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

[HarbingerX]

We are and have been getting along. The issue isn't different styles of play though. The issue is the insistence from those in your camp that my playstyle:

A. Invalidates player agency
B. Precludes setting based reactions to player actions
C. Is cheating
D. Makes player choice into an illusion
E. Etc...

I’m out. I’m tired of repeating myself that there’s nothing wrong with either approach.

Cheers.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’m out. I’m tired of repeating myself that there’s nothing wrong with either approach.

Cheers.

Just an example of where you are saying there is something wrong with my approach. (Reason invalidating player choice.)

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.

 

[Monayuris]

Now you are leaving the example completely. You wrote up the dungeon on Monday. You decided to change this room on Friday. What is different about changing the room on Friday and changing it mid session? What would be different about changing it on Friday and changing it after the session (if not found)?

Maybe because I still don't understand the point of your example.

I don't understand what reason or motivation I would have to secretly move the location of a room or treasure room in the middle of an active session.

That's literally altering game reality on my players in the middle of a game.

 

[FrogReaver]

Maybe because I still don't understand the point of your example.

I don't understand what reason or motivation I would have to secretly move the location of a room or treasure room in the middle of an active session.

That's literally altering game reality on my players in the middle of a game.

Talking past the example isn't going to help your case.

 

[Charlaquin]

Then it is not three clues anymore but "as many clues it takes for the players to do what I want".

Not at all. It's three clues, plus some number of proactive elements (usually 2-3). To give a more concrete example, one clue may be in a letter in a desk. Another may be in a lockbox in a different location. The third might be on a corpse somewhere else. Whatever, doesn't matter. Those clues are where they are, I personally don't move them around. A proactive element, on the other hand, might be a henchman who knows information the clues might be hinting toward. If necessary, I can have said henchman attack the party (presumably with a small force of his own), so that the players have the opportunity to defeat and interrogate him. In other words, have three "fixed" clues and some number of clues that are designed specifically to be movable.

 

[Charlaquin]

That again this invalidates the players actions as they are not allowed to get it wrong.

Not at all. The fourth, proactive clue is different than the three, fixed clues. The players' actions are specifically what led to the outcome of the proactive element coming to them rather than them finding one of the fixed clues, which probably lead to an avoidable expenditure of resources.

 

[generic]

Not at all. The fourth, proactive clue is different than the three, fixed clues. The players' actions are specifically what led to the outcome of the proactive element coming to them rather than them finding one of the fixed clues, which probably lead to an avoidable expenditure of resources.

Of course, this varies depending on the challenge, which is why systems like Pathfinder allow people to "take 20" in tedious situations where success is inevitable, but it may take a while.

 

[Charlaquin]

Except that this is exactly what you said.
The players do not find the clues, so you bring it to them and you do so because you think the adventure should play out differently (stalling).

If the clue can't be missed there is no point in hiding it in the first place and not tell them directly what you want them to know without pretending that they have to "find" them.

Point of order: What you're misrepresenting is what I said, not what @FrogReaver said. And no, I don't bring any of the fixed clues to the players because I think the adventure should play out differently. I bring a clue that I planned as a proactive element to the players because it makes sense for that element to come to the players. The villain sends a response team, or kidnaps one of the PCs' loved ones, or something. There are no clues that can't be missed, but there are some clues that don't just sit there and wait to be found. They are mobile by design, so that they can be used proactively when it makes sense for them to be.

 

[Charlaquin]

Of course, this varies depending on the challenge, which is why systems like Pathfinder allow people to "take 20" in tedious situations where success is inevitable, but it may take a while.

I don't follow. In any situation where taking 20 would be possible in a system like Pathfinder, I don't call for a roll in 5e, but I don't see what that has to do with what we're talking about here.

 

[generic]

I don't follow. In any situation where taking 20 would be possible in a system like Pathfinder, I don't call for a roll in 5e, but I don't see what that has to do with what we're talking about here.

I may have missed a segment of the thread, so forgive me if my post was incoherent in the context of what you were talking about. I was discussing the loss of resources as a penalty, even in cases where success is a predetermined outcome. The efficiency of your success is still a factor which may yet influence the adventure.