In another thread there has been a discussion of map-and-key RPGing, and how it is a distinctive way of handling framing and resolution in RPGing.
Consider the following situation, not uncommon in fantasy RPGing: The PCs are at place A, on the edge of a desert. They wish to get to place B, on the other side of the desert.
How has it come to be that everyone at the table agrees that that is the fictional situation? One possibility is because there is a "world map", and the position of the PCs, and places A and B, are all marked on it, and by looking at the map we can see that there is a desert between A, where the PCs are, and B.
That is an example of using a map-and-key to frame a situation.
The PCs decide to cross the desert. How long does it take, and do they make it? One way to resolve that is to use the map to determine the distance, to divide that through by a movement rate for the PCs, to look at how much food and water will be needed per unit of time, etc. This is roughly what is presented in (eg) Cook/Marsh Expert D&D and Gygax's DMG. I get the impression it's also an approach used in at least some 5e D&D (eg the wilderness travel in Tomb of Annihilation, if I've properly understood what I've read about it).
That is an example of using a map-and-key to resolve an action declaration.
Consider this different situation: The PCs are lost in the under city sewers and catacombs, and find themselves looking up through a grille in the street where an enemy is looking down at them, gloating. The reason why the PCs were sneaking through the catacombs is because they were trying to make it to a wizard's tower in the middle of the city, before their enemy (whom they'd drugged to give themselves a head start). Now they have to race through the undercity while their enemy proceeds above ground!
How has it come to be that everyone at the table agrees that that is the fictional situation? One possibility is because there is an undercity map, and the GM has been providing descriptions to the players (eg "You come to a place where the tunnel stops, and the water drops over a 'falls' to a cross-wise tunnel 20 feet below you - what do you do?") and then the players have been describing which way their PCs go (eg "We use a rope to lower ourselves down alongside the 'falls' and then proceed down the cross-wise tunnel to the right"). Eventually, the result is that the PCs find themselves at a place where there is a grille to the street above.
That would be an example of using map-and-key first to resolve the action declaration "We travel through the undercity catacombs and sewers" and then to help establish the framing "You are looking up through a grille in the street, where your enemy is looking down at you." How the presence of the enemy is established, on this approach, is a further thing - perhaps its a random encounter roll, perhaps the GM has just decided to add it as a type of "spice" to the situation dictated by the map-and-key.
When the situation I've described happened in my Burning Wheel game, though, it didn't arise via map-and-key play. There is no map of the city or its catacombs and sewers. After the PCs drugged their enemy, their players decided that they would sneak through the catacombs to the wizard's tower. I called for a test on Catacombs-wise, at an appropriate difficulty. The test failed, and so I framed the PCs into the situation described: they had become lost, and found themselves at the grille where their enemy - now recovered from having been drugged - was looking down at them, taunting them. No map-and-key resolution of moving through the catacombs; no map-and-key contribution to the framing of the situation.
In my game, the race to the wizard's tower was not resolved via map-and-key either. It was resolved via opposed Speed checks.
In the same game, when the PCs needed to cross a desert to get from A to B, there was no map-and-key resolution. Rather, there was an Orienteering check made against an appropriate difficulty.
Another approach to resolving these sorts of action declarations is from Marvel Heroic RP - I've used it in my fantasy adaptation of that system. The goal or threat is framed as a Scene Distinction (say "In pursuit of the Orcs" or "The Giants are gaining on you") and then the players can declare actions for their PCs which - in the fiction - help the PCs in their goal (eg in one of our MERP/LotR sessions, Gandalf used his magic to create squabbling among the Orcs whom the PCs were pursuing, and who were carrying a palantir that they might well squabble over - this slowed the Orcs down) and which - mechanically - ablate the Scene Distinction. If the Scene Distinction is removed before something else happens to bring the scene to an end, then the PCs achieve their goal (eg they've caught the Orcs, or escaped the Giants).
In non map-and-key approaches a map might still be fun or even helpful to use, as a source of descriptions and flavour and so on (eg in the MERP/LotR Cortex+ example, we referred to the map when we described the Orcs as having begun their journey in Angmar, and heading south towards the Gap of Rohan). But the map is not being used as a constraining device for framing or for resolution.
This post has focused on the use of map-and-key techniques to establish and resolve actions to do with where the PCs are and where they go. Map-and-key approaches can also be used to determine what the PCs find but I'll hold off on that until I learn whether or not there is any interest in this topic.
Consider the following situation, not uncommon in fantasy RPGing: The PCs are at place A, on the edge of a desert. They wish to get to place B, on the other side of the desert.
How has it come to be that everyone at the table agrees that that is the fictional situation? One possibility is because there is a "world map", and the position of the PCs, and places A and B, are all marked on it, and by looking at the map we can see that there is a desert between A, where the PCs are, and B.
That is an example of using a map-and-key to frame a situation.
The PCs decide to cross the desert. How long does it take, and do they make it? One way to resolve that is to use the map to determine the distance, to divide that through by a movement rate for the PCs, to look at how much food and water will be needed per unit of time, etc. This is roughly what is presented in (eg) Cook/Marsh Expert D&D and Gygax's DMG. I get the impression it's also an approach used in at least some 5e D&D (eg the wilderness travel in Tomb of Annihilation, if I've properly understood what I've read about it).
That is an example of using a map-and-key to resolve an action declaration.
Consider this different situation: The PCs are lost in the under city sewers and catacombs, and find themselves looking up through a grille in the street where an enemy is looking down at them, gloating. The reason why the PCs were sneaking through the catacombs is because they were trying to make it to a wizard's tower in the middle of the city, before their enemy (whom they'd drugged to give themselves a head start). Now they have to race through the undercity while their enemy proceeds above ground!
How has it come to be that everyone at the table agrees that that is the fictional situation? One possibility is because there is an undercity map, and the GM has been providing descriptions to the players (eg "You come to a place where the tunnel stops, and the water drops over a 'falls' to a cross-wise tunnel 20 feet below you - what do you do?") and then the players have been describing which way their PCs go (eg "We use a rope to lower ourselves down alongside the 'falls' and then proceed down the cross-wise tunnel to the right"). Eventually, the result is that the PCs find themselves at a place where there is a grille to the street above.
That would be an example of using map-and-key first to resolve the action declaration "We travel through the undercity catacombs and sewers" and then to help establish the framing "You are looking up through a grille in the street, where your enemy is looking down at you." How the presence of the enemy is established, on this approach, is a further thing - perhaps its a random encounter roll, perhaps the GM has just decided to add it as a type of "spice" to the situation dictated by the map-and-key.
When the situation I've described happened in my Burning Wheel game, though, it didn't arise via map-and-key play. There is no map of the city or its catacombs and sewers. After the PCs drugged their enemy, their players decided that they would sneak through the catacombs to the wizard's tower. I called for a test on Catacombs-wise, at an appropriate difficulty. The test failed, and so I framed the PCs into the situation described: they had become lost, and found themselves at the grille where their enemy - now recovered from having been drugged - was looking down at them, taunting them. No map-and-key resolution of moving through the catacombs; no map-and-key contribution to the framing of the situation.
In my game, the race to the wizard's tower was not resolved via map-and-key either. It was resolved via opposed Speed checks.
In the same game, when the PCs needed to cross a desert to get from A to B, there was no map-and-key resolution. Rather, there was an Orienteering check made against an appropriate difficulty.
Another approach to resolving these sorts of action declarations is from Marvel Heroic RP - I've used it in my fantasy adaptation of that system. The goal or threat is framed as a Scene Distinction (say "In pursuit of the Orcs" or "The Giants are gaining on you") and then the players can declare actions for their PCs which - in the fiction - help the PCs in their goal (eg in one of our MERP/LotR sessions, Gandalf used his magic to create squabbling among the Orcs whom the PCs were pursuing, and who were carrying a palantir that they might well squabble over - this slowed the Orcs down) and which - mechanically - ablate the Scene Distinction. If the Scene Distinction is removed before something else happens to bring the scene to an end, then the PCs achieve their goal (eg they've caught the Orcs, or escaped the Giants).
In non map-and-key approaches a map might still be fun or even helpful to use, as a source of descriptions and flavour and so on (eg in the MERP/LotR Cortex+ example, we referred to the map when we described the Orcs as having begun their journey in Angmar, and heading south towards the Gap of Rohan). But the map is not being used as a constraining device for framing or for resolution.
This post has focused on the use of map-and-key techniques to establish and resolve actions to do with where the PCs are and where they go. Map-and-key approaches can also be used to determine what the PCs find but I'll hold off on that until I learn whether or not there is any interest in this topic.
