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

[Ydars]

Ourph: we are using the terminology that someone else used in another thread. I see no difficulty with it even though we are deviating from the what the word actually means in the dictionary. Indeed, I doubt the dictionary definition of adventure covers 5-8 people sitting around a table playing fictional roles, even though we commonly refer to it as one in this corner of the universe.

Words just represent ideas and they do so imperfectly so I don't understand why you have such a hard time just rolling with the terminology as it is used here. Several people have offered detailed definitions of the terms and as long as we understand what is meant by a usage then there is no problem.

If you don't see any value here, then respectfully, please move on.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I have no idea what you mean by this. If it involves conflict, intrigue and combat in the context of a roleplaying game, I have a hard time coming up with a reason not to call it an adventure.

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!

Imagine, if you will, a blank piece of paper. On it, I place a couple of towns, a horde of orcs, an undead-filled graveyard, a lich, a dragon, etc., etc. I do not know which the PCs will choose to pursue, but when they pick a direction, I then begin filling in things to enhance this adventure.

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.

 

[Remathilis]

Situations:

1) Are the result of player initiative. The player defines the goals or chooses the foes.
2) The DM doesn't have an end state or victory condition in mind. The DM doesn't want to 'accomplish something'.
3) Generally involve a fairly small amount of preparation, and are often initially created on the fly with no preparation and additional preparation is done after that session. Dungeons are usually small, on the order of single lairs or side tracks, and the map is usually created on the fly or from some generic stock. Large potential dungeons are generally not initially treated as dungeons ('The Cathedral of Lado') and the layout is handwaved for now, or else are generated on the fly by some means.

Adventures:
1) Are the result of DM initiative, usually some sort of scripted event (a 'hook') designed to either lure the PC's into cooperating ('a huge treasure is to be had', 'I'll pay 3,000 now, and another 12,000 when we get to Alderan', 'someone is murdering priests of Lado') or to force their hand ('an innocent is in distress', 'your leige commands', 'your sister has been kidnapped').
2) The DM has a specific set of events in mind and set out who is an ally, an foil, and a foe. The DM has a specific end state in mind when the adventure will be resolved (or not), such as 'The dungeon is explored', 'The treasure is recovered', 'The villain is thwarted', 'The innocents are rescued'.
3) Generally involve alot of DM preparation to pull off successfully, much of which is usually complete before the session begins.

Wow. I'm a sandbox DM and I didn't know it!

See, my PCs went on all sorts of scripted "adventures". They cleared out the Forge of Fury, stopped the Emerald Claw from recovering the Schema, explored Castle Ravenloft, Solved the Mystery of Haverghast Asylum, exposed the traitor in the Order of Ancient Mysteries, are currently exploring the Dread Crypt of Shrioz in order to find 13 pieces of demon glass the raksasha's need to free their Rajah masters before the rakasahas find them.

But in between, they went to look for one PCs' long lost sister, became lord of a stretch of land in Karrnath, sought to have the halfling's clawfoot awakened, sought a cataclysm mage to learn their secrets, investigated the draconic prophecy further, got married, got engaged (two seperate PCs), went to Xen'drik to go giant hunting, started an illegal magic-item black market in Sharn, and attempted to turn the now-empty Castle Ravenloft into a summer home.

The latter without my prompting, planning, or even inkling they were going to happen.

 

[Celebrim]

People... people... people... context, let's stay in context.

The original thread revolved around, "Should the game world conform to the player's out of character wishes?" Specifically, "Should the PC's be able to tell the DM OOC what treasure they would like to find and have a reasonable expectation of recieving it?" That largely morphed into a discussion of whether the DM should be designing the world so that it fit to the character's current abilities, or whether the DM should design a world without regard to the characters current abilities and then allow the character's to find their place in it.

Some people have claimed that there is nothing semantic difference between the two things, which I find really odd given the context. If there is nothing but a semantic difference between the two things, then there is for example, no difference between getting a 'wish list' from the player's and giving them exactly what they want, and not giving them exactly. Clearly in practice, when we get down to specific details, the two different 'schools' of design are going to encourage different things.

Equally clearly, alot of us do a little of both, and that is hardly surprising and likewise there are going to be border cases in the middle where we can't clearly separate which principal is dominate. As I said in my very first post in this whole tree of ideas, this isn't an either/or question. "The DM is for the players, and the players are for the DM." There is a mutuality going on here where neither is enslaved to the other, and on the other hand both depend on the other.

However, if I define some terms and list some attributes as opposites, attacking me that they aren't different is just kinda lame. Sure, they share alot in common, and one of marks of a particularly experienced DM is that there is a seamlessness to his on the fly invented stuff and his heavily prepared and scripted stuff so that everything just feels like one living breathing emersive world. But for crying out loud, I've played long enough that I can say that there is very definately a different feel to a DM that does alot of preparation, does a lot of high concept stuff, does lengthy 'adventure paths', and tends to put the party on rails, and a DM who does a more sandbox approach and allows narratives to arise naturally as a consequence of player actions. It may all be 'adventurous', but if we are going to talk about it with any sort of precision you are going to have to cut me some slack. I didn't create the freakin' terms, I'm just trying to help people see the distinction in a concrete way rather than talking about abstract things like 'the sure feel different when you experience them'.

If people created a distinction between 'scenario' and 'adventure' it was probably because they were trying to do the same, probably because someone was insisting that there was no difference.

Sure, player driven play may end up generating adventures in the sense that the DM may now have to flesh out the Tomb of Raxtor the Magnificent if the PC's decide to descecrate the place. In that case, the DM is going to be creating a dungeon with the very same skills he'd probably have used if the DM had thrown the PC's and hook and dragged them to the place. At that point, there might not in fact be alot of difference. But, we can probably expect that the 'sandbox' DM may do things that we wouldn't expect the DM that tailor's the world to the PC's to do. For example, if the PC's are 6th level, the 'sandbox' DM may be perfectly willing to have Roxtor be a 18th level Lich Wizard, which would not expect the DM's that lean more heavily toward tailoring the world to the PC's to do. So, there will be a difference, both in the experience and the meta-game. The 'sandbox' PC's have a different meta-game because their players don't know whether or not they are getting in over their head. The 'scripted' PC's on the other hand know that they won't be getting in over their head because otherwise the DM wouldn't have thrown them a hook.

That's a difference. You can pretend that's not a difference, but I assure you that if you'd sat at both tables, you'd notice the difference both in the game and the way the player's play the game. In order to be really successful at both tables, you have to adopt a different style of play. With scripted play, generally the rule is, 'He who hesistates is lost'. Parley is generally a waste unless the DM heavily hints otherwise because these encounters were planned as obstacles for you to overcome, and he probably imagined out how the battle would probably be fought. Parleying gets in the way of the DM's plans, and probably simply isn't going to work. The correct responce to most things in an 'adventure' is to try to ambush them and kill them before they get a chance to kill you.

This is often suicidal at the 'sand-box' DM's table. In order of preference, in a scenario the solution to things is usually 'Evade', 'Run', 'Talk', and then 'Fight' because you generally have no idea what is going on until you've had time to research the matter. He who goes in guns blazing is lost. Always look before you leap.

 

[Ourph]

People... people... people... context, let's stay in context.

The original thread revolved around, "Should the game world conform to the player's out of character wishes?" Specifically, "Should the PC's be able to tell the DM OOC what treasure they would like to find and have a reasonable expectation of recieving it?" That largely morphed into a discussion of whether the DM should be designing the world so that it fit to the character's current abilities, or whether the DM should design a world without regard to the characters current abilities and then allow the character's to find their place in it.

Some people have claimed that there is nothing semantic difference between the two things.

No one has claimed this.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm going to go against the grain and disagree with Celebrim.

I love contrarianism.

What he seems to be describing is "player generated plot hook" vs. "DM generated plot hooks." By my understanding "situations" as people are calling them would be defined as simple plot hooks that can be taken or discarded at the players' leisure. Which is totally different.

No. 'Situations' never have 'hooks' in that sense. A person used to a heavily scripted game would get in big trouble in a sandbox game because he would continually mistake mere intelligence, mere information, for a 'hook' that just wasn't there.

By 'hook', I mean, the DM comes up with some in game device by which he communicates to the players, "I would like you to go this way so that we can enjoy the adventure I have prepared for you.", and the player generally agrees because it is implied that it is profitable for the players to do so, and indeed that if they don't do there might well not be any session tonight and we can just go home.

One of the big sources of tension in 'Knights of the Dinner Table' is that the group always runs directly away from B.A.'s 'hooks' so that he can never actually run an adventure. They end up having adventures, but they are never the ones B.A. plans. The frustration B.A. has is that he wants to run these highly scripted high concept adventures (the sort that get published), but his players are so independent minded and so antagonistic that its impossible to get them out of the sandbox. They never just go with the flow. They always derail the train, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Of course, the irony is that B.A. is actually a very skill extemporaneous DM and so the players always end up having alot of fun, and eventually the plot (such as it is) gets thick enough that B.A. is having alot of fun too. But B.A.'s inability to ever really use any of the material he prepares is a source of continual frustration to him.

When a 'sandbox' DM informs the players ICly, that there is a dragon in the hills or a haunted catacombs under the city, he's not throwing a 'hook' at the players. He doesn't really expect or not expect them to go there. He's just filling them in on things that the players would know or discover about the world they are in. Taking the information about a dragon being in the hills above the city as a 'hook' can lead to wildly 'level inappropriate' encounters.

 

[Ourph]

You sir have explained this in much greater clarity than my food metaphors could ever accomplish.

OK, now I am thoroughly confused about your position on this issue. My understanding of your previous posts in this thread has been that the difference, for you, between "situations" and "adventures" basically comes down to a question of the number of options. In other words, if the PCs are presented with a number of options for doing something adventure-like, they are "situations", if the PCs are presented with only a single option, it's an "adventure". I understand, but disagree with, that position.

On the other hand, for Celebrim the difference between the two seems to come down to two entirely different things, 1) the amount of prep-work dedicated to a particular adventure-like option and 2) the source of the idea for the adventure-like option (i.e. did the idea come from the players or the DM). So that it's entirely possible to have both several "situations" in addition to a number of "adventures" all presented to the players at the same time.

I'm confused because you're agreeing with Celebrim wholeheartedly, yet in the other thread you used the following example...

If Ugor the Ogre chieftain from the North is leading his tribe south into new lands and it will take hm 3 months to enter the Southlands... well in 3 months game time a new force of Ogre's will appear and they will attack and take from the weak along their path. Of course the PC's may discover this is happening and stop them before they reach the Southlands.

Now, to me, that scenario requires both a decent amount of forethought and that the DM present that particular scenario to the PCs rather than them choosing it of their own volition (i.e. the DM says, this is what is happening and this is how it affects you).

So Celebrim's definition ignores and maybe even contradicts what appears to be the core of your point (number of options) and absolutely contradicts one of the examples you've given of a "situation", yet you're claiming he said exactly what you wanted to say. I am left with a very unclear idea of what you've been trying to say.

So, let me pose some very concrete questions (others feel free to chime in with answers as well).

The scenario: The DM starts the campaign ready to run several pre-made adventures. He introduces the PCs to a number of pieces of information, some of which lead to The Village of Homlet, some of which lead to The Isle of Dread, some of which lead to Slave Pits of the Undercity and others which lead to a number of shorter side-trek adventures he had prepared. In addition, the DM has a fully detailed, sand-box-style campaign world and it is perfectly possible that the PCs might follow up one piece of information and then switch mid-session to following up another one, leading to one of the other scenarios. In addition, it is also possible for the PCs to ignore everything the DM tells them and set off to do something completely unrelated to whatever the DM has prepared.

Question 1: Which of the above are "situations" and which are "adventures"?
Question 2: Does the answer pertaining to the side-trek adventures depend in any way on how detailed the notes and maps are for these particular scenarios?
Question 3: If we leave off the last sentence of the scenario, does that change the status of any or all of the items?
Question 4: Does the player's perception matter in this at all? If the DM perceives the players as having an equal opportunity to pursue any of these avenues, but the players perceive only the 2nd side-trek as an immediately viable option, does that change the status of any or all of the items?

Thanks for your patience.

 

[Scribble]

I still don't understand what any of this has to do with "situation" vrs adventure.

All I'm seeing is heavily railroaded adventure vrs not heavily railroaded adventure. Both use adventures. I'm also seeing ad-hock vs more prepared. Both using adventures.

I still see nothing saying how adventures are ALWAYS railroady, and situations aren't. Which is what I've seen claimed earlier.

How do you answer the PCs question when they say: "I ask around town for any rumors of stuff going on. Any rumors about monsters or treasure nearby?"

 

[ThirdWizard]

No. 'Situations' never have 'hooks' in that sense. A person used to a heavily scripted game would get in big trouble in a sandbox game because he would continually mistake mere intelligence, mere information, for a 'hook' that just wasn't there.

A hook, as in, something that the DM says that shows that there is something somewhere worth the PCs' time. That's all I mean by that. So, when a PC makes a Streetwise/Gather Information check and finds out that there is a dangerous tomb to the south, that's a hook. It doesn't matter that the DM didn't push it onto the PCs in my book.

So we have two slightly different definitions of what a plot hook is, but I don't think the difference is big enough to do more than quibble about semantics. Mine is more broad and encompasses yours, but its just about getting information to the players (whatever that may be). Otherwise, there is no game.

By 'hook', I mean, the DM comes up with some in game device by which he communicates to the players, "I would like you to go this way so that we can enjoy the adventure I have prepared for you.", and the player generally agrees because it is implied that it is profitable for the players to do so, and indeed that if they don't do there might well not be any session tonight and we can just go home.

See, this is where I think the disconnect is. You can have plot hooks without it being "Okay guys, this is what we're doing tonight." It can be a merchant who begs the PCs for help, followed by a baron who taxes the PCs' land heavily for a war that is starting on the northern border. And then when they go to the bar to plan out what to do next, an old buddy of theirs shows up in town with a map leading to treasure.

Nowhere in this is the DM saying "Here's what we're doing." In fact, the PCs probably have to choose what to do. And, lets not forget that they could ignore all of this and decide that in order to solve their problems they're going to steal everything the merchant has to build a mercenary company so that they can join the army from the north and help conquer the barony.

But, they're all plot hooks. It's just that some of them come from the DM and some come from the players. The DM is dropping hooks fast and furious, but that doesn't mean anything about whether or not the PCs have the freedom to pick and choose what happens next. In fact, it uses those hooks to encourage the very thing you're saying is done without plot hooks.

I think its important to denote that an "adventure" isn't strictly a published adventure nor does it need to look anything like a published adventure. An adventure is a series of encounters based around some larger structure. So, if the PCs hear about a dragon in the hills and then go to investigate, take out some of his kobold followers, and kill the dragon, they just had an adventure.

How is that not an adventure?

We already have terms to describe all the things in this thread. All this thread seems to be doing is demonizing the term "adventure."

 

[Celebrim]

All this thread seems to be doing is demonizing the term "adventure."

Speaking of disconnects...