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

[Fenris-77]

That is wrong.
If fiction exists independent of the players they can interact with said fiction in ways not preplanned by the DM.

This is trivially obvious. The fiction exists independent of the players in every kind of campaign. Nothing to do with the post you quoted.

If the DM places encounters dynamically wherever the PCs go the only option open to them is to follow a path and murderhobo whatever they find.

This is pretty obviously not the case. First, constant dynamic movement of encounters is one narrow example of the thread topic, and even within that narrow example your conclusion is faulty. Players can decide to do what they like in a given scenario, regardless of how it got there, and moreover no one is advocating for a game where no matter what the players do each planned encounter happens. A complete strawman example.

But if said fiction already exists the players have much more options. They can go down a different path or create one of their own, knowing that it will lead to something different. They can also scout, preplan and otherwise engage with the game world in other ways, knowing that what they do means something instead of always leading to the exact same result.

This is exactly what most people in this thread who do move things around occasionally are advocating for. Moving things around occasionally doesn't change player agency at all.

And most players do eventually notice it when you move things around to railroad them. It might take some session but at some point the charade is over.

See my post above re hamfisted dumb DMs.

 

[Lanefan]

But that's just proving @FrogReaver's point. The only person who knows you placed stuff there and didn't move it is you, the DM. You may derive some satisfaction from that, and maybe they appreciate that you maintain consistency if you tell them, but the actual process is entirely opaque to them. They have no way to appreciate, as a game process, that you're maintaining consistency.

In theory, this is true; but in practice it's often surprisingly easy as a player to tell if-when things are being manipulated behind the scenes as opposed to left static.

 

[Lanefan]

Huh? How can their enjoyment be destroyed that they never discovered something they never knew existed in the first place?

Unless the DM tells them "if you had turned left you would have won the game", they can't know what they missed. If the DM does tell them what they missed, IMHO that's bad DMing.

I disagree with this: as a player I WANT to know what we missed! (on the tacit understanding that we'll not then turn around and go back there)

 

[Derren]

This is trivially obvious. The fiction exists independent of the players in every kind of campaign. Nothing to do with the post you quoted.

This is pretty obviously not the case. First, constant dynamic movement of encounters is one narrow example of the thread topic, and even within that narrow example your conclusion is faulty. Players can decide to do what they like in a given scenario, regardless of how it got there, and moreover no one is advocating to a game where no matter what the players do each planned encounter happens. A complete strawman example.
This is exactly what most people in this thread who do move things around occasionally are advocating for. Moving things around occasionally doesn't change player agency at all.
See my post above re hamfisted dumb DMs.

You might tell that to yourself, but it doesn't change that it is wrong.
When the DM actively undermines the outcome of a choice the players made its the same as if the players had no choice at all. Its actually worse as you have shown that you do not respect the player at all. And no matter how often you do that, when the players find it out they will always ask themselves when they have found a secret or succeeded in something not straightforward if it was really them who achieved it or if the DM gave it to them because it fits his railroad. Likewise they will always ask themselves if making a plan is actually worth it or if the DM will make it irrelevant anyway because of his plan or just to create drama.

 

[Lanefan]

Let me give you a different example. I have a letter which contains a crucial clue for the PCs. I initially have it hidden in the Chamberlain's desk, but the PCs don't end up searching the Chamberlain's room, so I quite happily stick that letter in the Duke's desk, which they did actually search. Now tell me how I'm multiplying fictions or making my life or the players lives more difficult or less immersive.

It's real simple: if the letter's in the Chamberlain's desk and they don't search that desk, then they don't find the letter and have to proceed without it.

And if this means they don't get the clue they need and thus end up failing the mission or proceeding on wrong information, then so be it.

 

[Fenris-77]

In theory, this is true; but in practice it's often surprisingly easy as a player to tell if-when things are being manipulated behind the scenes as opposed to left static.

This isn't really a counter argument. Just saying 'in practice' doesn't actually make it generally true. Are we just assuming it's being done badly then? Because done well 'in practice' it's not easy for players to tell to tell. It is, in fact, opaque.

As for your example about the letter, just saying "I disagree with you, so do it my way and it's simple" isn't adding anything to the conversation. Perhaps address my actual point about that example? Explain how it's multiplying fictions or denying player agency.

@Derren - feel free to actually try to show how I'm undermining the outcome of player choice. If you want to bandy about words like 'wrong' you better bring the fire. Or address your strawman example. Or interact with my post in any way besides "you're wrong" and repeating the sample couple of buzzwords.

 

[Don Durito]

RE: undermining player choice.

It would also be really good to see some cognizsance of the fact that some of us have actually been over this issue at some length already in the thread.

Maybe arguments that have already been made could be addressed, if this issue is to be brought back to the fore?

 

[HarbingerX]

RE: undermining player choice.

It would also be really good to see some cognizsance of the fact that some of us have actually been over this issue at some length already in the thread.

Maybe arguments that have already been made could be addressed, if this issue is to be brought back to the fore?

At 14 pages I don't think people just joining are going to have time to go through the whole discussion. So I think as more people pile in we'll just keep discussing the same things over and over.

My personal opinion:

Moving things because it's necessary for your players to discover it is ok to do, but be careful not to abuse it so much that you railroad your players. My preference is that if they miss something, then that's too bad, and if the information is really important I will present other opportunities for them to find it.

Edit: and we all play differently - as long as your players are having fun, you're doing it right.

 

[Fenris-77]

My personal opinion:

Moving things because it's necessary for your players to discover it is ok to do, but be careful not to abuse it so much that you railroad your players. My preference is that if they miss something, then that's too bad, and if the information is really important I will present other opportunities for them to find it.

Edit: and we all play differently - as long as your players are having fun, you're doing it right.

Obviously it needs to be done delicately and not be an overused solution to every possible problem that crops up. We certainly agree about that. I'm also in complete agreement with your edit.

 

[Lanefan]

This isn't really a counter argument. Just saying 'in practice' doesn't actually make it generally true. Are we just assuming it's being done badly then? Because done well 'in practice' it's not easy for players to tell to tell. It is, in fact, opaque.

I'm not assuming it's being done badly, I'm assuming (from experience on both sides of the screen) that players are generally much more perceptive than you seem to want to give them credit for, once they've been playing a while.

As for your example about the letter, just saying "I disagree with you, so do it my way and it's simple" isn't adding anything to the conversation. Perhaps address my actual point about that example? Explain how it's multiplying fictions or denying player agency.

If they're going to find the letter no matter what they do, their agency becomes no more than an illusion. Same is true if they're going to meet Brash the Ogre no matter whether they go left to room 6, ahead to room 11, or right to room 14.

Put another way: a significant part of player agency is allowing them the ability to fail and-or to miss significant things, even if just by bad luck.

I don't grok this discussion about multiplying fictions so I'll leave that one alone.