Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim" data-source="post: 9677592" data-attributes="member: 7025577">I have some new thoughts I think might be relevant for this thread. It was inspired by a friend rejecting my claim that FATE didn't seem to support premade adventures. Upon examining it a bit closer I think I see at least one approach it sort of would sort of work if I losened certain assumptions I was having. And then I realised these assumptions might be central to clarifying some of the differences I have seen betwen sandbox styles mentioned in this thread.It is about how should the setting "react" to the player characters.1 The traditional hard line event based adventure formulae indicate hardly any reaction. No matter what the characters do, the overall plot is going to unfold in a similar way.2 Then we have the setting reacts to the players actions trough causal relationships between things established before the player's actions. If the things involved is established by players, GM or third party publications - and if it is known by players or not is irrelevant. The traditional living world sandbox is an example of this.3 Then we have the setting react to the character's actions but the causality is inspired by them. For instance the characters steal a magical item from a merchant. The GM is inspired to establish in his mind that the merchant has connections to the thief guild. And there is a new causal link making the thief guild react to the characters. This is common for the more improvised sandbox.4 Then we have games where the setting is reacting to the characteristics of the character. In more traditional play, this would be where the nature of the cult in the forrest is adapted to the power level of the characters when they decide to investigate. More radically this would be when the GM introduce some twist trough a FATE compell. The village was raided, and the character's childhood friend captured for slavery because they were the character's childhood friend. There happens to be a growing cult in the forest because one of the characters is a witch hunter.5 And then we have games were the setting reacts to direct player/mechanics intervention. Like if a PbtA game result indicate the player should establish something new about the fiction.I think the further you go down this, the more limited you are in what use you can get from pre-published adventures. At step 1 you can essentially take an entire story. At step 2 you can make full use of any locations, characters and adversaries (and the relationship between these), but might be ready to adapt suggested plot lines. I think this is also the case for step 3, but the likelihood of the players breaking away from preplanned content sue to more interesting complications/opportunities arises increases dramatically. At step 4 however I feel the the level of adaption required to make an adventure properly fit the characters become so massive I could get as much out of just having resource books with discrete elements to mix and match myself. The overall structure of the initial situation might still be salvagable from the adventure tough. At step 5 having more than a seed seem problematic.Do this ladder make sense? Might it in any way helpful for this conversation? Is there any essential kinds of reactivity I have missed here?</blockquote>

Verification