09-22-2026, 01:13 PM
I thought the discussion of the distinction between prep-GM and adjudication-GM was very resonant. I have often internally thought about the distinction between prep-GM and table-GM in the same way and it raises the question for me of how much distinction there is between the two. It often feels like different cultures of play expect different levels of separation. This comes back, a bit, to the Quantum Ogre discussion as well as fixed-prep/blorb styles. How much do we privilege preparation or the labor of preparation over what the current mood at the table? I'm going to link them twice in the same post but elmcat has an interesting take on it here: https://elmc.at/fullstack-refereeing/
The other discussions resonated a bit less. The only city based gaming I've done has basically been "you're in this real world city circa XXXX" or "you're in what is basically the real world" which obviates some of the discussion. It is ironically much easier to mentally simulate New York (even as someone who only lived there for a sum total of six months) in a satisfying way than it is to do so for Sharn or Waterdeep or Coruscant. There are some interesting blog posts here that get at this but as foreshadowed, here is elmcat's, which provides a heavy procedure that does some of that abstracting: https://elmc.at/sandbox-settlements-prep...nd-thrive/
I do think this is an area where having heavy procedures can help, particularly as put in the framework of abstracting parts of the simulation in much the way video games do. It's the attempt by Blades, by depthcrawls, right? No one's gotten it yet in a way that is satisfactory to the hosts (or to me) but some substantial amount of abstraction is necessary. It's just the balance between that abstraction and the inputs seems off. To me, I think the application of Fronts or a similar system could help here. Fundamentally that's what the innovations /are/, actually. But that may be one of the necessary tools to create a nicely simulated city.
Lastly on the prep and reading side. I would be very interested to hear from people what modules they have read that can be run without prep. I have had an acceptable (at best interesting, never amazing) time running pre-made modules without substantial prep. I agree modules require less prep at this point, but I still find that I need to engage with them at least in a research mode but I almost always need to adjust them for personal/table preference and world detail.
There are a cavalcade of assumptions underpinning every module and it often feels like unless it is a one-shot or the module is big enough to contain the majority of the needed setting, I'm doing a lot of work to align with the simulated world. It is (sort of) the promise of Paizo's whole deal with Glorantha and is one of the things they get right. There's a plethora of content for both setting and system. On the other hand if I pick up The Isle or Caverns of Thracia or Black Worm of Brandford and apply it to an existing setting it's going to be disjunct.
Misha said, on another platform, that a lot of the value of modules to him is the concrete legwork and intentionality. The map, foreshadowing and signposting, those are difficult parts of prep. I totally agree. But I find myself, quite often, rekeying rooms, adjusting treasure, or entering a research mode. I do not have the statistics for anything in my games fully locked into my head except for "normal man" types and every table I play at has house rules and cultures that require some revision to most monsters. I think the dream of a fully playable out of the box module is nice (or at least the just read/skim version) but even the quintessential "well made" modules do not reach that for me in a campaign environment.
The other discussions resonated a bit less. The only city based gaming I've done has basically been "you're in this real world city circa XXXX" or "you're in what is basically the real world" which obviates some of the discussion. It is ironically much easier to mentally simulate New York (even as someone who only lived there for a sum total of six months) in a satisfying way than it is to do so for Sharn or Waterdeep or Coruscant. There are some interesting blog posts here that get at this but as foreshadowed, here is elmcat's, which provides a heavy procedure that does some of that abstracting: https://elmc.at/sandbox-settlements-prep...nd-thrive/
I do think this is an area where having heavy procedures can help, particularly as put in the framework of abstracting parts of the simulation in much the way video games do. It's the attempt by Blades, by depthcrawls, right? No one's gotten it yet in a way that is satisfactory to the hosts (or to me) but some substantial amount of abstraction is necessary. It's just the balance between that abstraction and the inputs seems off. To me, I think the application of Fronts or a similar system could help here. Fundamentally that's what the innovations /are/, actually. But that may be one of the necessary tools to create a nicely simulated city.
Lastly on the prep and reading side. I would be very interested to hear from people what modules they have read that can be run without prep. I have had an acceptable (at best interesting, never amazing) time running pre-made modules without substantial prep. I agree modules require less prep at this point, but I still find that I need to engage with them at least in a research mode but I almost always need to adjust them for personal/table preference and world detail.
There are a cavalcade of assumptions underpinning every module and it often feels like unless it is a one-shot or the module is big enough to contain the majority of the needed setting, I'm doing a lot of work to align with the simulated world. It is (sort of) the promise of Paizo's whole deal with Glorantha and is one of the things they get right. There's a plethora of content for both setting and system. On the other hand if I pick up The Isle or Caverns of Thracia or Black Worm of Brandford and apply it to an existing setting it's going to be disjunct.
Misha said, on another platform, that a lot of the value of modules to him is the concrete legwork and intentionality. The map, foreshadowing and signposting, those are difficult parts of prep. I totally agree. But I find myself, quite often, rekeying rooms, adjusting treasure, or entering a research mode. I do not have the statistics for anything in my games fully locked into my head except for "normal man" types and every table I play at has house rules and cultures that require some revision to most monsters. I think the dream of a fully playable out of the box module is nice (or at least the just read/skim version) but even the quintessential "well made" modules do not reach that for me in a campaign environment.