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

[hawkeyefan]

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?

That’s a great question for this topic. Personally, I think all of that is fine.

I’m curious how others will view it.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Alright, if we take the published module out of the equation and assume that the DM is writing their own adventure. Also, the DM didn’t plan out their contingencies in detail, but just have a general idea of what directions to take things next depending on the players’ choices. How do you feel about that?

 

[Fenris-77]

Alright, if we take the published module out of the equation and assume that the DM is writing their own adventure. Also, the DM didn’t plan out their contingencies in detail, but just have a general idea of what directions to take things next depending on the players’ choices. How do you feel about that?

I'm still down, and this is often exactly how I plan. I spend more time on the 'core' elements, which are the paths I expect players to follow at certain junctions, and then I rough in some ideas for what happens should the players zig instead of zag. Exactly what that looks like obviously depends a lot on the exact campaign and group.

 

[Prakriti]

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.

But someone who looks down on planning a contingency is definitely going to look down on having no contingency at all and just winging it, aren't they? As far as I can tell, both approaches validate/invalidate player agency to an equal degree.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm still down, and this is often exactly how I plan. I spend more time on the 'core' elements, which are the paths I expect players to follow at certain junctions, and then I rough in some ideas for what happens should the players zig instead of zag. Exactly what that looks like obviously depends a lot on the exact campaign and group.

This is how I run things.

 

[Maxperson]

But someone who looks down on planning a contingency is definitely going to look down on having no contingency at all and just winging it, aren't they? As far as I can tell, both approaches validate/invalidate player agency to an equal degree.

How does winging it invalidate player agency? I'm not forcing them down any path or invalidating their decisions in any way. I'm simply responding on the fly to what they do.

 

[iserith]

Alright, if we take the published module out of the equation and assume that the DM is writing their own adventure. Also, the DM didn’t plan out their contingencies in detail, but just have a general idea of what directions to take things next depending on the players’ choices. How do you feel about that?

The less prep that's unlikely to be used the better. At least that's my goal, if not an outcome all the time.

 

[iserith]

But someone who looks down on planning a contingency is definitely going to look down on having no contingency at all and just winging it, aren't they? As far as I can tell, both approaches validate/invalidate player agency to an equal degree.

I don't think that's the case and I think you'd have a lot of work to do to demonstrate that to be true.

 

[Fenris-77]

So if I add that I try to consolidate wasted prep time by planning a lot of the 'b' contingencies as floating encounters and ideas that can be shifted around and used elsewhere if they aren't needed, is anyone's head going to explode?

 

[iserith]

So if I add that I try to consolidate wasted prep time by planning a lot of the 'b' contingencies as floating encounters and ideas that can be shifted around and used elsewhere if they aren't needed, is anyone's head going to explode?

Yeah, probably.