Alternatives to map-and-key

[soviet]

An analogy might be combat. We can use the basic to-hit rules to throw a solitary punch at someone, or fire an arrow at a target. In principle you could run a whole combat like this, using to-hit and damage rules to resolve individual attacks with everything else like who goes first and who moves where subject to pure GM adjudication. Some RPGs already work like this. But we don't, we have a whole combat sequence, with initiative rolls, action economy, movement rates, maybe a grid and miniatures, etc. Why? Because that structure creates a transparency of stakes and positioning that makes things more fun and (with the hit point rules) creates a definitive end point for when the battle is over.

 

[The Firebird]

If you're saying that this is a completely subjective taste thing on your part, then fine. But you seem to be making a broader point?

At most I am explaining why I have these preferences.

It's about whether 'failing to climb the wall', 'failing to spot the guards', or 'failing to be stealthy' turns into 'and therefore failing the whole infiltration'.

And similarly it's about whether 'successfully climbing the wall', 'successfully spotting the guards', or 'successfully being stealthy' turns into 'and therefore succeeding at the whole infiltration'.

In a SC these stakes are known. In a non SC they are at the GM's discretion.

Doesn't the GM set the stakes of the SC at their discretion?

Consider: "Outer grounds. Sneak across DC 12. On failure of <5 a guard investigates. On a failure of 5+ a guard rings the alarm".

Here the stakes are set by the text; the failure of 5+ means a failed infiltration, a failure of <5 means a setback with a chance to recover.

Is this different from a SC in your view? Does it fix the issue with the single check adjudication because it means the stakes are known? Or would it if the DM told the players those stakes?

No, they are the same kind of discretion. The GM decides in advance what the mechanical threshold that needs to be crossed is. The discretion I was talking about was 'uhhh that's enough successes, you win' when no such threshold had been set in advance (either as an SC or in some other

I guess this is where you lose me. 'uhhh, that's enough successes, you win' is not something I've encountered.

 

[soviet]

Doesn't the GM set the stakes of the SC at their discretion?

Consider: "Outer grounds. Sneak across DC 12. On failure of <5 a guard investigates. On a failure of 5+ a guard rings the alarm".

Here the stakes are set by the text; the failure of 5+ means a failed infiltration, a failure of <5 means a setback with a chance to recover.

Is this different from a SC in your view? Does it fix the issue with the single check adjudication because it means the stakes are known? Or would it if the DM told the players those stakes?

If a failure on the very first roll means a failure on the whole thing, then it shouldn't have been an SC in the first place. The point is that they help resolve multi-pronged complex situations that aren't simply one pass or fail check.

I guess this is where you lose me. 'uhhh, that's enough successes, you win' is not something I've encountered.

Something I've seen before is when there's an NPC who has valuable information or resources but needs some convincing to give them up. The success threshold of this is entirely undefined. Player A tries diplomacy, uh marginal success, he's warming to you but not convinced. Player B tries intimidation, uh failure, he's getting angry now. Player C tries hunting, hey look at all my hunting trophies, failure, he ignores you and thinks you're an idiot. Player D gives him a blessing and heals his injuries, uh great he's not angry now but he's still not really convinced. Player E offers his fealty as a paladin and casts a Zone of Truth to show he means it, GM (who is bored himself now, and waiting for anything half reasonable so we can move on) says oh OK I guess that's enough.

Do you see how a more defined structure (three successes before three failures or whatever) makes that situation more interesting to play out?

 

[The Firebird]

If a failure on the very first roll means a failure on the whole thing, then it shouldn't have been an SC in the first place. The point is that they help resolve multi-pronged complex situations that aren't simply one pass or fail check.

So you would not run the night infiltration as a skill challenge?

Something I've seen before is when there's an NPC who has valuable information or resources but needs some convincing to give them up. The success threshold of this is entirely undefined. Player A tries diplomacy, uh marginal success, he's warming to you but not convinced. Player B tries intimidation, uh failure, he's getting angry now. Player C tries hunting, hey look at all my hunting trophies, failure, he ignores you and thinks you're an idiot. Player D gives him a blessing and heals his injuries, uh great he's not angry now but he's still not really convinced. Player E offers his fealty as a paladin and casts a Zone of Truth to show he means it, GM (who is bored himself now, and waiting for anything half reasonable so we can move on) says oh OK I guess that's enough.

Do you see how a more defined structure (three successes before three failures or whatever) makes that situation more interesting to play out?

I think the example you give is an example of poor GMing. For me it breaks the principle of "no double jeopardy"--if you've failed to convince him once, you don't get to keep rolling. It also runs afoul of the idea that rolls should be meaningful. If the result of Player A's roll is only a minor change to the situation, that is not a good roll.

Ultimately your skill challenge in this situation is going to have some chance of success or failure right? It might be more complicated to calculate, but there is a single number; say 45% success, 55% failure.

Why not condense that to a single, meaningful roll?

 

[soviet]

So you would not run the night infiltration as a skill challenge?

I would, but a first-up failure of a stealth check can't then be 'the alarm is raised'. It has to be something like 'the guards heard something but they're not sure what it was, maybe they're slightly more alert now or maybe they send old Jim out to do an extra patrol'. (So your minor failure stuff but not the failure by more than 5 result). It can complicate the situation but it can't resolve it.

I think the example you give is an example of poor GMing. For me it breaks the principle of "no double jeopardy"--if you've failed to convince him once, you don't get to keep rolling. It also runs afoul of the idea that rolls should be meaningful. If the result of Player A's roll is only a minor change to the situation, that is not a good roll.

Ultimately your skill challenge in this situation is going to have some chance of success or failure right? It might be more complicated to calculate, but there is a single number; say 45% success, 55% failure.

Why not condense that to a single, meaningful roll?

So player A tries to persuade the NPC and then no further attempts at bringing them onside can work? Intimidate no, spells no, deception no, hunting no, healing no, honest swearing of fealty no. All approaches will fail and the NPC vanishes in a puff of smoke?

Note that SCs aren't mandatory. If you want to condense everything into a single roll, you still can.

 

[The Firebird]

So player A tries to persuade the NPC and then no further attempts at bringing them onside can work? Intimidate no, spells no, deception no, hunting no, healing no, honest swearing of fealty no. All approaches will fail and the NPC vanishes in a puff of smoke?

Note that SCs aren't mandatory. If you want to condense everything into a single roll, you still can.

I wouldn't say all further attempts fail, but absent significant changes to the situation, then yes. I'd spend a bit longer setting the scene prior to the roll: "Ok player A, you are appealing to his better nature. Are the rest of you saying anything?" And then player B or player C could describe how they contribute.

Once the roll is made, if it fails, then player C going into their hunting story would not merit a roll for me. I'm pretty strict on this precisely to avoid the kind of interminable negotiation scene you describe.

If the players reveal key new information through their actions: e.g., "I lie and say his sister has been kidnapped, and provide compelling proof", then they may get another roll. Healing an old wound would help too, depending on the specifics. For the right NPC that may make him aid them without a roll.

 

[soviet]

I wouldn't say all further attempts fail, but absent significant changes to the situation, then yes. I'd spend a bit longer setting the scene prior to the roll: "Ok player A, you are appealing to his better nature. Are the rest of you saying anything?" And then player B or player C could describe how they contribute.

Once the roll is made, if it fails, then player C going into their hunting story would not merit a roll for me. I'm pretty strict on this precisely to avoid the kind of interminable negotiation scene you describe.

If the players reveal key new information through their actions: e.g., "I lie and say his sister has been kidnapped, and provide compelling proof", then they may get another roll. Healing an old wound would help too, depending on the specifics. For the right NPC that may make him aid them without a roll.

Well, again, if it's a single roll, then don't use a skill challenge. The point of a skill challenge is to incorporate all these back and forth attempts from all the characters into one resolution process. If you are allowing other players to maybe also have a go if they reveal new information, or if they take a very different approach, then what you're really using is the 'uhhh I don't know I guess that's enough to tip this over into a success' approach. The stakes aren't transparent and it's pure GM fiat whether 'enough' is 'enough'.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, in my experience.

Wow, that’s really odd.

I don't understand this sentence.

I mentioned constraints being useful for creativity. The players decided to climb a wall rather than take either of the two obvious approaches. You said there was less info about climbing the wall than the other options… specifically about what the guards’ response would be (however, you also said it was “harder”, so I’m assuming you had some information?). So you had to come up with something that happened next based on the incomplete info as well as the events of play. You were constrained by those things, and that constraint guided you and resulted in a satisfying instance of play.

So I’m applying that reasoning… that constraint fosters creativity (necessity is the mother of invention and all that) and Skill Challenges offer constraint.

You seem to think that a GM isn’t going to treat the environment and situation dynamically just because of the SC structure… but why? Certainly the subsequent actions taken will flow from the results of those taken prior. Surely a GM has a rough idea of the situation when he comes up with the details for the SC. He’s not just pulling numbers out of hats and then totally winging it.

Because the skill challenge structure has flattened the task from, as an example, "get past the compounds outer defenses" to "get 3 successes".

Well, no. Here is you choosing to describe one method from a fictional standpoint and the other from a mechanical standpoint.

“Get past the compound’s outer defenses” is the goal regardless of the method used. One method is “declare actions and succeed when the GM has determined you’ve achieved success or failure” and the other is “make three successes before two failures”.

It’s a flawed comparison.

In the second case, I say "Hmm, 3 successes needed. My Hunt is good. Hey GM, Hunting that guard is relevant right? Let's use that to get a success". On a success, I suspect the fiction of the world will be established such that my action was beneficial--none of the above concerns matter.

How do you use Hunt? You can’t just say “I use Hunt” unless the reason why it’s applicable is bloody obvious. You have to explain the reason hunt is applicable.

No it doesn't? Unless what you really mean here is 'the GM's exclusive discretion over the fiction'.

This seems to be the major obstacle to me.

Sometimes. In the sweet old lady case I would anticipate better outcomes on persuade than intimidate. In the warlord case I would probably let the paladin do it.

So a player trying to angle for using his higher ranked skill is problematic… but a player opting to let someone else make the attempt is reasonable?

Well, yes...it appears forced precisely because it wasn't so hard to adjudicate. Running single checks works well and gives the DM more flexibility to respond. What does imposing the structure of a skill challenge add here?

It’s already been said, but it can’t be said enough… transparency. It informs the players so they can then make informed decisions about play.

It's different enough for me. Turns out I'm under no obligation to engage in discussion at your direction.

That’s very true! Resume your threadcrapping, sir!

I'm not sure what the benefits of using SC structure even are, frankly. They must benefit something I don't do when I run games.

Provide players with information to they can make informed decisions.

An analogy might be combat. We can use the basic to-hit rules to throw a solitary punch at someone, or fire an arrow at a target

But surely the structured nature of combat is a problem!?!?! What purpose does it serve?!?!?! We should give the GM the freedom to respond to the fiction and just decide when combatants are dead!

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

Sorry, missed this bit in my last reply.

We’re talking about map and key resolution, right? That covers a wide swath of play… including a lot of adventure path play, which is arguably the dominant form of play in the entire hobby, let alone the trad sphere.

Now again… I’m not saying that map and key play or trad play CANNOT result in surprising play for all involved. Just your claim that “most” if it does. I think it’s clear that most of it is quite linear.

 

[The Firebird]

Well, again, if it's a single roll, then don't use a skill challenge. The point of a skill challenge is to incorporate all these back and forth attempts from all the characters into one resolution process. If you are allowing other players to maybe also have a go if they reveal new information, or if they take a very different approach, then what you're really using is the 'uhhh I don't know I guess that's enough to tip this over into a success' approach. The stakes aren't transparent and it's pure GM fiat whether 'enough' is 'enough'.

I see what you're getting at; I can imagine in the correctly tuned scenario it could work. But I don't think you are characterizing other approaches correctly when you say they are pure GM fiat. How is setting a diplomacy DC of 10 different than setting a skill challenge with 3 successes needed, in that regard? How is "the DM adjudicates if a given action can contribute to the skill challenge" different from "the DM adjudicates if further information can merit a second attempt at diplomacy"?