A lot of thinking and discussion about the play of RPGs seems to default to an assumption of map-and-key play.
Here is what I mean by map-and-key:
Map-and-key play can be relatively player-driven: if the players are able to learn how to navigate the map, and what the contents of the key are, without actually triggering many (or any) of the latent situations, then they can use that knowledge to choose which situations to trigger. This sort of play tends towards puzzle-solving - because gaining the relevant knowledge without triggering the latent situations requires solving (implicit) puzzles posed by the GM in the design and keying of the map. Gygax describes this sort of play in his PHB, under the heading Successful Adventures. A lot of the rules in the PHB and the DMG (around listening at doors, opening doors, using detection magic, etc) support this sort of puzzle-solving.
Map-and-key play can also be heavily GM-driven: if the players are (i) expected to move their PCs through/across the map, and (ii) don't know what latent situations will be triggered by this movement until those situations are triggered, then the players are not exercising very much influence over the content and context of play. They may not even know what is at stake in a situation that they have triggered until the GM reveals it, or they are able to puzzle it out or discern it while in the process of dealing with the situation they have triggered. A lot of D&D modules and mini-modules from the mid- to late-1980s are like this.
Another important sort of play - what some DMGs call "event-based" scenarios - closely resembles GM-driven map-and-key play in some key respects, in that (a) the players only learn about the situations their PCs might find themselves in by actually having those situations framed by the GM, and (b) the players often have to learn what is stake in those situations by working it out during resolution of the situation or by having the GM reveal it. But this "events-based" play doesn't use the map-and-key as the anchoring/guiding mechanism for establishing latent situations and the deciding when they are triggered. The GM's prep takes a different form (eg timelines of things that will happen to and/or about the PCs).
I think it is reasonably common for the sort of event-based play just described to be called railroading, whereas the similar map-and-key play will often be described as linear (if there is only one path along/through the map) or even as a sandbox (if there are multiple paths). Personally I think it is more fruitful - in analysing how play works, as opposed to talking about whether or not one enjoys it - to look at the methods/techniques used (map-and-key, "event-based", etc) and to look at whether the GM or the players are the principal drivers of what in-play events are experienced and what their meaning/significance/stakes are.
One useful consequence of looking at map-and-key as a technique - a technique for establishing latent situations and determining what is at stake in those situations, and for structuring the progression of scenes/situations in play - is that it helps reduce the tendency to "reify" architecture, geography and movement in discussions of RPGing. If these things are reified, then the question "Why did the GM frame these particular scenes, in this particular order" tends to be answered by saying "Well, the PCs went here, and then here, and then here, and so on - and they encountered the things that were there to be encountered at those places." But that is not a very satisfactory answer - after all, RPGing is about a shared fiction that centres particular characters (the PCs), and it is not inherent to this activity that the fiction be "authored" by tracking the movement of those characters across a map which has been keyed with latent situations.
And so a possibility that is opened up by the focus on techniques is to ask about the "etc" in the phrase methods/techniques used (map-and-key, "event based, etc). What alternatives are there, for establishing and structuring the progression of scenes/situations in play, and the stakes in those scenes/situations? To ask about alternatives is not to denigrate map-and-key, but simply to note that it is not the only method, and not the only alternative to GM-driven "event-based" scenarios.
One such alternative - and I think a clear version of it is set out in Vincent Baker's RPG In A Wicked Age - is to use characters as the basic elements for establishing and structuring the progression of, and the stakes in, scenes/situations. All characters in In A Wicked Age - PC and NPCs - have "best interests", goals they are trying to achieve. And some of these conflict. Those conflicts are where latent scenes/situations are found; GMing the game involves bringing those situations out of mere latency and into the actuality of play, by making decisions about who is where when, and hence in a position to conflict. Those conflicts then make play happen.
By thinking about alternatives to map-and-key, and to GM-driven "event based" play, we can also more easily think about approaches to RPGing that don't priorities the players, via their PCs, overcoming obstacles set by the GM in order to achieve their goal. This sort of play is a fairly natural consequence of map-and-key techniques: in order to achieve their goal, the players have to get their PCs to the right place on the map to trigger the (hitherto) latent situation that will permit their goal to be achieved; and in order to get to that place on the map, the players have to move through other places that have their own (hitherto) latent situations, which serves as obstacles or challenges to be overcome. One could even say that this is the paradigm of the "adventure" as a thing in RPGing.
If a different technique is used to establish and structure the progress of, and the stakes in, scenes/situations, then there is no need to adopt this "overcome challenges to get to the 'finish line'" style of play. There is no "adventure". GM prep takes on a different form - eg the GM of In A Wicked Age doesn't need to prep an adventure, but rather needs to come up with "best interests" for the NPCs that will help propel play.
And there are further possibilities beyond In A Wicked Age-style reliance on characters and best interests. Agon 2e is an example: although each scenario happens in a particular place - an island - there is no use of maps or keys to structure scenes/situations. Rather, it combines (i) NPCs with "best interests" and (ii) events that are apt to come to pass (but that the PCs might hold off), but (iii) with stakes being overt and significantly determined by the players (in the fiction, by interpreting omens that commence each scenario).
Identifying, and trying to improve our understanding, of alternatives to map-and-key can enrich and improve our play. It can also help us better understand what we are doing when we do use map-and-key techniques. And it can also help us adapt and combine techniques in different ways: for instance, using a map to help establish fiction about where the PCs are, and even using a key as one contributor to what scene/situations get framed, but thinking about how other approaches to structuring and progressing scenes/situations can also be incorporated. Torchbearer 2e provides an example of this: it uses map-and-key, but not exclusively - "twists" on failures, and the "compromises" that emerge from its extended conflict resolution method, are also important in structuring and progressing scene/situations.
Map-and-key was foundational for the hobby, but isn't the only technique available to us. There's no need to treat it as a norm or a default.
Here is what I mean by map-and-key:
* The GM prepares a map;
* The GM keys the map - that is, there are notes about what is to be found, or what is happening, at various points/places on the map;
* During the actual play of the game, an important category of action declaration for the players is describing the movements of their PCs on the map;
* As the players have their PCs move on the map, the GM consults the key to work out what occurs to the PCs;
* In this way, the material in the GM's key serves as a list of "proto-" or "latent" situations: these become actual situations - that is, scenes that are actually framed by the GM and played out - when the players trigger them by having their PCs go to some appropriate place on the map.
* The GM keys the map - that is, there are notes about what is to be found, or what is happening, at various points/places on the map;
* During the actual play of the game, an important category of action declaration for the players is describing the movements of their PCs on the map;
* As the players have their PCs move on the map, the GM consults the key to work out what occurs to the PCs;
* In this way, the material in the GM's key serves as a list of "proto-" or "latent" situations: these become actual situations - that is, scenes that are actually framed by the GM and played out - when the players trigger them by having their PCs go to some appropriate place on the map.
Map-and-key play can be relatively player-driven: if the players are able to learn how to navigate the map, and what the contents of the key are, without actually triggering many (or any) of the latent situations, then they can use that knowledge to choose which situations to trigger. This sort of play tends towards puzzle-solving - because gaining the relevant knowledge without triggering the latent situations requires solving (implicit) puzzles posed by the GM in the design and keying of the map. Gygax describes this sort of play in his PHB, under the heading Successful Adventures. A lot of the rules in the PHB and the DMG (around listening at doors, opening doors, using detection magic, etc) support this sort of puzzle-solving.
Map-and-key play can also be heavily GM-driven: if the players are (i) expected to move their PCs through/across the map, and (ii) don't know what latent situations will be triggered by this movement until those situations are triggered, then the players are not exercising very much influence over the content and context of play. They may not even know what is at stake in a situation that they have triggered until the GM reveals it, or they are able to puzzle it out or discern it while in the process of dealing with the situation they have triggered. A lot of D&D modules and mini-modules from the mid- to late-1980s are like this.
Another important sort of play - what some DMGs call "event-based" scenarios - closely resembles GM-driven map-and-key play in some key respects, in that (a) the players only learn about the situations their PCs might find themselves in by actually having those situations framed by the GM, and (b) the players often have to learn what is stake in those situations by working it out during resolution of the situation or by having the GM reveal it. But this "events-based" play doesn't use the map-and-key as the anchoring/guiding mechanism for establishing latent situations and the deciding when they are triggered. The GM's prep takes a different form (eg timelines of things that will happen to and/or about the PCs).
I think it is reasonably common for the sort of event-based play just described to be called railroading, whereas the similar map-and-key play will often be described as linear (if there is only one path along/through the map) or even as a sandbox (if there are multiple paths). Personally I think it is more fruitful - in analysing how play works, as opposed to talking about whether or not one enjoys it - to look at the methods/techniques used (map-and-key, "event-based", etc) and to look at whether the GM or the players are the principal drivers of what in-play events are experienced and what their meaning/significance/stakes are.
One useful consequence of looking at map-and-key as a technique - a technique for establishing latent situations and determining what is at stake in those situations, and for structuring the progression of scenes/situations in play - is that it helps reduce the tendency to "reify" architecture, geography and movement in discussions of RPGing. If these things are reified, then the question "Why did the GM frame these particular scenes, in this particular order" tends to be answered by saying "Well, the PCs went here, and then here, and then here, and so on - and they encountered the things that were there to be encountered at those places." But that is not a very satisfactory answer - after all, RPGing is about a shared fiction that centres particular characters (the PCs), and it is not inherent to this activity that the fiction be "authored" by tracking the movement of those characters across a map which has been keyed with latent situations.
And so a possibility that is opened up by the focus on techniques is to ask about the "etc" in the phrase methods/techniques used (map-and-key, "event based, etc). What alternatives are there, for establishing and structuring the progression of scenes/situations in play, and the stakes in those scenes/situations? To ask about alternatives is not to denigrate map-and-key, but simply to note that it is not the only method, and not the only alternative to GM-driven "event-based" scenarios.
One such alternative - and I think a clear version of it is set out in Vincent Baker's RPG In A Wicked Age - is to use characters as the basic elements for establishing and structuring the progression of, and the stakes in, scenes/situations. All characters in In A Wicked Age - PC and NPCs - have "best interests", goals they are trying to achieve. And some of these conflict. Those conflicts are where latent scenes/situations are found; GMing the game involves bringing those situations out of mere latency and into the actuality of play, by making decisions about who is where when, and hence in a position to conflict. Those conflicts then make play happen.
By thinking about alternatives to map-and-key, and to GM-driven "event based" play, we can also more easily think about approaches to RPGing that don't priorities the players, via their PCs, overcoming obstacles set by the GM in order to achieve their goal. This sort of play is a fairly natural consequence of map-and-key techniques: in order to achieve their goal, the players have to get their PCs to the right place on the map to trigger the (hitherto) latent situation that will permit their goal to be achieved; and in order to get to that place on the map, the players have to move through other places that have their own (hitherto) latent situations, which serves as obstacles or challenges to be overcome. One could even say that this is the paradigm of the "adventure" as a thing in RPGing.
If a different technique is used to establish and structure the progress of, and the stakes in, scenes/situations, then there is no need to adopt this "overcome challenges to get to the 'finish line'" style of play. There is no "adventure". GM prep takes on a different form - eg the GM of In A Wicked Age doesn't need to prep an adventure, but rather needs to come up with "best interests" for the NPCs that will help propel play.
And there are further possibilities beyond In A Wicked Age-style reliance on characters and best interests. Agon 2e is an example: although each scenario happens in a particular place - an island - there is no use of maps or keys to structure scenes/situations. Rather, it combines (i) NPCs with "best interests" and (ii) events that are apt to come to pass (but that the PCs might hold off), but (iii) with stakes being overt and significantly determined by the players (in the fiction, by interpreting omens that commence each scenario).
Identifying, and trying to improve our understanding, of alternatives to map-and-key can enrich and improve our play. It can also help us better understand what we are doing when we do use map-and-key techniques. And it can also help us adapt and combine techniques in different ways: for instance, using a map to help establish fiction about where the PCs are, and even using a key as one contributor to what scene/situations get framed, but thinking about how other approaches to structuring and progressing scenes/situations can also be incorporated. Torchbearer 2e provides an example of this: it uses map-and-key, but not exclusively - "twists" on failures, and the "compromises" that emerge from its extended conflict resolution method, are also important in structuring and progressing scene/situations.
Map-and-key was foundational for the hobby, but isn't the only technique available to us. There's no need to treat it as a norm or a default.
