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

[prabe]

Yes, and that’s what I mean here: the GM is moving stuff around behind the scenes, making NPCs act in ways that aren’t necessarily mentioned in the adventure text.

In this case, because that's the way the adventure is expected to be run.

 

[iserith]

Yes, and that’s what I mean here: the GM is moving stuff around behind the scenes, making NPCs act in ways that aren’t necessarily mentioned in the adventure text.

So, you mean, DMing. You're wondering if someone is going to get mad because the DM is DMing. Okay.

 

[Curmudjinn]

Pretty cool fact is Rule Zero(in print) is nearly as old as the game.

In Basic D&D, the book says on the first page:
"Anything in this booklet (and other D&D booklets) should be thought of as changeable -- anything, that is, that the DM thinks should be changed... The purpose of these 'rules' is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them."

 

[Xetheral]

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.

This I don't understand. My examples in the post you quoted dealt with changes focused on the current mood of the players and the time remaining before the end of the session. I don't see how either can be accounted for with improved scenario design. Player moods have an extrinsic component, and in a location-based game where the DM doesn't know when during the session the players will go somewhere new, you can't tailor scenarios to session lengths.

 

[iserith]

This I don't understand. My examples in the post you quoted dealt with changes focused on the current mood of the players and the time remaining before the end of the session. I don't see how either can be accounted for with improved scenario design. Player moods have an extrinsic component, and in a location-based game where the DM doesn't know when during the session the players will go somewhere new, you can't tailor scenarios to session lengths.

If the players are not fully engaged for the full 4 hours that I'm running the game, then that's a problem with my game. Give me your tired, your depressed, your bespectacled masses yearning to RP and I will give you engaged players, guaranteed, or your money back.

I don't understand what you're saying about tailoring scenarios to session lengths though.

 

[Xetheral]

If the players are not fully engaged for the full 4 hours that I'm running the game, then that's a problem with my game. Give me your tired, your depressed, your bespectacled masses yearning to RP and I will give you engaged players, guaranteed, or your money back.

I don't understand what you're saying about tailoring scenarios to session lengths though.

I'm not sure if that was tongue-in-cheek or serious? If one of my players had a hard day at work, or is stressing about something unrelated to the game, I don't consider it a failure on my part if they're less engaged than usual. (And since in my style of gaming changing things is ok, I'll absolutely take the player's mental state into account when creating or changing content, to help maximize their ability to enjoy the session.)

For the session lengths, in a game with a single storyline the DM has a fair amount of control over session pacing. A DM in a location-based game, by contrast, doesn't know when the party will decide to leave location X and head to location Y. Even if location X and Y were both written to last about a session, if the party changes locations mid-session (or just spends too long debating which to go to in the first place), fitting in all of the current location before the end of the session may be tricky. Accordingly, I suggested that one type of non-plot-related change relevant to location-based games could be skipping/fudging a random encounter roll near the end of the session when the players are tired, to prevent the session from running over.

 

[iserith]

For the session lengths, in a game with a single storyline the DM has a fair amount of control over session pacing. A DM in a location-based game, by contrast, doesn't know when the party will decide to leave location X and head to location Y. Even if location X and Y were both written to last about a session, if the party changes locations mid-session (or just spends too long debating which to go to in the first place), fitting in all of the current location before the end of the session may be tricky. Accordingly, I suggested that one type of non-plot-related change relevant to location-based games could be skipping/fudging a random encounter roll near the end of the session when the players are tired, to prevent the session from running over.

Pacing is important, but in a location-based game, I would suggest that (1) the DM should not have location Y as an option if it is not sufficiently prepared and (2) it's exceedingly easy to end on a cliffhanger or other suitable endpoint without changing a thing. If the DM cannot, then that's a problem with the game design. To build on your random encounter example, if one is indicated, describe a compelling scene brimming with excitement, then say "To Be Continued."

 

[lordabdul]

So, you mean, DMing. You're wondering if someone is going to get mad because the DM is DMing. Okay.

You make it sound like I'm asking a stupid question but I don't think I am. We are talking about players who apparently get mad if the treasure chest is in the first room instead of the second room (because the book said it was the second room), but are OK if the Lich King makes an alliance with the Elf Queen (even though the book doesn't say anything about that) (and of course assuming there's a valid reason for the chest to be in the other room, and a valid reason for the alliance).

It seems to me the first "tampering" is vastly inconsequential (except for saving the players from wasting time searching more rooms) while the second can totally change the course of the campaign.

Heh. I give up, I don't understand.

 

[iserith]

You make it sound like I'm asking a stupid question but I don't think I am. We are talking about players who apparently get mad if the treasure chest is in the first room instead of the second room (because the book said it was the second room), but are OK if the Lich King makes an alliance with the Elf Queen (even though the book doesn't say anything about that) (and of course assuming there's a valid reason for the chest to be in the other room, and a valid reason for the alliance).

It seems to me the first "tampering" is vastly inconsequential (except for saving the players from wasting time searching more rooms) while the second can totally change the course of the campaign.

Heh. I give up, I don't understand.

What it looks like is you're not seeing the nuance and restating things in a reductive manner. I'll leave you to re-read Monayrius' and Lanefan's posts as they speak for themselves.

 

[Xetheral]

Pacing is important, but in a location-based game, I would suggest that (1) the DM should not have location Y as an option if it is not sufficiently prepared and (2) it's exceedingly easy to end on a cliffhanger or other suitable endpoint without changing a thing. If the DM cannot, then that's a problem with the game design. To build on your random encounter example, if one is indicated, describe a compelling scene brimming with excitement, then say "To Be Continued."

What does "sufficiently prepared" mean in this context? In my example I was assuming it was fully prepared, but the party elected to travel there other that at the beginning of a session.

An occasional cliffhanger can work, but that will throw off pacing for the next session, so you're just kicking the can down the road. Also, anything more than an occasional cliffhanger makes it problematic to run an episodic campaign (something that location-based games can otherwise excel at).

As an aside, this is just my own preferences/biases showing, but I'm hard-pressed to imagine a random encounter ever being "compelling". By virtue of the fact that it was random I already know that these are opponents who either didn't exist until the dice were rolled, or would have been somewhere else had the dice come up showing another number. I also know that if the DM isn't allowed to change unseen setting elements to weave in the random encounter, the encounter can't matter other than as a threat of death or lost resources. If a DM ended a session with a cliffhanger made from a random encounter I would not be particularly looking forward to the chore of fighting it the next week. But that's just me--my strong dislike of random encounters is very idiosyncratic.

I am somewhat surprised, though, that those who hate the idea of (e.g.) the DM adding/moving/removing an extra slime from a dungeon (for any reason) are totally fine with letting the dice add an extra slime in the form of a random encounter. But that's probably because they're looking at it through an "authenticity of the challenge" lens whereas I'm looking at it from the point of view of verisimilitude.