Map-and-key RPGing contrasted with alternatives

[Staffan]

This is different from the MHRP example I had in mind. I'm not familiar with the Storyteller system details, but this reminds me of a cross between a 4e skill challenge and a Torchbearer Journey, which I put together in my third dot point in my second post upthread. Because it seems to have a resource-management aspect that is not really a part of MHRP.

The resource management aspect was mainly to provide some spice and keep it from just being "roll until you make it", which is pretty boring. But maybe not the best choice in a theory-focused thread.

Spoiler: Storyteller system explanation

The Storyteller system has a few variants, but generally works by rolling d10s equal to the sum of a character attribute and skill, each of which is rated on a 1-5 scale for regular people (or 0-5 for skills). Every die that's a certain number or above (in some iterations this is a constant, in others it's a variable) is a success. For basic tests that's basically it, and the number of successes determine how well you did. For extended tests you roll at certain intervals and work toward accumulating a certain number of successes. In some cases, this number could be variable as well – for example, a chase might end when one side has gotten X successes more than the other, either representing catching up or getting away.

In this case, the extended test would be something like "roll Perception + Survival once per day until you reach a total of 10 successes."

 

[Staffan]

I should add, like all the best RPGs (!) there is no single articulation of all this in the MHRP rulebook. I'm putting it together from different bits found in the rulebook, plus examples given in various Event books. I think it's a real shame that the licence was pulled on this system and so it's never been further developed or presented in a more consolidated way.

The actual rules are available as Cortex Prime. Or perhaps "can be built from Cortex Prime" is a better phrasing, because Cortex Prime is more of a game construction set than an actual game, providing a variety of ways of building a Cortex game using pieces from previous games (and likely some new ideas too, but I'm not familiar enough with various Cortices to say what's new and what's old).

 

[pemerton]

I'm also curious about the Scene Distinction concept -- who decides when it has been removed? Is it a traditional dungeon master referee role, or table consensus? Does it matter? Does it work in either case (or a third case)?

All actions in this system are resolved via opposed dice pools, which include dice taken from applicable descriptors, and the effect of actions is to create new descriptors, step up existing descriptors, or step down existing descriptors. (Via a system based on dice-size ratings.) If a Scene Distinction is stepped down to zero, then the scene no longer contains that thing.

By default, a Scene Descriptor is eliminated when it is stepped down below d4.

But there is room for variability here (similar to setting the complexity of a 4e D&D skill challenge or the number of hit points of a D&D creature).

Eg the GM could say the Scene Distinction is rated at d8. And that defaults to elimination after being stepped below d4. So four steps - d8, d6, d4, zero - although a big enough effect die can mean there is no need to proceed through all the steps (this is a difference between MHRP and attrition-based resolution).

Or the GM could say the Scene Disinction is rated at d12, and is eliminated after being stepped down to d6. This is also four steps - d12, d10, d8, d6 - but more difficult because of the larger dice sizes.

Part of learning to GM the system well is getting a feel for how to set these ratings so as to (i) establish a consistent and engaging fiction, and (ii) provide a satisfactory experience in terms of pacing etc. Related to that second point is that the system - in part reflecting its supers origins - makes it easier to have big dice pools for physical action types rather than social or technical action types: which means that a d12 Force Field Scene Distinction, while rated higher than a d10 Hostages with Stockholm Syndrome Scene Distinction, might actually be easier to eliminate.

I don't pretend to be an expert, but have played around with it a bit.

 

[Tun Kai Poh]

I'm pretty sure there was a dungeon-crawling Forged in the Dark hack where the travel to the dungeon and back was abstracted like the 3rd method described by @pemerton

And Trophy Gold, the treasure hunting campaign version of the Trophy system published The Gauntlet, does something like this as well. Instead of exploring a map, each region of the Dungeon is abstracted, and the PCs make Hunt rolls to search for treasure and ways through that area. Get enough tokens by making successful rolls, and you can trade them in to access the next area - or keep exploring the current area to find more loot. But each Hunt roll also runs the risk of running into monsters...

Trophy Gold - Who Dares Rolls

Charlie takes a gander at Trophy Gold a push your luck style RPG where you'll more worried about your finances then the monstrous encounters.

whodaresrolls.com

(I should add - I have run a fair bit of Trophy Dark, the one-shot version of Trophy, but never Trophy Gold, although I own the PDF)

 

[niklinna]

I'm pretty sure there was a dungeon-crawling Forged in the Dark hack where the travel to the dungeon and back was abstracted like the 3rd method described by @pemerton

And Trophy Gold, the treasure hunting campaign version of the Trophy system published The Gauntlet, does something like this as well. Instead of exploring a map, each region of the Dungeon is abstracted, and the PCs make Hunt rolls to search for treasure and ways through that area. Get enough tokens by making successful rolls, and you can trade them in to access the next area - or keep exploring the current area to find more loot. But each Hunt roll also runs the risk of running into monsters...

Trophy Gold - Who Dares Rolls

Charlie takes a gander at Trophy Gold a push your luck style RPG where you'll more worried about your finances then the monstrous encounters.

whodaresrolls.com

Reminds me of Munchkin the card game! Completely abstract dungeon.

 

[Tun Kai Poh]

Reminds me of Munchkin the card game! Completely abstract dungeon.

Mechanically quite abstract, but each region still comes with its own themes, descriptions, and monsters, of course!

 

[Manbearcat]

You might want to check this out @Tun Kai Poh . Fair chance I run this for my Blades group when that game resolves (which should be within 6 weeks I think). Stras has been working on this one for awhile.

Into the Dark - Off Guard Games | DriveThruRPG.com

Into the Dark - THE WORLD IS COVERED IN MURK...It is more than just darkness. It is a miasma that hates the light, devours flame, and wa

www.drivethrurpg.com

Just going to C&P my post from the other thread in here (didn't realize that this was a thread). I'll get a round to responding to you @pemerton and you @Pedantic in this thread (I'll copy your posts and drop them in here when I do...won't be tonight).

---

ON MAP & KEY PLAY BEING "A GUESSING GAME"

Just wanted to comment on this. Map & Key play isn't natively "a guessing game" in its skillfully GMed and skillfully played form. If Map & Key play has degenerated into "a guessing game," one failure state or another has occurred:

* GM mapping or keying or scenario design has failed.

* The conversation between GM and players has broken down for one reason or another or multiple. There is a fairly likely chance that the GM hasn't subtly + deftly telegraphed sites of conflicts, nature of obstacles or threats or opportunities or NPCs, dynamics of setting/situation/hazards/puzzles. Players may not be uploading the information presented to them correctly for a number of reasons (or they may have developed rote SOPs that don't functionally address the needs of play and fail to adjust).

* The resolution mechanics/pressure points/consequences don't have sufficient teeth to create a vital and vigorous decision-space for players.

* The GM is manipulating either/or/both the Map & Key in real time or subverted players' inputs in favor of the GM's desired outcomes. This will create a situation where players' mental models for this particular instantiation of play, and often play generally under this particular GM, break down ("a guessing game" ensues) and this cannot be remediated without actual, overt redress by the GM; "yeah, I recognize I subverted the competitive integrity of play and disallowed your authentic contribution to dictate the trajectory of play...I apologize...won't happen again <and then putting in the time to "mend that wound">.'

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To kind of proceed from where @Manbearcat left off, there are some pretty typical ways that Map & Key dungeon crawling can break down. The most common case is where the players end up 'pixel bitching' the environment. This is often a result of the GM who mistakenly believes that 'skilled play' demands a mercilessly unforgiving environment in which the players rapidly assume a defensive posture of exhaustively examining every rock, flagstone, patch of moss, etc. It can be avoided by logically placing the dangers in areas where they most make sense (IE you generally put traps at doors or choke points) and perhaps giving some clues or indications without the players need to intervene.

An example of this was how used to play back in the early days in low level play. Really early on myself and a couple other players developed a routine which we called "Sniff and Listen." At first this was just applied at doors, and literally consisted of listening and smelling and looking for traps. Later, as GMs insisted on punishing us with ear seekers and such nonsense, and trying to make nastier less obvious traps it was actually written down and became an elaborate procedure. It also got versions that applied to other situations besides doors. So at the start of a new game with a new GM we would HAND THE GM a couple page explanation of what the term Sniff and Listen entailed, including all the different safeguards, devices, and whatnot that would be used. Needless to say many DMs were fairly displeased by this development.

 

[pemerton]

@AbdulAlhazred I think the whole "sniff and listen", earseekers etc arms race creates a real risk to the quality of play. Which I think puts us in agreement!

In the OP and the following post I was focused on resolution of "We move" and "We look around" but "sniff and listen" really gets into the territory of "We search . . . ." which is a bit different again.

So far I am liking how Torchbearer handles this: it uses map-and-key for framing, but doesn't use unmediated map-and-key for adjudication. So "We search . . ." triggers a Scout (or in some contexts Scavenger) test, and then earseekers would be a legitimate twist if the test fails. If the test succeeds the upshot of success might be read of the key, or if there is nothing good to offer from the key then the GM, if otherwise in doubt, can roll something up on Loot Table 1.

 

[The Shadow]

I think it's worth mentioning that maps can come in at various levels.

For example, my Fate group generally likes to create a map of the local continent or at least the nearby nations. Part of that is that we love worldbuilding, part is that it gives us concrete things from the start to hang our hats on: "My character isn't a local, he comes from X."

So yes, we would generally know that there was a desert between A and B. We wouldn't have the faintest idea how far it was across, nor would we care. "It's really big," is about as specific as we get. The narrative importance of crossing it will determine whether it gets handwaved or done in a single roll or be an adventure in itself.

And in a long campaign in which we were a crew operating in a single city, we did have a very rough map of the city. "The Noble Quarter is here, the Trade Quarter is here, the swamp where the poorest of the poor live is over here." No street names or buildings save for the all-important Temple and mayoral palace. That let us talk coherently about what the city was like and stay consistent.

But it wouldn't even occur to us to have a floor plan of a house where we were pulling a heist. That would be irrelevant to the things we're interested in - what stakes are raised during the heist, and how well or poorly it goes.

I could totally see the enemy gloating at us through the grille - it would probably come about as a "success at a cost". Or possibly just the GM being a jerk in that great GM way - maybe the NPC had a stunt making him poison resistant we didn't know about, and he inserted the gloating for dramatic effect and to give us a chance to respond. But in any case that grille would be there to make the scene possible, not because he had a map of the sewer.

On the exact opposite end, I recall seeing a staggering forum post in the days leading up to 4e. So staggering that I have to suspect trolling, though I have encountered people who do take simulation to extremes...

In one of the early reveals of skill challenges, the example was given of a hero rolling well in a skill challenge to escape pursuers, and narrating it as overturning an apple cart to slow them down.

And this poster responded, "But what if there's no apple cart there?" Upon questioning, it turned out that he claimed to know the names and routes of every vendor in his cities. He would never let a player trespass on the sacred reality of Joe the apple-seller's route!

If he was actually telling the truth, that's equal parts awe-inspiring and appalling! I'd certainly never play in one of his games!