Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Campbell]

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.

For my money it better constrain and not just inform if there is going to be a real game to be played. If play lacks the systemic constraints of something like Apocalypse World the GM damn better (consider their selves to) be constrained by their prep or I want nothing to do with it.

 

[JAMUMU]

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

I've never run Traveller, so I'm looking forward to reading that thread.

My players knew there was a stretch of haunted, lawless woodland. They knew it had a bad history and was ignored by the powers-that-be. So obviously, they decided they wanted it and new Beliefs were written to reflect that. So I mapped it and keyed it and they poked around until it was mostly theirs.

As a thought exercise I wrote it up for both Burning Wheel and D&D. The D&D write-up was about 9 pages longer, because the supposition is that in order to claim it they'd have to subdue and/or slay everything inside. The Burning Wheel version was much shorter, because the supposition is that combat wouldn't be the primary method of conquest. But it was the same map, and used the same key.

 

[pemerton]

My players knew there was a stretch of haunted, lawless woodland. They knew it had a bad history and was ignored by the powers-that-be. So obviously, they decided they wanted it and new Beliefs were written to reflect that. So I mapped it and keyed it and they poked around until it was mostly theirs.

Are you familiar with the discussion of Wises in the Adventure Burner/Codex? How they can toggle between a technique to establish fiction via intent and task as usual, and a technique for the players to get access to GM-authored material.

In my mind, using the approach you describe would shift some uses of Wises, and Perception, towards that second sort of approach. Is my impression accurate?

When my group plays Prince Valiant it's somewhat Burning Wheel-lite, but that dual function of Perception checks is a bigger thing than it is in our BW play.

 

[JAMUMU]

Are you familiar with the discussion of Wises in the Adventure Burner/Codex? How they can toggle between a technique to establish fiction via intent and task as usual, and a technique for the players to get access to GM-authored material.

In my mind, using the approach you describe would shift some uses of Wises, and Perception, towards that second sort of approach. Is my impression accurate?

When my group plays Prince Valiant it's somewhat Burning Wheel-lite, but that dual function of Perception checks is a bigger thing than it is in our BW play.

Yes, I'd say that's accurate. They used Wises to establish a few of their own facts, and discern what the set-up was (and meta-game how that interacted with their core beliefs), and could then plan accordingly. In fact I'd hazard that in general we play Wises 50/50, though I have to remind them of the first function from time to time.

One of the characters is deep into Spirit Binding and Summoning, and so could use that information to their advantage. That player's takeaway was that in D&D (a game we love and play often, so there was no value judgement involved) they could never have procured themselves a haunted forest in the way they did. But the flip-side of that is if they'd try to brute force their way through, Burning Wheel's mechanics would have killed them, while D&D's would've rewarded them.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, I'd say that's accurate. They used Wises to establish a few of their own facts, and discern what the set-up was (and meta-game how that interacted with their core beliefs), and could then plan accordingly

See this quote right here is what distinguishes map and key play from non-trad play. There is no mechanic like this in trad play. There is nothing a player can do to establish their own facts.

All they can do is reveal the map and key. There’s no way to change it. The players cannot change the map and key directly. Only by first revealing it through play and then interacting.

And the primary process of revealing the map is largely guesswork.

 

[JAMUMU]

See this quote right here is what distinguishes map and key play from non-trad play. There is no mechanic like this in trad play. There is nothing a player can do to establish their own facts.

All they can do is reveal the map and key. There’s no way to change it. The players cannot change the map and key directly. Only by first revealing it through play and then interacting.

And the primary process of revealing the map is largely guesswork.

Sure, but the "establishing facts" is also a kind of guesswork. But the guesses start with the phrasing "Would it work if..." or "Would it be cool if...". It's not like the players said "Right there's a big button on the side of that tree that makes us rulers of the map!". So there's still a tentative feeling forward as part of the process. And the facts they "established" were a development of what their characters already knew, not some sort of radical different direction.

And yeah, it's non-traditional. Or perhaps simply a newer mode of play. But players informing what's in the game has been a tool I've been using since 1st edition AD&D, because simply put, sometimes their ideas are better than - or improve on - mine.

 

[Cadence]

See this quote right here is what distinguishes map and key play from non-trad play. There is no mechanic like this in trad play. There is nothing a player can do to establish their own facts.

All they can do is reveal the map and key. There’s no way to change it. The players cannot change the map and key directly. Only by first revealing it through play and then interacting.

And the primary process of revealing the map is largely guesswork.

Thank you for encouraging me to go back and reread what trad play (and the others) are!

 

[pemerton]

I started a thread which is about explaining and analysing and contrasting map-and-key and other approaches: Map-and-key RPGing contrasted with alternatives

 

[soviet]

And the primary process of revealing the map is largely guesswork.

Is it though? Surely at map marker A there are NPCs to be found who can talk about what's to be found up them thar hills? Or other research and clue-finding the PCs might do?

 

[Staffan]

Let me see if I can get this straight.

What you're calling "map and key" basically means that the game world is made up of certain predetermined facts, and that a large portion of the game is about discovering these facts. These facts often refer to locations and their contents (the literal map and key) but can also refer to other things (like people, organizations and the relationship between them).

The alternative method, which I'm not sure has been named in this thread but I'll call it narrative, deals more with players establishing facts by themselves (even if that's not what happens in the fiction).

So to take a very simple example: there's something in a warehouse the PCs want. To get to it, the PCs want to find a way to avoid the warehouse's security. In traditional map-and-key play, the GM has prepared the warehouse ahead of time. There's a map, of course. They might have prepared guard patrol routes and if there's a backdoor or alternate entry, it's because the GM decided there should be. Depending on the game and what resources the PCs have available, they can discover these means, or figure out weaknesses in the patrol routes, or maybe even bypass these restrictions if they have enough resources (e.g. teleporting into the place).

But in the more narrative approach, the GM probably hasn't prepared the warehouse in any great detail, other than "there's a warehouse with a McGuffin" and "there are some goons guarding it." Any additional details would be, from a real-world perspective, created by the players' actions. A PC staking the place out would roll Perception (or spend some meta-currency), and on a good roll they would get to create a weakness in the place's security. Within the fiction of course, the weakness was always there, the PC just discovered it. But from the perspective of the players, the player's good roll was rewarded by the GM saying "What sort of weakness did you find?"

Am I understanding these ideas correctly?