D&D General No Fixed Location -- dynamically rearranging items, monsters, and other game elements in the interests of storytelling

[billd91]

Let me start by saying that fudging numbers is against my DM code. I would never do it. However, I find myself engaging in a different kind of fudging more and more: changing item locations (and other elements) mid-adventure.

Maybe it's not fudging. Maybe it has a better name that I'm not aware of. All I know is that it's a great and dynamic way to handle pacing and storytelling within a game. It can be used to reward exploration, advance the plot, or impart information. Let me give a few examples:

<snip>

So, what would you call this sort of thing? Is it fudging? And what do you think of it as a DMing tool? Is it wrong? Is it good? Do you ever do it yourself, or is it against your DMing code? Let me know!

I would never call it cheating (because it's not). But the GM changing things mid-game to provide a better time for the players, whether it's changing the placement of a monster or treasure, changing a monster's stats to affect the events of a fight, or changing the value of a die roll, is all part of the same process - exercising judgment on elements of the game as you present them to the players.

What I consider problematic is heaping scorn on one aspect of this while praising another. You may have your particular quirks or preferences about how you do it, but make no mistake, by exerting this kind of choice at play time to provide a (hopefully) more entertaining outcome, you're no better or worse than someone who fudges the dice to get an outcome they think is better for the table.

 

[Zaukrie]

I didn't say that you cheat, or that cheating makes you a bad person. I said that if you cheat, then you're a cheater. Likewise, if you swim in water, then you get wet.

Whether you care about cheating is entirely up to you. Whether cheating is tolerated is up to your group.

You realize the game rules literally say you don't have to follow the RAW, write?

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I'd say I do something similar, but instead of saying things have no fixed location, I try to reward PCs with clues based on the actions they take.

If information is critical to the adventure, I make sure they know it, usually by having an NPC just tell them. (i.e. there's a dragon living in that swamp we want you to slay please)

I also have in my notes a bunch of information that might be useful. In the case of the above dragon adventure, the dragon had subjugated most of the local lizard folk population, but some where resisting with guerilla tactics.

One of the PCs successfully scried on the dragon, so had them see a conversation between the dragon and one of its minions about their need to crush the rebels. Did I have the dragon's schedule worked out ahead of time? Of course not. Is it convenient that they happened to talk about that for the 10 minutes the spell was active? Yes, but I wanted to reward my player for investing a high-level spell rather than just saying, "The dragon sits and counts its money for 10 minutes.

So I think it's more a matter of asking yourself "what might something useful that the PCs discover as a result of the choices they make" rather than having a document that you want them to find that pops up regardless of where they look.

 

[generic]

@Saelorn I tend to run my games the way I suspect you might prefer them to be run, where stuff exists in certain places, and it doesn't just move around to suit my narrative. This is because I find this style of DMing more enjoyable, for my players and I, and because I enjoy a level of verisimilitude, knowing that if I nudged players towards a plot point, it was truly a nudge, something they could ignore, rather than some inevitable outcome.

However, you should not lambaste others for doing something which is both valid under traditional styles of DMing, and, even referenced as an option in the DMG.

Again, I think that forcing outcomes is boring, but you shouldn't bash people for enjoying the game.

 

[Coroc]

.....
I try to avoid plot-based adventures or "storylines" altogether. There's a lot of problems with them that make DMing it harder and less satisfying in my view. That said, I have run them and am running one now. It's just not my preference.
...

How do you avoid them? Is your usual campaign like a kind of "random dungeon"?

 

[NotAYakk]

I'm making the argument that there is nothing wrong with any kind of railroading. Do it.

But the techniques (like the 3 clue rule) you can use to avoid some kinds of railroading can have, as a side effect, a cooler world and a better in-play experience.

Dungeon World style fronts, which mechanically describe what the "bad guys" are doing if and when the PCs do nothing, and what the PCs might be made aware of if they miss your railroad(s). And encourage you to have more than one path for PCs to take (fronts). 3 clue rule, which means that the players aren't "just lucky" and find the only path but rather than there are at least 3 "ways" to get to the next plot point along a track. Ensuring everything serves 2 purposes, which makes sure that things are integrated into the world and not just glued on.

In theory, the in play experience could be exactly the same with quantum ogres as it can be with the above techniques; in theory, the PCs could experience the exact same monsters in the exact same order as they would with the above.

But those techniques "force" you to change how you build your plots and story lines. They move away from a linear narrative, and towards a web of wibbly-wobbly connections. Quantum ogre's don't require those cross-connections, and because the #1 rule is that everyone is lazy you can often end up not including them.

It is sort of like an airplane checklist. The pilot isn't an idiot, they won't fly without enough fuel. But in practice, everyone is lazy, and without actually doing the checklist one of those days the pilot will actually take off without fuel, and the plane will crash.

Creating a more-static world is a way to force yourself, as a DM, to build a world that doesn't require quantum ogres.

Now, we are also lazy. So one thing you can do is recycle/reskin encounters without violating the above "checklist". Quantum encounters, not quantum stakes. You build your web of plot and in it there are some cultists defending a shrine that the PCs could encounter. But the PCs don't follow that plot thread. Do you throw out the prep work? Hell no!

Recycling those cultists somewhere else is a kind of quantum ogre; same encounter, different time and space. But the stakes don't have to be quantum: But those recycled cultists can be cultists to a different god doing something different, and the cultists at the original location could succeed and change the world in ways the PCs could have stopped.

As noted, this is more work. And who really needs more work as a DM? So use quantum ogres (or documents, or treasure) if you need to get a session together.

Just consider the benefits of the alternative.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's actually recommended in most if not all editions of D&D to ignore rules that don't suit your game. So it's perfectly valid, actually.

You realize the game rules literally say you don't have to follow the RAW, write?

Yes, and that is probably the source of the confusion. There is one over-arching meta-rule, which is that the DM can change any rule that they don't like.

I would argue that, once you change the rules, it's no longer the same game. If you change the rules of D&D, to allow meta-gaming or use d30s or whatever, then it isn't cheating for you to play in that way. But you also aren't really playing D&D anymore, except in a very general sense.

When you change a fundamental game mechanic, you can't expect anyone in the community to follow along, until you stop and explain how your game differs from what's in the book. Yes, meta-gaming is cheating, according to the rules in the book. If you change the rules, then meta-gaming may no longer be considered cheating at your table, but your table is no reflection upon D&D as a whole.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

However, you should not lambaste others for doing something which is both valid under traditional styles of DMing, and, even referenced as an option in the DMG.

Does the DMG address the topic of quantum ogres? I don't remember that part.

 

[TwoSix]

How do you avoid them? Is your usual campaign like a kind of "random dungeon"?

Not the quoted poster, but I typically do it as scene based, not location-based. They travel from place to place around Ravnica as they investigate the central mystery, or any other personal quests they want to get into.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Yes, meta-gaming is cheating, according to the rules in the book.

...which you still haven't cited.

Does the DMG address the topic of quantum ogres? I don't remember that part.

So it's not against the rules, then?