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

[Raven Crowking]

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.)

My "sandbox DM" is making those choices as a result of how the PCs approach the encounter, rather than based upon notes that describe (effectively) how the encounter will be approached.

And, in this case, he is only loosely a "sandbox DM", because (as I defined them) sandbox encounters and serial encounters both occur in both sandbox and serial games.

Why?

Because the players who follow some sandbox leads are walking into a TPK.

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.

"I'd like to run Age of Worms. Whose in?" isn't bad DMing. It's just not sandbox DMing. And, having a group who agree to play in that game, and who then refuse to follow the hooks that move the adventure along, could be upsetting to nearly anyone.

Adventure Paths are not wrongbadfun. They are something, however, that I am not particularly interested in.

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.

"Three orcs are on guard here. They are not particularly vigilent, and are often playing knucklebones instead of watching the road. One orc has a half-orc half-brother, and is not particularly ill-disposed toward humans."

What the PCs do very much influences the outcome of events. They could attempt to sneak past, join the orcs in their game, make friends, fight, etc.

"Three orcs are on guard here. As soon as they see the PCs, one orc strikes the gong while the other two take covered positions and begin firing arrows at the PCs as the cross the bridge." and "No matter what the PCs do, the ogre does not leave the cave." are not sandbox encounters.

Obviously, if an encounter leaves open its resolution, it is limited only by the imagination of the group. If an encounter is serial, it is limited more strongly by the limits of the DM's imagination. There is nothing wrong with this; the DM should get to see some of his ideas see table time, too.

Again, sandbox and serial encounters can both occur in both sandbox and serial games. Indeed, I think it would be extremely unusual to see a game comprised of either one or the other. Most published modules throughout the game's history are a combination of the two types of encounters. The delve format skews heavily towards serial encounters, AFAICT.

Stoat, I hope that by answering your second question, I have also made some headway toward answering your first.



RC

 

[Scribble]

My "sandbox DM" is making those choices as a result of how the PCs approach the encounter, rather than based upon notes that describe (effectively) how the encounter will be approached.

Again I don't think this has anything o do wih Sandbox vrs something else. It's good vrs bad, or at best prepped vrs ad-hoc.

Just because someone has notes about an encounter doesn't mean that he or she has to or should follow them to a T.

You already stated that you've decided what teh creature is currently doing, and you've already decided on it's motivation.

Just because you include further notes based on those already decided elements doesn't make you any less of a sandbox DM.

Creature: Mountainlion
What it's doing: Protecting its young.
Motivation: Its youing not being killed or eaten.

So if you stop here you're a Sandbox DM?


Actions: If PCs approach past X marker or act threatening in any way, it will attack.

Tactics: The Mountain Lion will attempt to keep herself between the PCs and her young, using blah blah blah attack to do so.

If you add these elements you're now no longer a sandbox DM?

I don't understand this at all. It makes absolutely no sense man. All those hings are doing is adding an element the Dm can use to make his life easier, but they do not in any way imply the DM HAS to follow those actions.

(Maybe it just makes you not Raven Crowking a Sandbox DM.)

Because the players who follow some sandbox leads are walking into a TPK.

This is true no matter if you use a sandbox style a non sandbox style, a level balanced style or a non level balanced style.

"I'd like to run Age of Worms. Whose in?" isn't bad DMing. It's just not sandbox DMing. And, having a group who agree to play in that game, and who then refuse to follow the hooks that move the adventure along, could be upsetting to nearly anyone.

Adventure Paths are not wrongbadfun. They are something, however, that I am not particularly interested in.

I wasn't calling any style wrongbadfun.

If you and your group have decided you want to play a certain way "We just want to run KoTS none of us care about anything outside of KoTS" and then someone decides to act outside of that... Sure someone can be upset, but I find that an element outside the game itself. It's like someone showing up to a prearranged basketball game and trying to use the football rules.

If that's what you're saying: sure I'll give you that.

But if you're saying that the DM didn't say he wanted to just run KoTS and then told the players they could make any choice they wanted, then got upset when they decided not to follow the leeds to KoTS- That's bad DMing!

In either case a good DM would let the players know what type of game to expect. No matetr what style he was using.

"Three orcs are on guard here. They are not particularly vigilent, and are often playing knucklebones instead of watching the road. One orc has a half-orc half-brother, and is not particularly ill-disposed toward humans."

What the PCs do very much influences the outcome of events. They could attempt to sneak past, join the orcs in their game, make friends, fight, etc.

"Three orcs are on guard here. As soon as they see the PCs, one orc strikes the gong while the other two take covered positions and begin firing arrows at the PCs as the cross the bridge." and "No matter what the PCs do, the ogre does not leave the cave." are not sandbox encounters.

Again, sandbox and serial encounters can both occur in both sandbox and serial games. Indeed, I think it would be extremely unusual to see a game comprised of either one or the other. Most published modules throughout the game's history are a combination of the two types of encounters. The delve format skews heavily towards serial encounters, AFAICT.

See I think this is the jist of it. I dissagree that there are "sandbox encounters" I think they're just encounters that fall in either a sandbox game or a non sandbox game or somethign in between.

I also think there are some adventures that are written with more railroady elements then they should be (aka the ogre that doesn't leave the cave for any reason.)

S we end up with encounters in a sandbox game. Encounters in a non sandbox game. Encounters in a game somewhere in between.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just because you include further notes based on those already decided elements doesn't make you any less of a sandbox DM.

I don't know if you failed to read what I wrote, or simply failed to understand it.

Once more, and with feeling: sandbox and serial encounters can both occur in both sandbox and serial games.

I'm not sure whose fault it is that we're talking past each other, but I really cannot see why you aren't getting what I am saying.

 

[Scribble]

I don't know if you failed to read what I wrote, or simply failed to understand it.

Once more, and with feeling: sandbox and serial encounters can both occur in both sandbox and serial games.

I'm not sure whose fault it is that we're talking past each other, but I really cannot see why you aren't getting what I am saying.

Maybe it's my fault because I dissagree there are such a thing as "sandbox encounters."

I think there are encounters. Some exist in a sandbox some exist in a non sandbox game. Some might be more scripted then others, but either can occur in either game style...

So I guess in the end I don't really dissagree with your thoughts, only your terminology?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Maybe it's my fault because I dissagree there are such a thing as "sandbox encounters."

I think there are encounters. Some exist in a sandbox some exist in a non sandbox game. Some might be more scripted then others, but either can occur in either game style...

So I guess in the end I don't really dissagree with your thoughts, only your terminology?

You will note, I hope, that the terms "sandbox encounter" and "serial encounter" are intended to describe particular types of encounter set-ups, and that they were invented in this thread so that said types of set-ups could be intelligently discussed using a set of agreed-upon, albeit not completely adequate, terms?

The names "sandbox encounter" and "serial encounter" were picked simply because the set-up of the encounter types is somewhat reflective of the set-up of those campaign types. It would be no less meaningful to call them Encounter Type A and Encounter Type B. Well, maybe slightly less meaningful, but I imagine that the difference approaches the Planck constant.



RC

 

[Ariosto]

I think the qualifier "potential" confuses the definition of a serial encounter.

Look at the "Slavers" (A1-A4) modules. Look past the overall serial "plot line" design and get down to the encounters. Those tend toward a "frozen in time" quality: whenever PCs reach a given location, it is in a given state.

Compare that with the Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun. That includes more description of general principles of how the monsters as a population behave and react to incursions. It's presented more as a dynamic environment, a place with "a life of its own."

The A modules were designed originally as tournament rounds, and even with additional material their published forms still largely reflect that. A DM can put in some work to change them from plot lines to "living" situations, but that's not how they are presented.

Modules by and large depart only by matters of degree from a "fixed state" presentation. That has somewhat to do with their presumed function, and with practical factors. It is up to the DM to treat the material in a "site-based" scenario as indicating merely an initial or typical state.

Caveat: I'm going by memory, not looking now at the modules!

 

[Reynard]

"Three orcs are on guard here. They are not particularly vigilent, and are often playing knucklebones instead of watching the road. One orc has a half-orc half-brother, and is not particularly ill-disposed toward humans."

What the PCs do very much influences the outcome of events. They could attempt to sneak past, join the orcs in their game, make friends, fight, etc.

"Three orcs are on guard here. As soon as they see the PCs, one orc strikes the gong while the other two take covered positions and begin firing arrows at the PCs as the cross the bridge." and "No matter what the PCs do, the ogre does not leave the cave." are not sandbox encounters.

Obviously, if an encounter leaves open its resolution, it is limited only by the imagination of the group. If an encounter is serial, it is limited more strongly by the limits of the DM's imagination. There is nothing wrong with this; the DM should get to see some of his ideas see table time, too.

I don't think this is the distinction between either "situations" and "adventures" or "sandboxes" and "serial" games. As I stated early on, the "situation" is different than the "adventure" simply in that it is a collection of existing conditions upon which the PCs may act of their own accord and in whatever manner they choose, or not. An "adventure" presupposes involvement, often in a particular way.

Both situations and adventures have "hooks" -- being the means by which the DM invites the players and their characters into them. The difference is, the "adventure" relies on at least one of the hooks beging grabbed on to -- otherwise there's no adventure. Situations become adventures when the PCs get involved (and stories once all is said and done, but that's another issue). It might be a long, involved adventure or a short foray. But PC involvement is what makes it an adventure.

And this is the ultimate difference between the "sandbox" and "prescribed" campaign models. In the former, there's no presuposition about the nature of the adventures aside from the inherent aspects of the setting. In the latter, there's a "plot" that's assumed to be followed for some length of time (an adventure path, for example) and no matter what other choices the players have regarding *how* they do things, *what* they do is essentially already set.

But the level of prep in any given encounter is not relative to whether we're talking about sandbox play or anything else. Given infinite free time, I can detail every possible random encounter on my charts and any number of likely or presumed responses to any number of likely or presumed PC actions by any number of likely or presumed NPCs in my sandbox game. By the same token, given very limited time, I can detail very little except page numbers in the MM and DMG on the side of the sheet of paper that has my Hook, Goal and Reward written down for my prescribed adventure, running everything on the fly.

And in neither case is there a distinction between homegrown and borrowed/purchased. I can build a sandbox by from entirely pre-built elements -- campaign setting book and a pile of modules, for example. As long as the PCs are the ones determining where to go, with whom to interact and how to go about it, it's still a sandbox. The thing that defines a sandbox is player freedom (and therefore, by extension, a wide variety of options). In a perfect world, in a sandbox game the PCs can jump on a boat in the middle of another "adventure" and head for the Mystical East. Of course, the DM has to respond -- and in this case should likely respond with "Okay. That's it for this week, because I need time to detail *a whole nother continent, you bastards* before we can continue." That the DM needs to take some time to define said Mystical East doesn't mean it's not a "sandbox game"; it just means he's human and can only do so much.

I think this is where a lot of people get overwhelmed by the idea of running in the sandbox style -- they think they need to have a whole world and a million adventures made up before they can even begin play. You can easily start a sandbox campaign in a relatively small geographical area. There's only so far a party of 1st level PCs can walk in a session, and judicious use of random encounter charts and NPC interactions can preserve the freedom of the game while buying the DM time. Many old school dungeons are themselves sandboxes -- they have multiple avenues of entry and exit, discreet areas, interesting environments and, perhaps most importantly, a very vague Endgame if any at all. They exist to be explored and looted in whatever manner the players desire, to whatever extent they desire.

One final note: Do not be surprised if your sandbox campaign transforms into a more serial one; in fact, hoper for it because it means some element of play, some aspect of the setting has captured the players' imaginations enough to cause them to focus their characters' careers on it if not solely then primarily. A totally open sandbox game can easily turn into a "adventure path" when the players decide that Duke Dunderhead must be removed from power or Jade Jaws cannot be allowed to continue to terrorize Hometownburg. When this happens, rejoice. Not only do your players actually *care* but such a sharp focus of their adventures likely means that your setting will be preserved for the follow up campaign, with many of your "situations" still in place. Just remember, wanting to take down the evil Duke or the great wyrm is not the same as doing it, and its quite possible the party in question will become just another "background story" for the next cast of characters.

 

[Stoat]

"Three orcs are on guard here. As soon as they see the PCs, one orc strikes the gong while the other two take covered positions and begin firing arrows at the PCs as the cross the bridge." and "No matter what the PCs do, the ogre does not leave the cave." are not sandbox encounters.

Three orcs are on guard here. They have been instructed by Saruman to rouse the keep if they spy intruders and to take no prisoners. If they spot intruders, one orc strikes the gong while the other two take covered positions and being firing arrows across the bridge.

I think your first example encounter is better than your second, primarily because of that orc with the half-orc brother, but an encounter with alert guards who attack on sight seems just as sandboxy to me as an encounter with lazy guards who might be open to palaver. The players could still try to sneak past. They could hope to win initiative and neutralize the orcs before they can act. They can disguise themselves as goblin merchants and try to bluff their way in.

I go back to this point: once you've determined the creature, what the creature is doing and the creature's motives, the creature's actions will frequently (perhaps very frequently) follow as a matter of course. I think you need something more to really move into "scripted" territory.

For example: I've seen a recent adventure in which the PC's happen upon a lonely shrine at the exact moment that terrible devils are attacking it. The encounter begins in medias res regardless of anything the players do. I see a difference between that sort of encounter and one where the DM has taken a moment to think out how the monsters might react if a fight breaks out.

It occurs to me that "scripted encounter" might be a more precise term than "serial encounter".

Look at the "Slavers" (A1-A4) modules. Look past the overall serial "plot line" design and get down to the encounters. Those tend toward a "frozen in time" quality: whenever PCs reach a given location, it is in a given state.

Compare that with the Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun. That includes more description of general principles of how the monsters as a population behave and react to incursions. It's presented more as a dynamic environment, a place with "a life of its own."

This is closer to my native understanding of the concepts we're discussing. Some encounters change and adapt depending on the circumstances: frex, guards are summoned, stand on alert a while and then go off duty. Other encounters are more scripted: the baronness is always at her desk reading, day or night and regardless of how much racket the PC's made fighting their way in.

 

[Ourph]

If the information is not conveyed to the players, or is not conveyed to illicit a response, none of them are hooks.

I think the concept of a DM creating adventure hooks that he has no intention of communicating to his players simply to populate his imaginary campaign world with various "situations" just broke my brain a little. I think I need to get out of this thread before I have to start making San checks.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Reynard,

You miss that I am trying to create a series of working definitions from which to base further discussion.....In the case of the post you respond to, I am trying to define types of encounter (not types of campaign) that occur in all styles of campaign.

It occurs to me that "scripted encounter" might be a more precise term than "serial encounter".

Agreed. Clearly it will avoid the sort of confusion that, say, lead to Reynard's post above.

Let us say, then, that what I called "serial encounters" are better termed "scripted encounters" and what I termed "sandbox encounters" are better termed "unscripted encounters".

Ourph,

Your need for San checks are caused by a failure to follow the terminology used. A situation may have many Hooks or Goals associated with it. A situation is a place, being, or campaign event that can be interacted with using this terminology, always. A situation is never the communication itself.

A Hook is a communication from the DM to the players, always. It aprises the players of the situation, and attempts to lure them into interacting with it.

A Goal is set by the player(s), always. It may be suggested by the DM's Hook, but the seperate term is there so that we can discuss the two sides of the coin clearly.

An Adventure is the series of actual encounters, as they play out, when the PCs interact with the situation, always.

A Scripted Adventure is an adventure where what will happen is largely predetermined by the DM.

An Unscripted Adventure is an adventure where what will happen is largely not predetermined by the DM.

A Scripted Encounter is a single encounter where what will happen is largely predetermined by the DM.

An Unscripted Encounter is a single encounter where what will happen is not largely predetermined by the DM.


RC