Thanks for thinking about it. You just hit some spots that actually really need some detailing. (For example the importance of the carriers.)
You are in many points right: some points I left out because my purpose with this post was to underline the backbone of classic role-playing (for example that the critical communication that matters occurs between player and GM). If I would incorporate every single element of role-playing, this post would've been meaningless.
For example you're right that the carrier matters in some way. But this "mattering" has it's role in the game and it is not as important as the function itself.
For example if an NPC attacks the PCs and the PCs want revenge, then it is not because they lost HPs. (They wouldn't revenge the rocks for example as you mentioned it, although they lost some HPs.) They want revenge because they are angry, etc. This is another function, it is a dramatic function that is carried by the same NPC. It is true that some carriers are needed to carry certain functions, but it's just a matter of setting. (For example if the PCs are hurt by a free fall and an NPC is laughing at them, they can have revenge on this NPC, too. The 2 functions are seperated.)
So as I see it, the choosing of a carrier is only aesthetical, color or as you want to call it. This is important too, because the mood of the setting helps the players to make logical assumptions. (For example in Dune if you get the mood of the setting, you will be able to prepare better for the scheming of the Great Houses.)
And I think that even if you let the players steer the "plot" and follow them as GM, that is an adventure. I agree that the on the fly game is as near to the no-adventure game as it can be, because the advanture isn't structured, but random thisway. But, you see, there is an adventure, it's only random. It's more like a believe of myself that you can't spare the work, so if you won't prepare for the adventure, it won't be that good if you would. (Certainly that's only my believe, I don't have anything on hand to proof it. Not even experiences.)
About the link between adventure and setting. I imagine the adventure as a structure wich is filled up with elements from the setting. Like you make a decision-tree and fill the branches and leafs by copy-pasting from the source-book. (The PCs arrive at Mos Eisley, so you "copy-paste" the description of Mos Eisley to that part of the adventure.) Sure, it's not that easy (you don't copy-paste, but actually create a simulacrum only similar to the one depicted in the source-book and not even the whole of it only an interpretation of a slice of it), but let's imagine like that. After copy-pasting the descriptions, datas, etc. if you remove the setting, the adventure remains with details of the setting. This is how I meant. If the players decide to leave the adventure you have to fill in from your memories of the setting. (For example if they go to the Death Star from Tatuin when not intended to do.) This means that you extend the adventure on the fly. Because when the next time the setting element adlibbed is contained in a prepared adventure, you will use another slice, another inerpretation of it. So that's how I meant that the adventure is not the same as the setting.
And similar is whether adventures are made for players or PCs. I define an adventure as a decision-tree made for the players wich is filled with setting-elements. So it is made for the players but with regard to the setting and their PCs. If you say that adventure is for the characters, I understand it as the adventure is only a hook, a problem, a structure within a working, functioning fantasy world. Now, this is the goal for the players to see it like that. But de facto it's not the case unless you know and use every tiny facet of the setting all the time. In this case you only have to think about one tiny cause and then let this fantasy world make it into a big campaign of adventures. But it doesn't work for me, because I have really thick books describing every detail of a setting wich I can't memorize and use all the time.
That is: I tried to define the adventures as real-world items not as part of a fiction. Because the latter you know, the latter is the goal, but the former, the adventure as an item written by the GM for the players is what I want to explore: "How to write an adventure?" That is an important question for me. "How can an adventure occur in this setting?" is not that important for me.
But you are right that these issues have to be addressed and I promise I will do it in the future in this blog. Thanks for the attention, and again for the thought, the criticism.
Constructive Critique Is Always Appreciated
Thanks for thinking about it. You just hit some spots that actually really need some detailing. (For example the importance of the carriers.)
You are in many points right: some points I left out because my purpose with this post was to underline the backbone of classic role-playing (for example that the critical communication that matters occurs between player and GM). If I would incorporate every single element of role-playing, this post would've been meaningless.
For example you're right that the carrier matters in some way. But this "mattering" has it's role in the game and it is not as important as the function itself.
For example if an NPC attacks the PCs and the PCs want revenge, then it is not because they lost HPs. (They wouldn't revenge the rocks for example as you mentioned it, although they lost some HPs.) They want revenge because they are angry, etc. This is another function, it is a dramatic function that is carried by the same NPC. It is true that some carriers are needed to carry certain functions, but it's just a matter of setting. (For example if the PCs are hurt by a free fall and an NPC is laughing at them, they can have revenge on this NPC, too. The 2 functions are seperated.)
So as I see it, the choosing of a carrier is only aesthetical, color or as you want to call it. This is important too, because the mood of the setting helps the players to make logical assumptions. (For example in Dune if you get the mood of the setting, you will be able to prepare better for the scheming of the Great Houses.)
And I think that even if you let the players steer the "plot" and follow them as GM, that is an adventure. I agree that the on the fly game is as near to the no-adventure game as it can be, because the advanture isn't structured, but random thisway. But, you see, there is an adventure, it's only random. It's more like a believe of myself that you can't spare the work, so if you won't prepare for the adventure, it won't be that good if you would. (Certainly that's only my believe, I don't have anything on hand to proof it. Not even experiences.)
About the link between adventure and setting. I imagine the adventure as a structure wich is filled up with elements from the setting. Like you make a decision-tree and fill the branches and leafs by copy-pasting from the source-book. (The PCs arrive at Mos Eisley, so you "copy-paste" the description of Mos Eisley to that part of the adventure.) Sure, it's not that easy (you don't copy-paste, but actually create a simulacrum only similar to the one depicted in the source-book and not even the whole of it only an interpretation of a slice of it), but let's imagine like that. After copy-pasting the descriptions, datas, etc. if you remove the setting, the adventure remains with details of the setting. This is how I meant. If the players decide to leave the adventure you have to fill in from your memories of the setting. (For example if they go to the Death Star from Tatuin when not intended to do.) This means that you extend the adventure on the fly. Because when the next time the setting element adlibbed is contained in a prepared adventure, you will use another slice, another inerpretation of it. So that's how I meant that the adventure is not the same as the setting.
And similar is whether adventures are made for players or PCs. I define an adventure as a decision-tree made for the players wich is filled with setting-elements. So it is made for the players but with regard to the setting and their PCs. If you say that adventure is for the characters, I understand it as the adventure is only a hook, a problem, a structure within a working, functioning fantasy world. Now, this is the goal for the players to see it like that. But de facto it's not the case unless you know and use every tiny facet of the setting all the time. In this case you only have to think about one tiny cause and then let this fantasy world make it into a big campaign of adventures. But it doesn't work for me, because I have really thick books describing every detail of a setting wich I can't memorize and use all the time.
That is: I tried to define the adventures as real-world items not as part of a fiction. Because the latter you know, the latter is the goal, but the former, the adventure as an item written by the GM for the players is what I want to explore: "How to write an adventure?" That is an important question for me. "How can an adventure occur in this setting?" is not that important for me.
But you are right that these issues have to be addressed and I promise I will do it in the future in this blog. Thanks for the attention, and again for the thought, the criticism.
my RPGs