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

[Monayuris]

Why wouldn't you?

Yeah this is getting antagonistic.

Because it is bad form to change the nature of the game on your players? That the expectation as a DM is to provide accurate and impartial information. That once I start just moving things around in the game world to suit my needs, I betray that expectation.

I don't know.

 

[Tallifer]

Turning these arguments around: as a player, I prefer a dungeon master who is flexible and able to improvise to one that is rigid and legalistic. I also like one who can maintain the illusion. I like to have my cake and eat it too.

 

[FrogReaver]

I asked for an example of why I would change the location of a treasure room in the middle of a session. Fair enough. I wouldn't worry about it.

Yeah this is getting antagonistic.

Reasons that have been provided thus far

1. You mistakenly listed the item in a room you didn't intend it to be in
2. During the course of play you decide it will make a better session for it to be a different room - do I also need to walk you through possible reasons you might think mid session that the treasure should be in a different room - or are you good coming up with a few things there on your own?

Because it is bad form to change the nature of the game on your players? That the expectation as a DM is to provide accurate and impartial information. That once I start just moving things around in the game world to suit my needs, I betray that expectation.

I don't know.

Changing the nature of the game on the players is typically called cheating - unless the nature of the game you are playing allows you to do just that - D&D allows for this under many playstyles and even encourages it under some.

There is the very old school more gygaxian style of gaming where you set up a dungeon and see if your players can beat it and act as an impartial referee as they go though it. I don't find that style of gaming to be very prevelant these days - but if that is truly how you are playing then by all means - do not move anything around ever.

 

[Don Durito]

Yes and the example makes no sense.

Really? I thought it was very clear and at least worthy of discussion. You asked several times for an example. Why come back to the discussion if not to actually engage. If you do object to what I suggested I would like to know why - assuming you are able to articulate.

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.

No it doesn't. That's a completely nonsensical approach. I'm talking about post 321 in case you missed it. Though why you would say it makes no sense if you didn't actually read it is somewhat mystifying.

It certainly doesn't say you have to do anything. I simply lays out a circumstance in which I might consider doing so.

And if after reading my attempt to explain it, it's still not clear. Ask. It's the way to have a worthwhile discussion.

And if after all that's you still disagree, try to explain why clearly, so we all might gain something from the exercise.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Maybe a different appraoch would be more illuminating.

When does designing the dungeon end? Must the dungeon be fully formed and you only run exactly what is written down by the time the session starts?

What about a detail the players ask about that you haven't written in your notes. Do you make that up on the spot? Is it okay to do that even though the players may latch onto that detail and it become a red herring for them?

In summation, I don't believe anyone has actually finished designing anything by the time the session starts because the players are going to ask questions you've never thought of the answers to and do things you've never thought of how to handle. Likewise until the players actually discover or find something what harm actually comes from moving treasure or changing enemy locations etc?

 

[FrogReaver]

Turning these arguments around: as a player, I prefer a dungeon master who is flexible and able to improvise to one that is rigid and legalistic. I also like one who can maintain the illusion. I like to have my cake and eat it too.

I tend to be in that same camp, but I could really enjoy an old school dungeon run with the right group of players and a referee only DM.

The problem tends to be that old school dungeons are nearly impossible to design well, especially ones that will challenge both parties with specific specialists and ones without them.

 

[Monayuris]

You asked for an example. One was given.

I asked for an example of why I would change the location of a treasure room in the middle of a session. Fair enough. I wouldn't worry about it.

Reasons that have been provided thus far

1. You mistakenly listed the item in a room you didn't intend it to be in
2. During the course of play you decide it will make a better session for it to be a different room - do I also need to walk you through possible reasons you might think mid session that the treasure should be in a different room - or are you good coming up with a few things there on your own?

Thanks.
I apologize if I felt things were getting antagonistic. Maybe I was getting a little defensive and for that I apologize.

Maybe my own thing. I will talk about this:

1. Personally I still probably wouldn't change this in the middle of a session. If I put it there and the players found it I would just chalk it up to a mistake... and try to do better next time. If it was an item that would create an egregious issue with balance... I would talk to the player and work it out.

2. I just think the session is what it is. Maybe it helps that we play every week. Sometimes the group finds a jackpot, sometimes they find nothing. I present the world as is... like a board game. It is up to the players to make their way.

Changing the nature of the game on the players is typically called cheating - unless the nature of the game you are playing allows you to do just that - D&D allows for this under many playstyles and even encourages it under some.

There is the very old school more gygaxian style of gaming where you set up a dungeon and see if your players can beat it and act as an impartial referee as they go though it. I don't find that style of gaming to be very prevelant these days - but if that is truly how you are playing then by all means - do not move anything around ever.

Good point. Maybe I am approaching the game from an antiquated style. But your description is what I want out of the game. Maybe that is not what the game is about anymore. It would explain a lot of the confusion here.

Honestly I find this sad. I feel that there is one way of playing the game as promoted by prominent personalities but there are other ways that are equally if not more engaging and rewarding. But like anything in popular culture, the pop personalities run the show. Maybe the game is forever relegated to the Critical Role style and my approach is antiquated and obsolete.

If that is the case, I would just abandon 5E and focus on OSR games that better suit my style. I would focus my efforts towards the subculture that has a different approach to the game... an approach that I feel is worthwhile and relevant.

 

[Monayuris]

Maybe a different appraoch would be more illuminating.

When does designing the dungeon end? Must the dungeon be fully formed and you only run exactly what is written down by the time the session starts?

What about a detail the players ask about that you haven't written in your notes. Do you make that up on the spot? Is it okay to do that even though the players may latch onto that detail and it become a red herring for them?

In summation, I don't believe anyone has actually finished designing anything by the time the session starts because the players are going to ask questions you've never thought of the answers to and do things you've never thought of how to handle. Likewise until the players actually discover or find something what harm actually comes from moving treasure or changing enemy locations etc?

Fair points.

I'll run things off the cuff based on player actions.

But I just rather wait until after the session to change the environment.

I believe the dungeon design ends when you run it. There are elements that can be improvised (random encounters and so on) but the physical locations should be set and clear.

I would rather do design offline. I don't want to change things in session. If I made a mistake in placing a thing I will deal with it with my players.

 

[Don Durito]

I asked for an example of why I would change the location of a treasure room in the middle of a session. Fair enough. I wouldn't worry about it..

I really am wasting my time putting any effort into posts and discussions aren't I?

 

[FrogReaver]

Fair points.

I'll run things off the cuff based on player actions.

But I just rather wait until after the session to change the environment.

I believe the dungeon design ends when you run it. There are elements that can be improvised (random encounters and so on) but the physical locations should be set and clear.

I would rather do design offline. I don't want to change things in session. If I made a mistake in placing a thing I will deal with it with my players.

Yea, I get that.

Thinking about it from the characters I most enjoy playing, I wouldn't bring them along for an old school adventure. Mechanically they are sound - but their personality would get them killed. And honestly the more I think about it, the thing I most enjoy about these characters isn't their mechanics - it's their personality.