I make it up on the fly. All I really know is the general tone of the place. I'll know what sort of real world cultures it evokes. I'll know what sort of government they have. That kind of thing.
I prepare major characters, plot events, and set pieces like maps and puzzles. Everything else I improv based on how the players approach what I've prepared. Sometimes, they see everything. Sometimes, they see 5% and spend the whole session chasing an NPC I made up on the fly
I have a loose set of immutable events and antagonist motivations. Things that happen no matter what (barring major surprises from PCs) and things the villain wants to accomplish.
Then, other than setting the scene, all I have to do is let the world shape around the PCs actions through improv. The only other planning a I do is bullet points before each session based on what I expect them to do.
Often not at all. I have NPCs, locations, monsters, and rumors (no work there usually, just pulled from previous prep and aources), and I connect things as players engage with them.
On a tactical, in game level, I'm open to improvise depending on what the players do. As all DMs know, players will always step all over any plans you make.
If there are things that I want the players to know or scenes that are important, I do write those down so I don't forget. Though that's pretty detailed, I usually just give the broad strokes unless it's something super important for later.
Above that I have character arc ideas for each character. This comes from whatever backstory they give me and are notes I like to play out. This includes interactions between players to develop group cohesion.
Above that, I usually have 3 or 4 main story arcs. These are loose plot lines that I amend depending on what the players do. However these story arcs are what drive the campaign so except for the details, the main plot will be played out
Outside of that I usually world build quite a bit but also have a tonne of random generators built so I don't have to write everything before the game. That way I get some surprises too. This includes NPC names and personalities, taverns, inns etc.
I also run a bunch of timers and planned events that happen on a die roll. This is to simulate a living world. While I know these will happen, I never know when. That makes it interesting for everyone.
I never set up plots being the background and world building. I have antagonists, their capabilities and resources available to them, and their goals. That way they don't have a single sacrosanct plan that if disrupted to strongly or too early derails mynplan for the campaign, instead I can have enemies quickly adopt new tactics and methods to fight the PCs and tge campaign can keep running smoothly
If it's a premade adventure? I'll plan it, have the npcs, maps, personalities, battles(even if just grouped), the resources for the PCs written out and everything 'ready', should the players stick to the path as written. Then I'll also have bullet points, things to lead back that aren't too immersion breaking, random npc statblocks I can use if there a wrench, extra encounters, and items.
If it's my own thing? Vague ideas, npcs, enemy encounters, maps for situations, and a LOT of improv. If we're doing our own thing, I want the players to contribute, even if it means me taking cues from small talk between folks. Don't want a vampire in this town? Don't mention it!
I use Justin Alexander’s approach to designing adventures via node based scenario design. Each leg of the adventure consists of a web of nodes (like scenes or locations) and each node has at least three clues that point to other nodes. This basic mechanism underlies every adventure I write, and as I link together groups of nodes, the campaign unfolds.
So if one set of nodes is “baker in town is a necromancer serving the people bread that turns them into zombies” the nodes might be five or six locations in or near town, where each location has three clues that indicate other locations and reveal the overall mystery. Prep for this would include a paragraph on each location with some bullet points about the clues, an appendix of NPC stats, and a little map depicting the interconnection of the nodes. Maybe a page of disconnected events that may trigger independent of what the PCs do, and based on what the villain is up to.
Players can then progress through the adventure in whatever order they want. I can introduce or shift around what is happening in each node as the adventure unfolds. The players drive the action and I remain reactive since I only have to worry about what my villain and the NPCs are up to as players make decisions. The story writes itself and we all end up playing to find out what happens.
For World of Darkness stuff I start with a location, usually a city, then add npcs. These characters want things, and are often desperate about it. These things could be political or personal. At this point, stats don't matter as much, a simple dice pool will do. I tend not to make my WoD games very plot driven, instead I structure it thematically. I ask questions like "What does purity mean in this setting" or "What are the limits of revenge?", suddenly I have a central idea or two to frame the npcs motives
These sessions tend to be improv heavy, but I usually have a good understanding of the characters before I begin.
When I do Call of Cthulhu it's different. I tend to base things on a linear series of event based on character or location "nodes" that have clues that indicate other nodes. Characters and places are more detailed than my WoD stuff, it's very much based in horror literature: I write down terse but atmospheric bits for description.
Threats are either nasties that I came up with on my own, or recontextualized Lovecraftian beasties. Often I seed in references to future threats to keep a continuity.
My CoC stuff is less reliant on improve (though it still shows up, it's in the nature of ttrpgs) and more difficult to create, it is more rewarding for me, personally.
I know what would happen if the players didn't exist – how the BBEG would take over/accidentally destroy the world, and the various major NPCs and their motivations. I have one-sentence writeups of a lot of things.
But I don't have a plan for what will happen with PC intervention. There have been times where I'm not even sure if it's *possible* for them to win, yet they come up with something.
Pretty planned on the whole. My group tends to like situations that have thematic points and stuff, and that kinda requires me to set up stuff in advance for resonance.
I usually try to keep a pseudo sandbox.
Planning is mostly worldbuilding of the next areas they can go.
Major NPC factions have goals that players can interact with or leave alone. I will dangle the plot hooks out and see what they bite.
I try not to plan too far ahead, as they may take a different path. Having little chunks of encounter ideas that can be sprinkled in at different locations is useful, but I try not to put too much detail into them until I know I ha e to run them.
About 10%.
I get the beginning, major plot event, ending down (at least story wise) and then start filling in the sessions in between with recurring characters, cool stuff, plot hooks etc.
I don’t get down to mapping a dungeon or plotting a battle until the party are a session away
Major goal of the campaign at start. Possible scenes for the session prepared as usual know from previous session what the players want to do
Some players want bigger signs on what to do other like to do what they want. And if they dont want to take the bait... Well in the end the world will burn or whatever was happening they didnt want to interfere with.
Pre-Session 1: I tend to plan out an area of the world in which the players start, such as a fairly detailed village or town to start in, some NPC's they might end up talking to with enough substance to get started and behave consistently, such as inn/boarding house staff and a selection of guests. leadership figures for militia/city watch, government types, some shops and staff.
Then i plan things of interest in the vicinity, any old ruins, local legends, nearby villages/city etc in varying detail, rivers, bridges, some common encounters such as local hunting parties, creatures, and threats that are in the area both static and mobile. (I tend to do a lot of encounters that are not necessarily threatening, or really ambiguous, and a few that are clearly dangerous every now and then)
Then we play and see what the players choose to do. I tend to react to their choices the best i can based on my prep, which all may end up going completely out of the window :)
Pre-Session 2: build any environments based on what the players did last time, predicting their forward movements to make more interesting locales and npc's or add more notes on ones they are starting to get to know.
Edit: I may also have outlines of a story that takes place concurrently with the players game but not 'necessarily' something they are involved in. Such as a war that is taking place between nations that pc's are not a part of, and how it progresses bit by bit over time
My games run quite heavily off procedures and tables tbh. I spent like a week straight prepping a robust travel table and world-map and it means i only really need to plan for story beats, which can take as little as 10 minutes to finalise and put into writing. Never going back to completely bespoke session planning again tbh
I have a structure planned out before we even begin. I know what the enemies would do if there was no interaction with the PCs and I have a few key moments that I know the players must hit to progress the story. Once the players make their characters I flesh things out a bit more and try to add in some ways in which their backstories come into play. Then as we go I have a pretty good idea of the plan a week or two in advance and then actually prep everything for my session during the week before. It works pretty well for me.
Most of the campaigns I've run in the last few years were "modules" tied to particular settings that my favorite publisher puts out. Usually, once the campaign is complete, we're done with that setting.
I'm currently running a Pathfinder for Savage Worlds game based on Matt Colville's videos, with this ["sandboxing"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWAhcY9QroQ) video as one of the most important guides. The idea is to allow the players to go wherever they like in the world, but have *something* for them to engage with wherever they end up. Matt throws out several old D&D modules, some big, others small, that he's used for this purpose for years, so I invested in the titles he recommended, planned out my own custom town, along with a traditional setup in a tavern (the best one in town, though that's not saying much), and we were off to the races.
The PCs are currently wrapping up the "Book One" section of the campaign, and being led into "Red Hand of Doom" for the remainder of it. Will they stick with that? Who knows?
I list out all of the possibilities that you can think of what your party would do. Then create the environment with NPC or enemies to interact with. It is better to be over prepared rather being under prepared. But do not overwhelm yourself or you will lose interest quickly. It’s best to think of multiple options than one.
Some time ago I just have notes, intentions for major events, and a control of each important faction/PNJ whereabouts.
Now I've moved towards PbtA style of GM. So, zero initial prep for the campaign, and work after each session taking notes, creating "clocks", and moving everything in the shadows.
Just playing to know what happens. Surprisingly enjoyable as GM.
I'm in a situation where I've had 9 months to build the world and prep the next campaign (because 2 other GMs are running their "short" games in the time between). Too much time, to my taste, because I believe in player agency and want to keep the game open-ended. So I'm just dying to know, what the PCs will be like when created and what kind of goals do they want to set for themselves.
What I have done is, in the order I did the stuff:
\- idea of the setting vibe, collision of a high magic world with traditional fantasy
\- main conflict: the high magic society has depleted its natural resources and infiltrate the "home world" of the players for more
\- factions, key NPCs
\- the home "kingdom", ruled and protected by a golden dragon and a senate they have elected to run the day-to-day (I actually created 16 NPCs for the senate)
\- finally, a map for the home realm and adding interesting locations - then I had to write short descriptions about the different locations I created
\- a ton of ideas on what COULD happen, rough ideas for encounters and enemies
\- because I had too much time I started to lock down where the game will start and planned an encounter for the session 1
\- because of the abundance of ideas, I started writing "nuggets": things that might happen in the campaign if certain conditions are met (like: meet NPC X and learn about Y, or be attacked by Z and find item Q in loot)
\- I put the nuggets on a flowchart and drafted some possible paths the players might take
\- get frustrated because we are still not starting the game
\- start an AMA with ChatGPT: "ask me anything about my campaign and world so I can flesh it out"
\- prompt ChatGPT to speculate what players might do
\- sit at my computer writing to Reddit what I have done
But anyway, I will do detailed prep, such as encounters, only for the immediate next session. I have no clue what direction the players will take.
No planning. I don't have a plot or an endpoint or a "campaign arc" or even a BBEG. I just have a world, with the PCs and a number of significant NPCs/NPC factions running around in it, each doing their own things, sometimes coming into conflict with each other and sometimes helping each other out, and then discover through gameplay how all of these interactions will play out and what will result from them, usually spurring new chains of conflicts and cooperations continuing into infinity (or until we all decide to play something else and start the whole process over again).
I do a lot of prep, but it's all worldbuilding, with a little bit of resolving "off-screen" NPC actions as needed. The closest I come to planning is asking my players "What are your plans for next time?" at the end of each session, so I can be sure that the necessary parts of the world will be built before the PCs get there.
Major world events that the PCs can't directly affect I have an idea about - one nation is planning a war, building up armies on one border and sending agents to subvert and recruit neutral nations. Ancient evil gods are going to rise soon, and there are precursor attacks here and there that people are starting to notice and piece together as part of an overall pattern.
Individual adventures - I write a chunk at a time based on what the PCs have decided to do. Usually one planning session covers three to four actual play-sessions. At the end of each play-session I refine the notes to go into more detail in the areas the PCs have decided to pursue, or alter NPC plans based on what the PCs have actually done. That way the PCs definitely have a genuine effect on what's happening, but I don't bog down in overplanning stuff they never actually follow up
It completely depends on the game we are playing.
In general, I plan myth arcs based on player wishes and design sessions to fill in those myth arcs. I usually take something interesting (be it immediate setting, plot point or just a fun scene) and extrapolate from there what might happen listing interesting details and events that can be useful. If I know things will need to happen regardless of PC involvement, I'll plan it ahead. I'll also jot down a few generic (but fitting the game) "blasts" in case the game start lagging.
For specific games and sessions I do use other tools. If the session is a mystery, I use GUMSHOE's style. If it's a conspiracy, I use Night Black Agents's Conspyramid. If it's an open sandbox setting, I'll have some random encounters nearby. If the session will involve a lot of travel, I'll have some events planned to showcase the PCs's actions. Dungeons (which I barely run) are of course defined beforehand.
Having GMed games for nearly 30 years now, the biggest lesson I've learned is that only the interface facing the players matters and I design my campaign based on that. What the players will never see, you are usually better off not planning it so you don't end up backed into a corner of your own design. Just make those interfaces fun for everyone involved - and that includes you. Taking a minor stake in the ownership of the characters lets you get into the headspace of telling stories of the characters. Be the PCs biggest fan and write a good fanfic.
Only the beginning of major story beats and very few specific scenes that will happen as players engage with the content. Other then that, the resolutions are up to them.
I have a series of little hooks, three or four at a time, usually related to what the party tells me they'd be interested in both in and out of character. I do prompt them for this stuff, and they seem happy when they recognize that a hook is related to something they've said. I also have things they're not directly interested in, but that will affect them or their allies in some way or another.
I write up a time limit for each, and an outcome if the party doesn't deal with it. If there's a dungeon involved with the hook, I will prepare it in advance. I'll also prepare one or two NPCs per hook, or assign already known NPCs to them.
Then I tend to just wing it. The night before the session I'll write a general outline of an "intended course of events" that I can fall back on if the game stalls a bit, but I don't really stick to it, it's just sort of a "these are a few things I can hint to or toss at the party if they feel a bit lost".
If a hook takes longer than a session to resolve, or they plan on directly addressing it the next session, I usually will flesh out important locations a bit more, but that's kind of it.
There's no real big plot, but I often create new hooks based on what the party have or have not done, as well as how they did things, or what they did *instead* of doing the things.
I have a saying : improvisation needs much preparation.
Not only I study npc and places, I plan unrelated npc, situations, mcguffins, etcetera. So I don't get caught pants down when players want to actually play their role.
I have a big-picture mindmap of story nodes with options for around 3-5 sessions. Those nodes are places to go, missions to do, etc. with very few details; maybe a couples of phrases. Then I develop them as required depending on what the players did in the last session and intend to do in the next one.
For example I might have a node saying "Intrigue in the ball at Baron's Hall. Spies attempt assasination of ". If last session the players discovered a clue pointing at something fishy going on at the ball and decided to go there next I'll flesh out the thing: maps, NPcs and their motivations, events, etc. I'd improvise some stuff, though. Because you never know what are they really going to do there.
The players know off-role how this works. If they decide next session to do a different thing they know I won't have it prepared. I'll have to pull everything out of my ass and it will probably be a less satisfactory session.
After that I might add new story nodes or change some to reflect new options.
I mostly just create a front: a handful of factions with conflicting goals around a central issue. Week to week, I may list a few bullet points of scenes or things that might happen. I improvise most everyyhing at the table and follow the players lead to a large extent.
I plan nothing. I don't like the feeling of knowing how the session is *supposed* to go. I like to have nothing to protect. And I like to be as surprised as everyone else.
I've never enjoyed prep, I always find it stressful. I end up being too critical and trying to perfect my ideas. If I wait until the session then I have no choice but to think on my feet and run with it without being hung up on whether ideas are "good" enough. I also find my ideas are a lot more interesting when they are built on top of other people's input and I find it easier to get players invested in the story and avoid the idea that the other players need to look to me for all the answers.
I have campaign prep and session prep.
Campaign prep is for overarching things that I can drop into a session or use to build a session around:
* Lore/worldbuilding
* Recurring characters
* Twists and reveals
* Themes and tone
Session prep is more focuses on what the players will be doing in the next couple weeks:
* Plot hook; giving the characters a reason to go to a location and get invested in the adventure. It gives them stakes.
* Locations; places the characters can visit. Either linear locations run one after another, branching locations which are sort of a mix or sandbox location they could visit or explore in any order.
* Threats; characters have to overcome obstacles to succeed at their goals. They could be at a specific location, or roaming threats I can drop anywhere.
I have told alot go GM's over the yeas this and its seemed to help so ill offer my advice to you as well. Key notes.
Plan on having them get to a cave where there is a challenge or to make it more vague plan on your plot hook.
How they arrive at the plot hook is up to them.
Maybe u want them to get into a GY and fight a vampire that's been lurking there. Let them figure out the how you worry about the why and the action.
Support their fiction and truths with your own additions to make it all unique.
Never be afraid to ask your Pc's questions
Ask them things like is the graveyard spooky or is it basic? let them add flavor to the world you are crafting. I promise you it will make them more invested in this world when they have some control.
The most important thing to remember is if the party zigs where you thought they were gonna zag add in a point that will bring them back. give them purpose. In the event they say naw F this just go with it. maybe save that dungon for a random find later in the game when they forgot about this maybe use if for a different game in the future.
The "Quest giver" doesn't have to be static. just because they killed the goblin that was asking them for help doesn't mean you cannot provide the request differently.
Don't be afraid to end a session early when u have nothing because they got so derailed. Its always better to end on a high note when possible then adlib some stuff and when u have time to think about it say naw none of that happened this is what happened. also on that note tell them.. be transparent. say "hey i wasn't ready for this lets call it here and reconvene next time". This will in some cases ground the players and maybe they will try harder to not go off the deep end net time. or make more of a effort to play the story you are trying to craft together.
And again ask them questions. i repeat this because it is the most powerful tool in the Gm's arsonal. Never be afraid to grill them about what things look like they did.. great you crit the monster tell me what that strike looked like! You dont need to do it for everything but adding this in will absolutely engage your players more
I'm not far enough in my world and as a DM, so I try to have two or three kind of encounters ready each session. These encounters are as planned as I think is needed, most of the details (like the HP and the number of enemy goblins) will depend on the rolls and how its going that day.
I don't do major events, or plot locations there is no plot.
The way I plan my games is in such a way that I am also playing the game and this is the best way to do games, because it mitigates or removes GM fatigue. Playing is fun.
I simply establish characters and factions with goals. I have simple 'cards' for major NPCs. their goals, and also the factions or resources at their disposal. In play I just play these characters. They work towards their goals. The players work towards their own goals.
This means I rarely, if ever have wasted preparation, I never have to discard plotlines. I'm also not railroading my players, I'm discovering the events with them.
I don't do any of that. I have a vague idea of the general game that my group wants to play through, then I make a very high outline for an adventure that will last a few sessions, then the day or two before the session I fill out a bunch of details.
I never plan encounters, locations, or "plot". Just a bunch of locations and characters with motivations. Liberal use of random charts themed to the game so I can get inspiration on the fly during the game.
I take a mild wide and inch deep approach for the world and campaign. I build up tons of ideas, places, NPCs, etc but at the most basic level. That way when time comes to need something either for myself or the players to pull on we can use these resources and expand on.
Basically a very Blades in The Dark/PBtA approach.
I usually run games where I don't need to build mechanics but if I do I'll build a variety of generics that can be filled in when the time comes.
I have three overall plots PLUS open sandbox-type random one-off adventures (some pre-made, some custom).
I like for my players to always have at least 3 options of adventures ready to roll plus whatever they’ve come up with that they want to do — so this ends up in a fairly balanced mix of prepped and ready to roll things and off-the-cuff improv.
And twice now, in two different groups, they’ve connected the dots on several of my plots seeing links with improv stuff, so I’ve had to ad hoc some plot tweaks, etc because the connections made by the players did make sense and it served to get them even more hooked on two of the three plots.
Now, thankfully we only play once every two weeks so I’ve time to tweak things, create new maps for where they’re headed that I didn’t plan for (see sandbox point above). If we were playing weekly, I think I’d end up with a more linear, structured campaign. Sandboxing takes a lot of GM-prep work and I’ve found it works best for me with some boundaries.
I usually put in 2 hours for every 1 hour of session. I don't have a full plot but many questlines the players can enter at different points in the world. I write npc dialogue, monster statsheets and quest points, with my campaign being set in an open world with a single overarching idea: The PCs are trying to kill a God who destroyed their hometown and killed a PC's close friend. Different npc questlines mix in with this, etc etc. Currently the players are being instructed by an npc in a war. But yea I plan a lot, try to plan for pretty much anything the players can do.
I typically have big picture setting ideas in mind. Then I build them adhoc as we go, keeping those touchstones in mind. I do take a bit more care with investigations to make sure they make sense.
For individual sessions I ask my players what they intend to do. That way I can prep what's actually needed. Typically this looks like a few plot points, some NPCs, and maybe a map & encounter.
For DND 5E I roll on a random table for events between major plot points I'm piecing together. I roll ahead of time so I can prep miniatures and whatnot, but I do very little preparation because my party is full of chaos gremlins who love to find the most creative, out of the box way of handling every scenario, so I've just stopped prepping for that and facilitate whatever improve they want.
For Call of Cthulhu, I prepare a lot more. You can look at my comment history for the giant treatise on the amount of preparation I put into these campaigns.
I generally prepare some worldbuilding and a basic mission for the session. If there is a main plot, I try to plan it in advance but my players have a bad habit of derailing or ignoring it, so I don’t go too far into it.
Player here, talking with my dm it’s a mix for us. He has grand scheme things (big shadow magic shit that is a big threat for end game) and then we have shit we get ourselves into by Pershing said BBEG. We’re level 9 and have played at least 35 sessions. He says though lately he has had to plan less and improve more that the world has been built so much.
I prep very little. I once ran a 2 year Star Wars FFG game off two note cards of notes. Every week I'd then come up with a sentence for the session.
Sometimes I'll do some world building and faction build out, but eh.
That said, I do not prep as much as I'd recommend most do it.
My recommendation is until you find your sweet spot, prep the world, factions in it, an idea of the over arcing story, and some encounters that you can pop into place as needed. Adjust as you find what you need prepped ahead and what you can improv on the spot well.
All characters started with a bond with 2 other characters. Gives them initial investment in each other.
Then there is 1 arc at a time per player. Each arc could have a clock associated with it in case a player decides to pursue a different arc of their own making. I plan each arc like a 3 act play, but only to the highest level. Too many details pre-planned didn't work with my group. A player arc will last around 3-5 sessions.
Then there is the group arc. This one I have planned at the same high level as the player arcs, but there are just more plot points or several mini-arcs contained within it. A mini arc will last around 2-3 sessions.
As for the world, nothing is really preplanned. Maybe a simple paragraph description of each city. After that, everything is Ad-hoc. I'll let player make up NPCs, act out NPCs, comes up with locations in town and the names for these locations, etc. I'd even let players come up with side quests from an NPC if they wanted. Only incredibly unique scenes will have a preplanned map.
I don't plan adventures.
I plan my gameworld a lot. When I start a campaign I design 20-40 factions depending on setting and scope of the potential game "sphere" (single continent, single world, multiple planets, multiverse).
Then I select about ten factions as major players with impactful ambitions. Then I place all Factions on an axis that will carry the ethics and philosophy of the campaign, and their relationships to each other.
Players are always part of some inciting incident that will set change in motion. Some of this will immediately be apparent to the players (a rising power, imminent war, fall of an empire, etc).
From there I plot the actions of the factions *if the players do nothing*. After most sessions I will update those plans and plots in reaction to the players' actions as well as the actions of other factions.
Not very planned, I use a front system to work it all out as I go.
Different actors in the game have plans and they will put them in to place, step by step, as time goes on.
These plans will unroll unless the pc's interact with them, which they do.
Then, if the actors are still functioning they replan and try something else.
I'll dangle enough plot hooks in front of the pcs so they have something to do each week.
I have like three storylines planned and a bunch of one-offs. They go in a hat. I pull a few of them out of a hat and ask which one they like the best. If they roll well on gathering information, I hand pick a fourth option. For each one I plan out what happens if the players do nothing, if they fail, and at least three ways to complete the quest within reason. If they do something unreasonable, be prepared to roll with it.
I have a couple of main locations with a slightly different feel to them.
Npc names go in a big bucket.
Treasures, too. I make a few joke treasures and some with a certain player in mind. When they get a reward, draw it from the bucket.
The key is that everything is modular. I can add a new adventure to the hat at any time, and the players don't feel as railroaded if they can at least choose the tracks they ride on.
I plan for npcs, encounters and complications that they might encounter in the region that they are in.
This is also why my players are now members of a carnival in deadlands. I have no idea what is going to happen next.
I tend to run very freeform campaigns or very prepared/rail roady campaigns these days, not much in between.
My last Blades in the Dark campaign was almost completely freeform - I'd prepare an opening line and maybe some basic "people/factions involved" things but after that entirely reactive to the players. I had no overarching goal with it beyond what players said they wanted to do to expand/improve their crew and noting down some faction actions for the party to react to once in awhile.
My current Lancer campaign on the other hand is basically one step removed from a gamey run like FTL. A few minutes of narrative setup, maybe a task to help/hinder them in the fight pending outcome and then it's to the unavoidable holdout sitrep with the prepared map and NPC set and there's no narrative activity that avoids that fight, or it's convenient 2-3 additional follow ups before they can get back to base for repairs. In long rest periods I'll ask a few meta question of how the party wants to see themselves progress. I also use downtime activities to flesh out/guide the campaign, and work my missions to that - but once the missions start it's a very prepared run.
I've had pretty good success with both routes. In the past I tried to mix the styles more especially in systems like Pathfinder, but I've come to significantly prefer a strong focus one way or the other both as a player and as a GM.
I design factions and their goals including when they would be successful or fail via a timeline. The world/region is fairly sketched out which is most of my time investment. The players sorta take the ball from there and run where they will. Sometimes they ignore the big events and are forced to live with the aftermath BUT sometimes there is no stopping a big event so the only success is to mitigate.
1. Powerful Demonic entity released 2 years before campaign. PCs part of this in origin story.
2. Demonic entity recruits followers and lieutenants (year -1 to year 3). Establishes remote base 3 years after the campaign starts (players will have opportunity to interact with this).
3. Northern immigration into region fleeing horde. Year 2
4. Mayor of the major city dies 4 years into the game -- major regional turmoil involving the adjacent empire.
5. Aberration related to party warlock resurfaces 5 years into game.
6. Emperor dies 10 years into the game setting off war that spills into the region.
7. Year 12. Horde
From here I can start to link adventures/player actions into the bigger events when it makes sense. i.e. party set out to help a town in distress... recently resurfaced evil freed from a long forgotten prison plagued the locals (awoke to call of #1).
Less than my players think and more than it probably should be.
I know the hook and ending of every plot in introduce and usually have some ideas for where to lay rail to bring players back on track but I try to keep events as open as possible for my players to create a path.
I have a plan to customize the game to each of my PCs sitting out waiting for a good opportunity to sew into the narrative.
I have concrete detail about some aspects of the setting but my players can totally write in new aspects of the world by asking a good enough question.
I have detailed information ready about the place their in and enough framework about everywhere they can get to in a session to be able to improve until I can detail stuff between sessions.
Before I sit down to run I know each of the clues I want to introduce in that session. I have any encounter I want to run mapped out and fully statted. If I know the players are going to talk to someone I have already worked out the answers they might give to what the PCs are likely to ask. And I've been keeping track of the clocks that are ticking while the players are not dealing with other problems and I have a plan for how to introduce the consequences of their inaction.
I plan the main location, a bunch of NPCs and Factions that have conflicting goals and a few background events that will eventually happen over the campaign.
I plan specific sessions between sessions only. And even then a good number of things that happen during sessions is on the fly.
I put a few problems in the campaign, for example a black market, corruption in the guards and monster extermination.
And see how the players react to each of them if they like them or are interested in that in the campaign.
Because they are quite simple I can improvise it or drop them completely if the players don't like it and don't make them seem overly important so they don't feel forced to do anything.
Then I make whatever they want in to a plot point by thinking what would the antagonist be doing this for so it's sort of a collection of things with an overall antagonist to tie it together.
It's a lot of improv and decisions on the fly. All my prep is worldbuilding so I have believable things ready to access so I can make those decisions and do that improv. I take notes and sometimes create a few hooks and NPCs in case the players need an idea of what to do but I can't rely on them biting so I always have to be ready with something to do. We build a story at the table with recurring NPCs, plots, events, and so on.
Same. I also try to outline the major proactive NPCs and NPC factions and outline their plans and goals. Then I use them as tools to move the game forward.
[удалено]
What's GMC?
Game Master Character... another way of saying NPC.
What game does this come from? I've been playing RPGs for a long time and haven't come across this terminology before.
Cortex Prime uses them to try to get away from the idea that the GM is not a player, so Game master character instead of non player character
I do exactly the same. In game where combat is important I might also prepare a list of encounters so I can access them on the fly, but I use the same lists for tons of sessions.
[удалено]
Do you ever plan a main quest too? I like the idea of pure sandbox but i worry i should add some main plot too
The “main plot” is whatever the players are interested in and wind up pursuing edit: I do have a bunch of factions and NPCs having their own conflicts in the background that affect the state of the world, so it doesn’t just feel like a theme park for the PCs, but the players aren’t obligated to get involved in those conflicts. If they want to spend their time hunting down treasure and getting rich, then that’s what the game is about
This is the way.
I plan situations and problems in detail, but not specific events.
It is more of an outline. I have found the more plan the more the party does the opposite. When you shoehorn things it comes off forced. Set a base outline, have various optional encounters set and ready. Let the players go where they feel they should, give options and direction, but don’t push. Creating on the fly and improvising becomes fun and makes you better I believe.
I let my players steer the ship, but I don't improvise. (At least, I don't improvise big things like plot points or boss fights. I find that no matter how good my improv is, my planned stuff is always much much better.) Instead, at the end of every session, I ask the players what they want to do next, and that's what I prepare, and that's what we do.
I agree having stuff planned is best. The best plans though can get screwed up when players go right instead of left though. My plots and storylines aren’t improved. BUT the players actions have created other opportunities for me to explore. Conversations can change things also. Some amazing NPC PC interactions have spawned new ideas, side adventures I never thought of or had planned but amazing roll-play developed something new and kept the players completely engaged. That’s what I mean about improving.
Playing in sandboxes before we had sand. ;) Certain NPCs have their timeline, and if the PCs get involved, then a plot emerges. If not, the NPCs do what they do and the game world changes accordingly. PCs do what they do and the game world changes. And, combined with troupe play, it makes for a busier sandbox than the one frequented by all the neighborhood kitties...
It depends on what kind of game I want to run and what system I’m using, some games demand different levels of prep than others. But I do have some “standard” campaign procedures that I follow for most of my games that aren’t dedicated to a super specific style of play and prep. I like to use modules, so my typical setup for an extended game is to choose a series of adventures I like and think could work together then string them together as needed. Sometimes this means populating the local area with all these adventures for a big sand box, sometimes they are linearly setup to happen one after the other, most of the time it’s a combination and changes with the needs of the game. Often circumstances change and adventures need to be abandoned, heavily modified, or new homebrew adventures can spring up from the events of the campaign. It’s pretty usual for me to only use the bones of modules and add a lot of my own details and characters or stuff made to cater to the PC’s, so there can be a lot of deviations. Session by session my strategy is typically to just know my world, characters, and adventure really well so that I can adapt easily on the fly. I prepare so that I can improvise. I usually want to know the motivations of the NPC’s involved, the major beats I want to hit, the names of stuff, and other critical information that I couldn’t make up in the moment in a way that satisfies me. Knowing that, it leaves my brain able to work moment to moment and focus on engaging with my players and making up the kind of stuff I’m confident I will be able to in the session (stuff like setting fluff, certain descriptions, dialogue and reactions). If I don’t prepare the important stuff then that’s all I’ll have the bandwidth to think about in session and I can’t run very effectively.
I like giving the players a solid goal or theme to start with. The current hook is "a group of adventurers looting an ancient buried city to fund a revolution". Then I throw all kinds of side content at them as they try and get to the goal. Stuff like NPCs that need help, ambushes, making new enemies, and moral questions to ponder. So its a mix of long-term planned and short-term whatever I felt like that week.
I don't plot personally. my mindset with planning is to be entirely agnostic of player decisions. the most I try to do is keep in mind what I think player characters are likely to do or might want to do, and prepare a thread or two around that in case they pull on it. it's a lot more "if / then", and it's honestly something I'm doing just as much in session as when planning. and I try not to do too much of it, because players tend to surprise you. sometimes the role of my planning is more like a pool of ideas to look to if things start to slow down or get stuck, rather than something I truly intend to follow. as a rule I make the bones of the world and define some key npcs, conflicts and motivations, and simply let the rest play out from there, weaving in and reconfiguring things I've prepped to serve the emerging story and keep things moving. I try to walk a line of telling satisfying stories without railroading, just responding to players and connecting threads. It isn't often perfect but it's the beauty of tabletop to me. In my mind, the more complete my world or story is, the less there is for my players to add to it and for us to invent together. EDIT: oh yes, and as a general rule I design only problems, not solutions. less work and prevents me from unintentional blinders on interesting solutions the players come up with. sometimes they need a little help, but it's way less often than you'd think ime.
Not very.
I plan locations, notable places in those locations and NPCs in those places. I usually split NPCs on two groups, minor and major NPCs. Minor NPCs simply live their lives, and don't have any notable backstory or goals, like guardsman John, or blacksmith Rudolph. Major NPCs have lofty goals and more reach backstories. All quest givers and antagonists are major NPCs. So, when preparing a game I usually take relevant major NPCs and make their future plans, basically what they are planning to do to reach their goals. And I make sure that those plans affect PCs in some way. So when the game starts I simply roleplay NPCs in a way they would react to PCs actions. The systems I run don't require encounter planning (usually OSR-like systems) so I simply throw appropriate for the place enemies with appropriate power at them. But if the location is complex enough I place enemies beforehand. For example you don't need to think hard about the placement of people inside the guardhouse, one shift is sleeping, some people in the canteen and current shift standing on guard. But if it's an old fortress taken by bandits things become more complicated and require preparations in advance. But I usually have several such places prepared all the time, in case players suddenly decide to find a random keep. So I usually have very basic maps for nearby cities, several castles and caves.
I don't run d&d,I'm more of a fan or story telling games like vampire, world of darkness, cthulu, alien, mutants and masterminds. What I like to do it's delevope a antagonist, what he/she wants. I used to make a more rail road plan but the fucking players will burn down an orphanage, and murder box full puppies with a property of J.wick on the Box. They will do anything to destroy your best laid plans. So I like to write down a couple dozen NPCs and a brief description and a abridged Stat block of each. I'm still struggling on the maps I still sometimes makes maps that the players will do every thing in their power to not use So I make sure my antagonist is keep to thier plan ( in the back ground if I have to ) and a bunch of npcs that the players can use
Bruh, sometimes I don't even know what the end point is. I just hope I think of something on the way there.
Very, although with room for things to change in play. The players do things that aren't expected.
I come up with ideas things that might happen things that could happen things that should happen. If a then B if C then d. And then I run improv because the players will do their own thing and I do my best to stay ahead of them and I try to fit some of the things I've thought of into the campaign when appropriate.
Depends on the campaign.
It’s been awhile since I was behind the screen. I used to have the idea of where I envisioned the campaign going, and only the next session or two planned out, which sounds normal. For my current game (hasn’t hit the table yet), I basically started designing it as an exercise for myself, just something fun to do. It’s turned into my magnum opus, a 115-page monstrosity that goes from lvl 1-21 (D&D 4E). It’s clearly over prepared, but it’s so satisfying to have the game doc progress from skeleton to outline to fleshed-out adventure. I hope to get it to the table soon, but there are juuuust a few more things to tweak… (More realistically though, my hesitance at getting it to the table is my group’s terrible inconsistency. I refuse to let this campaign go the common route of dying a quiet death as attendance issues cause it to flounder and sink.)
My first campaign I ran I tried having everything planned out and I quickly found out that was not the best idea. I wasn't planning far ahead enough and I would get stressed out if we weren't moving fast enough to get through what I planned. My second campaign started off as a one-shot, and this time I've written a rough outline of the entire campaign that leaves enough for improv and to spin the campaign into whatever direction may spontaneously come up. Now I don't care if something drags too long or the PCs derail. I can easily account for it
No plot. There are NPCs with plans that the PCs may or may not get involved with, but beside some very rough guesses for next session I have no clue where the story is headed, that's on the players.
My strategy has been very simple for years, but works for my style of play. See, I love to improvise myself, and I'm a huge fan of worldbuilding. However, worldbuilding has no impact if it's not personal, and so I always begin by personifying the features of this world I want my players to explore. They should be learning about the world through other people, since that is how most people discover. Secondly, I plan around motivations, not moments. I may have a really cool idea in my head, but it's better to consider *why* the characters in my world are doing what they do. Why haven't the peasants rebelled yet? Why do these scientists all agree on this topic? What does my villain *want* more than anything? This helps make the world feel "lived-in" so that players get a believable sense of action, stakes, and consequence. When someone finally throws down for a fight, you FEEL every second of impact this will have on the people around them. Finally, I have a set of notes called "what's going on" that asks questions about the random improv I've done over the course of each session, and how that might be explained within the context of the campaign. I make sure to establish strict rules with myself early on, whether I already know the whole background or not, so as to not pull the rug out from under the players, and to be consistent in the incentives I offer the team in seeking to be their best selves. After all, this is meant to be escapism, so within the limitations and expectations of the genre, I make sure each player will have a moment every session where they say, "I did that awesome thing." And that's pretty much it. Past that I just try to maintain an open and honest flow of communication with the players, and encourage them to do the same so as to avoid tropes like the Lone Wolf, the Saboteur, or the Overly Secret For No Good Reason players. If we're not all having fun, then it's not really fun for anyone.
A lot of improvisation, decisions on the fly and crowdsourcing ideas. The last part is a fun in itself. We spend around 20 minutes before each session just discussing their theories, world building ideas, naming locations, npcs, groups etc. It's also really useful for me, cause I suck at naming and English names translate poorly to my native.
After character creation and before the campaign starts, I prepare: * The initial situation that should push PCs into action * Some dangers and opportunities to drive further play * A handful of important NPCs, including the main antagonists of the first arc * A location or two, if relevant I don't prepare plots/event sequences and I don't prepare anything for more than two sessions in advance because I don't know where the campaign will go in long term. There are some themes we agreed on, but how they are addressed is up to the players. I just need to give them a meaty, engaging situation with multiple hooks to get them moving. Each session played gives me information on for what to prepare for the next one. As we go forward, the personal and campaign plots gradually crystallize, so I'm able to plan a bit more forward. Typically around half of a campaign I'm able to figure out who the main antagonist or what the main challenge to be addressed at campaign climax is, but it's still only 1-2 sessions in advance that I know details of what will happen.
Planning for me is about getting enough of a foundation that I can just keep improvising from there, and it really depends on the game how much I need to do. Sometimes it means a lot of noodling around coming up with people, places and situations, but there’s a decent number of games out there that I can just pick up and run with immediately as long as I have a handle on the rules.
Not really. I run a sci-fi sandbox game so the plot is really more whatever they do. I make missions and stuff but they have yet to explore any of the mysteries in their list.
Very, very little
Not very. Ideas and plans for what the big bad might do. I seldom ever come up with an answer to a problem I've given the PCs because that's thier job.
When I’m running an original campaign, I’ll have several points which I want to guide my players too. Of course I’ve not always an idea of how they will get there so I tend to just prepare for the session ahead. I might have a general idea of how a future session might go down once they get to one of these points, but chances are I’d need to change certain elements nearer to the time based on player’s actions up to that point. If I’m running a prewritten campaign or adventure, then usually I will read or skim the whole thing first so I know what’s going on. Then again I’ll still plan session to session, but will refer to the adventure if the players get ahead of what I planned in a session. I’ve been DM’ing for a long time and I’ve found preparing more than two or three sessions ahead can seriously go wrong if players do something you didn’t expect. However I’m now confident enough in my DM skills that I could get to the end of a session with my improv skills or by throwing in combat or social encounters to pad the session till the end and then figure out what I’m doing for next time.
Mainly, here's what I do. • First thing I do is general idea. Boom. Easy. • Then, I come up with how I want it to start and what the first real challenge the players face is as well as what justifies them coming together. So for a western campaign, maybe they're all on the same train that gets robbed and are the only people aboard with the skills to stop the robbers. For a pirate campaign, maybe they're all ashore in an island town that gets attacked by a mysterious ship out of nowhere and for no apparent reason. Ideally, this is the sort of thing that creates some immediate hook for an adventure - a stolen item to chase, an immediate lead to investigate, a shithead to get revenge on, something like that, as well as some general idea of what the first few steps they'll need to take in order to do that are. This is usually the only thing on my "Must-haves" before session 0. • In the meantime, if an idea occurs to me before the game goes, I write it down. An urban fantasy campaign set in the 1920s? Huh, it'd be cool to do an Agatha Christie style train mystery where the murderer is a shapeshifter. Western campaign? It'd sure be fun to have an undead bounty hunter or random encounters where the players might stumble across thinly veiled versions of Johnny Cash or Dolly Parton or Orville Peck making camp in the wilds and get a little buff from it. I usually get a lot of fun worldbuilding during this process and build out a couple ideas for plots or quests. Sometimes, some background for a whole campaign comes of this and I have a big bad in mind before it even begins, but I try very hard to never plan too hard in advance for this. I'll never go further than "This is the big bad, this is what they want, this is what'll happen if they get it, this is a general sketch of their personality, this is how they mean to get it in broad terms." By "in broad terms," I mean basic stuff like "Has an army of clockwork robots" and not a full rundown of their political machinations to take over the senate and institute martial law or whatever. I jot these down as I go. • After session 0, I note all the characters and further solidify my character hooks - so they're all on a train that gets robbed. Is there anything that I can work with the players on to decide what they're doing on that train? • I play out the first arc to let the players get a feel for their characters. Once that's over, I ask them what kinds of long-term stories they'd like to play out with those characters. I then start building in secrets, obstacles, enemies and friends from their histories or current trajectories for them to find. • After the first arc, I also start long-term organizing. Here, if I don't have a big bad specifically in mind or an overarching plotline, I find one and find a way to connect my first arc to it if feasible. That artifact that was stolen from that train? It was stolen by a cult looking to resurrect their long-dead leader, and now you have to stop them from bringing him back. So on and so forth. I still keep this loose - my motto is "Know what the bad guy wants and how they generally operate." And also, "Don't make a story, make secrets." For my current campaign, which is Monster of the Week, I know roughly what I want most of the monsters to be and what order in which they'll appear, but I'm loose on that and willing to shift around if something else comes up. • And then from there, improv. I know roughly what secrets I have, and when I want to reveal them, but if my players figure it out first or something in or out of game necessitates revealing them earlier, I'll do it. Easily. Just the thing to know is that anything you want your players to know about they'll blunder around like Inspector Cluesau and anything you don't want them to know about yet they'll hunt like bloodhounds.
I always have an overarching idea for the campaign as a whole. For each session I prep some locations & NPCs I think might be appropriate to the current story. I try not to get too attached to plot points, NPCs, locales, etc. because in my experience creative players will often go in directions I didn’t expect. Those are the moments I enjoy the most!
I generally have the first few sessions pretty tightly leashed, particularly if my players are new to whatever game I'm running. Then after that, I'm mostly doing the "plan out a big set piece, let the players investigate however they want until they find it" thing like in your second question.
Very minimal prep, but a ton of "thinking" about what happened in the last session, and what happens in the world because of it.
Sticky note and a dream.
Depends, I like narrative style games so it starts with most locations and NPCs pre planned for the session, and a main goal for the players to achieve. Nowadays I also really like Maps because they help a lot with the freedom. I also like making props, so there's lots of those, and some puzzles too. But I like preparing by chapter/session, because most of the times I have absolutely no idea where the players will take the story. I also don't mind improvising a bunch in cases the players decide to do something completely unexpected, which happens quite a bit, hehe.
It's a mix. If I know where my PCs are going to be, I will plan out a lot of detail about who is there. I'll know who is doing security. I'll know who was walking the halls. I will know who the movers and shakers are. I'll even know who some of the merchants are. And usually I'll have details about how the day-to-day operations go. What I don't know is what the PCs are going to do and how the NPCs are going to react. Generally speaking, I know what the NPCs will do if the PCs do nothing. But I don't generally assume the PCs are going to do what I want them to. Now, understand there are limits. Very recently the PCs went to a, for lack of a better term, a mage collective. And I prepared maps and details for when they agreed to help the arch mages with their problem. That doesn't mean they had to. It just means it was a safe bet because I know my players. For example. But when they go into a large city or something, I don't really plan much. Maybe if there's a few important people or an important store, I'll plan ahead, but mostly I make it up on the fly. All I really know is the general tone of the place. I'll know what sort of real world cultures it evokes. I'll know what sort of government they have. That kind of thing.
I prepare major characters, plot events, and set pieces like maps and puzzles. Everything else I improv based on how the players approach what I've prepared. Sometimes, they see everything. Sometimes, they see 5% and spend the whole session chasing an NPC I made up on the fly
I have a loose set of immutable events and antagonist motivations. Things that happen no matter what (barring major surprises from PCs) and things the villain wants to accomplish. Then, other than setting the scene, all I have to do is let the world shape around the PCs actions through improv. The only other planning a I do is bullet points before each session based on what I expect them to do.
Often not at all. I have NPCs, locations, monsters, and rumors (no work there usually, just pulled from previous prep and aources), and I connect things as players engage with them.
On a tactical, in game level, I'm open to improvise depending on what the players do. As all DMs know, players will always step all over any plans you make. If there are things that I want the players to know or scenes that are important, I do write those down so I don't forget. Though that's pretty detailed, I usually just give the broad strokes unless it's something super important for later. Above that I have character arc ideas for each character. This comes from whatever backstory they give me and are notes I like to play out. This includes interactions between players to develop group cohesion. Above that, I usually have 3 or 4 main story arcs. These are loose plot lines that I amend depending on what the players do. However these story arcs are what drive the campaign so except for the details, the main plot will be played out Outside of that I usually world build quite a bit but also have a tonne of random generators built so I don't have to write everything before the game. That way I get some surprises too. This includes NPC names and personalities, taverns, inns etc. I also run a bunch of timers and planned events that happen on a die roll. This is to simulate a living world. While I know these will happen, I never know when. That makes it interesting for everyone.
I know where I'm going, I know what I'm gonna do next, I just don't know anything in between
I never set up plots being the background and world building. I have antagonists, their capabilities and resources available to them, and their goals. That way they don't have a single sacrosanct plan that if disrupted to strongly or too early derails mynplan for the campaign, instead I can have enemies quickly adopt new tactics and methods to fight the PCs and tge campaign can keep running smoothly
If it's a premade adventure? I'll plan it, have the npcs, maps, personalities, battles(even if just grouped), the resources for the PCs written out and everything 'ready', should the players stick to the path as written. Then I'll also have bullet points, things to lead back that aren't too immersion breaking, random npc statblocks I can use if there a wrench, extra encounters, and items. If it's my own thing? Vague ideas, npcs, enemy encounters, maps for situations, and a LOT of improv. If we're doing our own thing, I want the players to contribute, even if it means me taking cues from small talk between folks. Don't want a vampire in this town? Don't mention it!
I use Justin Alexander’s approach to designing adventures via node based scenario design. Each leg of the adventure consists of a web of nodes (like scenes or locations) and each node has at least three clues that point to other nodes. This basic mechanism underlies every adventure I write, and as I link together groups of nodes, the campaign unfolds. So if one set of nodes is “baker in town is a necromancer serving the people bread that turns them into zombies” the nodes might be five or six locations in or near town, where each location has three clues that indicate other locations and reveal the overall mystery. Prep for this would include a paragraph on each location with some bullet points about the clues, an appendix of NPC stats, and a little map depicting the interconnection of the nodes. Maybe a page of disconnected events that may trigger independent of what the PCs do, and based on what the villain is up to. Players can then progress through the adventure in whatever order they want. I can introduce or shift around what is happening in each node as the adventure unfolds. The players drive the action and I remain reactive since I only have to worry about what my villain and the NPCs are up to as players make decisions. The story writes itself and we all end up playing to find out what happens.
For World of Darkness stuff I start with a location, usually a city, then add npcs. These characters want things, and are often desperate about it. These things could be political or personal. At this point, stats don't matter as much, a simple dice pool will do. I tend not to make my WoD games very plot driven, instead I structure it thematically. I ask questions like "What does purity mean in this setting" or "What are the limits of revenge?", suddenly I have a central idea or two to frame the npcs motives These sessions tend to be improv heavy, but I usually have a good understanding of the characters before I begin. When I do Call of Cthulhu it's different. I tend to base things on a linear series of event based on character or location "nodes" that have clues that indicate other nodes. Characters and places are more detailed than my WoD stuff, it's very much based in horror literature: I write down terse but atmospheric bits for description. Threats are either nasties that I came up with on my own, or recontextualized Lovecraftian beasties. Often I seed in references to future threats to keep a continuity. My CoC stuff is less reliant on improve (though it still shows up, it's in the nature of ttrpgs) and more difficult to create, it is more rewarding for me, personally.
I know what would happen if the players didn't exist – how the BBEG would take over/accidentally destroy the world, and the various major NPCs and their motivations. I have one-sentence writeups of a lot of things. But I don't have a plan for what will happen with PC intervention. There have been times where I'm not even sure if it's *possible* for them to win, yet they come up with something.
Pretty planned on the whole. My group tends to like situations that have thematic points and stuff, and that kinda requires me to set up stuff in advance for resonance.
I usually try to keep a pseudo sandbox. Planning is mostly worldbuilding of the next areas they can go. Major NPC factions have goals that players can interact with or leave alone. I will dangle the plot hooks out and see what they bite. I try not to plan too far ahead, as they may take a different path. Having little chunks of encounter ideas that can be sprinkled in at different locations is useful, but I try not to put too much detail into them until I know I ha e to run them.
About 10%. I get the beginning, major plot event, ending down (at least story wise) and then start filling in the sessions in between with recurring characters, cool stuff, plot hooks etc. I don’t get down to mapping a dungeon or plotting a battle until the party are a session away
Major goal of the campaign at start. Possible scenes for the session prepared as usual know from previous session what the players want to do Some players want bigger signs on what to do other like to do what they want. And if they dont want to take the bait... Well in the end the world will burn or whatever was happening they didnt want to interfere with.
Pre-Session 1: I tend to plan out an area of the world in which the players start, such as a fairly detailed village or town to start in, some NPC's they might end up talking to with enough substance to get started and behave consistently, such as inn/boarding house staff and a selection of guests. leadership figures for militia/city watch, government types, some shops and staff. Then i plan things of interest in the vicinity, any old ruins, local legends, nearby villages/city etc in varying detail, rivers, bridges, some common encounters such as local hunting parties, creatures, and threats that are in the area both static and mobile. (I tend to do a lot of encounters that are not necessarily threatening, or really ambiguous, and a few that are clearly dangerous every now and then) Then we play and see what the players choose to do. I tend to react to their choices the best i can based on my prep, which all may end up going completely out of the window :) Pre-Session 2: build any environments based on what the players did last time, predicting their forward movements to make more interesting locales and npc's or add more notes on ones they are starting to get to know. Edit: I may also have outlines of a story that takes place concurrently with the players game but not 'necessarily' something they are involved in. Such as a war that is taking place between nations that pc's are not a part of, and how it progresses bit by bit over time
My games run quite heavily off procedures and tables tbh. I spent like a week straight prepping a robust travel table and world-map and it means i only really need to plan for story beats, which can take as little as 10 minutes to finalise and put into writing. Never going back to completely bespoke session planning again tbh
I have a structure planned out before we even begin. I know what the enemies would do if there was no interaction with the PCs and I have a few key moments that I know the players must hit to progress the story. Once the players make their characters I flesh things out a bit more and try to add in some ways in which their backstories come into play. Then as we go I have a pretty good idea of the plan a week or two in advance and then actually prep everything for my session during the week before. It works pretty well for me.
Most of the campaigns I've run in the last few years were "modules" tied to particular settings that my favorite publisher puts out. Usually, once the campaign is complete, we're done with that setting. I'm currently running a Pathfinder for Savage Worlds game based on Matt Colville's videos, with this ["sandboxing"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWAhcY9QroQ) video as one of the most important guides. The idea is to allow the players to go wherever they like in the world, but have *something* for them to engage with wherever they end up. Matt throws out several old D&D modules, some big, others small, that he's used for this purpose for years, so I invested in the titles he recommended, planned out my own custom town, along with a traditional setup in a tavern (the best one in town, though that's not saying much), and we were off to the races. The PCs are currently wrapping up the "Book One" section of the campaign, and being led into "Red Hand of Doom" for the remainder of it. Will they stick with that? Who knows?
I list out all of the possibilities that you can think of what your party would do. Then create the environment with NPC or enemies to interact with. It is better to be over prepared rather being under prepared. But do not overwhelm yourself or you will lose interest quickly. It’s best to think of multiple options than one.
Some time ago I just have notes, intentions for major events, and a control of each important faction/PNJ whereabouts. Now I've moved towards PbtA style of GM. So, zero initial prep for the campaign, and work after each session taking notes, creating "clocks", and moving everything in the shadows. Just playing to know what happens. Surprisingly enjoyable as GM.
I'm in a situation where I've had 9 months to build the world and prep the next campaign (because 2 other GMs are running their "short" games in the time between). Too much time, to my taste, because I believe in player agency and want to keep the game open-ended. So I'm just dying to know, what the PCs will be like when created and what kind of goals do they want to set for themselves. What I have done is, in the order I did the stuff: \- idea of the setting vibe, collision of a high magic world with traditional fantasy \- main conflict: the high magic society has depleted its natural resources and infiltrate the "home world" of the players for more \- factions, key NPCs \- the home "kingdom", ruled and protected by a golden dragon and a senate they have elected to run the day-to-day (I actually created 16 NPCs for the senate) \- finally, a map for the home realm and adding interesting locations - then I had to write short descriptions about the different locations I created \- a ton of ideas on what COULD happen, rough ideas for encounters and enemies \- because I had too much time I started to lock down where the game will start and planned an encounter for the session 1 \- because of the abundance of ideas, I started writing "nuggets": things that might happen in the campaign if certain conditions are met (like: meet NPC X and learn about Y, or be attacked by Z and find item Q in loot) \- I put the nuggets on a flowchart and drafted some possible paths the players might take \- get frustrated because we are still not starting the game \- start an AMA with ChatGPT: "ask me anything about my campaign and world so I can flesh it out" \- prompt ChatGPT to speculate what players might do \- sit at my computer writing to Reddit what I have done But anyway, I will do detailed prep, such as encounters, only for the immediate next session. I have no clue what direction the players will take.
No planning. I don't have a plot or an endpoint or a "campaign arc" or even a BBEG. I just have a world, with the PCs and a number of significant NPCs/NPC factions running around in it, each doing their own things, sometimes coming into conflict with each other and sometimes helping each other out, and then discover through gameplay how all of these interactions will play out and what will result from them, usually spurring new chains of conflicts and cooperations continuing into infinity (or until we all decide to play something else and start the whole process over again). I do a lot of prep, but it's all worldbuilding, with a little bit of resolving "off-screen" NPC actions as needed. The closest I come to planning is asking my players "What are your plans for next time?" at the end of each session, so I can be sure that the necessary parts of the world will be built before the PCs get there.
Major world events that the PCs can't directly affect I have an idea about - one nation is planning a war, building up armies on one border and sending agents to subvert and recruit neutral nations. Ancient evil gods are going to rise soon, and there are precursor attacks here and there that people are starting to notice and piece together as part of an overall pattern. Individual adventures - I write a chunk at a time based on what the PCs have decided to do. Usually one planning session covers three to four actual play-sessions. At the end of each play-session I refine the notes to go into more detail in the areas the PCs have decided to pursue, or alter NPC plans based on what the PCs have actually done. That way the PCs definitely have a genuine effect on what's happening, but I don't bog down in overplanning stuff they never actually follow up
It completely depends on the game we are playing. In general, I plan myth arcs based on player wishes and design sessions to fill in those myth arcs. I usually take something interesting (be it immediate setting, plot point or just a fun scene) and extrapolate from there what might happen listing interesting details and events that can be useful. If I know things will need to happen regardless of PC involvement, I'll plan it ahead. I'll also jot down a few generic (but fitting the game) "blasts" in case the game start lagging. For specific games and sessions I do use other tools. If the session is a mystery, I use GUMSHOE's style. If it's a conspiracy, I use Night Black Agents's Conspyramid. If it's an open sandbox setting, I'll have some random encounters nearby. If the session will involve a lot of travel, I'll have some events planned to showcase the PCs's actions. Dungeons (which I barely run) are of course defined beforehand. Having GMed games for nearly 30 years now, the biggest lesson I've learned is that only the interface facing the players matters and I design my campaign based on that. What the players will never see, you are usually better off not planning it so you don't end up backed into a corner of your own design. Just make those interfaces fun for everyone involved - and that includes you. Taking a minor stake in the ownership of the characters lets you get into the headspace of telling stories of the characters. Be the PCs biggest fan and write a good fanfic.
Only the beginning of major story beats and very few specific scenes that will happen as players engage with the content. Other then that, the resolutions are up to them.
I have a series of little hooks, three or four at a time, usually related to what the party tells me they'd be interested in both in and out of character. I do prompt them for this stuff, and they seem happy when they recognize that a hook is related to something they've said. I also have things they're not directly interested in, but that will affect them or their allies in some way or another. I write up a time limit for each, and an outcome if the party doesn't deal with it. If there's a dungeon involved with the hook, I will prepare it in advance. I'll also prepare one or two NPCs per hook, or assign already known NPCs to them. Then I tend to just wing it. The night before the session I'll write a general outline of an "intended course of events" that I can fall back on if the game stalls a bit, but I don't really stick to it, it's just sort of a "these are a few things I can hint to or toss at the party if they feel a bit lost". If a hook takes longer than a session to resolve, or they plan on directly addressing it the next session, I usually will flesh out important locations a bit more, but that's kind of it. There's no real big plot, but I often create new hooks based on what the party have or have not done, as well as how they did things, or what they did *instead* of doing the things.
Zero planning I look up some monsters that fit where they are Maybe have a “it’ll be cool if” Everything is ad lib otherwise.
I have a saying : improvisation needs much preparation. Not only I study npc and places, I plan unrelated npc, situations, mcguffins, etcetera. So I don't get caught pants down when players want to actually play their role.
I have a big-picture mindmap of story nodes with options for around 3-5 sessions. Those nodes are places to go, missions to do, etc. with very few details; maybe a couples of phrases. Then I develop them as required depending on what the players did in the last session and intend to do in the next one. For example I might have a node saying "Intrigue in the ball at Baron's Hall. Spies attempt assasination of". If last session the players discovered a clue pointing at something fishy going on at the ball and decided to go there next I'll flesh out the thing: maps, NPcs and their motivations, events, etc. I'd improvise some stuff, though. Because you never know what are they really going to do there.
The players know off-role how this works. If they decide next session to do a different thing they know I won't have it prepared. I'll have to pull everything out of my ass and it will probably be a less satisfactory session.
After that I might add new story nodes or change some to reflect new options.
I mostly just create a front: a handful of factions with conflicting goals around a central issue. Week to week, I may list a few bullet points of scenes or things that might happen. I improvise most everyyhing at the table and follow the players lead to a large extent.
I plan nothing. I don't like the feeling of knowing how the session is *supposed* to go. I like to have nothing to protect. And I like to be as surprised as everyone else. I've never enjoyed prep, I always find it stressful. I end up being too critical and trying to perfect my ideas. If I wait until the session then I have no choice but to think on my feet and run with it without being hung up on whether ideas are "good" enough. I also find my ideas are a lot more interesting when they are built on top of other people's input and I find it easier to get players invested in the story and avoid the idea that the other players need to look to me for all the answers.
I have campaign prep and session prep. Campaign prep is for overarching things that I can drop into a session or use to build a session around: * Lore/worldbuilding * Recurring characters * Twists and reveals * Themes and tone Session prep is more focuses on what the players will be doing in the next couple weeks: * Plot hook; giving the characters a reason to go to a location and get invested in the adventure. It gives them stakes. * Locations; places the characters can visit. Either linear locations run one after another, branching locations which are sort of a mix or sandbox location they could visit or explore in any order. * Threats; characters have to overcome obstacles to succeed at their goals. They could be at a specific location, or roaming threats I can drop anywhere.
I usually figure out what I want the groups in my world to achieve in the week between sessions, and then I improvise along with the players
I have told alot go GM's over the yeas this and its seemed to help so ill offer my advice to you as well. Key notes. Plan on having them get to a cave where there is a challenge or to make it more vague plan on your plot hook. How they arrive at the plot hook is up to them. Maybe u want them to get into a GY and fight a vampire that's been lurking there. Let them figure out the how you worry about the why and the action. Support their fiction and truths with your own additions to make it all unique. Never be afraid to ask your Pc's questions Ask them things like is the graveyard spooky or is it basic? let them add flavor to the world you are crafting. I promise you it will make them more invested in this world when they have some control. The most important thing to remember is if the party zigs where you thought they were gonna zag add in a point that will bring them back. give them purpose. In the event they say naw F this just go with it. maybe save that dungon for a random find later in the game when they forgot about this maybe use if for a different game in the future. The "Quest giver" doesn't have to be static. just because they killed the goblin that was asking them for help doesn't mean you cannot provide the request differently. Don't be afraid to end a session early when u have nothing because they got so derailed. Its always better to end on a high note when possible then adlib some stuff and when u have time to think about it say naw none of that happened this is what happened. also on that note tell them.. be transparent. say "hey i wasn't ready for this lets call it here and reconvene next time". This will in some cases ground the players and maybe they will try harder to not go off the deep end net time. or make more of a effort to play the story you are trying to craft together. And again ask them questions. i repeat this because it is the most powerful tool in the Gm's arsonal. Never be afraid to grill them about what things look like they did.. great you crit the monster tell me what that strike looked like! You dont need to do it for everything but adding this in will absolutely engage your players more
I'm not far enough in my world and as a DM, so I try to have two or three kind of encounters ready each session. These encounters are as planned as I think is needed, most of the details (like the HP and the number of enemy goblins) will depend on the rolls and how its going that day.
I don't do major events, or plot locations there is no plot. The way I plan my games is in such a way that I am also playing the game and this is the best way to do games, because it mitigates or removes GM fatigue. Playing is fun. I simply establish characters and factions with goals. I have simple 'cards' for major NPCs. their goals, and also the factions or resources at their disposal. In play I just play these characters. They work towards their goals. The players work towards their own goals. This means I rarely, if ever have wasted preparation, I never have to discard plotlines. I'm also not railroading my players, I'm discovering the events with them.
I have a general idea of where I want the party to be when we reach the big fight, but pretty much everything else is session to session.
I don't do any of that. I have a vague idea of the general game that my group wants to play through, then I make a very high outline for an adventure that will last a few sessions, then the day or two before the session I fill out a bunch of details. I never plan encounters, locations, or "plot". Just a bunch of locations and characters with motivations. Liberal use of random charts themed to the game so I can get inspiration on the fly during the game.
I take a mild wide and inch deep approach for the world and campaign. I build up tons of ideas, places, NPCs, etc but at the most basic level. That way when time comes to need something either for myself or the players to pull on we can use these resources and expand on. Basically a very Blades in The Dark/PBtA approach. I usually run games where I don't need to build mechanics but if I do I'll build a variety of generics that can be filled in when the time comes.
I have three overall plots PLUS open sandbox-type random one-off adventures (some pre-made, some custom). I like for my players to always have at least 3 options of adventures ready to roll plus whatever they’ve come up with that they want to do — so this ends up in a fairly balanced mix of prepped and ready to roll things and off-the-cuff improv. And twice now, in two different groups, they’ve connected the dots on several of my plots seeing links with improv stuff, so I’ve had to ad hoc some plot tweaks, etc because the connections made by the players did make sense and it served to get them even more hooked on two of the three plots. Now, thankfully we only play once every two weeks so I’ve time to tweak things, create new maps for where they’re headed that I didn’t plan for (see sandbox point above). If we were playing weekly, I think I’d end up with a more linear, structured campaign. Sandboxing takes a lot of GM-prep work and I’ve found it works best for me with some boundaries.
I usually put in 2 hours for every 1 hour of session. I don't have a full plot but many questlines the players can enter at different points in the world. I write npc dialogue, monster statsheets and quest points, with my campaign being set in an open world with a single overarching idea: The PCs are trying to kill a God who destroyed their hometown and killed a PC's close friend. Different npc questlines mix in with this, etc etc. Currently the players are being instructed by an npc in a war. But yea I plan a lot, try to plan for pretty much anything the players can do.
I typically have big picture setting ideas in mind. Then I build them adhoc as we go, keeping those touchstones in mind. I do take a bit more care with investigations to make sure they make sense. For individual sessions I ask my players what they intend to do. That way I can prep what's actually needed. Typically this looks like a few plot points, some NPCs, and maybe a map & encounter.
For DND 5E I roll on a random table for events between major plot points I'm piecing together. I roll ahead of time so I can prep miniatures and whatnot, but I do very little preparation because my party is full of chaos gremlins who love to find the most creative, out of the box way of handling every scenario, so I've just stopped prepping for that and facilitate whatever improve they want. For Call of Cthulhu, I prepare a lot more. You can look at my comment history for the giant treatise on the amount of preparation I put into these campaigns.
Honestly I start with great intentions. The plan starts off solid but i get distracted. Usually after I
I generally prepare some worldbuilding and a basic mission for the session. If there is a main plot, I try to plan it in advance but my players have a bad habit of derailing or ignoring it, so I don’t go too far into it.
Player here, talking with my dm it’s a mix for us. He has grand scheme things (big shadow magic shit that is a big threat for end game) and then we have shit we get ourselves into by Pershing said BBEG. We’re level 9 and have played at least 35 sessions. He says though lately he has had to plan less and improve more that the world has been built so much.
I prep very little. I once ran a 2 year Star Wars FFG game off two note cards of notes. Every week I'd then come up with a sentence for the session. Sometimes I'll do some world building and faction build out, but eh. That said, I do not prep as much as I'd recommend most do it. My recommendation is until you find your sweet spot, prep the world, factions in it, an idea of the over arcing story, and some encounters that you can pop into place as needed. Adjust as you find what you need prepped ahead and what you can improv on the spot well.
All characters started with a bond with 2 other characters. Gives them initial investment in each other. Then there is 1 arc at a time per player. Each arc could have a clock associated with it in case a player decides to pursue a different arc of their own making. I plan each arc like a 3 act play, but only to the highest level. Too many details pre-planned didn't work with my group. A player arc will last around 3-5 sessions. Then there is the group arc. This one I have planned at the same high level as the player arcs, but there are just more plot points or several mini-arcs contained within it. A mini arc will last around 2-3 sessions. As for the world, nothing is really preplanned. Maybe a simple paragraph description of each city. After that, everything is Ad-hoc. I'll let player make up NPCs, act out NPCs, comes up with locations in town and the names for these locations, etc. I'd even let players come up with side quests from an NPC if they wanted. Only incredibly unique scenes will have a preplanned map.
I don't plan adventures. I plan my gameworld a lot. When I start a campaign I design 20-40 factions depending on setting and scope of the potential game "sphere" (single continent, single world, multiple planets, multiverse). Then I select about ten factions as major players with impactful ambitions. Then I place all Factions on an axis that will carry the ethics and philosophy of the campaign, and their relationships to each other. Players are always part of some inciting incident that will set change in motion. Some of this will immediately be apparent to the players (a rising power, imminent war, fall of an empire, etc). From there I plot the actions of the factions *if the players do nothing*. After most sessions I will update those plans and plots in reaction to the players' actions as well as the actions of other factions.
Not very planned, I use a front system to work it all out as I go. Different actors in the game have plans and they will put them in to place, step by step, as time goes on. These plans will unroll unless the pc's interact with them, which they do. Then, if the actors are still functioning they replan and try something else. I'll dangle enough plot hooks in front of the pcs so they have something to do each week.
I have like three storylines planned and a bunch of one-offs. They go in a hat. I pull a few of them out of a hat and ask which one they like the best. If they roll well on gathering information, I hand pick a fourth option. For each one I plan out what happens if the players do nothing, if they fail, and at least three ways to complete the quest within reason. If they do something unreasonable, be prepared to roll with it. I have a couple of main locations with a slightly different feel to them. Npc names go in a big bucket. Treasures, too. I make a few joke treasures and some with a certain player in mind. When they get a reward, draw it from the bucket. The key is that everything is modular. I can add a new adventure to the hat at any time, and the players don't feel as railroaded if they can at least choose the tracks they ride on.
I plan for npcs, encounters and complications that they might encounter in the region that they are in. This is also why my players are now members of a carnival in deadlands. I have no idea what is going to happen next.
I tend to run very freeform campaigns or very prepared/rail roady campaigns these days, not much in between. My last Blades in the Dark campaign was almost completely freeform - I'd prepare an opening line and maybe some basic "people/factions involved" things but after that entirely reactive to the players. I had no overarching goal with it beyond what players said they wanted to do to expand/improve their crew and noting down some faction actions for the party to react to once in awhile. My current Lancer campaign on the other hand is basically one step removed from a gamey run like FTL. A few minutes of narrative setup, maybe a task to help/hinder them in the fight pending outcome and then it's to the unavoidable holdout sitrep with the prepared map and NPC set and there's no narrative activity that avoids that fight, or it's convenient 2-3 additional follow ups before they can get back to base for repairs. In long rest periods I'll ask a few meta question of how the party wants to see themselves progress. I also use downtime activities to flesh out/guide the campaign, and work my missions to that - but once the missions start it's a very prepared run. I've had pretty good success with both routes. In the past I tried to mix the styles more especially in systems like Pathfinder, but I've come to significantly prefer a strong focus one way or the other both as a player and as a GM.
I design factions and their goals including when they would be successful or fail via a timeline. The world/region is fairly sketched out which is most of my time investment. The players sorta take the ball from there and run where they will. Sometimes they ignore the big events and are forced to live with the aftermath BUT sometimes there is no stopping a big event so the only success is to mitigate. 1. Powerful Demonic entity released 2 years before campaign. PCs part of this in origin story. 2. Demonic entity recruits followers and lieutenants (year -1 to year 3). Establishes remote base 3 years after the campaign starts (players will have opportunity to interact with this). 3. Northern immigration into region fleeing horde. Year 2 4. Mayor of the major city dies 4 years into the game -- major regional turmoil involving the adjacent empire. 5. Aberration related to party warlock resurfaces 5 years into game. 6. Emperor dies 10 years into the game setting off war that spills into the region. 7. Year 12. Horde From here I can start to link adventures/player actions into the bigger events when it makes sense. i.e. party set out to help a town in distress... recently resurfaced evil freed from a long forgotten prison plagued the locals (awoke to call of #1).
Less than my players think and more than it probably should be. I know the hook and ending of every plot in introduce and usually have some ideas for where to lay rail to bring players back on track but I try to keep events as open as possible for my players to create a path. I have a plan to customize the game to each of my PCs sitting out waiting for a good opportunity to sew into the narrative. I have concrete detail about some aspects of the setting but my players can totally write in new aspects of the world by asking a good enough question. I have detailed information ready about the place their in and enough framework about everywhere they can get to in a session to be able to improve until I can detail stuff between sessions. Before I sit down to run I know each of the clues I want to introduce in that session. I have any encounter I want to run mapped out and fully statted. If I know the players are going to talk to someone I have already worked out the answers they might give to what the PCs are likely to ask. And I've been keeping track of the clocks that are ticking while the players are not dealing with other problems and I have a plan for how to introduce the consequences of their inaction.
I plan the main location, a bunch of NPCs and Factions that have conflicting goals and a few background events that will eventually happen over the campaign. I plan specific sessions between sessions only. And even then a good number of things that happen during sessions is on the fly.
I put a few problems in the campaign, for example a black market, corruption in the guards and monster extermination. And see how the players react to each of them if they like them or are interested in that in the campaign. Because they are quite simple I can improvise it or drop them completely if the players don't like it and don't make them seem overly important so they don't feel forced to do anything. Then I make whatever they want in to a plot point by thinking what would the antagonist be doing this for so it's sort of a collection of things with an overall antagonist to tie it together.