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

[iserith]

I don't even know if it's a case of a DM making a bad call. I mean, how can we say with certainty when the DM fails to convey information versus when the players fail to absorb information? I don't think there's any way to say for certain, except in the most extreme cases one way or the other. Usually, it's some combination of the two things.

This is why I'd adjust rather than either allow play to stall out, or to address the issue. In the event where there is a clear error on my part as DM, sure, I'll acknowledge it and correct it if needed. But if it's uncertain, then addressing the issue may just make a bigger deal of things than needed.

And, this is not a tool just for instances like this. As I mentioned in another post, and one which I think you said you'd be okay with, I switched the motivation for a NPC, changing him from a victim to a willing participant in some evil shenanigans. The idea was something one of the players mentioned off hand during play....and based on the reaction of other players, it seemed an idea worth pursuing.

Also, inspired by other games, I'll sometimes establish fictional elements on the spot based on the results of a PC check, adjusting severity based on the result of the check, or something similar. So when the player makes a stealth roll and just misses his target number, I don't have the guard notice him immediately....but instead I have another guard show up, and then the PC will need to succeed on another check, maybe with disadvantage this time, or a higher DC. I'm not worried about the roster of guards....I just add one.

All this is to say that this method (for lack of a better term) isn't just about ensuring that the PCs can progress along the story track, or ensuring they don't fail. It's got a variety of applications for all game styles and overall the goal is to maintain quality of play at the table.

Yeah, bear in mind, I know why you guys do this stuff. It's just some people hate it, and it's worth trying to understand them better in my opinion.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah, bear in mind, I know why you guys do this stuff. It's just some people hate it, and it's worth trying to understand them better in my opinion.

Yeah, I agree. In my interactions on these boards, there's a gulf in these discussions that's hard to bridge. It mostly seems to be about the conflicting priorities of "neutral DM" versus "best possible experience at the table".

 

[lordabdul]

It's just some people hate it, and it's worth trying to understand them better in my opinion.

I guess it's very similar to the people who also don't like GMs fudging dice rolls behind the screen. They're less interested in being part of telling an awesome story of drama and heroics, and more interested in "beating the level", so to speak, so that they feel like they owned said drama and heroics "fair and square". The usual divide between RPGs as collaborative tabletop gaming, and RPGs as collaborative storytelling. There's no wrong answer there, but I hadn't heard of players like these so far off to the edge of the gradient. Good to know.

 

[iserith]

Yeah, I agree. In my interactions on these boards, there's a gulf in these discussions that's hard to bridge. It mostly seems to be about the conflicting priorities of "neutral DM" versus "best possible experience at the table".

My view is that "neutral DM" should still be producing "best possible experience at the table." If that's not what's happening, then that's probably an issue with the adventure or campaign design, assuming the DM is otherwise competent at running the game.

 

[iserith]

I guess it's very similar to the people who also don't like GMs fudging dice rolls behind the screen. They're less interested in being part of telling an awesome story of drama and heroics, and more interested in "beating the level", so to speak, so that they feel like they owned said drama and heroics "fair and square". The usual divide between RPGs as collaborative tabletop gaming, and RPGs as collaborative storytelling. There's no wrong answer there, but I hadn't heard of players like these so far off to the edge of the gradient. Good to know.

I hate fudging. Hate. It. But you don't need to fudge to produce an awesome story. If a DM does, something's going wrong in another area. Probably it's the DM calling for rolls when he or she shouldn't. That's the usual culprit in my experience.

 

[lordabdul]

I hate fudging. Hate. It.

But some people like fudging. And it's worth trying to understand them better too

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I hate fudging. Hate. It. But you don't need to fudge to produce an awesome story. If a DM does, something's going wrong in another area. Probably it's the DM calling for rolls when he or she shouldn't. That's the usual culprit in my experience.

It could be argued that the DM resolving an action without calling for a roll constitutes a fudge.

 

[iserith]

But some people like fudging. And it's worth trying to understand them better too

I can understand someone's practice and still hate it, right?

 

[atanakar]

I don't understand why people always present things in black and white. My group does a lot of good roleplaying and so do I. But I don't hide anything from them when it comes to rolls or target numbers. They are not mutually exclusive. We do collaborative gaming AND collaborative storytelling at the same time.

 

[iserith]

It could be argued that the DM resolving an action without calling for a roll constitutes a fudge.

It would be an exceedingly bad argument though since the DM always decides when there's a roll. But that's perhaps another thread.