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

[hawkeyefan]

So I was prepping a bit for my weekly game. This typically consists of a list of bullet points of elements that’ll come up, or are likely to. I don’t do too much prep because I like to leave room to establish things through play.

So one of the elements is that the PCs are looking to rescue the brother of a NPC who has been taken captive by an evil church. They began the search last session, and it’s likely to be the main focus in this week’s session.

One of the players said something last week about the brother possibly being a member of the evil church...and the idea seemed to click with the others. It wasn’t my plan at all, but it doesn’t contradict anything that’s been established....so I may very well decide that’s the case.

It made me think of this thread. There’s no pre-determined outcome I’m pushing for, there’s no contradiction to what’s been established, changing the brother from a victim to an actual participant isn’t granting the PCs any kind of benefit...likely it will make things more complicated between them and the NPC.

So what do folks think about this? I don’t think it fits any of the concerns people were expressing over moving the location of a clue or treasure, so I’m curious what people have to say about this.

 

[prabe]

So I was prepping a bit for my weekly game. This typically consists of a list of bullet points of elements that’ll come up, or are likely to. I don’t do too much prep because I like to leave room to establish things through play.

So one of the elements is that the PCs are looking to rescue the brother of a NPC who has been taken captive by an evil church. They began the search last session, and it’s likely to be the main focus in this week’s session.

One of the players said something last week about the brother possibly being a member of the evil church...and the idea seemed to click with the others. It wasn’t my plan at all, but it doesn’t contradict anything that’s been established....so I may very well decide that’s the case.

It made me think of this thread. There’s no pre-determined outcome I’m pushing for, there’s no contradiction to what’s been established, changing the brother from a victim to an actual participant isn’t granting the PCs any kind of benefit...likely it will make things more complicated between them and the NPC.

So what do folks think about this? I don’t think it fits any of the concerns people were expressing over moving the location of a clue or treasure, so I’m curious what people have to say about this.

It's not radically different from how I've been putting together the adventures I've been running. I don't (usually) plan a session until I've seen the notes from the previous one. I'm fortunate, in that my wife (who plays in both campaigns) takes excellent notes. Most of the time, I don't know what comes after the session I'm running, because I haven't written that yet.

 

[iserith]

So I was prepping a bit for my weekly game. This typically consists of a list of bullet points of elements that’ll come up, or are likely to. I don’t do too much prep because I like to leave room to establish things through play.

So one of the elements is that the PCs are looking to rescue the brother of a NPC who has been taken captive by an evil church. They began the search last session, and it’s likely to be the main focus in this week’s session.

One of the players said something last week about the brother possibly being a member of the evil church...and the idea seemed to click with the others. It wasn’t my plan at all, but it doesn’t contradict anything that’s been established....so I may very well decide that’s the case.

It made me think of this thread. There’s no pre-determined outcome I’m pushing for, there’s no contradiction to what’s been established, changing the brother from a victim to an actual participant isn’t granting the PCs any kind of benefit...likely it will make things more complicated between them and the NPC.

So what do folks think about this? I don’t think it fits any of the concerns people were expressing over moving the location of a clue or treasure, so I’m curious what people have to say about this.

It's fine in my view. If it hasn't been established in play, it doesn't effectively exist so changing it does nothing to player agency. If it was established, even if just hinted at, then I would not change it.

 

[Monayuris]

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.

Just curious. Which DMG are you quoting?

 

[Monayuris]

But was it actually luck, or pesky DM interventionism? How, could you ever be certain?

To me this is the crux of the matter.

As a player, how much do you care about the answer to this question?

Some players don't care. As long as it is fun and they're having a good time, certainty of DM intervention is irrelevant. It doesn't get in the way of their fun and in fact it probably enhances it.

Personally, my own belief as a player, I would care.

I enjoy D&D for the exploration aspect. D&D, for me, is the idea that I am thrust into a fantasy world of my imagination. I view the game as if my character is my avatar in this realm. I want to be the one who faces the challenges and threats of this world.

As a player, I don't care about character optimization or building, I don't care about feats or abilities, I don't care about talking in funny voices or realizing a fantasy persona.

I care about interacting with a fantasy world and imagining myself being pitted against this world. I am all about figuring out puzzles and tricks and making sense of the environment. I like challenges that face the player, not the character.

This requires that my DM is playing fair and is impartial. That the DM is providing accurate and actionable information that allows me to make choices and decisions and assumptions. If the DM is moving things around behind the screen or changing things up, I don't have a clear picture anymore.

When the DM is manipulating the game on the fly, they are changing the reality around me.

If I search under the statue for treasure and find something, is it because it was there or was it because the DM put it there on the fly because I searched?

It may seem like 'what I don't know wouldn't hurt me' and that it doesn't matter. BUT, if I ever found out it, it would destroy my achievement and my fun. If I felt the DM was doing this, I would never trust this DM again and would probably never play under them again.

Me as a DM, I would NEVER want to put a player in this situation.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

If I search under the statue for treasure and find something, is it because it was there or was it because the DM put it there on the fly because I searched?

There is no spoon. Fiction, by definition, is some and mirrors with a side dish of legerdemain. The treasure does not exist until the DM tells you that you've found something. I understand the point you're making, but in my opinion you're invested in a distinction that doesn't really exist.

 

[Monayuris]

There is no spoon. Fiction, by definition, is some and mirrors with a side dish of legerdemain. The treasure does not exist until the DM tells you that you've found something. I understand the point you're making, but in my opinion you're invested in a distinction that doesn't really exist.

D&D is not fiction.

It is a game.

Did I get the treasure because the DM wanted me to? If I searched the bookcase instead, would I have still found that same treasure?

If the answer is yes, then I'm not playing a game. I'm a bit character in some DM's fiction. I'm not an active participant but a pawn in some story that is predefined. My choice didn't matter. I am a victim of (as you pointed out) mirrors and legerdemain.

As I mentioned above, some players have fun in this format.

But as I pointed out, I am not interested in tricks and deception.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

D&D is not fiction.

It is a game.

It is quite clearly both at the same time.

 

[Monayuris]

It is quite clearly both at the same time.

I will respectfully disagree or rather clarify that D&D is a game that creates a fiction based on the results of the rules + imaginations of the players and DM.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I will respectfully disagree. D&D is a game that creates a fiction based on the results of the rules + imaginations of the players and DM.

I don't understand the distinction you're making. It sounds like you agree with me.

In my opinion, with all due respect, pretending that something built by abstract concepts and human imagination and which has characters and, often enough, a plot, is not fiction, is simply abstruse.