Alternatives to map-and-key

[The Firebird]

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.

I agree that constraints are important for creativity. I don't think it follows that all constraints are good, though.

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.

They will; but they will treat the environment less faithfully and less realistically than they would have otherwise. If you're doing skills one by one, each outcome determines what follows in-universe. With a skill challenge, you have to consider the context..."they failed at this crucial step, but they had many successes banked and no failures yet, so I can't escalate too much...so I guess those guards must be somewhere else right now".

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”, [which is what the GM determined you needed for success or failure].

It’s a flawed comparison.

Bold added. I don't see the difference here with respect to GM control.

The reason I used fictional description in one and mechanical in the other is because that's how I think of the problem. Once we enter SC land, I'm not trying to get past the defenses...I'm trying to get 3 successes. Without that structure, I'm focused solely on the fiction.

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.

I am using Hunt to shoot the guard.

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.

I don't think I said most. Just that it happens often. Am I forgetful?

 

[soviet]

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"?

You keep conflating the resolution of the skill rolls with the resolution of the overall conflict. The choice is between 'the GM decides when enough individual successes have been accrued to win the overall conflict' and 'three individual successes before three failures is what wins the overall conflict'. All other factors of resolving those individual actions, including DC, are the same in both methods.

 

[soviet]

They will; but they will treat the environment less faithfully and less realistically than they would have otherwise. If you're doing skills one by one, each outcome determines what follows in-universe. With a skill challenge, you have to consider the context..."they failed at this crucial step, but they had many successes banked and no failures yet, so I can't escalate too much...so I guess those guards must be somewhere else right now".

Does this apply to combat? I know that my first attack against the monster is very unlikely to be fatal. Quite likely it would be impossible for me to kill them in one round, or even two rounds. Likewise, I know that the monster is also incredibly unlikely to be able to kill me in the first turn or so. Does this mean I roleplay my character less faithfully and less realistically than I would have otherwise? Are my action declarations contrained by not being able to for example go for a decapitation strike right away?

 

[The Firebird]

Does this apply to combat? I know that my first attack against the monster is very unlikely to be fatal. Quite likely it would be impossible for me to kill them in one round, or even two rounds. Likewise, I know that the monster is also incredibly unlikely to be able to kill me in the first turn or so. Does this mean I roleplay my character less faithfully and less realistically than I would have otherwise? Are my action declarations contrained by not being able to for example go for a decapitation strike right away?

Yeah. Think especially of assassination missions, which play out very differently given our knowledge of hp.

 

[The Firebird]

You keep conflating the resolution of the skill rolls with the resolution of the overall conflict. The choice is between 'the GM decides when enough individual successes have been accrued to win the overall conflict' and 'three individual successes before three failures is what wins the overall conflict'. All other factors of resolving those individual actions, including DC, are the same in both methods.

I don't think that's true. I never decide when a venture has succeeded based on adding up the number of overall successes. It is based on the fiction.

With the night infiltration, success is "the players actions result in a fictional game state such that they are in the keep and the alarm has not been raised", for example. That could be one success or it could be ten, depending on approach.

 

[soviet]

I don't think that's true. I never decide when a venture has succeeded based on adding up the number of overall successes. It is based on the fiction.

There is a point at which the success of the venture has not yet been determined.
There is a point at which a further success or failure happens and then you decide the outcome of the overall venture.

This is you 'deciding when the venture has succeeded based on the number of successes'. It does not mean you have to have kept a tally. It simply means you have reached a point where you felt 'OK, that's enough'.

 

[The Firebird]

There is a point at which the success of the venture has not yet been determined.
There is a point at which a further success or failure happens and then you decide the outcome of the overall venture.

This is you 'deciding when the venture has succeeded based on the number of successes'. It does not mean you have to have kept a tally. It simply means you have reached a point where you felt 'OK, that's enough'.

It's not about what I, the GM, feel. It's about how what fictional state has been reached given the results of individual action declarations. It doesn't matter how I feel about it.

 

[soviet]

It's not about what I, the GM, feel. It's about how what fictional state has been reached given the results of individual action declarations. It doesn't matter how I feel about it.

Fictional state as assessed by you. That's a decision. The only two resolution methods available are 'the rules say' or 'a participant decides'.

 

[The Firebird]

Fictional state as assessed by you. That's a decision. The only two resolution methods available are 'the rules say' or 'a participant decides'.

I think there are rules at play in how I assess the fictional state. If the players say they want to sneak across the grounds, I set the DC at 10, and they roll high enough, then I can't decide that they have not made their way across the grounds.

Likewise if in their infiltration they take a clever set of actions and roll well, the rules of the game (& the world) dictate that they have achieved their result. I narrate that result, but I do not decide it.

In the context of the overall challenge, I am never thinking "their goal is to bypass the outer defenses. Have they done that yet?" I think "what is the DC for stealth? Did they succeed? What is the climb DC? What are the consequences? Did they succeed?"

I am adjudicating the world as an observer, not deciding as a participant.

 

[Umbran]

I am adjudicating the world as an observer, not deciding as a participant.

By deciding how many, and what kind of, and the difficulty of, obstacles exist between the PCs and their goal, you become a participant.

This becomes most obvious when the PCs present a new goal, for which the GM has not previously prepped, but is true in general.