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

[Celebrim]

In addition, the DM has a fully detailed, sand-box-style campaign world...

Doesn't this condition render all of your questions moot?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yeah, there are a lot of ideas here being thrown around, and some good ones, but it seems like the real difference between a situation and an adventure, as defined here, is more inherent to plot hooks given than it is to what actually happens with those plot hooks. Which, in the end, is quite underwhelming.

Check out the very first reply in this thread, in fact!



Once the players see a "situation" and decide to invest play time in it, it becomes an adventure. Full stop. There is no reason to say otherwise unless you do not like the term adventure or feel it is somehow too constrictive. But, by choosing to investigate this particular plot hook, you are actively restricting what can be done! There is only a limited amount of play time available, so if I go investigate the mummy's tomb, that means that there's another plot hook that can't be followed simply due to time constraints.

Investigating the mummy's tomb, that right there, is an adventure. Again: Full stop.

There is a difference, and in many cases, a laudable one I believe. I think there is a lot of good stuff in this thread. But, the reluctance to call something an adventure is a red herring. It's not fun, interesting, cool because it has a different name or is a different thing. It's fun, interesting, and cool because it is the same thing carried out in a different way. That, right there, is innovation, and calling it by a "situation" is just creating all kinds of unneeded confusion.

I agree, but I cannot yet give you XP again.

 

[Ourph]

Doesn't this condition render all of your questions moot?

Moot? No. It might make all the answers swing one way or another, but I'm still interested in hearing the answers, particularly because I'm not sure if Imaro's will coincide with yours or RC's or others.

In fact, I'm perplexed that you would ask that question based on your previous post. Are you saying that if I plopped the Temple of Elemental Evil into the middle of my sandbox campaign that, even though it's a pre-made, commercial adventure with lots of preparatory work and plenty of support material to use, it would become a "situation" based on the context? If so, how does this interact with your definition that situations are undeveloped, mostly player-defined and lack any kind of DM-inspired prompting?

 

[Scribble]

Here is what I am seeing:

Situations: Hooks and rumors about places people and things happening in the world.

Adventure: When/if the PC chooses to investigate or interact with said rumors, places or people.

Some people out there choose to have PCs discover situations only related to adventures already made.

Some people out there might only give the PCs one situation they can interact with.

Some people choose to give situations detailed and un-detailed alike, feeling this offers more choice.

None of the above is the "wrong" way to play if everyone is having fun.

 

[billd91]

Moot? No. It might make all the answers swing one way or another, but I'm still interested in hearing the answers, particularly because I'm not sure if Imaro's will coincide with yours or RC's or others.

In fact, I'm perplexed that you would ask that question based on your previous post. Are you saying that if I plopped the Temple of Elemental Evil into the middle of my sandbox campaign that, even though it's a pre-made, commercial adventure with lots of preparatory work and plenty of support material to use, it would become a "situation" based on the context? If so, how does this interact with your definition that situations are undeveloped, mostly player-defined and lack any kind of DM-inspired prompting?

A place could be pretty well defined, statted up and still be a situation in the campaign. In this case, it just means, that the DM has less work to do if the PCs decide to look into that situation. The players, through their PCs, could decide to investigate it or not, without any DM prompting or pushing that plotline on the flow of the campaign.

 

[Ourph]

A place could be pretty well defined, statted up and still be a situation in the campaign. In this case, it just means, that the DM has less work to do if the PCs decide to look into that situation. The players, through their PCs, could decide to investigate it or not, without any DM prompting or pushing that plotline on the flow of the campaign.

1) That's not the message I took away from Celebrim's post. By his thorough and elaborate definition of the two terms, it seems to me that "well defined and statted up" puts it squarely in the "adventure" category. Specifically, the Temple of Elemental Evil would violate at least element #2 (no preplanned victory condition or end-state) and #3 (a small amount of prep) of Celebrim's definition for "situations", while fulfilling at least three elements (#2 Specific set of events/encounters and predetermining who is an ally, foil or foe, #3 A specific end states or resolution conditions and #4 Lots of preparation or prescripting) of his definition for "adventures".

2) Given that you appear to differ with Celebrim (and perhaps Imaro) on the question of what constitutes an "adventure" and what constitutes a "situation", I'd love to get your input on the 4 questions I asked upthread.

 

[billd91]

1) That's not the message I took away from Celebrim's post. By his thorough and elaborate definition of the two terms, it seems to me that "well defined and statted up" puts it squarely in the "adventure" category.

2) Given that you appear to differ with Celebrim (and perhaps Imaro) on the question of what constitutes an "adventure" and what constitutes a "situation", I'd love to get your input on the 4 questions I asked upthread.

I think the difference here is that with something well defined and statted up the DM may be highly invested in it and push it on the players with them agreeing to take the bait on the hooks. But I think it could still be a situation if the DM isn't particularly invested in getting the players to do it in an effort to run a particular plot through the campaign. If it's just another thing goin' on in the campaign world, it's a situation no matter how well defined it is.

I'm generally more inclined to think of an adventure as the adventure the PCs have actually done or are doing right now. If they get involved in a campaign situation, they have an adventure. If they don't, then it's not an adventure. Again, I don't think it really matters how well defined or statted up it is.

When it comes to running a campaign, I prefer a mix of player-initiated adventures and DM-initiated adventures. So I prepare, outline, or at least think about and jot down a number of situations, some of which I put in front of the players as adventures, some of which I do not but that they may seek out so that they become adventures.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Speaking of disconnects...

Not at all. There seems to be a conflation of the term "adventure" with "railroading." If that isn't trying to make the term "adventure" derogatory, I don't know what is.

 

[Ourph]

I think the difference here is that with something well defined and statted up the DM may be highly invested in it and push it on the players with them agreeing to take the bait on the hooks. But I think it could still be a situation if the DM isn't particularly invested in getting the players to do it in an effort to run a particular plot through the campaign. If it's just another thing goin' on in the campaign world, it's a situation no matter how well defined it is.

I'm generally more inclined to think of an adventure as the adventure the PCs have actually done or are doing right now. If they get involved in a campaign situation, they have an adventure. If they don't, then it's not an adventure. Again, I don't think it really matters how well defined or statted up it is.

So you're not in agreement with Celebrim's definitions of "situation" vs. "adventure". Gotcha.

 

[Celebrim]

Not at all. There seems to be a conflation of the term "adventure" with "railroading." If that isn't trying to make the term "adventure" derogatory, I don't know what is.

I wouldn't agree with the claim that a 'railroad' is always a bad idea. Some of the most beloved published adventures of all time are railroads. I've been on the railroad from time to time and been quite happy with it.

I would use the term 'railroading' in a derogatory context only if the DM refused to let the players to get off, and actively began to thwart there efforts to do so. But that's really not a problem with adventure design per se.

And clearly that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about the fact that most adventures have a linear series of expected events, and the players are expected (and indeed often have to complete the adventure) go from A -> B -> C -> D in order. If you've got a better term than 'railroad' for that which will make you less uncomfortable, then by all means, I'll be happy to hear it and use it.