Ive GMd both in my 30+ year gaming career and still struggle with the merits/disadvantages of both. What's your opinion?

Im referring to one game wherein the GM has carefully constructed the locations, NPCs, color and general plotline that the players will adventure through (along the lines of most published adventures) and the other game wherein the GM allows complete freedom of action and choice by the players and conjures up details and storylines on the spot.

The first tends to produce a higher quality game in that all that forethought and prep work presents better at the gaming table but restricts the players somewhat. The latter, while allowing them full choice of actions and strategy, can result in rushed creativity and a more generic outcome.

Thoughts?

I have moved towards a more open, sandbox-y, though with a bunch of front-end work to establish NPCs, locations, and plot hooks. If you have read about Dungeon World's "fronts" then that models best my current style.

I would also disagree that the pre-planned game is higher quality. The benefits of being more loose is that your story can adapt and better fit the PCs and what they are doing rather than the on-size-fits-all approach of prewritten material.

I guess when I refer to quality Im thinking about background color and setting, NPC detail etc.

Given a night or two to plan and I can whip up an entire world for the players to land on. History, government, culture, different locales, details on commerce, architecture, art and so on. Couple that with some solid notes on the cities, some businesses, interesting sub plots, geography, flora and fauna... it can all appear very natural and real to the players, as if the place actually existed before they got there rather than appearing just outside their vision as they walk around.

You can appear to do this on the fly but again, your either very very good at improve and somehow making it all fit together consistently or your world comes off a bit generic and simplistic. (ie, its a desert world, endless dunes, theres a spaceport with a cantina etc. )

I would say sandboxy is better with the caveat that the gm needs to put a bunch of toys in the sandbox. As an empty sandbox is boring. IE have bad guys. Have those bad guys have plans. Have those bad guys execute those plans whether the PCs get involved or not. once the PCs pick a bad guy they want to deal with you can drop the other story lines.

I guess when I refer to quality Im thinking about background color and setting, NPC detail etc.

Given a night or two to plan and I can whip up an entire world for the players to land on. History, government, culture, different locales, details on commerce, architecture, art and so on. Couple that with some solid notes on the cities, some businesses, interesting sub plots, geography, flora and fauna... it can all appear very natural and real to the players, as if the place actually existed before they got there rather than appearing just outside their vision as they walk around.

You can appear to do this on the fly but again, your either very very good at improve and somehow making it all fit together consistently or your world comes off a bit generic and simplistic. (ie, its a desert world, endless dunes, theres a spaceport with a cantina etc. )

This is where a proper GM Holocron(refer to gm holocron episode of the Order 66 podcast that I never listen too) makes a world of difference. As you can make a bunch of stuff that is 90% of the way done. NPCs locations etc. That all you have to do is put in the description and you can have all that background color you need.

I've found the Wookieepedia (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page) to be the holochron of choice for sandboxy games in SW. It makes the GMs life -so- much easier since all the major NPCs, environments, ogranizations, etc. are already laid out and even written down in an easily accessible, hyperlinked website.

Simply picking a well-documented area of the galaxy solves 90% of the issues a GM might have in creating content. This allows the GM to focus more on the story they want to tell and the challenges they want the party to face.

The EU is a literal treasure trove of information about the setting that can be easily accessed by the lazy GM.

The first tends to produce a higher quality game in that all that forethought and prep work presents better at the gaming table but restricts the players somewhat. The latter, while allowing them full choice of actions and strategy, can result in rushed creativity and a more generic outcome.

I think that's a false choice. But then, I take a middle road. I have an overarching theme and plot, but how that plays out is highly flexible and dependent on player choices. The players are able to inject new elements as they see fit. I have a small stable of NPCs for ad hoc situations, and more fleshed out NPCs for when the players follow my breadcrumbs. I rarely draw maps unless I know exactly where the players are (e.g.: "last session you caused a cave-in of the tunnel, the only way out is forward..."), but I will do image grabs to pass around the table on my iPad for places where I think they will be.

Honestly, I think my sessions have improved and present better since I started doing less prep. I waste less time trying to goad the players in a direction, and I'm not "put out" when they entirely miss the awesome encounter I slaved over.

It took some doing, but I prepared myself to be able to run a mostly freeform game. I have things going on under the hood so to speak so it's not really a sandbox, but we go where the story takes us. In the background things happen depending on what the PCs do or don't do so the universe feels alive, and I try to prep more with descriptive bullet points than verbose treatises for some likely settings and NPCs they will encounter. Over time I learned that improvisation was key to my success as a GM so I just need to be ready to shoot from the hip when it comes time to play. I keep myself organized with a laptop so I have all this information readily available.

In my experience the best games have always been the ones that utilized both. I think having an overarching idea of what the plot will be and who people are makes it easier to be more free form. Take the Arkham series as the best example of this. There is, overall, a big overarching plot with well fleshed out NPC's, plot lines, and side missions ...... that you can pretty much do at your leisure. You can go down the straight and narrow path, or you can wander from the main road into more free form territory. I've also found that the more you have planned the easier it becomes to deviate from the story.

So I say go with both.

This is somewhat of a philosophical choice in how to run table top rpgs in general. Our gaming group has struggled with this a bit. Our GM comes up with structured stories, but believes in giving us freedom to do what we like so more often than not we end up heading in a completely different direction than was planned or just hijacking the campaign altogether. The problem I see with this is often times players are left with little to do since the planned encounters are bypassed entirely. For example in our Firefly game I made a combat heavy character, and two out of the four sessions we have played I "rolled" one time during the entire session. That's because we managed to go so far off the beaten path that we missed the combat encounters he had planned. On the other hand, I dominated the combat heavy sessions and the other players where left with very little to do because there characters were more support or social.

When I start running our Star Wars game, I plan to use a lot of the modular stories FFG put out and keep the players on a tighter rope. My goal is to give them at least two times between encounters to kind of do what they want, but I will always have a way to bring them back to the main story. Going with the less freedom more structured story in my opinion will be better for our player group. Most of them have done very little RPing, and I feel like they need a more linear path laid out for them.

I guess what I'm trying to say to the OP's question, I say play to the strengths and weaknesses of your group. If they struggle or dominate with too much freedom take away the sandbox, if they are pretty good about resolving plot points and coming up with interesting things that keep the story moving on their own, give them a wide birth.

I've found it very useful to start in media res to keep a story moving when there are unlimited options. This will at least set the stage, even if the players veer off 5 minutes into the session. If I end the previous session with a nice cliffhanger (and I strive to do so) we're already set to go.

It's absolutely worth discussing the game style with the group before the dice first hit the table to make sure everyone's on the same page as far as what they want from a gaming experience. Some people excel at improvisation, others prefer a more concrete A -> B -> C storyline. You can certainly do both and more with a single group as long as one is aware of these intricacies.

Though I also think games should play to the GM's strengths. Not everyone is good with off the cuff, free form style. And if the GM isn't comfortable with it the overall game will suffer.

Though I also think games should play to the GM's strengths. Not everyone is good with off the cuff, free form style. And if the GM isn't comfortable with it the overall game will suffer.

Well said, and I agree with this just as much as my earlier post!

One of my concerns with a more improvisational approach is the possibility of 'winging' something, well wrong. I referring to glancing down at the map, seeing a nearby planet and spending a session fleshing it out during play only to find out that its been extensively detailed in the core rules or a supplement, something you would have noticed had you actually planned the night's game instead of charging in blind.

Now I know many will say there is no 'wrong' and that your game is your game, your universe, you personal group's Star Wars canon, and I get that but come on, wouldn't you feel just a little awkward when you realize, or worse yet are informed, that Kessel is actually a prominent location in the Star Wars universe and its not a jungle world of pink apes or however you presented it.

One of my concerns with a more improvisational approach is the possibility of 'winging' something, well wrong. I referring to glancing down at the map, seeing a nearby planet and spending a session fleshing it out during play only to find out that its been extensively detailed in the core rules or a supplement, something you would have noticed had you actually planned the night's game instead of charging in blind.

Now I know many will say there is no 'wrong' and that your game is your game, your universe, you personal group's Star Wars canon, and I get that but come on, wouldn't you feel just a little awkward when you realize, or worse yet are informed, that Kessel is actually a prominent location in the Star Wars universe and its not a jungle world of pink apes or however you presented it.

I feel like your concern is valid, and given the breadth of this setting, it's no easy task to learn it. My technique for dealing with this was to go from a bona fide "only watched the movies" newbie to a seasoned initiate over the course of the last few years, a significant investment in time and energy.

I never fear to lean on my players to help describe the scene - if you have a super fan at the table, they might relish the idea of leveraging their knowledge for the benefit of the game. If not, who's the wiser?

There's no shame in taking 5 for a nature break while you hit wookieepedia for the quick lowdown, either.

One trick for a gm is to make you planned stuff slightly more generic. Then you just throw it in front of the pcs and skin to fit. They will never know it was not off the cuff. Build a big book of set pieces and npcs. Toss the story in front of where the players go.

One trick for a gm is to make you planned stuff slightly more generic. Then you just throw it in front of the pcs and skin to fit. They will never know it was not off the cuff. Build a big book of set pieces and npcs. Toss the story in front of where the players go.

Yep, this is great, I have a binder that I bring to games that is my Big Book of NPC Stats. I have several pages of "encounters" in which I have stats for all the NPC's but no descriptions other than maybe like "Ranged squad: Average difficulty". Which means its probably a couple minion groups and maybe a rival. When I present this to my PC's I say "You see several grunt gang members, and then a big Klatoonian with a fancy looking blaster rifle" OR "There is a squad of stormtroopers, and one with a sergeant's pauldron carrying a T-21" Same stat block, completely different encounter.

As far as plot goes, like previously mentioned, have several different "Big Bads" (I'd say three, maybe four would be more than sufficient) all with different themes and goals. Then just have them begin to progress there plans (That should at some point involve antagonizing the party) and then whichever Big Bad the party chooses to focus on, you focus on too (but don't just drop the others, their plans just progress off-screen).

So its kinda like, pre-planned free form.

Another thing that helps in "winging it" is to realize that, until the GM tells it to the players, it's undefined -- like a cat in a box. So all you really need to keep track of is what you've already told your players and whatever setting information the party has agreed upon already. This is where a generic reference like Wookieepedia comes in great. It's a big container filled with interesting information that can be added to your game without any true thought. Just look up the planet/system/sector and see if there's anything interesting going on locally that you can tie to your game.