Adventures v. Situations (Forked from: Why the World Exists)

[Raven Crowking]

This I can understand, but doesn't it go against what people have been saying in the thread? By that I mean that it has sounded like people have been making the point that "situations" and "adventures" are some kind of opposites that don't interact with each other. And, that has been my main problem with the whole idea of situations. But, in this definition they play off of each other and, in fact, improve each other. But, isn't that going against what Celebrim said above?

I think that Celebrim was trying to distinguish between preparation where the DM plans how the encounters will go aforehand (i.e., is crafting an "adventure" in the terms that I was using), and preparation where the DM not only doesn't plan how the encounters will go, but in all probability isn't even certain that they will take place.

This disconnect in the conversation, IMHO, comes from a lack of adequate definition, so that one person thinks A means B, whereas another thinks A means C, and a third A means D.

We would probably be closer to some form of resolution (even simply agreeing to disagree) if we could first accept some mutually understood terms in which the conversation is taking place, and if those terms offered sufficient "texture" to describe the nuances under discussion.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

So...

<snip>

Did I miss anything?

Close.

"Hook" is always the DM attempting to lure the players to investigate a situation, thus creating an adventure.

"Goal" is always one or more players choosing to investigate a situation with a particular end in mind.

When the players buy into a "Hook", it becomes their "Goal", but it is still also a "Hook".

When players choose a "Goal" of their own, it does not become a "Hook", because it is not the DM attempting to guide thier actions.

SO.....

Situation: Sandbox DMs create situations that do not assume specific PC goals. The scripted DM creates situations intended to resolve specific goals that he intends to hook the PCs into following. A situation can exist in either, but the scripted DM is much more likely to place only situations he thinks he can make into adventures.

Hook: Sandbox DMs will toss out hooks in order to give players the information they need to set goals. They do not expect the PCs to follow every hook....indeed, they will include hooks that it would be foolish for the PCs to follow. Scripted DMs will toss out hooks to lure PCs on the quest.

Adventure: Sandbox DMs will allow adventures to happen, without any real expectation of outcome. The scripted DM has an expectation of goals, when the adventure is likely to be undertaken, and of the desired outcome, and is thus more likely to make the adventure (and its foes) appropriate to both the setting and the relative power of the PCs (level appropriate). The sandbox DM will only pay attention to what is appropriate to the setting, irregardless of the PCs actual potential power....indeed, he must, as he is uncertain when or if the PCs will investigate the situation that leads to the adventure.

In most situations though, this ends up at roughly the same effect (the PCs will face more level-appropriate encounters than not) but a sandbox DM could potentially use something of vastly different power (stronger or weaker) as fits his world.

Goal: In a sandbox, the DM has no stake in the goals set by the PCs, as his work is not invalidated by unexpected goals. A Scripted DM will have a goal in mind (defeat the necromancer, find the lost idol of Bahamut in the tomb) and attempts to make plans for the PCs success or failure at reaching said goal. As the scripted DM's work is directly tied into the goals, the scripted DM is more likely to work against unexpected goals the players might come up with.

(Railroad DMs have only one planned outcome, and refuse to consider any goal not on the tracks.)


Otherwise, you seem to get what I am saying.


RC

 

[Stoat]

This disconnect in the conversation, IMHO, comes from a lack of adequate definition, so that one person thinks A means B, whereas another thinks A means C, and a third A means D.

In my estimation, at least half of the more spirited discussions here are essentially disagreements about definition.

Terms like "dungeon," "encounter," "adventure," "hook," and "railroading" are all pretty universally used, but frequently folks use those terms in pretty significant ways.

For example, I wouldn't consider the term "adventure" to imply "railroading." Likewise, I don't tend to think that the term "hook" necessarily involves an attempt by the DM to lure the PC's in a particular direction. I would consider a "hook" to be any bit of information that the players might choose to follow up on leading to an adventure.

An example: For a long time it was my practice to begin my games with a brief summary of current events in the campaign world, things that were happening that didn't involve the PC's. "A terrible earthquake has ruined distantopolis." "Pirates have captured faraway port." I considered those hooks, even though I had no particular interest in the player's following them. (And in fact, the players usually didn't follow them. They had interests of their own.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

In my estimation, at least half of the more spirited discussions here are essentially disagreements about definition.

Agreed.

Sometimes, in order to facilitate a discussion, one has to devise a lexicon of terminology that is seperate from everyday usage. This happens in philosophy all the time, for example. The more one travels away from the pathways of everyday thought, the more one has to consider the use of specific terms to identiy (or to differentiate) the things being talked about.

For example, I wouldn't consider the term "adventure" to imply "railroading." Likewise, I don't tend to think that the term "hook" necessarily involves an attempt by the DM to lure the PC's in a particular direction. I would consider a "hook" to be any bit of information that the players might choose to follow up on leading to an adventure.

The term "hook" implies that the being who follows the "hook" has been "hooked". The similarity to fishing ought to be fairly obvious.

In a post above, I attempted to differentiate between hooks that are intended to give players enough knowledge to make PC decisions and hooks that are intended to initiate a specific adventure.

Likewise, while the adventure is the series of actual occurances in the game, arising from the situation and the PC goals (whether through a hook or not), there is a difference between an adventure that arises from player goals and one that has a definite GM goal.

Again, perhaps these require different terms, such as "sandbox adventure" and "serial adventure". This is, IMHO, and AFAICT, the difference that caused Celebrim to suggest terminology to differentiate between the two.

One could then talk intelligently about "sandbox encounters" in a "serial adventure", and "serial encounters" in a "sandbox adventure". Until there is some form of terminology to discuss the basic precepts, attempts at intelligent conversation are ultimately futile.

Thus the cry that "They are both adventures! They are both the same!" and the inability to effectively communicate the difference.

This is the same problem with saying that Animal A and Animal B are the same, because they are both mammals. Until one is willing to examine terms beyond that broad classification, one cannot conclude that Animal A is a polar bear and Animal B is a pine martin, and therefore while very similar in some ways, also very different in others.

IMHO, of course.


RC

 

[Ourph]

Situation: An in-world location or event that can be interacted with. No component of PC interaction is part of the situation, though PC interaction can change the situation and/or create new situations. For example, the Forest of Evil between two villages is a situation, with its related wandering encounter tables, subset locations, etc., etc. .

First, thanks for taking the time to lay out some concrete definitions. This post was very well thought-out and I think it helps advance the conversation a lot.

However, given his earlier reply to me, what you are calling a "situation", Imaro appears to be calling a "campaign element". To me that implies that there is a distinction (perhaps in how likely the DM thinks it is that the PCs will interact with a specific item, but that's just a guess) between the two. How does the concept of a "campaign element" fit in with your definitions? Is it basically the same as a "situation" or is there a distinction?

Also, and this question is addressed to everyone, in the post that started this discussion, The Ghost said...

I do not plan out adventures, I just create opportunities for my players to find adventures

The bolded portion has been shortened within the context of this thread to the term "situations". However, it appears that, going by your definitions, that The Ghost was probably thinking about something more akin to your "Hooks", but perhaps not so blatant. So, is there a concept that fits between a Situation and a Hook? One in which there is the opportunity for reward (rather than just the opportunity for interaction), but which doesn't have a strong DM-generated lure to entice the players?

To be clear, I'll give examples. Which of the following qualifies as a "situation" and which qualifies as a "hook" and do any fall into a 3rd in-between category...

1. The Forest of Evil lies between the villages of Hommlet and Garyville and is filled with monsters.
2. There is a ruined castle full of undead creatures at the center of the Forest of Evil called the Dungeon of Darkness.
3. Rumor has it that an evil Cleric hid a powerful artifact of good in the depths of the Dungeon of Darkness.
4. The church of Pelor would like to get this powerful artifact of good back.
5. Roben Nurl, a local priest of Pelor, is offering a 5,000gp reward for the return of the artifact.
6. Roben Nurl asks the party's Cleric (a worshipper of Pelor) to quest for the artifact.

For each one, assume that all the previous (but none of the subsequent) items are true.

 

[Stoat]

The term "hook" implies that the being who follows the "hook" has been "hooked". The similarity to fishing ought to be fairly obvious.

You know, the fishing metaphor should be obvious, but never occurred to me until you used the word "lure". I've always thought of a hook in the context of D&D as something the players grab and hang on to. The idea that the DM uses the hook the way a fisherman would went right past me.

Likewise, while the adventure is the series of actual occurances in the game, arising from the situation and the PC goals (whether through a hook or not), there is a difference between an adventure that arises from player goals and one that has a definite GM goal.

I'm not sure I see the difference, at least from a practical point of view. If the players go into the Caves of Chaos and encounter the Minotaur, that's an adventure. AFAICT, it's an adventure whether the players went to the caves in pursuit of their own goals, whether they chose to go there after considering numerous hooks placed by the DM, or whether the DM simply said, "the game starts in front of the Caves of Chaos."

In other words, the distinction to me seems to be less in the series of occurrences (the adventure) than in the motivation/force that put that series of occurrences into motion.

 

[Imaro]

First, thanks for taking the time to lay out some concrete definitions. This post was very well thought-out and I think it helps advance the conversation a lot.

However, given his earlier reply to me, what you are calling a "situation", Imaro appears to be calling a "campaign element". To me that implies that there is a distinction (perhaps in how likely the DM thinks it is that the PCs will interact with a specific item, but that's just a guess) between the two. How does the concept of a "campaign element" fit in with your definitions? Is it basically the same as a "situation" or is there a distinction?

Ourph I think RC and I are pretty close on what we define as "situation"... especially since when you say "campaign element" it makes me think of everything that goes into constructing a campaign, including... but not limited to "situations". For example a noir-esque feel could be a "campaign element" but it's most certainly not a "situation".

 

[ThirdWizard]

Likewise, while the adventure is the series of actual occurances in the game, arising from the situation and the PC goals (whether through a hook or not), there is a difference between an adventure that arises from player goals and one that has a definite GM goal.

...

Thus the cry that "They are both adventures! They are both the same!" and the inability to effectively communicate the difference.

I might have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone describe how these are different. Are they different from the perspective of the DM? From the players? Would someone who is not participating in the session notice a difference? Or is this a totally conceptual difference?

Basically, I like where you're going with this, and I think a discussion of "sandbox encounters in a serial adventure" would be interesting - provided we can have a definition that makes a "sandbox encounter" different than a "serial encounter." Because, as far as I know, especially once you get to the encounter level, they are comprised of the same aspects (eg. terrain, monsters, npcs, magic effects, set pieces, etc).

I guess my question can be boiled down to: if I saw a sandbox encounter next to a serial encounter, could I tell the difference between the two?

 

[Stoat]

RC, I also see something of a contradiction in your use of the term hook. Compare:

"Hook" is always the DM attempting to lure the players to investigate a situation, thus creating an adventure.

with

Hook: Sandbox DMs will toss out hooks in order to give players the information they need to set goals. They do not expect the PCs to follow every hook....indeed, they will include hooks that it would be foolish for the PCs to follow. Scripted DMs will toss out hooks to lure PCs on the quest.

If the sandbox DM doesn't expect the PC's to follow every hook, then a hook isn't always an attempt to lure the players to investigate a situation.

 

[Ourph]

Ourph I think RC and I are pretty close on what we define as "situation"... especially since when you say "campaign element" it makes me think of everything that goes into constructing a campaign, including... but not limited to "situations". For example a noir-esque feel could be a "campaign element" but it's most certainly not a "situation".

So what differentiates a setting element that isn't a "situation" from one that is? RC notes that situations must include the opportunity for player interaction, but is that enough? Does the opportunity for interaction have to be of a certain nature? For example, I can say that every year the leaves of the Foggerty tree turn bright purple on the eve of St. Bespin in my campaign. Obviously, that's a setting element. It's possible the PCs could interact with that element. The Ranger might decide to make himself a purple camoflage suit out of Foggerty leaves. Is that tangential opportunity for interaction enough to qualify it as a "situation" or does it require something more significant?