Alternatives to map-and-key

[pemerton]

A possible alternative to map-and-key as described in the OP, and possibly somewhat resembling the way "best interests" are generated in IAWA, at least structurally, can be found in the "Terrain Selection" system from Chainmail which forms the rules for combat of D&D (1974). Here's the system in its entirety:

TERRAIN SELECTION​

Often it becomes difficult to devise new terrain for a battle, and we have found the following system to be useful:​

A. On a number of 3" x 5" index cards draw the following:​

1. Two with rivers​

2. One with a marsh​

3. One with a pond​

4. One with a gulley​

5. Two with woods​

6. One with rough ground​

7. Four with variously shaped hills​

8. Eight blanks​

B. Each opponent draws up to four times:​

1. The weaker or defending side draws first.​

2. Terrain is placed anywhere on the table at the drawing player's option.​

I think a system like this can be applied more generally, not just to the introduction of battlefield terrain on a literal map but to randomly generated content in general, as something to be introduced by all players rather than the GM only. I'm thinking specifically of random dungeon generation as well as random encounters.

This terrain system seems like it generates a "playing board" - with the players ("sides") already determined.

Have you used it in a version/variant that will establish latent scenes/situations?

 

[The Firebird]

A player wants to persuade a cliff to let him climb up it? Fine, the GM isn't allowed to say no. A player wants to use his Smiths Tools proficiency to impress the King into signing the treaty? Also fine. A player just wants to spam Athletics six times until the whole matter is concluded? Of course.

Well, first, a number of people have stated explicitly that they are not making this claim.

Surely GMs can just apply the same discretion and input to SCs that they can to any skill check outside of a SC?

In terms of doing something so impressive that it should technically resolve the SC there and then: Surely any GM who has ever said 'What you said there was so convincing you don't actually need to roll Persuasion, automatic success' can simply do that here? Surely any GM who has ever said 'OK you guys have won this fight, let's just say you mop up the last few goblins and move on' can also simply do that here? On what basis do people think the rules (here, uniquely) lock you into following a set procedure that everyone in the group is apparently bored by?

And second, this is of course true, but it gets into Oberani fallacy territory. The fact that a good GM can bypass the restrictive skill challenge structure doesn't make it a good structure.

 

[soviet]

Well, first, a number of people have stated explicitly that they are not making this claim.

Other people have done the opposite, which is why I posted it.

And second, this is of course true, but it gets into Oberani fallacy territory. The fact that a good GM can bypass the restrictive skill challenge structure doesn't make it a good structure.

Well, the Oberoni fallacy is about fixing what's broken. Are you saying that DMs in D&D don't (or aren't allowed) to grant automatic successes, deny ridiculous action declarations, or skip over the last bits of a combat sequence that has already been decided in all but name? Are these Oberoni fallacy actions that show the brokenness of D&D (and other games?). Either the DM can do these things or they can't, skill challenge or no.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

No, the fiction and the rules work together. They inform each other.

That there’s a structure in place doesn’t interfere with the fiction. Most fiction has a structure of some sort.

It constrains the GM in ways… but constraints often promote creativity. They also help to serve as a structure for play, which I think is important.

Because I know what sort of people they are.

Who? The players or characters?

I assume you mean characters. If so, how do you know them at the start of play?

Is it something you do during session zero? Do you do group character creation?

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

I don’t know what this means.

Are you saying that without a SC structure in place, players are more rational? Less likely to try absurd actions to address a challenge?

"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.

Why not both? Why is it either/or?

This has not been my experience.

It has been mine. Also, there’s ample evidence of such offered here on this site and on the internet at large.

I ran Curse of Strahd. Was it different than other groups who played it? Sure. Was it radically different? No, not really. They had a Tarokka reading, went to the different locations, and eventually faced Strahd. There was an important ally, an important location, and an important item… all that.

Were there some surprising moments? Sure. Was it mostly surprising? No. I think describing it as such is a huge stretch.

This isn't an objective discussion. Map and key is not objectively inferior to not map and key.

No one said it was.

Nothing else to differentiate your description, though?

 

[hawkeyefan]

The game becomes "how do I convince the GM Hunt is relevant" rather than "how would my character overcome this obstacle".

But players don’t do that without a progress clock?

My players elected instead to climb the wall. This let them assault the tower simultaneously from the ground and upper level, flanking the defenders. Because the module doesn't expect this (it is a more difficult option), there is no information about how the defenders respond--does their morale break more easily?

Well, if the module doesn’t expect this is possible, how did you know it was more difficult?

Also, I wouldn’t call climbing the wall of a keep all that surprising.

That you were forced to respond creatively demonstrates how the players’ chosen action constrained your response. So I don’t think this example does the work you think it does.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In terms of doing something so impressive that it should technically resolve the SC there and then: Surely any GM who has ever said 'What you said there was so convincing you don't actually need to roll Persuasion, automatic success' can simply do that here? Surely any GM who has ever said 'OK you guys have won this fight, let's just say you mop up the last few goblins and move on' can also simply do that here? On what basis do people think the rules (here, uniquely) lock you into following a set procedure that everyone in the group is apparently bored by?

Yeah, this is a whole other point. Nothing has been lost, if you were already assuming limitless GM power to say this or that, then they are surely able to just change the rules of the SC and end it. I'm not sure I see the point of pretending to use SCs at that point, but it is certainly something I can imagine.

 

[The Firebird]

Well, the Oberoni fallacy is about fixing what's broken. Are you saying that DMs in D&D don't (or aren't allowed) to grant automatic successes, deny ridiculous action declarations, or skip over the last bits of a combat sequence that has already been decided in all but name? Are these Oberoni fallacy actions that show the brokenness of D&D (and other games?). Either the DM can do these things or they can't, skill challenge or no.

Right--and the skill challenge mechanic is broken (for certain preferences) because it decouples resolution from the fiction.

Regarding your example: the combat sequence being slow to resolve even when the outcome is obvious is a failing of the game system. Imo. The others are just questions of when to call for a check. If the DM already has called for a check, then typically there aren't new action declarations.

Compare the skill challenge--if the DM has called for a skill challenge, then their ability to adapt to new action declarations is limited by the already imposed structure of the skill challenge. They can break the structure at any point--but then what was the point of the structure?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In my experience, in games with skill challenges or progress clocks, I'm making decisions for my PC based on what I think will fill the clock the fastest. The game becomes "how do I convince the GM Hunt is relevant" rather than "how would my character overcome this obstacle".

I am honestly completely mystified here. If 'hunt' is your best skill, then why would the existence or absence of a Skill Challenge change the fact that it would be most advantageous to roll with that Skill? I'm not trying to be contrary here, I am honestly 100% totally unable to see how this would be.

 

[soviet]

Yeah, this is a whole other point. Nothing has been lost, if you were already assuming limitless GM power to say this or that, then they are surely able to just change the rules of the SC and end it. I'm not sure I see the point of pretending to use SCs at that point, but it is certainly something I can imagine.

I guess there SCs still fulfil the same role as the rest of the rules, which is to create a structure that aids play even if at times it may be discarded or amended.

 

[The Firebird]

Are you saying that without a SC structure in place, players are more rational? Less likely to try absurd actions to address a challenge?

Yes, in my experience.

Why not both? Why is it either/or?

It can be both. But they may be weighted differently.

I ran Curse of Strahd. Was it different than other groups who played it? Sure. Was it radically different? No, not really. They had a Tarokka reading, went to the different locations, and eventually faced Strahd. There was an important ally, an important location, and an important item… all that.

Were there some surprising moments? Sure. Was it mostly surprising? No. I think describing it as such is a huge stretch.

Long form Adventure Paths are not structured to go off script too much, yeah. But sandbox games are.

That you were forced to respond creatively demonstrates how the players’ chosen action constrained your response. So I don’t think this example does the work you think it does.

I don't understand this sentence.