In Defense of Zero Prep

Running Games by the Seat of Your Pants

This is an article from my last zine issue, which you can find HERE on DTRPG as a PDF for $3.

Here we are again. Once again, those who refuse to listen and understand unsurprisingly need help to understand the concepts of low to zero prep and how it is the assumed mode of play in almost all old-school games of the 1970s era. I want to tackle some common questions and criticisms and clarify what having a low to zero prep game means.

What is “Prep”?

Before any judgment or argumentation can be dealt with, the terms must be defined to determine that we are all speaking the same language and discussing the same thing. There is a thing called the “word-concept fallacy” and/or the etymological fallacy. People in online discourse often use these fallacies to twist things to fit one view or another. It’s dishonest, and I have seen my fair share of false equivalencies in the “debate” about prep vs. zero prep. If we even want to call it a “debate.”

Prep will defined, for this discussion, as “the action or process of making something ready for use or service or of getting ready for some occasion, test, or duty.”¹ This is the dictionary definition, and I think it fits perfectly with the general expectation of “prep” we see in the hobby itself. This kind of prep could be creating maps, dungeons, random encounter tables, custom monsters, lore, factions within the world, villains, allies, plot points, or even a whole railroad-like adventure. Generally, the referee for a game would sit down before a session and plan some aspects of the session involving some or all of these things. This will usually include time. It is time to plan monster encounters, traps, plot hooks, and other aspects for the players to interact with potentially. This is what we will define as “prep” for argumentation.

What is Zero Prep?

We must also define “zero-prep” and what it is and is not. It is not, in my opinion, as easy to describe it as just saying it is the opposite of prep. This is because learning to do zero-prep has translatable skills useful for “prepped” games while learning to prep for games does not have the same skill transferability as a zero-prep game. Also, “zero prep” may entail “prep” as defined above, though it will never be of the same depth as a fully prepped game.² Some of this prep is less time-consuming. Simply thinking about possibilities while performing other everyday tasks or working a day job may also be employed here. The point is that zero prep, actual zero prep, is a goal or ideal a referee strives for. The referee aims for it as a standard or a goal that is, admittedly, challenging to achieve. But striving for the goal means less work and prep for the games the referee intends to run. Less time in prep is less stress.

Hopefully, All of this leads to a lesser chance of becoming “burned out,” which is a big problem for game masters. Ginny Di, an influencer in the hobby I do not care much for, made a poll on her channel asking what percentage of Dungeon Masters have suffered from “burnout.” 70% of those who took her poll said that they suffered from burnout. This is an atrocious and sad statistic, especially since this was not a small sample for a survey. Ginny Di had 19,368 responses on her poll.³ I think much of this “burnout” is due to what we will term “prep addiction.” If we can break prep addiction, we can lower our chances of burning out.

Aiming for zero prep front-loads much of the heavy-lifting prep before a campaign begins. This will involve, first and foremost, reading and understanding the rules and picking a ruleset that caters to low and zero prep. Games like Adventurer Conquerer King System, Scarlet Heroes (or anything written by Kevin Crawford), AD&D1e or 0e, or even my own Wight-Box (a 0e plus Chainmail clone) will be a rule set compatible with the zero prep mindset. Reading the rules, knowing where the rules are, and using random tables and other tools within a rule set that will aid in low- or zero-prep games are critical. Of course, we might (and critics certainly do) count this as “prep.” But it’s so ubiquitous that it barely counts. Of course, you should read your rule book before running a game of it!

Regardless, remember that zero prep is an ideal to strive for. A goal of perfection and mastery, a referee who cares about this mode of play is always aiming for. Prep may occur by making a dungeon-level map beforehand or a wilderness map or simply thinking about potential events that can happen in the next session. Yes, these can be classified as “prep,” but it's very different from the much greater time-consuming prep traditional game masters often fall into.

Refuting the Arguments Against Zero Prep

We have definitions relatively squared away. It is now time to address the criticisms against zero prep. I also want to clarify that this is not an attempt to say that zero prep is “objectively better” than prepped games, only that it is viable, fun, helpful, and possible for almost any game master. With that, let us refute the charges against zero prep by those who do not understand it.

Zero prep means everything is chaos, and the campaign has no coherence! It makes the player's choices mean nothing

I have seen this criticism leveled at zero prep by many people in online discourses. It might be one of the most common accusations of failure against zero prep that I have seen. It comes from a false assumption that is taken for granted by those addicted to prep. This false assumption was demonstrated when I asked an individual, leveling this criticism, that if I had used Appendix A before a session, that would have been fine in his eyes. He affirmed that it was fine. I then asked if I used it during a session that made the campaign meaningless. He affirmed this as well. Can you see the problem here? Why does the moment when a random generation tool is used dictate whether or not the content generated has any meaning? This is entirely absurd.

This is a supreme example of lacking basic skills in logical thinking, and only some who make this criticism suffer from these cognitive problems. Others think relying on a random generation tool like the dungeon generator in AD&D1e during play is inferior to making something up during prep before a session. Logically, this is a distinction that is arbitrary and pointless and, if I’m honest, a coping mechanism on the part of prep addicts to justify their hours of prep. At the same time, zero preppers often get the same results at the table regarding enjoyment and player satisfaction with less prep time.

It is a false and arbitrary distinction. It's the prep addict arguing from their biased preferences and not anything objective. Using random generation tools at the table during play only adds meaning to the campaign and game world in a tangible way for players. Let’s say the players have one session where they decide to explore a forest at the foot of some mountains near town. The referee may have given them a bunch of rumors they heard in town, but the party simply wants to know what is in those woods, and they want to be the first to discover them. The referee could easily rely on Appendix B from the AD&D1e Dungeon Master’s Guide. This tool allows a referee to generate the terrain within a hex and what might be inside that hex, with further tables fleshing out such discoveries. Scarlet Heroes has some great hex-generation tools that would aid a referee here. Both games offer tools for creating this kind of content on the fly, and when the players stumble across an old ruined temple in the woods, it means something because they found it while doing what they wanted to do. The players have made their coherence.

Once this ruined temple is discovered and the party elects to explore it, the referee can use Appendix A in the DMG to generate this temple complex. Rolling random encounter tables on the other tables in the 1e DMG can produce a story of who inhabits this temple. The referee may have rolled a random encounter of goblins, zombies, and bandits. How can the referee make these rolls coherent? Perhaps the zombies are the cursed original residents of the dungeon, with goblins moving in later. Maybe the bandits are cultists who serve an evil cleric or magic-user searching for a relic within the ruins for their power. With just a few simple rolls, the dungeon has a story generated by the player's choices to explore it. That matters to players! This is not illogical! This is not incoherent chaos! A story is being developed guided by player choice and the interpretation of rolls made by the referee. I would argue that this has made player choice matter MORE than a fully preplanned adventure the referee has to trick the party into accepting so they can be railroaded through the referee’s prep. The later example of the railroad is a true example of meaningless and player choice not mattering. So, ultimately, this criticism is projection! Let’s expand on this further with the following criticism.

Zero prep means there is no "adventure"

As demonstrated above, adventure can be organically created during play using the rules and tools within a rule set. Again, a zero-prep referee will want to pick a rule set with such tools (or find or design their own for a system lacking them). We need to break this mindset that “adventure” is something the referee is solely responsible for. If you like developing adventures as a referee, that is great—more power to you. Pen and paper roleplaying games are a medium that is unlike any other. It is not like a video game, so don’t structure adventure or your campaigns as one. Video games have to account for many choices the player may make, but they cannot account for all. Thus, it must hem players and subtly funnel them toward the curated options. Pen and paper roleplaying games are run by a human being with a brain who can react logically to what players do in real-time. This is the strength of this medium and why, as a medium, it is so freeing. The players are then responsible for generating content through their choices. The referee can place rumors and options before them, but the players should also contribute.

“Are there any guilds in town looking for recruits?”

“How much would it cost to start a caravan of goods for us to take from here to the next town?”

“What sort of political rivalries are going on in the palace?”

“We want to see what is beyond the mountains over there.”

These questions sometimes terrify prep-addicted game masters because they sometimes require answers they didn’t prepare for! This is why low to zero prep techniques translate to prepped games but not vice versa. These questions are no problem for a low or zero-prep game master. The referee simply rolls on a table for the appropriate situation or draws from a wealth of media and knowledge (like books and movies) to answer the questions. For example, a player asks, “What is beyond the mountains over there?” The referee might respond, “Ah, those are the bonespire peaks. The name comes from them being shaped as bones, but it is also said that long ago, an ancient lich raised a frozen undead army from the barrows and tombs of old people who resided in those mountains. Beyond them is a dark forest of an old empire whose name is long forgotten. Reports in the past have said that the dark forest took over the ruins of this old cursed empire.”

These descriptions of these places are now canon in the setting, and they can intrigue a playgroup. Perhaps they want to explore the tombs in the mountains or search for ruins in the forest. The referee made it up on the spot, but now it is officially part of the game world. Or, the referee rolls on Appendix B to determine that an old temple is at the top of the mountains. All of these are valid, and there are varying levels based on the referee's skill and knowledge of other media (like books and film). Really, and this is a jab at the vociferous prep addicts who criticize zero prep; they boast of their creativity and prep skills. They cannot think of something interesting on the spot when asked by a player or lack the ability to roll on an appropriate random table and interpret the result to fit the world. If they were talented and sound at all of this, and if zero prep was so low effort, they should be able to do these things easily. But they cannot.

Zero prep is easier to do in person than on a VTT

On the surface, this is a sound and fair assumption. However, this problem arises primarily because you must learn new software to use a virtual tabletop like Roll20 or Foundry. That is a separate issue, as once you know how to use the whiteboard features of most VTTs, you can use the VTT like you would a dry-erase battle map in person. Suppose a referee is committed to using detailed battle maps and tokens and other visual aids beyond the basics that would be on a dry-erase map, of course, that throws in extra prep. That is a conscious choice the referee is making. It would be like an in-person referee wanting to use dwarven forge terrain and tiles. Of course, such a choice for in-person games would make extra work for the referee.

These days, you can run games via Theater of the Mind over Discord with dice bots. Theater of the mind is the ultimate mode of play for low to zero prep. This play mode is highly imaginative and requires no setup or tear-down. Of course, this play mode is only for some. Understandably, only some people like it.

The argument from solipsism

A common argument is one from solipsism. This is a flawed argument that those favoring zero prep can also fall into; however, I see it more from prep addicts arguing against zero prep. This is a simple argument, and it essentially involves the critic saying, “I tried zero prep and failed; therefore, it is bad.” The flaw is that I run zero prep, and my games are fun. I know just as many people who successfully run low to zero prep games as unsuccessful. I have run narrative or highly prepped games, both successfully and unsuccessfully. My subjective experience is not an objective baseline for making objective claims about what is objectively good and proper. I can only speak for myself, much like the critics can only speak for themselves. This is a solipsistic argument that honestly says more about the narcissism of the person than the methods of zero prep or high prep. Such people probably take more pride in tricking players into following along with their prewritten novels than they do in playing a game.

Relying on random tables slows the game down

For some reason, the idea of “flow” in a game is a big sticking point for these critics. They claim that stopping to look up a rule, or in the case of low to zero prep, making a roll to generate content on the fly, takes too much time and disrupts the game flow during play. This makes me laugh because, if we have ever been in any regular game, you know, side conversations, smoke breaks, and other things occur. I know we want to avoid these things, and particularly opinionated people wish to pretend every game should be like a polished actual play stream. If you are a dad like me, you know your four-year-old will come out and want snacks or just sit on your lap and see what is happening.

Rules and Expectations

Not all games are created equal. Not all games are designed for the same purpose. This should be abundantly obvious and true for many, yet many use games and tools within the hobby “incorrectly” or “inefficiently.” Rulesets focused on exploration are generally better suited to low or zero-prep gaming. At the same time, while useable, the more narrative-focused story games are much more challenging to zero prep in and take more mastery of the concept, knowledge of influential media on the game, and general prowess at game mastery. Considering that zero prep game mastering is alien to many in the hobby these days, compounding this by using a game system designed almost explicitly for game prep is a death sentence for any campaign for most game masters.

A game system and ruleset are tools from which playgroups may create imaginative experiences within a game's milieu. A fantasy adventure game like Dungeons & Dragons is ideally suited for hex crawls, exploration, dungeon crawls, and general free-form sandbox-style campaigns. A game like Call of Cthulhu is investigative horror and a style of play better suited for game prep since a referee would need to think of a situation to investigate, plant clues, plan encounters, and plan for player deviations from established prepped plans (so that advancing the investigation is not locked behind a single clue that the player characters can miss). In narrative-heavy games, players automatically go along with railroad tracks in a campaign rather than in more exploratory-type games. Trying to run a Call of Cthulhu investigation in a zero-prep manner would show extreme mastery of not just the rules within Call of Cthulhu but also the lore of the setting, the works of Lovecraft, and general game mastery skills. Such a game master is worthy of the title “Game Master.”

Using Dungeons & Dragons for a horror investigation like the kind found in Call of Cthulhu is possible; many, maybe even you, have done so. However, this differs from the original design purpose of the game, which exploded onto the scene in 1974. This is why games like Call of Cthulhu or Lamentations of the Flame Princess lean heavily into adventure modules and campaign books (and your wallet and shelf space). Using a game like Dungeons & Dragons this way is fun for many, but it is an example of a tool being used for a purpose other than what it was designed for. This book is focused on something other than that kind of game. This book aims to get you, a beginner or novice referee, grounded in zero prep games and to exercise “the muscles” required to run such a game.

The Wargame Campaign Mentality

The pen-and-paper roleplaying games that we all enjoy started as a wargame in 1974 through the release of Dungeons & Dragons. The subtitle for the Original Dungeons & Dragons booklets explicitly calls it “Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames.” When many think about wargames today, many probably think of Warhammer or other such games where everyone shows up for a skirmish battle with their armies, and a mathematical contest of chance through dice plays out with finely painted plastic army men. There is no story as to why the conflict is occurring, and the battle is fought for the straightforward enjoyment of players that evening. Next week, another battle will be fought, and it will often have no real relationship to the game being played this week other than the same players showing up again next week for a fun time. These kinds of wargames happen and are fun, but this is not the kind that spawned Dungeons & Dragons.

The kind of games that spawned the hobby were living wargame campaigns where players took on various roles in their faction’s armies, and every battle that was fought had a narrative reason for happening, which sprung from the player-driven actions and choices that occurred in the game. If it was a Napoleonic campaign, the players were engaged in an always-on game where, at one moment, they were roleplaying as the national leader of their army’s nation, calculating budgets and trying to make treaties with other players and their nations. Other times, a battle would break out, the campaign's focus would zoom into a battlefield, and these same players would take on the roles of generals and commanders on the field, commanding men and leading them to victory or heroic defeat. There was a scaling to the game and a focus on player-driven games.

This mentality of a player-driven game is far rarer than it used to be, but you can see how such a campaign is a dream for a referee. In the kind of game I just described, how much “prep” do you think the campaign’s referee was doing during that? There was probably some front-loaded prep in setting up maps and other necessities, but the referee was not planning a narrative or plot. Despite this, a narrative and plot spontaneously arose for these wargamers.

Today, we see “world-weavers” and “story-crafters” taking up the mantle of “Dungeon Master” and weaving epic fantasy epics for players until they get burned out after six sessions. As I started to piece things together, I asked, “How did referees of old manage to maintain interest in years-long campaigns, and modern tables generally can’t last past a handful of sessions? The first piece of this puzzle is understanding that people’s expectations of what a game should be are fundamentally messed up and oversimplified.

As I stated, the game's system and purpose should mold expectations at the table. The kind of game that Call of Cthulhu produces is different from Dungeons & Dragons or Traveller. This should be obvious, but we continually see people apply the same mentality and overlay the same game expectations every time, no matter the game system used. Generally, several unfortunate things occur. Under such expectations, a tool is being misused, leading to referee frustration as the system (tool) behaves in ways the referee does not like and is at odds with the campaign's objective.

In some cases, the system might feel like it is working against the referee’s intentions and goals, leading to the referee cutting out rules, ignoring rules, and homebrewing broken ones. All of this leads to campaign death. I would know. I have been there and done all of this.

For this reason, the wargame mentality must be present within the game's rules. This means you, as a Game Master (or potential GM), must reference games from the hobby's start. Good games to reference would be 0e Dungeons & Dragons, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Classic Traveller (1977), older RuneQuest, and others. The kind of game that will make it so that you can run a low to zero prep game right from the start is a game with loads of tables and mechanics for exploration and sandbox play.

Classic Traveller and AD&D1e, for example, have random encounter tables and content generation like subsector and world generation in Traveller or dungeon and hex map generation in AD&D1e. These kinds of games have rules for random encounters and can easily scale (especially in the case of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1e) from various levels of man-to-man combat to mass combat with large armies. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, in its Dungeon Master’s Guide, has rules for generating wilderness hexes and what may potentially be in said hexes (such as castles, villages, dungeons, ruins, tombs, etc.). Again, this means you can have players roll up characters, open your rulebook, and generate content on the fly, reacting to what the players do during play.

Many narrative-based story games need these tools because they assume you will run a module or engage in the traditional level of (over) prepping for game night. To run a zero prep narrative game, you must create the tools required to run such a game style yourself. Again, these tools are inherent to games from the 70s and early 80s, like Traveller and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. If the goal or ideal is low to zero prep, you can do it in the games I mentioned. Otherwise, you have to prep for zero prep by making the tools the game system you want to use lack. Of course, creating these tools is beneficial and a good use of effort. Such tools are readily applicable to the future and make future attempts. If you are playing something like 5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons, the tools in AD & D1e will still be helpful to you and immediately applicable to your game and campaign.

Let Go and Let RAW

Rules As Written (RAW) will be controversial and touchy for many in the hobby. For many, its reaction comes in many forms, ranging from “not for me” to “HOW DARE YOU EVEN THINK SUCH A THING!” Many feel this play mode is not in the spirit of the game itself. To such an accusation, I simply ask, “Why did you spend forty to fifty dollars or more on that rulebook then?” Gary Gygax, the co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons with Dave Arneson, says the following in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master’s Guide:

“The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign. Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly. Each will attempt to take the game out of your hands and mold it to his or her ends. To satisfy this natural desire is to issue a death warrant to a campaign, for it will either be a one-player affair or the players will desert en masse for something more challenging and equitable.”

Many in opposition will point to another Gygax quote, “The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.” Such quotes are nice and often mined by those who like to buy books they don’t read to fill up their shelves, like Funk-O pop dolls. One has to understand how Gary’s tastes changed over time and the different kinds of “Gary Gygaxs” that seemed to exist. Marketing and designer Gary often contradicted casual gamer Gary. So, of course, pick which Gary you want to listen to. The Gary Gygax speaking in the AD&D1e Dungeon Master’s Guide is prophetic.

First, the players know they are not playing against your fiat referee whims but the rules themselves. They know you as a referee are abound by certain boundaries just as they are. This is why it IS conducive to creativity at the table. They understand that you will not secretly railroad them behind the scenes like chattel to slaughter but that the choices they make as an adventuring party are being appropriately adjudicated in relationship to the rules and game world. Because of this, they know they can try anything, and it will matter.

Being confined by the rules is like being an artist and selecting a specific medium to work in and become proficient in. As an artist and illustrator in the hobby myself, I know this feeling and concept well. When I dedicated my efforts (over ten years ago) to learning digital painting and confined myself to a particular set of brushes within my painting program, it freed me to be as creative as possible because I was so comfortable with those tools. I used them without even thinking. These tools became part of me and an extension of my creativity. The same is true for playing rules as written.

Games like Classic Traveller or AD&D1e have mechanics for content generation during play, incentivizing playing RAW. There are rules for when to make random encounter checks, such as determining what is within a hex or what is around a corner in the dungeon. It frees you up to simply react to what the players want. From the results the mechanics produce, you use your imagination and wealth of knowledge from books and films (a topic covered later) to interpret the results, adding your creativity (guided by the rules) to the game just as the players do with their decisions. Together with the players, a world is created, and the players care about it because their choices matter.

I make this point because I have had those stuck in their ways who refuse to see any other mode of play say that this method of play makes player choice not matter! Let us deconstruct that to see how absurd such a complaint and criticism is.

Indeed, no Game Master can prep and plan for any contingency or course of action the players may take. Such a referee must hide the railroad tracks so discreetly the players feel like their choices matter as they choo-choo along the prepped tracks, constantly going where the Game Master wants them to go and not really where they so choose. Or the referee must improvise to truly honor the course of action the players wish to take. Which of these methods truly respects player choice and makes their choices matter? Such criticism comes from those who have little in the way of good experience and knowledge in the hobby but large egos incapable of admitting when the tracks they laid down go over a cliff. They become their own whiskered silent movie villains with dynamite sticks derailing their railroaded campaigns. Defending such tendencies with, “I’ve been playing for over forty years,” is worse, too.

If I improvise something or use a random table to generate content for players when they go into the unknown of the campaign and game world, their choices matter because whatever I generate becomes an official part of that game world. If the players are clearing an area of wilderness in AD&D1e and discover a ruined castle (generated with Appendix B), then their choice to explore the wilderness matters because their choice officially made a Castle, ripe for exploration, appear in our shared world in that hex. Suppose I simply took the big evil guy’s castle and moved to that hex (because they clearly said no to my railroad) so that the encounter I need to have happens and my prep isn't wasted. In that case, I am only giving them the illusion of choice so that I can watch the players act out my poorly written novel. Yet, the critics of what I advocate say that I am the one invalidating player choice by using random tables. Finally, players are hooked when they overcome the rules and “win” by bringing a big haul of loot and treasure home and leveling up. They know they overcame the game (which is hard) and not you. They know you didn’t let them win either. You were fair. This victory was legitimately earned, and they will come every week if you can keep doing precisely this every time.

Things to Look For in a Game

So, to recap, let’s discuss the hallmarks of a game that will be the easiest to zero-prep for. There will be some variability based on your knowledge and skill, but you can assume that if a game has all of these aspects, it will be conducive to low—or zero-prep Game Mastering.

You will want a game that is focused on simulationism. Alexander Macris, the designer of “Adventurer Conqueror King” and “Ascendant,” says, “...although Simulationism has always been widely respected in tabletop wargames and videogames, many tabletop RPG gamers today are ignorant or contemptuous of the merits of the approach.”⁴ You will want a simulationist game like AD&D (despite Gary saying it isn't per Macris’s manifesto), Ascendant, or Adventurer Conqueror King (ACKS) because such games give you the proper tools to simulate a game world with mechanics and NOT your whims or fiat alone.

Simulationism is “the style which values resolving in-game events based solely on game-world considerations, without allowing meta-game concerns to affect the decision. Thus, a full simulationist GM will not fudge results to save PCs to save her plot or even change facts unknown to the players. Such a GM may use meta-game considerations to decide meta-game issues like who plays which character, whether to play out a conversation word for word, and so forth. Still, she will resolve actual in-game events based on what would ‘really’ happen.”⁵

This means that rather than games focused on running a story or narrative, you want games concentrated on running a world. The potential for a story arises from the simulation of the game world and player actions. This is why games like Candela Obscura or FUDGE could be better suited for zero prep, unlike AD&D1e or ACKS. The latter games offer referee tools for generating content on the fly, usually in response to player choices. Mechanics, again, inform the setting. The author of a simulationist-styled game has prepared the game for you by compiling tables and mechanics for simulating the world. All you have to do is use them.

Of course, if you are stubborn and must run a story or narrative-based game, you must design and create such tools yourself. I have noticed that many want to believe they are good at planning, but the quality of their homebrews needs to bear witness to this. However, you can look to games like AD&D to see what tools your game of choice may need to improve. Things like random encounter tables, weather, exploration rules, wilderness rules, travel, disease, aging, politics, economics, and anything else suited to the world you are trying to simulate. At that point, however, realize one thing if you attempt to create these tools by referencing games that already have them: Why are you so dead set on running a game not designed for this mode of play when you can use the game that is? The easy thing to think of when looking at a prospective game is to ask yourself, “Is this game designed to be a narrative or a simulated world?”

Final Thoughts About Zero Prep

I don’t expect this article to convince many who have already decided to dismiss zero prep. If you are dead set in prep addiction, of course, you will not find anything I have said to be convincing. If, however, you are of an open mind and willing to try new things and new ways to experience a campaign in the hobby, I encourage you to read and understand your rulebook of choice and give low to zero prep a shot.

You must have a good rule set that will allow you to simulate a world. This means random tables for the events that would be most prevalent in a campaign. You need to have a good foundation of books, movies, and other media that can act as a toolbox of inspiration from which to draw. You must also lean into the rules and rely on them. If simulationism is critical, you must lean into and rely on the rules as much as possible to simulate a world. This simulation of a world will allow for a story to arise organically through player choice and referee imagination during play. Such a kind of game is genuinely “communal storytelling,” which is what many in the hobby bill this hobby as but never offer advice on how to achieve.

1. Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Preparation definition & meaning. Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preparation

2. Some zero prep games may require the creation of a wilderness map. Others may involve the referee simply reading the rulebook beforehand in order to understand the game completely. The act of watching films or reading novels relevant to the kind of campaign a referee wishes to run may also be employed.

3. Di, G. (2023, February 1). How GM burnout ruined my campaign (and how to fix it). YouTube.

4. Macris, A. (2023, March 8). A Manifesto: In Defense of Simulationism. https://arbiterofworlds.substack.com/p/a-manifesto-in-defense-of-simulationism

5. Ibid.