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

[FrogReaver]

I'm with Monayuris on this. Player choices should matter in the game.

His first example is where the DM has not prepared something fixed for where the players choose to go, so inserts something from their library. His second example is that there is only one encounter the players can have, and it doesn't matter where they choose to go, they will have that encounter.

The second is the DM forcing the players to play his/her story. Not a generally recommended way of playing.

Unless the choice in paths is a meaningful choice, then you are not negating a meaningful choice by plopping the encounter on them regardless of the path they take.

 

[HarbingerX]

Unless the choice in paths is a meaningful choice, then you are not negating a meaningful choice by plopping the encounter on them regardless of the path they take.

To give another example of player choice having consequences, take for example that there is a group of orcs about to attack town A. Players happen to choose to leave town A for town B not knowing an attack is coming. Don't change the attack to happen in town B because you want them to have to defend the town. Have town A get overrun by orcs and adjust from there. Makes for a better game in that you're reacting to player action instead of directing the action.

 

[billd91]

His first example is where the DM has not prepared something fixed for where the players choose to go, so inserts something from their library. His second example is that there is only one encounter the players can have, and it doesn't matter where they choose to go, they will have that encounter.

The second is the DM forcing the players to play his/her story. Not a generally recommended way of playing.

Again - there's no real difference here. The DM is giving you an encounter of his planning regardless of where you go because he wants you to have that encounter.

 

[HarbingerX]

Again - there's no real difference here. The DM is giving you an encounter of his planning regardless of where you go because he wants you to have that encounter.

I think we'll have to disagree. I find a huge difference between making an encounter mandatory no matter where players go, and picking a prepared one because the players went somewhere I had nothing planned.

 

[FrogReaver]

To give another example of player choice having consequences, take for example that there is a group of orcs about to attack town A. Players happen to choose to leave town A for town B not knowing an attack is coming. Don't change the attack to happen in town B because you want them to have to defend the town. Have town A get overrun by orcs and adjust from there. Makes for a better game in that you're reacting to player action instead of directing the action.

Why? You aren't invalidating a meaningful player choice there. What does it matter or help if they attack town A or town B?

(I'm assuming it's a completely surprise attack with no forewarning).

 

[Don Durito]

To give another example of player choice having consequences, take for example that there is a group of orcs about to attack town A. Players happen to choose to leave town A for town B not knowing an attack is coming. Don't change the attack to happen in town B because you want them to have to defend the town. Have town A get overrun by orcs and adjust from there. Makes for a better game in that you're reacting to player action instead of directing the action.

What have the players actually chosen to do? If they had reason to think the town is about to be invaded by Orcs and have actively chosen to avoid that, then yes you should not have the Orc attack immediately follow them. (Although you may need to talk to them about what kind of game they actually want to play.)

If they've just randomly left one town and gone to another one with no foreknowledge of an orcish attack, then they haven't actively chosen to avoid an Orcish attack. Maybe they left the town because they thought it was dull and nothing was happening and there might be more action somewhere else. In that case, if you think an attack by Orcs might be a situation the players would enjoy than there's nothing wrong with moving where you planned to have it.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think we'll have to disagree. I find a huge difference between making an encounter mandatory no matter where players go, and picking a prepared one because the players went somewhere I had nothing planned.

No analogy is perfect, but in both cases you are plopping down an encounter just because the players went somewhere. I don't find either to be wrong or distasteful but I can see how bild finds those situations similar.

 

[HarbingerX]

Again, more information is needed here. What have the players actually chosen to do? If they've reason to think the town is about to be invaded by Orcs and have actively chosen to avoid that, then yes you should not have the Orc attack immediately follow them.

If they've just randomly left one town and gone to another one with no foreknowledge of an orcish attack, then they haven't actively chosen to avoid an Orcish attack. Maybe they left the town because they thought it was dull and nothing was happening and there might be more action somewhere else. In that case, if you think an attack by Orcs might be a situation the players would enjoy than there's nothing wrong with moving where you planned to have it.

Yes, assume the players knew nothing of the impending attack.

If I switch the location than what's the point of the players even making choices? I might as well just cut them out altogether.

I think it comes down to if you want to have the PCs inhabit a world, or do you want to have them play through a story. I lean on the world side since I want my campaign to last for years, I guess you'd rather have them play through a story you've planned.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, assume the players knew nothing of the impending attack.

If I switch the location than what's the point of the players even making choices? I might as well just cut them out altogether.

I think it comes down to if you want to have the PCs inhabit a world, or do you want to have them play through a story. I lean on the world side since I want my campaign to last for years, I guess you'd rather have them play through a story you've planned.

There is a HUGE HUGE difference between a random "choice" and a "meaningful choice".

 

[NotAYakk]

It seems to me that #2 is just moving when the encounter is.

Say I have 3 directions and I want the PCs to potentially visit all three, but the one they need is always in the 3rd location.

If they're given nothing distinguishing the 3 directions, then there's no real reason why I can't have the 3 locations appear in the order I want - I've given nothing much for the PCs to make a decision with anyway. (They chose a direction not an encounter).

So that is the point.

There is something distinguishing those 3 directions in the consistent reality model; which direction has each encounter.

When the players are given a choice, that is when the 3 different possible encounters should be "placed" conceptually. Then, because now the 3 directions are different, the DM can and should describe them differently, before the encounter is reached.

If the first path chosen leads to A, second to B and third to C, nothing the DM says before the encounter is "placed" can matter. The DM must keep things vague enoigh that they can move A/B/C around, which forces A/B/C to be disconnected from the details of the world and the world to be disconnected from them.

If instead you have a bag of encounters, these can be contingent on the world situation. Picking the swamp path leads to some swampy encounter, the forest path to a forest encounter, etc. The DM's structure and tools lead to a different kind of experience for the player; not out of necessity (as noted, the encounters and description could match exactly), but out of efficiency and laziness.

With bags of encounters which have "keywords" or whatever organizational system attached, this means DMs are now wanting to drop keywords on players at decision points, to hang their bags of encounters on.

In theory a DM could do all this and guarantee A/B/C order while improvising the world connections (the kind of drsgon in encounter C is substituted out based on terrain, but is always the 3rd path). But lazy.