Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[pemerton]

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?

I think there is probably a wide variation in design here. Some maps and keys have NPCs, libraries etc; some probably don't.

There's also the question of how the system resolves talking to NPCs and other sorts of research (Torchbearer is very robust in this respect, compared to - say - CoC or, I would say, classic D&D.)

I have read WotC modules that are closer to what @Hussar is describing than would be my own preference in map-and-key play.

 

[niklinna]

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?

Mostly fits my understanding, although in the "more narrative approach" either the GM or the players can provide the specifics of a resolved action (depending on the outcome of the roll). For a given campaign/group it could always be the GM, always the players, or open/negotiated/offered.

 

[Staffan]

Mostly fits my understanding, although in the "more narrative approach" either the GM or the players can provide the specifics of a resolved action (depending on the outcome of the roll). For a given campaign/group it could always be the GM, always the players, or open/negotiated/offered.

Right. And there's also abstracting long- or medium-term actions into various other resolution methods (making a roll to navigate a labyrinth rather than playing out the actual movement). This, I feel, is more true to the map-and-key approach, just dealing with a higher level of abstraction than the strongly narrative approach.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure the notion of "the more narrative approach" is helpful.

Here are four ways of resolving "wilderness"/cross-country travel that are not map-and-key:

* The GM, or perhaps the players and GM together, just describe(s) the travel. It's mere colour, some "joining" narrative that lets us understand what's happened between the resolution of the last scene, and this next one. The Green Knight RPG uses this approach. I almost always use this approach in Prince Valiant.

* The goal of the travel is described by a Scene Distinction, and the mechanical device that the players use to have their PCs achieve that goal is to declare actions that (i) in the fiction, help the PCs achieve their goal (eg gain on their quarry, slow their quarry down, etc) and that (ii) mechanically, ablate the Scene Distinction - if the Scene Distinction is eliminated, the PCs achieve their goal.

* Some non-map-based way of establishing distance, and how punishing that distance is, is used to set a type of obstacle for the travel. The resolution of the travel proceeds by the players declaring actions and/or spending player-side resources that allow them to meet the obstacle, or to offset it in some fashion. (I've got in mind, here, the Torchbearer rules for Journeys. A 4e skill challenge can also look a bit like this.)

* The player describes their intent-and-task (eg "I am going to cross the desert on my camel!") and the GM sets an obstacle using whatever the rules are for doing that. Then the player rolls the dice and appropriate consequences are narrated as the system dictates.​

I doubt the above four cover the field. And then there are possibilities of mixing them - eg in Apocalypse World if a player declares "I cross the burn flats in my car", the next step in resolution will depend on whether or not that is an attempt to impress someone (in which case it might be Seduce/Manipulate, depending on further details) or is being done under pressure of some sort (in which case it is probably Acting Under Fire) or does not trigger any player-side move, in which case the GM's job is to make a move (probably soft) in response. So if a move is triggered it might look a bit like my fourth dot point; but otherwise it looks the most like my first dot point.

 

[niklinna]

* The goal of the travel is described by a Scene Distinction, and the mechanical device that the players use to have their PCs achieve that goal is to declare actions that (i) in the fiction, help the PCs achieve their goal (eg gain on their quarry, slow their quarry down, etc) and that (ii) mechanically, ablate the Scene Distinction - if the Scene Distinction is eliminated, the PCs achieve their goal.

Could you elaborate on this one

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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?"

I think it's helpful to focus on particular RPGs, or at least similarity-classes of RPG.

The sort of thing you (Staffan) describe could happen in Burning Wheel ("Intent: I want to find a gap in the guard patrol; Task: I stake out the warehouse, loitering across the road with my cap pulled low over my face; Resolution: test Observation FoRKing in Inconspicuous, Disguise, and Warehouse-wise). It could also happen in Marvel Heroic RP ("I'm a Covert specialist: I spy on the warehouse to work out where the gap is in their security schedule" "Cool, spend a PP to create a Warehouse Security Weakness Resource").

But it probably wouldn't happen like that in Apocalypse World. The player declares "I try to identify gaps in the security schedule without getting caught or shot!" The GM replies "OK, you're loitering across the way from the warehouse, when a guard comes up to you and asks what your business is!" (That's a soft move, putting the PC in a spot.) The player replies "This seems like a charged situation - I read it" and makes the required throw. Suppose they get 7+, the GM has to answer one of the listed questions truthfully. Suppose the player asks "Where's my way in?" or perhaps "What's my enemy's true position?", well now the player probably has knowledge of a weak spot. But that doesn't mean it was authored by them. I mean, it could be - the GM could go "Ok, you've been staking this place out for a while now, what way in have you discovered?", but the GM's not obliged to do that. They could narrate their own thing.

And of course, once the situation's been read the GM is probably going to come back to the fact that there's a guard there asking the PC what their business is!

 

[pemerton]

Could you elaborate on this one

I'll reply in the other thread.

 

[Hussar]

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?

Maybe? If the dm has put one there and the players go and find it. Again it’s entirely about the players discovering what’s there. That’s the point of play. And it’s a hell of a lot of fun.

But again, the players could not tell the dm that there is an npc there who can give them information. Nor even suggest what kind of information they might receive.

Again there is no value judgment here. None at all. Just different games.

This is why I’m finding the resistance to the notion of Map and Key somehow being perjorative. It’s not. Even if there is someone who can give you some information, it’s very likely of limited value (the adventure is that away!) and scope.

My dungeon example is hardly an unusual one.

 

[Hussar]

@pemerton - isn’t that three methods not four I. Your post above?

 

[pemerton]

@pemerton - isn’t that three methods not four I. Your post above?

Which two do you think are the same? (I thought I'd put up four different methods, but maybe have drawn an artificial distinction?)

My guess is you think the last two are variations on a common theme? I've separated them because, in play, the difference between a Torchbearer Journey and a single Orienteering test in Burning Wheel seems pretty big. One makes resources and "tactics" important; the other doesn't.