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

[iserith]

Make sure they don't find out about it then

Ha! I prefer transparency, myself. I think trust in the DM is very important. I won't do anything to risk it. It's not worth it in my view.

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).

I think it's good to have everyone's expectations on the table, but unkind to suggest those players should just pack it in because they can't get what they want. They can, just maybe not from you. And that's fine. They can come play with me instead.

 

[lordabdul]

And that's fine. They can come play with me instead.

Sure, but are you finding it fun to GM if you're only allowed to stick to what the adventure book says? What's your added value, as a player at the table, in that case? Also, what if you were the one who wrote the adventure? What's the difference between you changing something 30 seconds ago vs. you changing something the evening before the game as you were revising your adventure?

 

[Arilyn]

I'd rather fix on fly, then have to explain to players I screwed something up, and that's why the mystery made no sense, or why your characters all died.

If you are the type of player who won't disengage over hitting a wall or who doesn't get frustrated by having to drop plot hooks, then there will be no need for sleight of hand.

If it's a mixed group of players, then there will need to be compromises all around.

 

[iserith]

Sure, but are you finding it fun to GM if you're only allowed to stick to what the adventure book says? What's your added value in that case? Also, what if you were the one who wrote the adventure? What's the difference between you changing something 30 seconds ago vs. you changing something the evening before the game as you were revising your adventure?

The difference to me is negligible. The difference to certain players is somewhere north of that. That's what they want and it's not hard to give it to them: Just do what the scenario says to do, whether that's from a module or one that I've written before play (the latter is more likely in my case since I think most modules are awful). I've run, for example, my town-to-dungeon one-shot "Anywhere But the Sleazy Goat" 12 times now (and will again on Saturday). It's been fun every time, including for me. Some players have played it up to 4 times with different characters.

I'm not sure what you mean by "added value."

 

[lordabdul]

I'm not sure what you mean by "added value."

I mean what's the advantage of having a human GM compared to playing the same adventure in video game or book form (if it existed).

How do you even know if you have such picky players at the table? Do you typically ask "are you OK with improvisation" as part of your session 0? Or do they usually come forward first, checking with you that you're going to run an "unaltered" adventure? I have never met any player like that myself... I know of some people who dislike the GM fudging dice rolls behind the screen, but this is something else entirely that is completely foreign to me -- in a way it's also fascinating to me to learn that this exists.

 

[iserith]

I mean what's the advantage of having a human GM compared to playing the same adventure in video game or book form (if it existed).

It doesn't exist, for one. Human interaction might be another draw. The game is a conversation after all, hopefully a good one.

How do you even know if you have such picky players at the table? Do you typically ask "are you OK with improvisation" as part of your session 0? Or do they usually come forward first, checking with you that you're going to run an "unaltered" adventure? I have never met any player like that myself... I know of some people who dislike the GM fudging dice rolls behind the screen, but this is something else entirely that is completely foreign to me.

It's probably important to differentiate the improvisation that all DMs must do to simply run the game versus the sort of improvisation that is being discussed in this thread where in the DM is moving stuff around behind the scenes to keep the PCs on the plot or, as some say they do, correct for flawed design or bad DM calls.

In my experience, most players like Monayurius or Lanefan will have an established group that has existed for years with the odd dropout being replaced in time by a new player. I won't get these players at my table, usually. But sometimes I do in pickup groups and often they've found their way to my table because they've heard from someone else that they'll enjoy what I'm presenting. I ask for private feedback after the session and there have been some people who share preferences with the aforementioned posters and liked X, Y, or Z about the scenario they just played and that always has to do with consistency and the feeling that the adventure location is set in stone, a place to be figured out and defeated (or sometimes resulting in their defeat).

 

[Arilyn]

I think that most players object to overt manipulation or the world shifting under them, so everything is surreal. I had a GM like that years ago, and it was annoying and frustrating.

But, I don't think that most players will notice or care if GM decided that the beggar on the street has the vital information, instead of the minstrel on the corner. And if the poor archer hasn't managed to hit the broadside of a barn all session, and then scores a critical against the big bad, but baddie has one hp left, I might let the baddie fall, so player gets his moment. If done sparingingly and with light hand then it's not going to be noticed and can improve the session. But, if I had players who did somehow pick up on this or if it gets discussed, and they object, I won't do it.

I've never had this happen though.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I don't even know if it's a case of a DM making a bad call. I mean, how can we say with certainty when the DM fails to convey information versus when the players fail to absorb information? I don't think there's any way to say for certain, except in the most extreme cases one way or the other. Usually, it's some combination of the two things.

This is why I'd adjust rather than either allow play to stall out, or to address the issue. In the event where there is a clear error on my part as DM, sure, I'll acknowledge it and correct it if needed. But if it's uncertain, then addressing the issue may just make a bigger deal of things than needed.

And, this is not a tool just for instances like this. As I mentioned in another post, and one which I think you said you'd be okay with, I switched the motivation for a NPC, changing him from a victim to a willing participant in some evil shenanigans. The idea was something one of the players mentioned off hand during play....and based on the reaction of other players, it seemed an idea worth pursuing.

Also, inspired by other games, I'll sometimes establish fictional elements on the spot based on the results of a PC check, adjusting severity based on the result of the check, or something similar. So when the player makes a stealth roll and just misses his target number, I don't have the guard notice him immediately....but instead I have another guard show up, and then the PC will need to succeed on another check, maybe with disadvantage this time, or a higher DC. I'm not worried about the roster of guards....I just add one.

All this is to say that this method (for lack of a better term) isn't just about ensuring that the PCs can progress along the story track, or ensuring they don't fail. It's got a variety of applications for all game styles and overall the goal is to maintain quality of play at the table.

 

[lordabdul]

I ask for private feedback after the session and there have been some people who share preferences with the aforementioned posters and liked X, Y, or Z about the scenario they just played and that always has to do with consistency and the feeling that the adventure location is set in stone, a place to be figured out and defeated (or sometimes resulting in their defeat).

I think everybody likes consistency, and a feeling that an adventure's locations, NPCs, politics, agendas, and events all paint a believable world. That has nothing to do with whether these locations and NPCs and so on were added or changed on the fly, or whether they were in the adventure or GM's notes before hand.

So it sounds like these are just normal players, and they're sensitive to things that don't make sense. The problem isn't whether the GM is modifying things on the fly, the problem is whether the GM can improvise well enough to keep things consistent and believable while, at the same time, dynamic. But possibly these players have had disappointments with bad improvisation before, and therefore equate the two. The funny thing is that if they had good experiences with improvisation, they wouldn't know!

 

[iserith]

I think everybody likes consistency, and a feeling that an adventure's locations, NPCs, politics, agendas, and events all paint a believable world. That has nothing to do with whether these locations and NPCs and so on were added or changed on the fly, or whether they were in the adventure or GM's notes before hand.

So it sounds like these are just normal players, and they're sensitive to things that don't make sense. The problem isn't whether the GM is modifying things on the fly, the problem is whether the GM can improvise well enough to keep things consistent and believable while, at the same time, dynamic. But possibly these players have had disappointments with bad improvisation before, and therefore equate the two. The funny thing is that if they had good experiences with improvisation, they wouldn't know!

You'd have to ask those players (some of whom appear to be in this thread) because I don't have these sorts of hangups. But I take them at their word that they do. If I'm running a location-based scenario, I plan as if I will have these kinds of players in my game to avoid issues.