Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9163671" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Because it is seen as a form of cheating, breaking the gentleperson's agreement, "I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it any further" type stuff. Even if you don't agree with that interpretation (and I'm 100% certain you don't agree!), that's how a significant group of people are going to feel. Choosing to respond to that feeling with "well you're just being irrational/wrong/whatever" is generally counterproductive.Part of the problem here is your framing; you're treating all of the encounters as equally pure-abstraction stuff from the moment the DM says, "Hey, you want to play in my D&D game?" to the moment an encounter is completely, totally resolved. Most players--not just 5e players, most players generally--do not see things in that light. There is a transition over time, with a few important break points.[SPOILER="Long form explanation"]At the high concept stage, yes, absolutely, you are free to make whatever sounds cool to you. As long as the players believe you are sincere about making an enjoyable game for everyone, not just for you (or just for some specific player or players), then far-future things are quite freeform. This is because they expect to have the time and opportunity to learn what those things will be. Some players will even feel shortchanged if you deny them this ability by telling them too much up front!In the intermediate stage, the players have learned some things, enough to make for constraints, but not hard limits. If it's an underground campaign, there won't be dragons flying in from mountaintops. If it's underwater, there shouldn't be grizzly bears. Now, these are constraints, not absolute rules--perhaps the cave opens into a massive Underdark realm where a purple dragon lives, allowing aerial attacks despite the fact that there is a ceiling. Perhaps someone keeps a massive air bubble dome underground, complete with animals--like grizzlies. Etc. But these deviations absolutely require explanation. Unlike in the previous step, where freedom is near-absolute and explanations can come later, here explanations must come first, then deviations. The explanations can still be pretty free, but the DM must do work to justify them.In the penultimate stage, the players have a good idea of what specifically lies ahead. This forbids some of the more outlandish stuff, but still allows quite a bit of wiggle-room. As an example of the former (forbidding dramatic shifts), the PCs have a reliable map of the cave network which contradicts the possibility of entering a sufficiently massive cavern for an aerial dragon attack. As an example of the latter (an appropriate shift), the players have heard that goblins have invaded the forest and killed many animals for food and hides, but that doesn't prevent the existence of ogres as well, who might be working with the goblins, against them, or neutral (and possibly recruit-able!)In the final stage, the encounter itself actually starts. There are creatures, on the field. Those creatures have characteristics, things the PCs can observe. Changing those creatures once they are actually in front of the PCs, unless a very significant justification is provided, is generally not acceptable, for the same reason that (say) a referee changing the point values of strokes midway through a golf game would be unacceptable, or a teacher changing the assignment criteria midway through a timed group project. For D&D, whether the players are more "simulation"-minded or "gamism"-minded, they will likely be very annoyed, because the former strongly dislike it when the world shifts and changes without internally-explained rhyme or reason, while the latter dislike it when the rules of play shift and change without any rhyme or reason. Altering a monster during combat like this happens to be both things at once, and thus is one of the rare times when "sim" and "gamist" types actually agree about something.[/SPOILER]TL;DR: You're abstracting encounters too much. Many players see it as a gradual coming into focus, and once something is known, it can't be changed unless you explain why (or at least explain that) it changed. Focus happens in stages:1. High concept. Almost anything goes, as long as it isn't wildly inappropriate for spirit/theme/tone/etc.2. Basic premise. You can still make big changes, but explanations will be expected if the change is big.3. Knowledge gained. Big changes will be very difficult to employ. Players will expect explanations for most changes now.4. Actually fighting. Even small changes will be expected to have an explanation now.Note, you can defer the explanation until later, but this just means you MUST eventually give a good explanation. Don't fall into the trap the writers of LOST did.I'm not really sure how this is relevant?Well, I hate to break it to you, but it kinda is almost impossible to tell the difference between "I thought of this five minutes ago" and "I'm just blocking your clever plan with something that popped into my head after you said it." As a player, the two can look nearly identical. Put yourself in a player's shoes; the GM has, three times now, nixed a plan you thought was smart, because of something they claim was there in their head five minutes ago. What evidence do you have of that claim? How could you tell the difference between that and said GM just fiat declaring "no" and pretending to have imagined all these contingencies in advance?It sounds, to me, like your players don't really believe that you will play fairly with them. This is one of the serious risks of railroading (and why I never railroad, myself.) When it gets discovered, it erodes belief that the GM plays fair.If I were in your situation, I would ask the players about whether they believe you adjudicate things fairly. Do they think you only do things for extremely good reasons, despite never being told what those reasons are? Or do they think you do things simply because you feel like it, changing stuff whenever it suits you, even if it means contradicting yourself or dashing their plans because of a new thought you just had?I establish player trust by:1. Showing them my work, when I have it to show (usually after the fact, not in the heat of the moment.)2. Building justifications for changes, especially doing so well in advance, using things the players do know about.3. Never railroading.4. Always giving the players a fair hearing for any ideas they have, making sure it works out if it's feasible, and coming up with a compromise if it isn't.5. Taking player preferences, interests, and needs into account when preparing content, e.g. talking about the food and clothing of a place because the anthropology major loves that stuff, including skullduggery and manipulation because another player likes that, making sure there's good tactical combat (at least, as much as the system allows), etc.6. Never, ever lying to my players. I will sometimes refuse to answer questions, though I try to only do that very rarely. I, as GM, never lie. The characters I portray sometimes lie. But when I speak to them as GM? I am never stating something false.I think this reflects rather more of the problem than you realize. If you believe invoking a single word could resolve a situation like this, you have massively misunderstood what is going wrong. There is no magic word which suddenly makes people give you their trust.</blockquote>

Verification