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

[Imaculata]

What players don't get to prefer is how I prep and run a campaign.

How our DM runs a campaign is something that is always open to discussion. If the players don't like how it is being run, they can ask for a change. I encourage my players to always tell me, if they disagree with how I'm running things. And I'm pretty sure other DM's in my group feel the same way.

It seems to me that your player's opinion on how you are running the campaign, is rather crucial to their enjoyment of playing in it.

 

[iserith]

Ahh, there's that word again - cheating. I love loaded words, they do a marvelous job showing a position's true colors. Here's the deal, the players can prefer whatever they want, and they have every right to be upset if they realize that things are being moved around - deus ex machina sucks. What players don't get to prefer is how I prep and run a campaign. In that case they might prefer to run their own campaign. If I reorganize a bunch of my stuff after an unexpected hard right by the players that's no one's business but mine.

The extent to which I rearrange things, and what things I might rearrange are precisely where the campaign contract and player expectations come in. In a game more like the one iserith wants, I wouldn't move encounters no matter what the PCs do. What I might do is either deploy a floating NPC I had prepped for just that situations, or create that NPC on the fly to do the same job. Or, if it didn't matter much, I might not move anything. In a different kind of game, I might just move a couple of encounters to the new location if it made sense, or maybe not move anything and let the side game play out. It's all about consistency in the fiction and what makes the most sense in the moment.

In the context of a table wherein the DM has players with this preference and who has agreed to abide by the preference - which was carefully pointed out in the post that you quoted - is, in fact, cheating if not outright lying. This shouldn't be a controversial statement.

It does not apply in the context of your own table where such preferences and agreements may not exist. I hope that is clear now.

 

[Fenris-77]

In the context of a table wherein the DM has players with this preference and who has agreed to abide by the preference - which was carefully pointed out in the post that you quoted - is, in fact, cheating if not outright lying. This shouldn't be a controversial statement.

It does not apply in the context of your own table where such preferences and agreements may not exist. I hope that is clear now.

In that post if mine I was pretty careful to outline what I would and wouldnt move based on player expectations and preagreements, in both spectrums of game. Your choice of words may have been ill considered in a thread where more than one person from your side of the tracks has leveled that exact accusation. I wasn't poking you on purpose though, nothing personal, just sidestepping the language.

To my point, some campaign elements are designed to be floating. Some side quests for example, or some entire quests for that matter. If it's designed to be used when the players make unexpected decisions then that's what it gets used for. What I'm talking about isn't really any different than improv except I do it ahead so I'm not stuck in the moment. I don't care if players have a problem with that. I'm planning ahead to validate their player agency. In my planning I'm constantly asking myself what if they decide to do something different? It's got nothing to do with advancing my own agenda.

 

[iserith]

In that post if mine I was pretty careful to outline what I would and wouldnt move based on player expectations and preagreements, in both spectrums of game. Your choice of words may have been ill considered in a thread where more than one person from your side of the tracks has leveled that exact accusation. I wasn't poking you on purpose though, nothing personal, just sidestepping the language.

I don't have a "side of the tracks" and I am not responsible for how other people use words. I stand by my previous statement.

 

[Fenris-77]

You know perfectly well what I meant, and what the use of 'cheating' in this thread looks like. Perhaps you missed the part where I carefully mentioned playing as per table agreements, and generally avoiding deus ex machina? I've been very keen on avoiding a mistaken impression that I do either. I've also been very keen to point out that having floating encounters as part of a well prepped campaign is neither of those things, despite protestations to the contrary. This is not a black and white, one thing or the other, topic.

 

[Lanefan]

How certain are you that the too-simple answer you came up with was the predetermined answer? Is it possible that after three sessions the DM simply said to himself, "These guys have been trying to solve this for forever and I really want them to see what's past that door. Lanefan's answer works. I'm going to let them have this one..."? How would you honestly ever know (unless it was a module and you read it afterwards)?

In this particular case, for two reasons:

One - the answer in hindsight was blindingly obvious (think LotR's "Speak Friend and Enter" for the sort of thing I mean); many other tables probably would have figured it out in minutes if not seconds...but not us lunkheads.
Two - the DM told us shortly after that my answer was the right one all along; further, this DM in all likelihood was enjoying watching us sweat much more than he'd have enjoyed us getting through quickly and on to the rest of the adventure.

Personally, I don't generally help out my players as discussed in this thread unless they've gone past what I think of as the 'tipping point', because I think that you're right that satisfaction can arise from frustration. However, when they are frustrated and out of ideas, but aren't at the breaking point of giving up either, I'm liable to find a way to throw them a hint or such to help break the deadlock.

If they're going to get frustrated with something to the point of giving up, it (very likely!) won't be this sort of this, it'll be an adventure of the sort where I've given little direction (not wanting to lead them around) and they haven't found any on their own. Given long enough, they do get fed up with those.

 

[Charlaquin]

I might just be squirting kerosene on the fire here, but how do folks in this thread feel about preplanned if-then scenarios? That is to say, what if instead of changing events on the fly in response to players’ actions, the DM has a specific “If players do A then X happens,” “if players do B then Y happens” contingencies planned out?

To give an example of what I mean, (minor Curse of Strahd Spoilers incoming):

Spoiler

take the Festival of the Blazing Sun event in Vallaki. As-written, this happens 3 days after the players arrive in Vallaki. It doesn’t matter how long the players take to get to Vallaki, the Festival of the Blazing Sun takes place 3 days after that point. Is that “cheating,” or is it fair game? Follow-up question, as-written, it is supposed to rain on the day of the festival, ruining the planned burning of the sun effigy. Is that kosher, or should the DM roll to determine if it does in fact rain that day, and how should the DM set the odds if they are supposed to roll for it? What if the DM decides that it rains only if the players failed to reconsecrate the church of St. Andral before the festival takes place? Is that verboten?

 

[Fenris-77]

Contingency planning rocks.

 

[Maxperson]

If you have time to plan everything out. Lots of us don't.

 

[iserith]

I might just be squirting kerosene on the fire here, but how do folks in this thread feel about preplanned if-then scenarios? That is to say, what if instead of changing events on the fly in response to players’ actions, the DM has a specific “If players do A then X happens,” “if players do B then Y happens” contingencies planned out?

I try not to use this sort of prep very often because contingencies by their very nature can just be wasted prep. I can see why a module writer would use them to communicate his or her vision to a reader. But I think most DMs can just trust themselves in the moment to decide what happens next.