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

[Raven Crowking]

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.

You're welcome.

I am aware that terms have been used in this discussion without clear definitions as to what those terms were. Having opened the discussion of definitions allows others to subdivide terms so as to make the conversation even more transparent.

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?

I am not certain, but I think that "campaign element" might conflate what I called "hooks" and "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?

I suggest "Weak Hooks" are hooks which the DM does not necessarily intend to be followed up on, which are thrown out to give players options, whereas "Strong Hooks" are those which the DM intends to lure the players into following.

Any of the Hooks you present may be Weak or Strong, depending upon presentation (which, obviously, includes how many other Hooks there are....Your #1 would normally be Weak, but is Strong if that is the only option. Likewise #5 & 6 would normally be Strong, but may be Weak if they are only two of several options).


RC

 

[Imaro]

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?

I really think that is what it boils down to, the ability to interact with something... I also think this helps in differentiating between a "situation" and an "adventure" even more clearly (In fact I think this, in a general sense, could help discern sandbox from scripted play as well, and I'll talk about that some more if you want in another post). The situation you detailed above...would you say it is an adventure in and of itself? I wouldn't, but I would say it was a "situation" and not necessarily an irrelevant one depending on how my players choose to interact with it. They could, through their actions easily make the situation above into some sort of adventure... or they could ignore it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Happens to the best of us.

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.

I am suggesting that the motivation/force that put that series of occurences into motion has a direct and strong effect on how that series of occurences plays out.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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?

I would say Yes to the first three questions, provisional that the answer to #3 requires an observer with good perception and some inside knowledge. The answer to #4, I would say, is No.

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?

Sandbox Encounter: An encounter which is not scripted. The DM has determined the creature, what the creature is doing when the encounter starts, and/or the creature's motives, but not what the creature will do in the encounter.

Serial Encounter: The DM has, in addition to the above factors, determined what the creature will do in the encounter, possibly going so far as to include potential lines of dialogue and/or round-by-round tactics.

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

<snip>

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.

Go back to the first definition, where I admitted that there is something paradoxical in the sandbox DM's goals re: Hooks.

I would say that the sandbox DM is also attempting to create Hooks that lure his players into situations, but the sandbox DM is intentionally creating Hooks that he (secretly) hopes the players will be smart enough to avoid. The sandbox DM expects the players to sift through the potential Hooks to determine what they should do, whereas the serial DM places a Hook with the expectation that the players will know that they should follow said Hook if they want to do anything that session.

From a player's perspective, following the Hooks of a serial DM is always a good idea, but following the Hooks of a sandbox DM may be a very bad idea indeed.

EDIT: As a result, a player in a sandbox DM's world who thinks he's in a serial DM's world is in a lot of trouble, whereas a serial DM whose players think they're in a sandbox might be frustrated when the players simply refuse to follow certain hooks!


RC

 

[Ourph]

Any of the Hooks you present may be Weak or Strong, depending upon presentation (which, obviously, includes how many other Hooks there are....Your #1 would normally be Weak, but is Strong if that is the only option.

Item #1 that I listed was an almost direct restatement of the example you gave for a "situation" (I added names, for fun). If I'm understanding you correctly, that gives me the impression that the line between "situation" and "weak hook" is very thin. Is there a specific thing that differentiates the two IYO?

 

[Scribble]

Sandbox Encounter: An encounter which is not scripted. The DM has determined the creature, what the creature is doing when the encounter starts, and/or the creature's motives, but not what the creature will do in the encounter.

Serial Encounter: The DM has, in addition to the above factors, determined what the creature will do in the encounter, possibly going so far as to include potential lines of dialogue and/or round-by-round tactics.

Ok... one has done more prep work. I'd say your sandbox DM still ends up making those choices, just more on the fly. (Which I;d say at times makes things more willy nilly feeling then they should.)

From a player's perspective, following the Hooks of a serial DM is always a good idea, but following the Hooks of a sandbox DM may be a very bad idea indeed.

Why?

EDIT: As a result, a player in a sandbox DM's world who thinks he's in a serial DM's world is in a lot of trouble, whereas a serial DM whose players think they're in a sandbox might be frustrated when the players simply refuse to follow certain hooks!

I'd say it has less to do with sandbox vrs something else and more to do with good vrs bad DM.

A good DM doesn't get upset when players don't follow certain paths. No matter how much prep work he does for whatever path.

 

[Stoat]

I am suggesting that the motivation/force that put that series of occurences into motion has a direct and strong effect on how that series of occurences plays out.

In what way? Can you give me some more detail about the direct and strong effects that might result from differing motivations/forces?

Sandbox Encounter: An encounter which is not scripted. The DM has determined the creature, what the creature is doing when the encounter starts, and/or the creature's motives, but not what the creature will do in the encounter.

Serial Encounter: The DM has, in addition to the above factors, determined what the creature will do in the encounter, possibly going so far as to include potential lines of dialogue and/or round-by-round tactics.

I see the distinction, but I think you're slicing the meat pretty thin. If the DM has determined the creature, what the creature is doing and the creature's motives (Sandbox Encounter) then the creature's response to whatever actions the party takes (what the creature will do in the encounter) will usually follow.

 

[The Ghost]

Considered me thoroughly amused and delighted that a line I was quoted as using spawned such an interesting thread. Allow me thank Scribble, Raven Crowking, Ourph, and everyone else who has contributed to this thread. It has truly been entertaining and educational.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Item #1 that I listed was an almost direct restatement of the example you gave for a "situation" (I added names, for fun). If I'm understanding you correctly, that gives me the impression that the line between "situation" and "weak hook" is very thin. Is there a specific thing that differentiates the two IYO?

A "Situation" is the thing in the campaign; a "Hook" is that thing presented by the DM to entice the players.

There is an obvious connection between the two, but they are far more distinct than attempts at verbal trickery might make them appear. I assumed in your examples that we were discussing information conveyed by the DM to the players. If the information is not conveyed to the players, or is not conveyed to illicit a response, none of them are hooks.


RC

 

[The Ghost]

Since there has been a couple posts here trying to ascertain what I meant by using the word "situation", please, allow me the chance to clarify.

To me, a "situation" is nothing more than a person, place, or thing on the map.

To me, an "adventure" is when the DM develops a "situation" into a larger series of events.

I do not view "situations" and "adventures" as an either/or. There should be both. The point I was originally trying to make was: Do I, as a DM, develop a situation, then bring in the players? Or, do I bring in the players, then develop which situation(s) they are interested in? This can be done prior to the start of the game, or after. My game style is to develop the situations that the players are interested in, after the game begins. As always, your style may be different. There is no right or wrong - just different styles.

In my initial post, I used James Wyatt's articles as a counterexample. This may have implied that there were only two points of view. That is clearly not the case. I used his articles because they developed the situation first, prior to bringing people into the game. At least, that is how the articles read.

I hope this clarifies my "situation."