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

[Charlaquin]

My preferred campaign will include a number of location-based adventures (dungeons, hexcrawls) that may or may not be connected in some fashion that the PCs can explore as they will. As opposed to a storyline the PCs are expected to follow to the end with NPCs and clues and the DM's fervent prayers keeping them on track.

What I have found is that this style of campaign seems to work particularly well with D&D 5e. A lot of the character options, exploration, and social interaction rules we don't see a lot of come online and work beautifully ("What? Natural Explorer is actually good?!"). I'm running a scaled-down version of such a campaign as a replayable one shot, for example, and the 30 or so players I've run through it so far frequently comment that things happen in that game that they never see in plot-based games. I think that's a good result.

It is interesting. 5e really lends itself more to location-based adventures than plot-based ones, yet pretty much all of the adventure modules that have been published for it are largely plot-based. I think the near-universal praise for Tales From the Yawning Portal (a collection of locations in which to adventure) and Curse of Strahd (an ostensibly plot-based adventure whose “plot” is mostly just connective tissue between the adventure locations), and the critique of more plot-based modules like Tyranny of Dragons and Out of the Abyss, are strong indicators that people can feel this tension, even if they aren’t consciously aware of it.

 

[iserith]

It is interesting. 5e really lends itself more to location-based adventures than plot-based ones, yet pretty much all of the adventure modules that have been published for it are largely plot-based. I think the near-universal praise for Tales From the Yawning Portal (a collection of locations in which to adventure) and Curse of Strahd (an ostensibly plot-based adventure whose “plot” is mostly just connective tissue between the adventure locations), and the critique of more plot-based modules like Tyranny of Dragons and Out of the Abyss, are strong indicators that people can feel this tension, even if they aren’t consciously aware of it.

Yeah, it's not a theory I had started with, just something I kind of noticed as each of my campaigns went along. First was classic location-based. Then three plot-based (including my current one). Next one is going back to location-based. Along the way I've run at least a dozen or so replayable one-shots for pickup groups, chiefly location-based, and every location-based campaign or adventure has been leaps and bounds better. Which is not to say my plot-based campaigns suck - far from it - but it's just not as good. The game seems to work better with dungeons and hexcrawls (go figure).

The downside is that location-based games are heavier on prep on the front end. I can write a session's worth of material for a plot-based game in about 15 minutes. Not so much with location-based, so I can see why plot-based adventures are typically more common, at least in my experience. I try to offset the extra prep by building in replayability.

 

[Prakriti]

It is interesting. 5e really lends itself more to location-based adventures than plot-based ones

Along the way I've run at least a dozen or so replayable one-shots for pickup groups, chiefly location-based, and every location-based campaign or adventure has been leaps and bounds better. Which is not to say my plot-based campaigns suck - far from it - but it's just not as good. That game seems to work better with dungeons and hexcrawls (go figure).

I'm surprised you would say that. My first impression of 5E was that fast healing (healing to full after a long rest, for example) would put a serious damper on location-based adventures, and after running a few myself, I have to say that that initial impression has largely been borne out. At the very least, location-based adventures in 5E are very different from what they were in 1E and 2E, which often spread dungeon-crawling out over a period of several weeks, as the party returned frequently to town to train, rest, and recuperate. This is such an issue for me that I sometimes wonder if people playing through modern reprints of old adventures (Tales from the Yawning Portal and Castle Ravenloft, for example) are even really experiencing those original adventures in any meaningful sense.

But anyway -- what is it about 5E that makes you think it's particularly good at handling location-based adventures?

 

[OB1]

For me, DMing my sessions comes down to balancing three key elements in service of creating an exciting story and a fun evening for me and my players.

Fate - The decisions I make as a DM
Choice - The decisions the players make.
Chance - The decisions the dice make.

Choice trumps Fate; Chance trumps Choice, and Fate trumps Chance.

As a DM, the decision to allow chance is an intentional one, created because a choice the players made has an uncertain result (ie one that I don't want to determine by invoking fate) or because I want to introduce randomness to allow for Fate and/or Choice to have new possibilities (ie rolling on random tables for treasure or encounters). But make no mistake, chance only happens because I, as the DM, decided to allow it to happen.

So if I want the PCs to find a clue or a magic item, they will find it (what they do with it is up to them). If I'm not sure how much information or power I want them to have before facing the BBEG, I'll make it dice roll dependent, which may effect choices they make when they finally do reach the end.

Maybe they'll decide to fight without the Dragonslayer Sword of Doom, maybe they never knew it existed, and maybe they will fight and die, or run away and let Hill Town burn. But maybe that would have happened anyhow. Combat, after all, is the purest form of Chance in the game. That's why there are so many rules around it.

Giving up control to Chance can lead to the unexpected and the sublime, and I always look for good opportunities to do so but am also careful to not let it get in the way of an exciting story and a good time.

 

[Ristamar]

Forcing or purposefully rearranging stuff for a desired outcome after a choice has been made typically isn't my preference when it undermines player agency. I don't see much of a difference between fudging a DC or die roll or path that would have revealed a secret item versus forcing the issue to make sure they find the item another way.

That being said, if your players are cool with it, it's all good. Some people still love to watch the magic trick even when they understand the illusion. For others, it sours the experience and the magic (or trust) is gone.

 

[Anoth]

Here is what I do for every published module

make minor changes to maps

move magic items to different location. Possibly change the magic item to an equivalent

change some of the critters to something equally challenging.

always change the location of the bbeg if there is one.

 

[CleverNickName]

Here is what I do for every published module

I also like to give the BBEG a feat, since I allow feats in my campaign. I reduce one ability score by 2, and pick a feat that suits them. I figure what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

You should have seen the looks on their faces when they realized Strahd had the Sentinel feat.

 

[cbwjm]

If I've hidden treasure somewhere, I normally won't move it because, in general, it isn't integral to the game for it to be found.

If I have a clue that is going to send the plot forward then I will ensure that the players find it. There will be no Investigate [10] checks to find the note that incriminates the guard captain, rather the players will find it when they go into the area to look (having already had clues leading up to that point). An investigate check is probably going to be used to find the aforementioned hidden treasure or perhaps information that, while not required, helps them better prepare for the final fight.

Pretty sure I've foreshadowed a bit about the bad guy at the end of the quest before, but no examples spring to mind. It is a good idea though and a lot of that foreshadowing can even be part of the backstory or through roleplaying. If a village has requested help against a dragon or evil wizard terrorising them, then the charred remains of their homes is probably enough to let the players know that fire is going to be involved.

 

[iserith]

But anyway -- what is it about 5E that makes you think it's particularly good at handling location-based adventures?

I wouldn't say it's necessarily good at handling it (I can't really say with any authority), just that between the two primary options outlined in the DMG, location-based adventures just seem to run better with this system in my experience. Likely it has something to do with the exploration pillar and all related options switching on as compared to a plot-based adventure many of which often focus chiefly on combat and social interaction. That, and in general, I would say it's easier to run a game where you don't have to be concerned with the PCs sticking to a particular storyline which is usually buried to preserve the reveals.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, and that is probably the source of the confusion. There is one over-arching meta-rule, which is that the DM can change any rule that they don't like.

I mean, if you're going to be a stickler for the rules, then shouldn't that be all of them? Even the one that says "you can change the other rules if you like?"

But even still, that is beside the point because the rules don't dictate where treasure has to be located, or if a clue requires a check to be found. That stuff is all determined by the DM.

I think you prefer that the DM decide such things ahead of time and never deviate, rather than deciding during the course of play.

And that's fine. Although I think that even if I had such a stringent approach, I'd likely still consider a change if it was the difference between a boring session and an exciting one. For instance, I once played in a game where we didn't find the secret door to reach the end of the dungeon. We just all rolled poorly and didn't find it.....so that was it, we left with the dungeon unfinished.

I can't see how that would be preferable to a DM allowing us to find it, or in creating some alternate route.

I would argue that, once you change the rules, it's no longer the same game. If you change the rules of D&D, to allow meta-gaming or use d30s or whatever, then it isn't cheating for you to play in that way. But you also aren't really playing D&D anymore, except in a very general sense.

When you change a fundamental game mechanic, you can't expect anyone in the community to follow along, until you stop and explain how your game differs from what's in the book. Yes, meta-gaming is cheating, according to the rules in the book. If you change the rules, then meta-gaming may no longer be considered cheating at your table, but your table is no reflection upon D&D as a whole.

What fundamental game mechanic is being changed?