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

[FrogReaver]

I think it comes down to if you want to have the PCs inhabit a world, or do you want to have them play through a story. I lean on the world side since I want my campaign to last for years, I guess you'd rather have them play through a story you've planned.

False Dichotomy...

 

[billd91]

Yes, assume the players knew nothing of the impending attack.

If I switch the location than what's the point of the players even making choices? I might as well just cut them out altogether.

I think it comes down to if you want to have the PCs inhabit a world, or do you want to have them play through a story. I lean on the world side since I want my campaign to last for years, I guess you'd rather have them play through a story you've planned.

It's possible to do both - a world has many stories going on in it all the time. PC may even went their way through multiple stories, even at the same time - depending on how complex you want the events of the campaign to be.

But if the players don't know the orc attack is coming, then I think most people who talk about "meaningful choices" wouldn't consider choosing to go to Town B meaningful - at least not with respect to the context of the orc attack.

 

[HarbingerX]

There is a HUGE HUGE difference between a random "choice" and a "meaningful choice".

But all choices are meaningful. In my example, the players just might not know it - they might have chosen not to talk to someone who suspected an attack was coming, or didn't stumble on a vanguard random patrol. So from their perspective they were just bored of town A and left. Or maybe there was no way for them to know. Doesn't change that the attack was coming.

 

[Don Durito]

But all choices are meaningful. In my example, the players just might not know it - they might have chosen not to talk to someone who suspected an attack was coming, or didn't stumble on a vanguard random patrol. So from their perspective they were just bored of town A and left. Or maybe there was no way for them to know. Doesn't change that the attack was coming.

If there was no way for them to know then there was no meaningful choice.

If the PCs have actively failed to detect the approaching Orc patrol through a series of choices they have made then that's a very different situation.

A lot can depend on how much preparation has gone on before. Sure if town X is to the west of the campaign space and the campaign involves a gradual rolling orcish invasion taking place over time than you can't really move it, the PCs will hear about the Orcish invasion second hand when refugees start pouring in.

But that's the problem with these arguments. People act as if there are basic principles that are at stake absent from context.

There are not.

 

[FrogReaver]

But all choices are meaningful. In my example, the players just might not know it - they might have chosen not to talk to someone who suspected an attack was coming, or didn't stumble on a vanguard random patrol. So from their perspective they were just bored of town A and left. Or maybe there was no way for them to know. Doesn't change that the attack was coming.

No. You a describing a consequential choice. A meaningful choice is a choice where there's some information the players have to base a decision on. A consequential choice is one where something they chose to do has consequences. Then of course there's the most fun kind - a meaningful consequential choice. You have information to base a decision will face consequences depending on what you decide.

 

[Don Durito]

So that is the point.

There is something distinguishing those 3 directions in the consistent reality model; which direction has each encounter.

When the players are given a choice, that is when the 3 different possible encounters should be "placed" conceptually. Then, because now the 3 directions are different, the DM can and should describe them differently, before the encounter is reached.

I don't actually disagree. I don't really see much point in offering a series of choices if there's nothing to distinguish them. But that's the kind of situation that's so often presented.

In the other example I gave earlier I described how one might choose to avoid a direction that gave strong hints about the presence of a dragon.

A choice of North, South or West, is easily fudged precisely because, absent other inforrmation, there's not really much of a choice at all. (One reason I'm not overly fond of traditional dungeon design).

The choice of the corridor with glowy flame at the end and the giant lizard footprint, vs the corridor with the dank musty smell of formaldahye vs the corridor with the faint scent of flowers and the breath of fresh air, is a more meaningful one. In this context we can see it doesn't really make sense to go one way and present the same encounter each way - the very act of presenting the choice has actually made that seem much less possible.

 

[FrogReaver]

Maybe it would be good to recap what the differences of choice are good for

Meaningful Consequential Choice - Using this kind of choice adds drama
Non meaningful consequential choice - This kind of choice adds the feeling that the world exists independently of the players.
Non meaningful non consequential choice - this kind of choice has no real value

I cannot think of a meaningful choice that isn't consequential.

 

[NotAYakk]

Why? You aren't invalidating a meaningful player choice there. What does it matter or help if they attack town A or town B?

(I'm assuming it's a completely surprise attack with no forewarning).

If there is an orcish attack there should be reason for it. There are resources in A that the forces directing the orcs want? A is close to the steppes where orcs are, and its patrols are guarding another direction? The orc chief's wife eloped with someone from town?

Something causes that orc attack. Once you decided there was going to be an orc attack on A, it needs to be grounded in the world.

All of the things that ground it, they'll have some exposure to the PCs. There was a temple of ioun in A (in which the artifact was stored). There where some well dressed half orcs (kids of the baron and the ex-chiefess). There was one overworked tired guard at the entrance.

None of these say "there is an orc attack coming", so PCs leaving aren't choosing to avoid the orc attack. But they did ground the attack in the world, and if the PCs had investigated they'd have some clues, and afterwards if they defended it and worked out why they might remember the events as foreshadowing.

Then the PCs move to B. And you want to move the orc attack. Which means you either have to have a completely different reason for the orcs to attack, not have the forshadowing hooks, or reuse the foreshadowing hooks.

If the orc attack is some modular thing completely divorced from the rest of the world, yes moving it so it follows the PCs has no additional problems. But the very fact the orc attack was a modular thing disconnected from the world is as side effect of wanting to be able to follow the PCs, and it itself is a problem, and once you connect the event to the world and expose those connections they become less mobile.

OTOH, having a "orc mercenaries attack" encounter designed, then using it because you have reason for the some mercenaries to attack, is different. The reasoning provides connection snd drives it, not the schedule of the encounter.

However, the PCs going from A to B should change things enough that the encojnter you'll pull out of the bag at B is different than A. Even if you have A be overrun, and use a tweaked version for a later encounter at C.

 

[FrogReaver]

So that is the point.

There is something distinguishing those 3 directions in the consistent reality model; which direction has each encounter.

Maybe that is typically the case -
but that is not the case being argued at the moment on this thread.

 

[FrogReaver]

Something causes that orc attack. Once you decided there was going to be an orc attack on A, it needs to be grounded in the world.

Yes, once I decide the orcs are attacking then it needs grounded in the world

... but I can ground an orc attack on town B in the world just as easily as I can ground an orc attack on town A in the world. All that takes is some imagination...

You seem to be of the notion that the fictional world is some independent fully formed thing. It's not. Nothing is actually happening till I tell the players it's happening (or start giving them clues about what's happening).

If I tell the players that the orcs attack town B then the orcs never had any plans of attacking town A (even if it's what I had planned to happen in my notes going into the session)