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

[FrogReaver]

The interesting thing is that what I'm proposing still leaves the possibility for any given item to remain in a place the players never look. So that letter that we were discussing in the Chamberlain's desk can "stay" there with our playstyle - or not - it's really up to us as DM's about what is going to make for the best play experience for our players.

@Lanefan

I think this quote says what you desired. I know it's a long thread so things are easy to overlook. But please be aware no one is taking the actual position you are arguing against.

 

[FrogReaver]

Could do...if the hench is a) alive and b) conscious; neither of which are guaranteed.

If they're going all-out murder-hobo but are still interested in the original adventure hook then they'll get exactly as far in that adventure as murder-hoboing will take them.

You don't need to change a thing until-unless they turn their back on that adventure, or fail outright at it.

I mean you don't need anything but the most dull and bland food for sustenance either. This isn't about need, it's about giving my players the best tasting food imaginable - or in less metaphorical terms, the most enjoyable adventure possible.

You seem to be of the notion that the most enjoyable adventure can only be achieved by having the players always "ultimately succeed" at everything (or at least you seem to be under the impression that is what everyone who wants to give their players the best experience possible believes).

So let me put a stop to this right now, some of my most enjoyable gaming moments have been when I lost a character. Some of the most interesting adventures I've ever had started with losing nearly everything and failing at all objectives but barely escaping.

So there you have some examples where in game failure was enjoyable or led to greater enjoyment.

 

[FrogReaver]

Could do...if the hench is a) alive and b) conscious; neither of which are guaranteed.

It seems to me that you are the DM. If you decide that hench is going to live 1 more round to so he can introduce interrogation as a possibility then he's going to stay alive 1 more round. That's pretty much as guaranteed as guaranteed can be.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean you don't need anything but the most dull and bland food for sustenance either. This isn't about need, it's about giving my players the best tasting food imaginable - or in less metaphorical terms, the most enjoyable adventure possible.

You seem to be of the notion that the most enjoyable adventure can only be achieved by having the players always "ultimately succeed" at everything (or at least you seem to be under the impression that is what everyone who wants to give their players the best experience possible believes).

I'm not myself under that impression; I'm more getting that others are given what I'm reading in here.

So let me put a stop to this right now, some of my most enjoyable gaming moments have been when I lost a character. Some of the most interesting adventures I've ever had started with losing nearly everything and failing at all objectives but barely escaping.

So there you have some examples where in game failure was enjoyable or led to greater enjoyment.

Excellent! (not that you failed, but that it made for a good game)

Yet you say the most interesting adventures started with you losing nearly everything etc., but wouldn't that be the end of that adventure? Or did you go back and try again?

It seems to me that you are the DM. If you decide that hench is going to live 1 more round to so he can introduce interrogation as a possibility then he's going to stay alive 1 more round.

No.

That hench has x amount of hit points. We have houserules for consciousness checks which that hench is going to follow exactly as if s/he's a PC (and no fudging!); and if s/he gets to -10 s/he's dead regardless. In any case, if the hench attacks the party the hench's death is by far the most likely outcome.

Now if the PCs for some reason think to strike to subdue instead of kill (which we allow for most normal foes), that's different; as it means they want to capture the hench alive. In this case they're very likely to knock out but not kill the hench, and can bind and interrogate him-her at their leisure...or (as I had one party actually do!) skip all that and just sell the captive into slavery...

 

[Don Durito]

No one has said anything to indicate that they believe the players should always succeed.

In fact, it strikes me that a lot of care has been taken to avoid anything that migjt justify that impression.

 

[Monayuris]

I understood his clarification, so let me see if I can explain. Let's say you notice Treasure A (Helm of the Water Lords) is in Room B (The Toilet) and not in Room A (Treasure Chamber of the Water Lords). It doesn't matter if you change it before the game session or in the middle of the session, provided the players have never been to Room A yet.

yeah you are missing the point.

Firstly during design I can put treasure wherever I want. You are forgetting that I 'as DM' am stocking my dungeons as I see fit during the design. If I put the helm of water lords in the toliet and the players find it there then so be it. Why would I move it to the the Chamber of the Water Lords if I don't care where they find it??? I put it there to begin with.

Your statement that is bolded is false. If I change a location in the middle of the game session then I change the reality of the game. I am literally f*cking with my players' sense of reality by changing things in the middle of the game. It doesn't matter that they don't know about it... I'm still doing it.

 

[Don Durito]

yeah you are missing the point.

Firstly during design I can put treasure wherever I want. You are forgetting that I 'as DM' am stocking my dungeons as I see fit during the design. If I put the helm of water lords in the toliet and the players find it there then so be it. Why would I move it to the the Chamber of the Water Lords if I don't care where they find it??? I put it there to begin with.

Your statement that is bolded is false. If I change a location in the middle of the game session then I change the reality of the game. I am literally f*cking with my players' sense of reality by changing things in the middle of the game. It doesn't matter that they don't know about it... I'm still doing it.

You asked for an example. One was given.

 

[Monayuris]

You asked for an example. One was given.

Yes and the example makes no sense. The example assumes that I would have to change the game in the middle of the session. I don't even understand why I would ever do such a thing.

If you are playing Settlers of Catan, you don't change the tiles or the numbers in the middle of the game. In Ticket To Ride, you don't re-arrange the cards at will.

Why would I change the game board in the middle of a session?

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes and the example makes no sense. The example assumes that I would have to change the game in the middle of the session. I don't even understand why I would ever do such a thing.

If you are playing Settlers of Catan, you don't change the tiles or the numbers in the middle of the game. In Ticket To Ride, you don't re-arrange the cards at will.

Why would I change the game board in the middle of a session?

Why wouldn't you?

 

[Tallifer]

There is a reason I use a dungeon master's screen.