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

[lordabdul]

Inherent in your questions, I believe, is a presupposition that the characters' goal needs to be achieved. It doesn't. As the PHB or Basic Rules points out, the characters can totally fail and the players can still "win" provided everyone had fun and created an exciting, memorable story by playing.

Replace "achieve goal" to "resolve goal": the goal can be achieved or failed, but it gets resolved in a dramatically satisfying and fun way. Ending up lost in the woods and giving up, going back to town to find another mission, is not a very good resolution IMHO. Finding the Necromancer's hidden castle in the woods but getting your ass kicked and flee retreating strategically is much more dramatically relevant.

As for the door problem, regardless of the sandbox/plot-based/whatever, it's not uncommon for players to grab onto some detail that the GM thought was totally inconsequential. In that case the GM should make sure this door is indeed uninteresting (for example the door can be opened and leads to a broom closet), because most of the time, if you make the door locked and hard to open, that will only strengthen the players' belief that this door will lead to something awesome. If that happens, you can stall things by saying the door emits some weird magic and so the players need to go on a side-quest to find the item or NPC that can open this door, and this way you get a week or two to rework the castle's map or whatever until the next session... or maybe the players will try and find another way into the castle because they're in a hurry (possibly because you improvise a time limit on the spot... "as you study the door, you hear the sound of an army gathering inside the castle, ready to head out on a raid").

Either way, there's no badwrongfun. The GM should do whatever she can to make things fun. If the players' immersion and suspension of disbelief are still good, and if things were more fun than the GM just saying "no you find nothing/no you can't get in/etc.", then it's the GM did the right thing. If the players feel railroaded or misled or whatever, then with constructive feedback the GM will learn and do better next time.

 

[Arilyn]

I don't think anyone is advocating for manipulating things behind the scenes to ensure easy player victories or auto treasure finds. Finding the clue to the mystery leaves path open. What the players do with the information is the interesting part. The Lord's son is the evil cult leader. Oh oh, now what? Players who storm into castle throwing accusations around are going to get what they deserve. Flailing around, having no clue who the cult leader is just trickles out. Can be especially anti climactic if players really want to bring down that cult. Of course, they can fail spectacularly, but at least events are moving forward.

Maybe players will just shrug and be happy to look into another plot hook, or head off into the wilderness for some hex crawl fun. In that case, no problem. I'll just let that cult grow and be a bigger problem later, but I won't let players flail around because they are really invested in cult problem, but missed some vital information. Unengaged players reach for their phone, or start finding better things to do then play in your game.

Whether it's a sandbox, or a module, we want players challenged and engaged as much as possible. I monitor for boredom, and tweak as necessary. Flailing leads to frustration, which can easily lead to boredom and tuning out. If players seem happy, then good to go. Moving clues, or altering your notes on the fly is just another tool which can be used to better the players' experience. It's not the only one, but I feel it's a useful one.

 

[iserith]

I don't think anyone is advocating for manipulating things behind the scenes to ensure easy player victories or auto treasure finds.

That is completely in the eye of the beholder though. You may not think you're doing that and have no intent along those lines. But some players on the other end of that manipulation are not going to like it. Some of them are in this very thread.

 

[Xetheral]

I am defining, for the purposes of this discussion, sandbox games as being location-based. There is no plot or storyline. I'm leaving aside location-based games wherein the DM in seeding storylines that can be ignored or abandoned (e.g. "do what ya want" sandbox Faerun game where the events of HotDQ are playing out). In a location-based game, there is no reason to move around clues or the like to keep the characters on the storyline since there isn't one. It's a tool without a use in this context. In a plot-based game, you want to keep this in your toolbox because it's important that you keep the characters on the path or else you don't experience the planned content. Story-based advancement and to some extent milestone XP is a good tool in this context as well to incentivize sticking to the plot. By contrast, it's not as good in a location-based game as standard XP where there is no plot so there is no need for an incentive to stay on it.

Further, in my experience, there is also a correlation between players who prefer location-based games and those that enjoy difficult challenges, particularly in the exploration pillar. Those players want to earn their victories. If the DM hands them a victory by, say, giving them an item that was actually hidden behind a secret door they didn't find, that is a problem for them should they find out. They're playing for the challenge and the possibility to win or lose based on their own decisions. The DM is playing with fire if he or she starts fiddling with things in a way that diminishes the import of these decisions, especially if there is an agreed-upon social contract wherein the DM won't do that. A DM running a plot-based game has way more incentive to fiddle with things, including difficulty levels mid-challenge, because failure means the end of the storyline.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify! I agree with your second paragraph completely. There is a definitely a notable playstyle whose adherents prefer location-based games without storyline and are also very much against moving clues. I think your explanation for why is spot-on.

I disagree with a few points in your first paragraph, however. As I tried to explain above, I don't think defining sandbox games as location-based games is a useful definition, even in the limited context of this discussion. Sandboxes have a great deal of diversity, and only discussing sandboxes that happen to be location-based excludes a wide variety of playstyles that are relevant to the conversation.

To illustrate why, consider (for example) the playstyle that prefers improvised sandboxes, with content created on-the-fly in response to the character's actions, based on the DM's assement of what the players would find immediately enjoyable and/or satisfying over the long run. I wouldn't consider this type of sandbox to be location-based under either your definition (it isn't necessarily story-free) or under a broader definition (campaign content is not determined by where the players decide the PCs go). But the techniques used by this style are relevant to the current discussion, because they're an example of "moving clues" where the impetus is unrelated to trying to keep the PCs on a pre-written plot. These techniques (i.e. making changes in the game world in response to player engagement, session timing, or other OOC factors) are thus potentially applicable in location-based games that lack a plot. A DM in a location-based game could, for example, decide to fudge a random encounter roll to provide a timely combat when players are losing interest, or skip such a roll near the end of the session when players are tired. It sounds like @Lanefan and @Monayuris would hate that type of player-focused change just as much as plot-driven changes, even though it's a tool that does have a use in the context of location-based games. Discussing why--and whether there are other fans of location-based games who would be fine with player-focused changes--would seem to be very pertinent to this thread.

I hope that better explains why I think restricting discussion of sandboxes to location-based games isn't a useful definition in this conversation. Similarly, I don't see utility in focusing on delineating event-based games from location-based games. The dichotomy that delineation creates seems to limit the range of styles that might have bearing on the topic.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yep, classic problem with a plot-based game.

In a plot-based game, that might be a good tool to use.

I don't think there's really a distinction between the two in this regard. If in a sandbox game, the players are free to pursue any number of goals, that doesn't somehow render achieving one of the goals they've decided to pursue somehow unimportant. They're still pursuing goals and trying to achieve those goals.

I don't think the presence of other possible goals means that any individual goal becomes meaningless. If they go after some sandbox quest or mission or whatever phrase you may want to use, and they pursue that goal by expending time and effort, having things fall apart before the end is going to be frustrating and probably a poor gaming experience.

Not because they've failed, but more because they were unable to succeed, as I'll explain below.

Inherent in your questions, I believe, is a presupposition that the characters' goal needs to be achieved. It doesn't. As the PHB or Basic Rules points out, the characters can totally fail and the players can still "win" provided everyone had fun and created an exciting, memorable story by playing. Success is not a precondition to fun, though undoubtedly it helps. Further, in a sandbox game, there is rarely one goal. If you fail to find the treasure, clear the cave of monsters, slay the dragon, rescue the townsfolk... you can just go do something else that is also engaging.

No, I am not presupposing that the PCs need to achieve their goal. I am presupposing the fact that the goal they've chosen to pursue is in fact achievable. That they can succeed, and will either succeed or fail based on their own decisions. Not that they will fail because the nature of the challenge was in some way unclear.

The DM is responsible for all the info at the players' disposal....everything the characters see, hear, and smell comes from the DM. So if something didn't do its job or if the importance of something is unclear....then that's at least partially the DM's fault. Maybe he didn't convey the information as clearly as needed, or maybe he didn't emphasize the correct details, or maybe his tone just sat wrong. Or maybe he didn't realize that his players totally missed an important element.

My point is that, sandbox or not, having a game's progress stall out is not satisfying, and I'd hope that, especially in a case where the DM may have somehow failed in presenting the game world, that the DM would adjust things rather than let the game stall out.

Like I said in my previous post, if everyone just shrugs and then heads back to town to pursue another quest....that doesn't sound like the kind of engagement I'd like.

 

[iserith]

To illustrate why, consider (for example) the playstyle that prefers improvised sandboxes, with content created on-the-fly in response to the character's actions, based on the DM's assement of what the players would find immediately enjoyable and/or satisfying over the long run. I wouldn't consider this type of sandbox to be location-based under either your definition (it isn't necessarily story-free) or under a broader definition (campaign content is not determined by where the players decide the PCs go). But the techniques used by this style are relevant to the current discussion, because they're an example of "moving clues" where the impetus is unrelated to trying to keep the PCs on a pre-written plot. These techniques (i.e. making changes in the game world in response to player engagement, session timing, or other OOC factors) are thus potentially applicable in location-based games that lack a plot. A DM in a location-based game could, for example, decide to fudge a random encounter roll to provide a timely combat when players are losing interest, or skip such a roll near the end of the session when players are tired. It sounds like @Lanefan and @Monayuris would hate that type of player-focused change just as much as plot-driven changes, even though it's a tool that does have a use in the context of location-based games. Discussing why--and whether there are other fans of location-based games who would be fine with player-focused changes--would seem to be very pertinent to this thread.

I would consider the need to do this in a location-based adventure to be indicative of a flaw in the design of the scenario that needs addressing further upstream rather than a useful tool for the DM to use during play.

 

[Arilyn]

That is completely in the eye of the beholder though. You may not think you're doing that and have no intent along those lines. But some players on the other end of that manipulation are not going to like it. Some of them are in this very thread.

I am responding to the criticism that we are giving our players a free ride, which is definitely not the case. If my players don't get frustrated and bored spinning their wheels and are happy to chew over a problem for hours, or are always happy to jump to another plot hook, no problem. But if they are disengaging from my game because it's becoming a monster slog, or really want to tangle with a particular plot hook, but are getting annoyed because they have run into a brick wall, then I am absolutely going to make sure that avenues open up, or cut down on the monsters I stuck in the dungeon. If they are feeling a rush over the challenge of too many monsters then have at it. I don't want my game to fizzle. But once again, it's about reading the players. If they enjoy the realism of just not getting anywhere sometimes, then no problem, I will let my notes crystallize.

But I honestly wonder if there are many players leaving the table feeling manipulated, because of a bit of behind the scenes sleight of hand. That is usually associated with GMs forcing choices on players, which is definitely not what we are advocating.

 

[iserith]

I am responding to the criticism that we are giving our players a free ride, which is definitely not the case.

To be clear, that's not a criticism I am making. That can, however, be the perception of certain players regardless of your intent.

But I honestly wonder if there are many players leaving the table feeling manipulated, because of a bit of behind the scenes sleight of hand. That is usually associated with GMs forcing choices on players, which is definitely not what we are advocating.

I have the benefit of having both an excellent regular group of players, plus a huge pool of players for pickup games (some of which I DM, some of which I play in). This allows me to see all types and how they respond to stuff. My secret cabal of DMs then discusses these responses so we can use the input to tinker away on adventures.

What I have found is that there are definitely players who don't have a good feeling about the game if the DM is doing the sorts of things you're advocating if they find out about it. No matter how pure the DM's intent in doing it.

 

[lordabdul]

What I have found is that there are definitely players who don't have a good feeling about the game if the DM is doing the sorts of things you're advocating if they find out about it. No matter how pure the DM's intent in doing it.

Make sure they don't find out about it then

Assuming there are players that are really as strict and picky as you make it sound, I would either recommend to make expectations clear (a sign that says "the GM is always free to improvise" sounds superfluous to me but apparently not?), or that these players go play computer RPGs and Choose Your Own Adventure books, where they can be reasonably sure that there will be no shenanigans behind the scenes (although that's not totally true with video games, since it's now common practice to have some dynamic system for generating encounters and environments).

 

[iserith]

I don't think there's really a distinction between the two in this regard. If in a sandbox game, the players are free to pursue any number of goals, that doesn't somehow render achieving one of the goals they've decided to pursue somehow unimportant. They're still pursuing goals and trying to achieve those goals.

I don't think the presence of other possible goals means that any individual goal becomes meaningless. If they go after some sandbox quest or mission or whatever phrase you may want to use, and they pursue that goal by expending time and effort, having things fall apart before the end is going to be frustrating and probably a poor gaming experience.

Not because they've failed, but more because they were unable to succeed, as I'll explain below.




No, I am not presupposing that the PCs need to achieve their goal. I am presupposing the fact that the goal they've chosen to pursue is in fact achievable. That they can succeed, and will either succeed or fail based on their own decisions. Not that they will fail because the nature of the challenge was in some way unclear.

The DM is responsible for all the info at the players' disposal....everything the characters see, hear, and smell comes from the DM. So if something didn't do its job or if the importance of something is unclear....then that's at least partially the DM's fault. Maybe he didn't convey the information as clearly as needed, or maybe he didn't emphasize the correct details, or maybe his tone just sat wrong. Or maybe he didn't realize that his players totally missed an important element.

My point is that, sandbox or not, having a game's progress stall out is not satisfying, and I'd hope that, especially in a case where the DM may have somehow failed in presenting the game world, that the DM would adjust things rather than let the game stall out.

Like I said in my previous post, if everyone just shrugs and then heads back to town to pursue another quest....that doesn't sound like the kind of engagement I'd like.

I think this basically touches on the same point as Xerethal - the scenario design is flawed or, in this case, the DM made a bad call. The tool is thus something used to correct for those issues. I prefer to go to the source of those things - fix the design, don't screw up. If I do spot a design flaw in a game or make a bad call as DM, I just admit that to the players and figure out a way forward rather than slip it under the rug.