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

[iserith]

I think it's worth pointing out that not all sandboxes are location-based. One can fill a sandbox with location-agnostic "plots" (each consisting of a series of scripted/improvised/player-initiated events) as easily as one can fill it with locations with attached "situations".

From my standpoint the salient feature of a sandbox is that the choice of what setting elements to engage with belongs to the players. Those setting elements can be location-based or event-based or some mix of the two.

To be clear, when I'm talking about "event-based (or plot-based) games," I'm referring to storylines like a group trying to play HotDQ and RoT or a homebrew in that fashion. When I'm talking about "location-based games," there is no storyline, just places to poke around and adventure. For the purposes of this discussion, I think that's a clear delineation that is necessary to understand each other's point of view. I see both sides because I run games with both approaches. Of course plot-based games have to take place at a location of some kind and of course locations may have some kind of situation unfolding within them. We can take that as a given in order to focus on the clear differences between the aforementioned approaches.

 

[Prakriti]

I haven't read this adventure, but could you have just said "This door is impenetrable and you lack what is needed to open it..." then redirect back to the plotline?

That would be pretty meta, wouldn't it? I mean, how would the characters know that they can't open the door without experimenting and burning the appropriate resources first (Knock, Wild Shape, etc.)? I get the feeling that the people who are against adjusting adventures on the fly are the same people who are against this sort of thing (i.e. telling players something that their characters couldn't possibly know, then expecting them to act on that knowledge).

 

[iserith]

That would be pretty meta, wouldn't it? I mean, how would the characters know that they can't open the door without experimenting and burning the appropriate resources first (Knock, Wild Shape, etc.)? I get the feeling that the people who are against adjusting adventures on the fly are the same people who are against this sort of thing (i.e. telling players something that their characters couldn't possibly know, then expecting them to act on that knowledge).

I would bet that said people would say that frustration of the sort you describe is just part of the game. Personally, I don't find that to be compatible with the goals of play laid out in the game which, as I mentioned above, are everyone having fun and creating an exciting, memorable story as a result of play. To my mind, frustration on the part of the players is to be avoided and if I have to say "Yeah, you lack what you need to get past this door..." then so be it. If we needed to come up with a fictional reason for the characters to have deduced this in order to preserve someone's "immersion," that's easy enough to do.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

To my mind, frustration on the part of the players is to be avoided and if I have to say "Yeah, you lack what you need to get past this door..." then so be it. If we needed to come up with a fictional reason for the characters to have deduced this in order to preserve someone's "immersion," that's easy enough to do.

Agreed.

I have no problem "fast forwarding" scenes where the players aren't going to gain any information or make any progress towards a goal.

Player 1: I buy the dwarf a drink and ask about his beard. (Beginning of a potential long scene where the PCs are trying to get the dwarf to tell them some secret info, but in fact its the wrong dwarf.)

DM: You chat him up and after 15 or 20 minutes of small talk you realize that this dwarf, while friendly, isn't the one you were supposed to meet up with. What would you like to do now?

 

[Fanaelialae]

To be clear, when I'm talking about "event-based (or plot-based) games," I'm referring to storylines like a group trying to play HotDQ and RoT or a homebrew in that fashion. When I'm talking about "location-based games," there is no storyline, just places to poke around and adventure. For the purposes of this discussion, I think that's a clear delineation that is necessary to understand each other's point of view. I see both sides because I run games with both approaches. Of course plot-based games have to take place at a location of some kind and of course locations may have some kind of situation unfolding within them. We can take that as a given in order to focus on the clear differences between the aforementioned approaches.

It's not really an either/or though. You can have a location-based game that has an event-based plot running through it. Likely, much of the time the characters are exploring in typical sandbox fashion, but periodically events will occur that pertain to the overarching plot (and depending on the approach of the DM, these plot events might be placed directly in the path of the characters or simply be something that they hear about and can opt to engage with if desired).

That's how I would describe the campaigns I've been running lately. Much of one campaign was exploring the islands the characters were on. Periodically, something like an invasion would occur that the characters might (ideally) want to address before returning to their self-driven explorations.

Dealing with events is never something I mandate, though in some cases (like an invasion) it is a good idea. Recently, due to an in-party betrayal, they weren't around to stop a big invasion and now most of their support NPCs are gone (they were warned ahead of time that the invaders were looking to wipe everyone out). We'll see how they deal with that fallout...

 

[Xetheral]

To be clear, when I'm talking about "event-based (or plot-based) games," I'm referring to storylines like a group trying to play HotDQ and RoT or a homebrew in that fashion. When I'm talking about "location-based games," there is no storyline, just places to poke around and adventure. For the purposes of this discussion, I think that's a clear delineation that is necessary to understand each other's point of view. I see both sides because I run games with both approaches. Of course plot-based games have to take place at a location of some kind and of course locations may have some kind of situation unfolding within them. We can take that as a given in order to focus on the clear differences between the aforementioned approaches.

Your delineation works for distinguishing games that have one set storyline ("event-based") from games that have no storyline at all ("location-based"). I'm just trying to point out that sandbox games are not necessarily location-based because you can have a sandbox full of storylines as easily as a sandbox full of locations.

 

[iserith]

It's not really an either/or though. You can have a location-based game that has an event-based plot running through it. Likely, much of the time the characters are exploring in typical sandbox fashion, but periodically events will occur that pertain to the overarching plot (and depending on the approach of the DM, these plot events might be placed directly in the path of the characters or simply be something that they hear about and can opt to engage with if desired).

Your delineation works for distinguishing games that have one set storyline ("event-based") from games that have no storyline at all ("location-based"). I'm just trying to point out that sandbox games are not necessarily location-based because you can have a sandbox full of storylines as easily as a sandbox full of locations.

I've already acknowledged this. We all know it exists. I don't think it's terribly helpful to having some posters understand why other posters see shifting around clues and whatnot as anathema.

 

[Xetheral]

I've already acknowledged this. We all know it exists. I don't think it's terribly helpful to having some posters understand why other posters see shifting around clues and whatnot as anathema.

My apologies--apparently I misunderstood. I thought you were defining sandbox games as location-based.

More broadly, can you elaborate on why you see the delineation between event-based games and location-based games as critical to understanding why some posters object to shifting around clues? There are reasons to shift around clues that aren't related to facilitating a storyline (e.g. session pacing, player engagement) and reasons not to shift around clues when working with a pre-written storryline (e.g. facilitating the players' desire to "beat the adventure" as-written).

I agree that in this thread those who object the most to moving around clues prefer location-based games. So it makes perfectly good sense to me to discuss how that style and objections to moving clues may or may not be linked. But I don't see any value in limiting discussion of that link to the contrast of location-based games with event-based games. I think the differences between location-based games and all other styles may be relevant.

 

[atanakar]

I never fudge the dice. I roll attacks in front of players. I use average damage. I tell the players the AC or DC they need to succeed from the get go. I use glass beads next to the miniatures to loosely indicate the level of damage a creature has received.

My sessions are never fully set in stone. I only have an outline with a few specifics (narrative choke points/major NPCs/short location maps). The rest is up to the players and I go with the flow. All the sessions are short «side treks» with reachable goals within 3-4 hours but the sum of those side treks amounts to a full and engaging campaign. I never prepare to much in advance so I'm never tempted to «force the players» to go one way.

Edit: typos

 

[iserith]

My apologies--apparently I misunderstood. I thought you were defining sandbox games as location-based.

More broadly, can you elaborate on why you see the delineation between event-based games and location-based games as critical to understanding why some posters object to shifting around clues? There are reasons to shift around clues that aren't related to facilitating a storyline (e.g. session pacing, player engagement) and reasons not to shift around clues when working with a pre-written storryline (e.g. facilitating the players' desire to "beat the adventure" as-written).

I agree that in this thread those who object the most to moving around clues prefer location-based games. So it makes perfectly good sense to me to discuss how that style and objections to moving clues may or may not be linked. But I don't see any value in limiting discussion of that link to the contrast of location-based games with event-based games. I think the differences between location-based games and all other styles may be relevant.

I am defining, for the purposes of this discussion, sandbox games as being location-based. There is no plot or storyline. I'm leaving aside location-based games wherein the DM in seeding storylines that can be ignored or abandoned (e.g. "do what ya want" sandbox Faerun game where the events of HotDQ are playing out). In a location-based game, there is no reason to move around clues or the like to keep the characters on the storyline since there isn't one. It's a tool without a use in this context. In a plot-based game, you want to keep this in your toolbox because it's important that you keep the characters on the path or else you don't experience the planned content. Story-based advancement and to some extent milestone XP is a good tool in this context as well to incentivize sticking to the plot. By contrast, it's not as good in a location-based game as standard XP where there is no plot so there is no need for an incentive to stay on it.

Further, in my experience, there is also a correlation between players who prefer location-based games and those that enjoy difficult challenges, particularly in the exploration pillar. Those players want to earn their victories. If the DM hands them a victory by, say, giving them an item that was actually hidden behind a secret door they didn't find, that is a problem for them should they find out. They're playing for the challenge and the possibility to win or lose based on their own decisions. The DM is playing with fire if he or she starts fiddling with things in a way that diminishes the import of these decisions, especially if there is an agreed-upon social contract wherein the DM won't do that. A DM running a plot-based game has way more incentive to fiddle with things, including difficulty levels mid-challenge, because failure means the end of the storyline.