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

[FrogReaver]

In an ideal world (which none of us ever have!) the dungeon or complex or adventure is fully designed before its first contact with the players/PCs.

When hit with a curveball you've no choice but make something up (hence my saying we never have an ideal world! ) and if they latch onto it as a red herring that's fine.

The harm doesn't come from the specific moving of whatever element(s), the harm comes from and through the motivation for doing so.

If you're trying to make things easier for the PCs e.g. putting a clue in their path they'd have otherwise missed, that's a harmful motivation. You've broken your neutrality as DM.

If you're trying to make things harder on the PCs e.g. moving some enemies into a nearby room as the PCs have in your view had it too easy so far, that's a harmful motivation. You've broken your neutrality as DM.

And it'd be extremely rare that a mid-adventure element change would be done entirely free of either of these motivations. Mistake correction (e.g. you've suddenly realized some maps of areas yet unexplored don't line up as they should) might be one.

I think that unless one has the whole campaign planned from day 1 then there's no way to be truly impartial as a DM. Consider what happens when you are planning your next sessions dungeon. Are you taking into account the PC's and their abilities when designing the dungeon - if so then you aren't actually impartial.

What you are actually trying to do is set up a dungeon that will challenge the players you have - ie being partial and making decisions based on the party you are DM'ing for.

Now fast forward to mid-session. You PC's are struggling to get through the dungeon you thought would be a cakewalk for them. You are the one that engineered the dungeon taking into account their abilities but apparently you failed at designing this dungeon to your specifications. IMO at this point it's your failing and not theirs and the whole campaign would be best served for you to take action due to your improperly engineered dungeon.

 

[dave2008]

The contrary position, that it's okay to change things based on personal bias, is not as present. I'm not sure how anyone could come to the conclusion that it was acceptable or expected, unless they were bringing it in from another game. But there are a few inconsistencies that could be argued, if you really wanted to.

Sorry, late to the debate, but since you seem to ignore @TheCosmicKid 's post I will quote his/her quote the DMG the specifically lays out the contrary position is front and center:
"(b) Explain how "The D&D rules... aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game" (DMG p.4) doesn't override whatever rule problem you think exists. "

 

[dave2008]

No, the burden is on you to try and defend meta-gaming. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where does it say that the DM can (or should) alter anything about the world, to force an outcome based entirely on personal preference?

Does the DMG address meta-gaming at all? I really don't remember, care to point me in the right direction?

 

[Charlaquin]

Does the DMG address meta-gaming at all? I really don't remember, care to point me in the right direction?

Not by that name. There is some brief discussion of “meta-game thinking” in the section on table rules. The impression I get is that 5e leaves this up to the group to decide policy on, but its recommendation is to discourage players from making decisions based on factors outside of the game and how they imagine their characters would act. Which seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not by that name. There is some brief discussion of “meta-game thinking” in the section on table rules. The impression I get is that 5e leaves this up to the group to decide policy on, but its recommendation is to discourage players from making decisions based on factors outside of the game and how they imagine their characters would act. Which seems pretty reasonable to me.

Yeah, it’s minimal. From what I’ve seen in these discussions, it really boils down to people applying the term differently.

Some people tend to cast a really broad net with what they consider meta-gaming. Others view it more narrowly.

 

[dave2008]

No, the burden is on you to try and defend meta-gaming. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where does it say that the DM can (or should) alter anything about the world, to force an outcome based entirely on personal preference?

a few items to consider:

1. DMG pg 4: ...the DM helps..., improvising when the adventurers do something or go somewhere unexpected.
2. DMG pg 4: ..., the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.
3. DMG pg 4: You can also lean on other players to help with rules mastery or world-building.
4. DMG pg 6: ...making sure an encounter advances the story in some way...making their characters' actions help steer future events
5. DMG pg 34: Feel free to change or ignore rules to fit the player's roleplaying needs, using the advice presented in part 3 of this book.
6. DMG pg 106: Sometimes the destination is more important than the journey. If the purpose of a wilderness trek is to get the characters to where the real adventure happens, gloss over the wilderness trek without checking for encounters along the way.
7. DMG pg 133: The placement of treasure is left to your discretion. The key is to make sure the players feel rewarded for playing,...
8. DMG pg 236: ...the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors.
9. DMG pg 237: Remember that dice don't run your game - you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful.
10. DMG pg 239: If such results bother you, consider allowing automatic success on certain checks.
11. DMG pg 247: Whether you choose to secretive or not is up to you.
12. DMG pg 248: Don't ever feel as though you need to reveal exact hit points, but...
13. DMG pg 260: As an alternative, give absent characters the same XP that the other characters earned each session.

Not to mention all the random tables to make wildernesses, dungeons, villains, and encounters. All of which can be used to make things on the fly. Which certainly suggest everything need not be located from the get go. The whole section on inspiration is metagamey as his the hero point option.

PS. I just skimmed the whole DMG and the only "rules" on metagaming I see are on pg 235. It says to discourage it, but it does not say to ban it as you claimed. The burden of proof is now on you a it seems you are the one making extraordinary claims.

 

[dave2008]

Not by that name. There is some brief discussion of “meta-game thinking” in the section on table rules. The impression I get is that 5e leaves this up to the group to decide policy on, but its recommendation is to discourage players from making decisions based on factors outside of the game and how they imagine their characters would act. Which seems pretty reasonable to me.

Yep, I just skimmed the entire DMG and found the one paragraph on metagaming

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yep, I just skimmed the entire DMG and found the one paragraph on metagaming

Saelorn got banned from the thread on page 6....just fyi so you don’t expect a reply.

 

[dave2008]

Saelorn got banned from the thread on page 6....just fyi so you don’t expect a reply.

OK, that's a bummer, I spent quite a bit of time going through the DMG to validate the claims (at least to some extent).

 

[hawkeyefan]

OK, that's a bummer, I spent quite a bit of time going through the DMG to validate the claims (at least to some extent).

Well I for one appreciate the effort.