I'm also a bit attention-deficit, which works out fine as a GM, because all of the various tasks keep my attention saturated. but as a player, my mind wanders and it's easy to get disruptive
I usually start out with a central conflict and a gimmick. Like the world where the Christ figure was a warrior instead of a pacifist, and the great church was rotting within.
Wherever the party goes, I fill in the details based on their current situation and past actions. Whatever the party does, the NPC agendas respond accordingly.
I don't usually try to make up plot arcs; instead I create interesting conflict and delicately balanced power structures, then let the PCs blunder through like lopsided bowling balls and watch the NPCs scramble to compensate.
Sometimes, players really surprise me, like the time I put them on the fringes of a collapsing Roman-style Empire, and instead of getting involved in the war, they decided to go on a grand tour of the world instead.
Which honestly was awesome for my history- and geography-buff inclinations.
This game is unusual because I have only slightly more concept of the world and its agendas than the players do. This is deliberate partly because it's more Fate-like, and partly because it encourages players to become GMs. I hope.
@trogdor Usually in my campaigns the Big Bad starts looking for the PCs after the second or third time they accidentally ruined his plans, often without even noticing.
you remember, there were some assasins that didn't even kill one of you
at that point so far the attention you got was very low
the main guy didn't even know you existed yet, this mid level guy I had in mind knew about you, but didn't feel as threatened as he probably should have.
@BrianBallsun-Stanton I'm trying to link to the "The Tale of The Dwarven Cleric, or I Poke Him: 101 Stupid RP Tricks, Volume One," but Chrome says the archive is full of malware.
I personally dislike I the least of the prequels, but I agree with the dude that the series works better if you skip it in the main sequence, and watch it later as a stand-alone prequel
The primary fault with the prequels as part of the overall narrative is that either Vader's fate is already known, or we don't know why we care about Anakin.
Watching II and III immediately after getting the "I am your father!" reveal but before seeing how Luke handles it and whether Vader can be redeemed --it raises the stakes.
You still get to be shocked at the father reveal, you're eager to see what Luke does next, but you're also very curious about Vader's story: cue flashback.
And yes, the parallels to Anakin in II and II, with Luke in VI, are a lot more obvious and make Luke's flirt with the Dark Side more obvious... thus raising the stakes when the Emperor's gloating "strike me down!" in his chair.
@BraddSzonye This too. You lead with your strongest films, narratively and in terms of worldbuilding.
@BraddSzonye Also this. You get to see him turn into Sideous in situ before anyone mentions his name as Emperor, and then he shows up in VI all gloaty.
(And I spoils that, so skipping it actually improves the reveal.)
@JonathanHobbs Machete Order suggests that SWEI:TPM be presented in a lump with the Clone Wars TV shows, the video games, and so forth, as optional supplementary material.
It also says that just watching II and III smooths over the weird age gap in the romance, and suggests that they were childhood friends instead. [grin]
