Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Hussar]

If it is the case that the choices being made are essentially random than at least one of 3 things must be true:

1. The scenario design is terrible. Empty room syndrome is this.
2. The GM is being entirely too coy when they are describing the environment.
3. Players are not doing due diligence.

Map and key play can absolutely be done in a way that requires and reflects skill. GM play and scenario design just has to be on point.

Do your players already know what is behind doors? If not then they are largely guessing as they move forward.

Go left or go right is very often more or less a random guess because there is no plausible way for the party to know which is the better choice or if a better choice even exists.

I fail to see how this is contentious.

 

[Hussar]

It's not at all true that saying 'The corridor heading east feels really warm; the corridor heading west has ratmen droppings all around' requires a high level of DM mastery.

But it's also not true that 'we don't know what's down that corridor until we go in it' means that most decisions in the game are made blindly or randomly. Surely by far the most relevant decisions in the game are about what the characters do when they encounter whatever they encounter.

But since in map and key the “encounter” is chosen more or less randomly, then calling it guesswork isn’t far off.

Sure you go down the warm path. What does that mean? There could be a million reasons or even no reason at all why that path is warm. It’s chosen because it sounds interesting. Not because the players have any real reason for going that way.

 

[pemerton]

Or you could assume I'm well aware that such games do have some very minor elements pre authored as not long ago I made that same point about Blades in the Dark in this very thread.

See @soviet's reply.

I wouldn't describe the role of pre-authored setting in default 4e D&D as "minor" either.

 

[Campbell]

Do your players already know what is behind doors? If not then they are largely guessing as they move forward.

Go left or go right is very often more or less a random guess because there is no plausible way for the party to know which is the better choice or if a better choice even exists.

I fail to see how this is contentious.

There's a fundamental difference between working from a set of imperfect information and random selection. Not knowing exactly what NPC Y is up to or what is behind Door #2 does not mean I have no means to find out more or different sets of information to weigh. There are always going to be some risks in making any move in a given game. You just have to have enough obtainable information to weigh the risks.

 

[soviet]

But since in map and key the “encounter” is chosen more or less randomly, then calling it guesswork isn’t far off.

Sure you go down the warm path. What does that mean? There could be a million reasons or even no reason at all why that path is warm. It’s chosen because it sounds interesting. Not because the players have any real reason for going that way.

I think you're putting a lot more emphasis on which encounter gets chosen (blindly or otherwise) than is really there. In my experience of map and key play, the expectation is that most of the doors will be opened at some point or another.

 

[Hussar]

I guess my only contention with what you are asserting is, at what point have the PC's gathered enough information where they are no longer considered choosing blindly?

So for example I think at least a big portion of what is being characterized as map and key play has certain procedures that have grown around it that actually move it from pure random chance into the realm of what I would consider the partially unknown. I also think this not really being acknowledged or discussed as part of the process is where some of the tension around the guesswork characterization may come from.

As an example, when creating something like a West Marches game, one of the assumptions is that the player's characters will be provided with rumors and job offers which in and of themselves hint at certain truths of the game world. So a rumor might be something like... attacks by warbands of goblins on 3 caravans to the north have been reported by surviving members of the merchant houses... While there may also be a job offering available something like... 100gp offered for the return, dead or alive of the renegade necromance Khazn-Dune, last seen fleeing to the north towards the abandoned watchtowwer...

So before play even starts the PC's have some information on which to make their choices on. They are aware that goblin tribes lie to the north, and that an old watchtower, possibly inhabited by a necromancer also lies to the north. And the assumption is that amongst a full party with 4-6 characters each with 3 or 4 rumors and access to the job board they have similar information about other areas as well.

Secondly these rumors and job offerings in and of themselves offer chances (before the start of play proper) to gather more information. You want to know more about the goblin tribe attacks... go speak with the survivors... you want to know about the Watchtower speak with the town militia or a sage knowledgeable in history. You want to find out about the necromancer go speak to the patron offering the bounty and so on. I actually feel that for many this loop of kind of peeling back the onion of information layers until it's at a point where your party feels they are informed enough to tackle something is a key aspect of this type of play... though I readily admit one can end up going into a situation totally blind and/or mis-informed, but I feel that's only one of various states that players of the game can find themselves in and honestly I'm not sure in those who partake in this style of play it's necessarily considered a "failure" state..

And that’s fair. But the point is, there’s a fair amount of play where the players are basically just guessing.

Ok the know about the necromancies tower and go there. Do they have a map of the tower? Any real information about its defences other than “probably lots of zombies” (or whatever)? Do they have any information there than, “there’s an interesting adventure here”?

Do you as a dm reveal that much information? I’ve certainly never played with one that would.

 

[Hussar]

The decision may be more-or-less blind, but what's being asked? If the goal is exploring to see what's there, the term guesswork is a bad fit. I'm not "guessing" at anything, I'm exploring to find answers to "what's there?".

On the subject of connotations of guesswork - in what situations is it ever really neutral or even positive? If it's a term meant to compare with "meaningful choices" or indicates a situation where the communication between the GM and players is broken down (GM too coy), is the term itself prejudicial? Should it really be applied to situations where the players have little information but are making choices that have the potential to bring them more information (like choosing which way to go at a dungeon intersection where they have never explored before)?

I’m sorry but I don’t see guesswork as prejudicial at all. It exactly describes what the players are doing. Left or right fork? Well we don’t have any real information so left it is!

Is it that way all the time? Of course not. But a very large segment of map and key play certainly is.

Or at least far more than in other styles which I believe are somewhat less granular. They fuzz over the left turn right turn, poke for traps with a ten foot pole. Which is honestly why I don’t play them because I like the procedural process of exploring in my game.

But I’m under no illusions that most of those choices are random. Heck I’ve got a player who coin tosses at corners.

 

[FrogReaver]

For me it's the essential piece. Not a mere digression. The conceit that our Blades in the Dark game is somehow less consistent or has less of a sense of a world beyond the characters than the Legends of the Five Rings game I am a player in because more of the setting was defined by the players or developed just in time is inaccurate. It's also a bit insulting.

I am confident you do not mean to come off that way, but the through line that one sort of game is somehow more real or more immersive comes off very smug and condescending to me. This constant rejoinder that other playstyles must be nonsensical, inconsistent or inauthentic by some on this boards is beyond frustrating. It smacks of elitism to me personally.

I am willing to work through the issue, but on this we are a country mile apart.

It's interesting to me that if you take away the specific complaints, the essence of what I complain about on this thread and what you complain about is essentially the same. We don't like others viewing our playstyles as having less of things that we value. And I agree it does come across very elitist.

One thing that's helping me recently is trying to figure out what kernel of truth the lens they are using is showing and then not going any further than that. Understanding that kernel of truth helps me talk about where it's true and where it stops being true. Which leads to me not completely undermining their contribution which hopefully results in them not trying to reexplain their position to me as if I didn't get it, which just makes things bad. Instead we can actually get to the point of discussion where they can tell me whether they really view my position in such bad terms, or whether I was carrying over baggage from previous conversations. In either case I can then take action with solid knowledge - they really do 'hate' my style or they weren't saying as much about my style as i originally thought.

Let me be very clear - i don't view your style as less consistent, immersive or 'less of a sense of a world beyond the character' in any general sense (though i'm sure certain people would experience it exactly those ways).

 

[pemerton]

Have you ever considered that it's precisely this kind of position that causes these theory discussion to go south?

Dunno.

I spent 2009 to 2013 or thereabouts being repeatedly lectured about "dissociated mechanics", "it's not D&D (to me)", etc. I assume all those posters didn't see it as their duty to validate my play of 4e D&D. I certainly didn't take that to be their duty. It didn't stop me from developing my play, and improving my technical grasp of the game, in conversation with @Manbearcat, @Campbell, @LostSoul, Crazy Jerome and others.

If someone wants to post suggesting that fiction, in (say) a 4e skill challenge is "Schroedinger's X", I will post to explain why I think they're wrong. But I'm not looking to be validated by them. I don't rely on that sort of commentary to satisfy myself that a particular RPG is worth playing, or that I'm doing it well or poorly.

 

[Cruentus]

And that’s fair. But the point is, there’s a fair amount of play where the players are basically just guessing.

Ok the know about the necromancies tower and go there. Do they have a map of the tower? Any real information about its defences other than “probably lots of zombies” (or whatever)? Do they have any information there than, “there’s an interesting adventure here”?

Do you as a dm reveal that much information? I’ve certainly never played with one that would.

In my games, it would depend on how you found out about the necromancer’s tower (info would be seeded there) or who sent you on this quest/adventure; who in town or nearby did you ask about said tower or it’s inhabitant; and once some info is gained about the tower or it’s inhabitant, was there any effort to research its history or anything about the necromancer (assuming one found a name or alleged name, and an appropriate place - place or worship, alderman, library, town, city, village nearby? Those would all (usually) be set up as part of the adventure.

Unless one just happens upon the dark and foreboding tower after encountering some zombies in the dark wood surrounding it, then decided to just go in. Then it’s going in blind.