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

[FrogReaver]

It goes against the rules in the game. "Ignoring the rules of the game" is a way to play, but I wouldn't claim that it's valid.

If you want the PCs to know or find something, then the world should be constructed in such a way that the check is not uncertain. Because if it is uncertain - if the DC is more than one point higher than the relevant check bonus - then we have rules for resolving that.

I think the most valid interpretation is that no content exists in reality until the DM describes it to the players. So unless he's retconning something he's told the players then it's not cheating.

It mostly sounds like it's just not your desired playstyle.

 

[Monayuris]

That's a very different set of circumstance than what you presented in your previous post. Initially, both of your examples amounted to the same thing. When you add the details above you change the example, and in this case you'd be correct to be upset.

In my previous post I presented two possible situations.

1. A 'library' of never before encountered, pre-planned encounters that a DM can throw against the players.
2. A choice of three different directions to go in, where any choice leads to the same encounter.

Situation 1 is generally fine, assuming the DM introduces the encounter and it is now real and set in stone.

As I mentioned... if I have a pre-planned gargoyle lair and throw it at my players and they decide to avoid it, I don't get to have them encounter another gargoyle lair (that is the same one) just because I wanted to use it.

Situation 2 is not fine as it is in this situation that player choices are invalidated.

My second post follows up on why those choices are made meaningless. It doesn't matter that I don't know, it matters that I can take actions to investigate the situation. Once there is a situation where players can take actions to gain information about their choices, the choices can no longer be made meaningless by having the same encounter anyway.

 

[Don Durito]

That's why you hide what you're doing or making it subtle. I won't railroad the players but some things here and there may need to happen.

How you execute those events or better yet get the PCs to voluntarily go along with things is key.

Sometimes you need to be upfront though. "Hey guys I've prepped this adventure for tonight's session". Basically a nice way of saying play along with my plot hooks.

Sometimes players don't bite sometimes they don't want to do anything (half of them are pacifists or whatever).

Well yeah. I generally go with assumption that the players want to encounter a situation that leads to adventure.

I've mostly come to the conclusion that really a lot of the non-linearity I put in scenarios is for my benefit anyway. I need to be entertained and things get dull if everything is too predictable.

It's really trivially easy to create a linear based dungeon or location based scenario that to all extents and purposes will feel to the players like a completely open sandbox.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

I disagree. Resolution subsystems are specifically spelled out. Item locations, monster placement, monster stats (for monsters not already in play) are not spelled out before they are introduced to the players. Therefore, it's not the same process at all.

 

[billd91]

In my previous post I presented two possible situations.

1. A 'library' of never before encountered, pre-planned encounters that a DM can throw against the players.
2. A choice of three different directions to go in, where any choice leads to the same encounter.

Situation 1 is generally fine, assuming the DM introduces the encounter and it is now real and set in stone.

As I mentioned... if I have a pre-planned gargoyle lair and throw it at my players and they decide to avoid it, I don't get to have them encounter another gargoyle lair (that is the same one) just because I wanted to use it.

Situation 2 is not fine as it is in this situation that player choices are invalidated.

Still not seeing the difference. In both options, the GM is throwing an encounter at you no matter what you do. And nothing in #2 necessarily prevents you from avoiding the gargoyle counter once it has been put in place.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well yeah. I generally go with assumption that the players want to encounter a situation that leads to adventure.

I've mostly come to the conclusion that really a lot of the non-linearity I put in scenarios is for my benefit anyway. I need to be entertained and things get dull if everything is too predictable.

It's really trivially easy to create a linear based dungeon or location based scenario that to all extents and purposes will feel to the players like a completely open sandbox.

I've had players who want to do the exact opposite all the time. Then run away when combat breaks out. Or use Evey spell slot on misty step to stay as far away as possible.

Ended up booting 3 of them over it. Don't want to play go elsewhere. They then got booted out of that group.

Or the variant pacifist who doesn't want to do anything. Plays healer but is literally on the far side of the map and deals a grand total of 5 damage over 3 combats.

 

[Don Durito]

It seems to me that #2 is just moving when the encounter is.

Say I have 3 directions and I want the PCs to potentially visit all three, but the one they need is always in the 3rd location.

If they're given nothing distinguishing the 3 directions, then there's no real reason why I can't have the 3 locations appear in the order I want - I've given nothing much for the PCs to make a decision with anyway. (They chose a direction not an encounter).

If one of the players goes ahead and scouts a location then the encounter has happened. The gargoyles are now in that room. If the player's are careful enough and back of and go somewhere else at this point having reached a point of deteriming the basic contents of the room, then it's a whole different kind of potential dickery to than force that encounter on them somewhere else.

 

[Monayuris]

Still not seeing the difference. In both options, the GM is throwing an encounter at you no matter what you do. And nothing in #2 necessarily prevents you from avoiding the gargoyle counter once it has been put in place.

#1 the GM is throwing an encounter at the players.
#2 the GM is presenting a choice of actions for the players to take. If these choices end up with the same encounter anyway, then it isn't really a choice.

 

[HarbingerX]

Still not seeing the difference. In both options, the GM is throwing an encounter at you no matter what you do. And nothing in #2 necessarily prevents you from avoiding the gargoyle counter once it has been put in place.

I'm with Monayuris on this. Player choices should matter in the game.

His first example is where the DM has not prepared something fixed for where the players choose to go, so inserts something from their library. His second example is that there is only one encounter the players can have, and it doesn't matter where they choose to go, they will have that encounter.

The second is the DM forcing the players to play his/her story. Not a generally recommended way of playing.

 

[FrogReaver]

Still not seeing the difference. In both options, the GM is throwing an encounter at you no matter what you do. And nothing in #2 necessarily prevents you from avoiding the gargoyle counter once it has been put in place.

Say I'm knocked unconscious and placed in the middle of a long underground tunnel. Going left will lead to my death and right to the exit.

I have the choice to go left or right but it's not a meaningful choice because I have no information about what await me along either path.

I don't think invalidating choices is what matters - I think it's invalidating meaningful choices that matters.