Alternatives to map-and-key

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ok. Then I definitely do not think "map and key" is the default. Perhaps @Micah Sweet understood it more broadly as well?


So you then agree with me that in skill challenges no solution is better than other and what the players do do not matter? So it is just a mechanical framework to prompt fiction generation?

And you're assuming that a party who deploys some far less effective methods are ever in line for success! Honestly, there's an answer here within the SC system, which is graduated levels of success coupled with fail-forward techniques.

So, your party has some good idea, of course that effects the ongoing fiction. They get extra success, removed failures, whatever perhaps. But fundamentally the risks inherent in their better fictional position are key. Give them less risky stuff, they're outside the jail now, even if they need to pass a couple more checks to finish it, even failing those just means there's someone on their tail.

These kinds of systems, clocks and SCs do work fine, they're just not ideal tools to wedge into your unstructured play without improving the play, perhaps?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The main difference I see is that with the skill challenge, the number of successes and failures are set and known ahead of time. The players are aware of the success or failure conditions.

The method you’re describing keeps that hidden from them. And that seems very important.

You describe the SC process as hollow because the players are able to declare how they address the challenge. And that it is not hollow if the GM is deciding these things and keeping the overall process hidden from them.

Your assumption here is that only the GM is capable of deciding how a challenge may be addressed. Another is that the players will somehow try to always “spam” their highest rated skill. That players are not able to restrain themselves from tying to persuade a cliff face.

I think those assumptions are flawed.

It is not "hidden" it is just unknown to all participants, as we do not yet know what sort of actions the characters might take and how the fictional position might develop. And this is important, as engaging with the fictional positioning is the point. Here players actually have far more agency as what they do matters much more.

People keep saying that skill challenges are about fiction, but to me it seems obvious that this is not true. If the actions taken regarding fictional positioning are such that they would overcome the obstacle with few rolls this does not matter, as if the predetermined number of successes has not yet been reached, the GM will just frame more obstacles so that the players get to roll more. It is clear to me that here the fiction is in service of the rules here rather than the other way around. And if you like this, that's fine, but let's not try to obfuscate what's actually happening.

How do you know what elements the characters might care about?

Because I know what sort of people they are.

 

[The Firebird]

I mean… do people really think that players are going to use Athletics on the guard and Persuade on the cliff? Like, the presence of a set number of successes needed suddenly makes players make absurd requests?

No. That is why I said they have to have a minimum amount of plausibility. Once that has been reached though, anything goes.

But not knowing that means they make reasonable requests?

"Not knowing" here means they are relying on the world rather than the mechanics to inform their decision making. That leads to more reasonable actions in the context of the world.

Very often, it will be exactly as the GM has described in his notes. He’ll dictate the relevant skills and their DCs ahead of time based on what he thinks is plausible, and during play, will allow or disallow alternate actions… again, based on what he thinks is plausible. He’s pre-determining the means of success, or at the very least greatly reducing the possibilities.

This has not been my experience.

Thoughtfully considering everyone's comments. Regarding the arbitrariness of clocks:

The table was introduced to their 1st countdown clock ever this weekend. In the fiction, they'd been involved in a recent conflict moments before, were wounded and had no time for recovery.

I asked them to take a d6 and place it in front of them on "4." They immediately asked what for?

It represented roughly the amount of time it'd take for their opponents to make their getaway on a boat, which they could see. The clock began to tick.

As soon as it ticked once, they stopped attempting to cut down everyone, and focused their attention entirely on the boat.

I like this kind of clock mechanic especially if the players can see their opponents preparing for a getaway. In-universe, the PCs are watching and can gauge about how long it may be, but communicating that effectively could require longer descriptions each round. This cuts to the chase and helps orient them with what their PCs know.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It is not "hidden" it is just unknown to all participants, as we do not yet know what sort of actions the characters might take and how the fictional position might develop. And this is important, as engaging with the fictional positioning is the point. Here players actually have far more agency as what they do matters much more.

People keep saying that skill challenges are about fiction, but to me it seems obvious that this is not true. If the actions taken regarding fictional positioning are such that they would overcome the obstacle with few rolls this does not matter, as if the predetermined number of successes has not yet been reached, the GM will just frame more obstacles so that the players get to roll more. It is clear to me that here the fiction is in service of the rules here rather than the other way around. And if you like this, that's fine, but let's not try to obfuscate what's actually happening.



Because I know what sort of people they are.

Bah! You don't know how many is the 'right number' of checks either, so telling me that 12 or whatever the SC says is 'wrong' is just nonsense. You, the GM can resolve your jailbreak at any point, or keep it going one more throw of the dice, simply to please your own sensibility. Don't tell me you can't, and don't tell me that is superior to my fixed number. It isn't.

And let me be clear, I think that using an undefined sequence of rolls can be OK-ish. If the GM is highly disciplined and very clear about the ongoing fiction and what each choice implies in terms of what and how much is likely to come next. I just don't think it is a BETTER system.

But lets get back to basics here, "we roll some dice" is not any of the things the OP is talking about.