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

[Raven Crowking]

Adventure: "You must battle through the necromancers hold to retrieve the holy gizmo from his corpse."

Situation: "There is a a necromancers hideout nearby and he has a holy gizmo"

When you create an adventure you tell the players what they should do. When you create opportunities the players are free to do what they want, including ignoring it or even talking or joining the enemy, things which will only upset looks when they try that in an adventure.

This.

 

[FireLance]

No it doesn't: a situation only becomes an adventure when the Players choose to explore it. Otherwise, it remains as just a situation. The key thing is choice (and NO, I don't mean the illusion of choice).

I'm still having trouble understanding the distinction. Does this mean that as long as the players can decide between exploring the haunted mansion, the goblin caves and the old ruin, all three remain situations, but once the players decide to go for one of the options, or if the DM only presents one option, that option becomes an adventure? But then, how does this gel with the following point:

The point is this: if you prepare everything ahead of time, to create an adventure, then you, as a DM, are heavily invested in making things happen in a certain way because otherwise your prep work is wasted.

Does this mean that in order to present his players with situations instead of adventures, a DM should not do any preparation at all? If not, So how does preparation for a situation differ from preparation for an adventure?

 

[Imaro]

I think the difference is mostly semantics. Mostly. Because a lot of people who claim to run "situations" really don't, and because a lot of people who are labeled as running "adventures" really aren't.

The "situations" that aren't generally go like this: "There's an evil necromancer over there. You can raid him if you want. Or not. Its totally up to you." And then two sessions later, "Undead hordes are burning down your town. If you don't like that then I guess you should have raided the necromancer. Aren't you glad that I've made your decisions meaningful by providing in game consequences? What? How is this different from railroading? Its too obvious for me to explain to the likes of you."

The "adventures" that aren't generally go like this: "The king wants to hire you to raid the necromancer. Oh, you don't want to? You want to go become pirates instead? I... I guess... alright, you are pirates now. What do you do?"

Though for the record I tend to run unashamed "adventures" by the definitions used in this thread. But I don't think it makes a difference if you really think about what's important and about how I do things.

I tell the players up front what I'm considering running, ask their opinions, give them a synopsis, and THEN we create characters and start the game. The "freedom to choose what you will" is the player's right, not the character's. I generally find that this leads to more cohesive groups, plots, and games.

So your issue seems more with people who run situations and adventures in an unsatisfactory manner (to you) as opposed to what they actually are... I don't get how people running them in a way you don't agree with equals the difference being semantics though.

I see it like this ... adventures are a subcategory of situations...

A DM who presents "situations" has created an "area" in which various things are present and taking place then let's his player's characters do as they will with what exists. The minute the PC's choose and pursue a particular course of action, I would say they are on an adventure.

A DM who comes to the table to run an adventure (you know like a published adventure) has already made the choice for the PC's on what situation(s) they will be exploring, of course they still have choice in how to approach and accomplish it.

Both of these can be railroaded, but that has no bearing on the difference between the two. Just like both can be ruined by the PC's if they choose just not to go along with the playstyle... of course I think these situations have more to do with DM and player expectations conflicting than there being no difference in the two.

 

[wedgeski]

Anyone know of any online recordings of a sandbox campaign?

 

[Raven Crowking]

May I suggest:

IF (1) there are always more situations, be it in the form of locations, potential plot threads, or other, than the PCs can ever investigate/follow up on, thereby forcing the players to prioritize and make choices; (2) those situations develop and/or exist independent of the makeup of the PC party, so that they are not based on "level appropriateness", of the class and race makeup of the party, etc., and can have impact on the world if not followed up [if appropriate]; and (3) the players, and not the DM, determine which situations are followed up on, THEN the setting meets my definition of a sandbox.

I would call a setting with any two of these elements a "near sandbox" and any setting with one or none of these elements "not a sandbox".

Whether or not a setting has these elements may be, of course, subjective.


RC

 

[Ydars]

I'm still having trouble understanding the distinction. Does this mean that as long as the players can decide between exploring the haunted mansion, the goblin caves and the old ruin, all three remain situations, but once the players decide to go for one of the options, or if the DM only presents one option, that option becomes an adventure? But then, how does this gel with the following point:
Does this mean that in order to present his players with situations instead of adventures, a DM should not do any preparation at all? If not, So how does preparation for a situation differ from preparation for an adventure?

Firelance: the difference between an adventure based design and a situation based design, is about the nature of the preparation the DM does. In situation-based design, player choice is king. In adventure based design, story/plot is king. I will illustrate below but be aware that the examples I am choosing are extreme because I am trying to show you what I mean: in reality NO game is totally one or the other.

An adventure is fairly scripted and is often about story. You have a dungeon/site map, a load of encounters and a preset assumption about how the Players will react to the site, often in the form of a hook. So in a adventure, the DM has defined, the "site", the "obstacles" and the "goal" ahead of time and he also chooses the time when the adventure takes place in the campaign arc. The players then choose how to tackle the adventure, and "right" and "wrong" are usually more black and white, to simplify the process of getting the PCs into the game. in addition, the background of the campaign world is often only an afterthought, and is window dressing. There is also often a connection between one adventure and another that is a kind of plot, story-arc or theme. This is what published module for 3/4E tend to be like.

A situation based game, often called a sandbox, is different. You can run one with almost no prep, as long as you know the rules and the rules lend themselves to this style of play (e.g. 1E was good but 3E was bad for sandbox/situation type games) but you have to be very good at improvisation. However, I usually prepare, even for a situation based game, except that my prep is completely different to adventure prep.

If I want to run a situation-based campaign, then I will create a campaign area that has many cities, many wonderous locations and many NPCs, though often only in broad brush strokes. They will all have their own flavours and agendas and motivations.

I will have quite a detailed campaign map, together with maps of major settlements and major important locations, though certainly not all major sites.

There will be lots of background material: cultural and linguist traditions, a well worked out chronology of feast-days and other events that will occur in the year as well as a complex idea about things like religious, regional and national attitudes. Bascially, I will build in alot of potential for conflict.

I might also work out some events (political, magical, disasters, wars etc) that will occur throughout a campaign year ahead of time, though these events will react to certain player/PC actions. There will be no over-arching logic to any of this: the situations really are just things that are happening.

I would also grab every map, picture and encounter from published adventures, web-sites etc that I can lay my hands on and organise them so that I can find them at a moments notice when DMing. There are a number of web-based random wilderness and dungeon generators if necessary.

I will then let the PCs investigate and explore. They will make allies with whom they wish and fight who they want. They will go where they want, when they want and I will have to keep up.

Often what happens is that the PCs will decide to visit a certain (undetailed) location and I will throw in some encounters on the way, to promote roleplaying, to keep vermisilitude etc. There encounters will be in keeping with the nature of the areas they pass through and will be dictated by wandering monster tables that DO NOT SCALE with level. These encounters also perform another valuable function: they stall the players. As sessions last 3-4 hours, a few encounters is enough to ensure that I then have prep time between sessions to fill in the gaps. Or else, they would arrive and penetrate a tiny way in (often winged) and then the session would end and give me time to prepare.

Now you can see why it is best to run a game that includes elements of both design philosphies as neither works well for an extended period.

To answer your first question though, if the three dungeons are all mapped out, and one must be visited out of the three, and the players "relationship" to the dungeon is scripted/assumed, then all three are adventures.

 

[Imaro]

Anyone know of any online recordings of a sandbox campaign?

Hey Wedgeski,

Here's a blog I stumbled upon awhile ago that got me interested in running sandbox style campaigns... It's a rundown of a campaign and actual play in a sandbox style. I found it quite interesting and informative.

ars ludi

Oh yeah, it's in 5 parts.

 

[Woas]

For me situations are exactly that, situations. They may not even have any real purpose per se or plus gain in 'dealing' with them. In fact the players may not even realize they are there.

Taking this as an example:
Adventure: "You must battle through the necromancers hold to retrieve the holy gizmo from his corpse."

Situation: "There is a a necromancers hideout nearby and he has a holy gizmo"
To me they are both adventures. The one labeled Situation is just the unrefined version that you'd find on some scrap paper during an initial brainstorming. Plus the Situation here is already presupposing the players to 'deal' with the necromancer for a gizmo. Whether they have to 'battle through' or use disguises or other means, it comes down to the players learning of a gizmo being held by a necromancer, an adventure to take it is undertaken.


Situations have no known outcome. They are completely left open to how (an even if) the characters deal with them. A situation would be something like: Students march on starport. Pirates operate in the asteroid belt. Rebels transport illegal weapons to Greenville.

Returning to the Necromancer above, a better example of a situation would be just, "There is a necromancer nearby." Because then, if/when the characters even encounter this situation by meeting the necromancer (via whatever circumstances) there is no set outcome. There is no set holy gizmo that WILL be taken (unless the plot calls for one). It will be completely up to the players to understand the situation and deal accordingly. Perhaps the necromancer just speaks with the dead or studies Life magic and isn't actually a big evil pile of XP making an army of zombies for the hell of it?

 

[Remathilis]

So an adventure is putting a mouse in a maze and following him as he seeks a piece of cheese.

A situation is dumping a mouse in a field and watching what he does next.

Right?

Couple more questions.

Are modules then Taboo? By the definition, modules have plots and an assumption of what the PCs will do, which is anathema to sandbox DMing. Even paper-thin "go in this dungeon, kill everything and get rich" plots are still plots and thus limit PC choice. So no modules?

How do you handle "larger" repercussions? Cadfan's example of the necromancer's horde. If player choice is king and they don't feel like dealing with it (they'd rather explore the Goblin Warrens to deal with the bandits), is it fair to have the zombie horde sack their village, or aren't you in essence punishing them for not following the lead?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Are modules then Taboo? By the definition, modules have plots and an assumption of what the PCs will do, which is anathema to sandbox DMing. Even paper-thin "go in this dungeon, kill everything and get rich" plots are still plots and thus limit PC choice. So no modules?

Modules are not taboo, IMHO, but many have to be rewritten (to some varying degree) in order to work in a sandbox setting, esp. tournament modules from 1e, any module from 2e, and most modules from 3e & 4e.

How do you handle "larger" repercussions? Cadfan's example of the necromancer's horde. If player choice is king and they don't feel like dealing with it (they'd rather explore the Goblin Warrens to deal with the bandits), is it fair to have the zombie horde sack their village, or aren't you in essence punishing them for not following the lead?

In order,

1. Let them happen.
2. Yes.
3. No. If you do not allow the forseen repercussion to occur, you invalidate the players' choice to ignore it. In essence, the sacking of the village creates another situation, which the PCs then investigate or ignore. It is neither punishement nor reward; it is just change.


RC