Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[soviet]

'Map and key' describes exactly how I have GMed MERP and AD&D in the past, and how I am GMing WFRP 1e right now. Any negative inference is as far as I can see entirely in the mind of the responder.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well…. There is certainly an element of that in these discussions. An immediate reaction to anything that even whiffs of negativity, intentional or not must immediately be addressed is a good example.

“Guessing” is exactly what map and key adventurers are at their base. That’s not really debatable. Where is the Macguffin in the dungeon? Wander around mostly randomly looking for clues that eventually lead you to it. It might be informed guesswork but it’s still guesswork.

Which is generally not how non-trad plays. You KNOW where the MacGuffin is. You often can tell the table where it is. Getting it isn’t the goal of play. How you get it is.

And you think the description you just provided didn't come complete with a value judgement on "which is better"?

 

[pemerton]

I'm only hearing of this phrase now. It seems matter-of-fact as a descriptor, but clearly it is intended with undue derision towards what I can only guess to be aimed at sandboxes.

This seems very paranoid to me.

I'm using the phrase map-and-key to describe an approach to RPGing that I learned from reading Tom Moldvay's rulebook some time around 1982/3.

Okay. So we fundamentally disagree on the remise. Of course our conclusions are going to be different. The premise being whether 'guessing game' is implied in 'map and key'.

Let's take a step back - Do you agree there is an implicit expression of 'guessing game' present in the 'map and key' term?

Ditto. I've got no idea what "guessing game" has to do with it. I mean, flattering as it is to be the object of all this speculation, it's also pretty bizarre. There seems to be some sort of weird projection on your part.

To me, there’s a map of some kind… the physical space in which the events of play will take place. This can be a dungeon or an isle or a keep or a glacial rift or whatever. And there’s a key… a summary of the features of the place, and the creatures and objects within it.

I don’t know how guesswork comes into it. Do you mean that the players don’t know the entirety of the map and key? I would agree they don’t, but I still don’t see what guesswork has to do with it.

It's interesting to reflect on how play changes when it is still map-and-key based, but the map, and perhaps parts of the key, are known by the players as well as the GM.

I've used this approach in Classic Traveller play. I would say that it tends to make framing a more prominent and "extended" part of play - the various participants at the table point at the map, talk about who is going where doing what, etc - and tends to downplay resolution - because everyone at the table can see straight away where the imagined characters are going, work out what they might see, etc. I'm not 100% sure this is the right word, but I want to say it gives play a certain languid quality.

I think it contrasts quite a bit with Torchbearer, where the map-and-key are hidden when the players (via their PCs) first encounter them, are revealed under the pressure of tests and "the grind", and then - once known - are typically not revisited in any detail ("fun once").

Do you have any idea how insulting this post is? Did you think I literally needed a definition of what the words, "map" and "key" mean?

I replied to a post where you asked what "map and key" means. I answered. I'm sorry that you found my answer insulting.

If what you were asking is "what guessing game and other pejorative things are implied by the phrase" you'll have to ask FrogReaver, ClusterFluster and yourself because those are things you're bringing to the table.

I'm talking about an approach to RPGing that I learned from reading Moldvay and Gygax, that I believe was first invented by Arneson. One participant - the GM - draws a map and writes a key. Other participants - the players - create imaginary characters which are part of the "world" in which the mapped-and-keyed place is located. The GM uses the map and key to describe what those characters are aware of in their environs ("framing"). And when the players describe their characters doing things - eg walking through a door, looking around a corner, etc - the GM resolves that action by reference to the map and key.

I guess there are some RPGers somewhere who have never played an RPG in this sort of way, but I think it's pretty common. In fact it's so common that many RPGers, in my experience, struggle to envisage other approaches to framing and resolution, and approaches to prep that don't involve prepping a map and key (such as AW threats and fronts).

 

[JAMUMU]

'Map and key' describes exactly how I have GMed MERP and AD&D in the past, and how I am GMing WFRP 1e right now. Any negative inference is as far as I can see entirely in the mind of the responder.

The extreme polarisation that emerges out of the attempt to criticise RPGs is worthy of criticism in its own right.

Any one game can do both. My Burning Wheel game is largely propelled by using the GM principles in the book. But sometimes it makes sense to make a map, and key it, and that session or three moves to a "map and key" mode of play.

When I ran my 5e sandbox game, the main focus was on a map and key approach. But sometimes - when it seemed appropriate - it made sense to draw on more "storygame" approaches to doing things.

This is the beauty of the hobby, and of the games we play. When it devolves to the level of "rival schools" facing off against each other, criticism collapses and we'd be as well retreating back into a "lolelfgameswhocares" corner and just doing whatever makes us happy.

 

[Lanefan]

@niklinna - laughing at jokes is one thing, laughing at serious posts is another. What's so funny?

 

[pemerton]

I think I've just realized one issue with your terminology here: the consistent use of the word "constrain" (which really does come across as rather negative) instead of the more neutral "define" or "inform" when speaking of how map-and-key affects framing and resolution.

Seriously?

So all those posters who talk about how constraints help stimulate their creativity are self-hating too?

My Torchbearer session yesterday involved no map and key play. The previous session did, though. I wanted to tell the players what their PCs could see - so I looked at my key and read/paraphrased the stuff I'd written down (eg that there was writing on the door saying “Here lies Celedhring, in communion with the Outer Dark”). That is the map-and-key constraining my framing. That's its point.

At another point in that session the players asked, on behalf of their PCs, "How many alcoves are there?" I looked at my map, and saw that there were three, and so answered "Three". Again, that's the point of the map - to constrain resolution of the action declaration "I look to see how many alcoves there are".

As I've already posted, this is an approach to RPGing that I first encountered about 40 years ago, and that seems to still be very widespread. I'm surprised it's so controversial to note its existence.

 

[pemerton]

“Guessing” is exactly what map and key adventurers are at their base. That’s not really debatable. Where is the Macguffin in the dungeon? Wander around mostly randomly looking for clues that eventually lead you to it. It might be informed guesswork but it’s still guesswork.

Even assuming a fully secret map-and-key, I think the degree of guessing can vary quite a bit.

That said, "guessing" can have a wide range of meanings. But I think "mostly random" guessing or wandering can be distinguished from inference based on other information.

In my Torchbearer game, for instance, on at least two occasions the players have had their PCs do research during Town Phase (thus paying the associated Lifestyle Cost and making the appropriate Scholar tests) in order to get information that has enabled them to make inferences rather than just guess randomly. When I (as GM) provide that information I base it on what is in my map and key: so it reduces the "hidden" character of the "gameboard".

 

[Hussar]

And you think the description you just provided didn't come complete with a value judgement on "which is better"?

I don’t see how.

I don’t even play non-trad games. Or at least I haven’t in years.

Take any dungeon crawl you want to name. The pcs just entered. The first room has three corridors leading out, one in each direction. There are humanoid footprints leading in and or of all three corridors, all of a similar size although the eastern corridor footprints tend to be a bit smaller.

How do you choose which direction to proceed? In what way is it not more or less a coin toss? Or to put it another way, a guess?

This is how most play works. You start out with almost no information and then, over time and mostly random choices, you reach a point where you can start making more and more informed guesses as to how to proceed.

How is this even remotely controversial?

 

[pemerton]

My Burning Wheel game is largely propelled by using the GM principles in the book. But sometimes it makes sense to make a map, and key it, and that session or three moves to a "map and key" mode of play.

I've never done map-and-key in Burning Wheel.

But my Classic Traveller game involved multiple sessions of map and key, although most of the game was approached more AW-style.

The actual play posts, including my reflections on the map and key aspect, can be found here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Even assuming a fully secret map-and-key, I think the degree of guessing can vary quite a bit.

That said, "guessing" can have a wide range of meanings. But I think "mostly random" guessing or wandering can be distinguished from inference based on other information.

In my Torchbearer game, for instance, on at least two occasions the players have had their PCs do research during Town Phase (thus paying the associated Lifestyle Cost and making the appropriate Scholar tests) in order to get information that has enabled them to make inferences rather than just guess randomly. When I (as GM) provide that information I base it on what is in my map and key: so it reduces the "hidden" character of the "gameboard".

That is what I had an issue with, the connotation associated with, "mostly random" and "guessing". The latter term I got from @FrogReaver , and assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that it came from you. If I am wrong about that, I do apologize.

To me, those terms imply less care and value than other, non "map & key" styles of gaming. I don't believe that, and I don't care for it.