Alternatives to map-and-key

[pemerton]

Map and key is not objectively inferior to not map and key.

How is this relevant to the thread topic? Are you interested in talking about alternatives to map-and-key as a way for establishing latent situations, and progressing scenes/situations.

 

[pemerton]

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 thought the objection to skill challenges was that it's not possible to go faster or slower. Now the objection seems to be that skill challenges let a player move fast?

And if your PC is good at Hunting, why would that be more salient to you in a skill challenge framework than some other framework? I don't really get it.

 

[AnotherGuy]

That said if the Giants had clear concrete predetermined motivations and the player argument logically or emotionally answered those concerns then in non-skill challenges play I wouldn’t have called for a check at all. Auto success. If they had touched on some and not others then I’d have given a check, dc probably dependent on how many concerns were left unaddressed or minimally addressed.

So, the giants did indeed have concrete predetermined motivations.
The players did put forward logical counters.
The maths was skewed in the PCs favour.
If the argument was one that was surprisingly good they would gain an advantage.
But I didn't want the "greater good" argument to auto win the day hence the checks. And the giant arguments touched on the Ordning, on Family, On Giant-kind, on Annam/Religion, On Succession, On Grief etc - Bonds and Ideals that were important.
I also did not want to leave it to my bias, the roll of the dice allows for some unknown factors to take shape in the story to surprise us all. It also builds some great table apprehension.
The die rolling also allows for the use of character resources, which is always satisfying to a GM when a party is making its way to a dragon's lair.

It also keeps in alignment that social situations rarely have immediate catastrophic failure as long as the PCs aren’t overly antagonistic.

When I go to so much trouble for a social situation, they generally do have an impact on the campaign.

Failure would have seen King Hekaton abandon/delay his quest with the PCs, to save his daughter, Princess Serissa from the Dragon of Statues, Iymrith, to entreat with the newly arisen Hartkiller (Annam's "runt" son), so as to determine which of the two would lead giant kind, like via a fight to the death.
With the hopes of restoring the Ordning and have Annam's presence felt once more. (Merged SKT AP and SKT AL storylines).

 

[pemerton]

Given that you said you meant literal map and key, whole tread is rather weird, given that most roleplaying do not involve such. Instead it just involves situations that are described, rather than presented on a map.

No one is obliging you to participate in this thread!

 

[pemerton]

In the very first line of your OP you go much further than identifying a fairly well known method, you say most play defaults on an assumption of map and key play.

Here is the OP's first line:

A lot of thinking and discussion about the play of RPGs seems to default to an assumption of map-and-key play.

It says nothing about most play. Nor does it say anything about most anything. It says something about a lot of thinking and discussion about the play of RPGs.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No one is obliging you to participate in this thread!

Yes, but it seemed that you needed help. So here is an alternative: instead of having map, the GM makes mental or written notes of the situations and then adjudicates the fiction based on that. Is that the sort of thing you were looking for?

 

[pemerton]

Skill challenges force the fiction to conform to the rules instead of other way around.

the fiction is moulded to follow the mechanics

In this example:

First attempt:
1) The bard uses mage hand to pick the out of reach locking mechanism with the lockpicks the rogue had smuggled in. (fail)
Next steps would have probably been
2) Rush the guard and kill/knock him unconscious.
3+) Get out of the building

Second attempt:
1) The rogue taunts the guard to get him come close.
2) The rogue kills the guard with one strike with a poison needle she had smuggled in (super risky, but amazingly succeeded)
3) The bard and the barbarian bend the bars of the door as now there is no guard looking (super hard, but they manage to bend them a little.)
4) The rogue, the smallest and nimblest member of the party tries to squeeze through the slightly bent bars. (success)
5) As the guard has no keys, the rogue picks the locking mechanism. (success)
6+) Get out of the building.

Wasn't the fiction "moulded" to follow the mechanics? I mean, it seems rife but. Didn't the amazing success with the needle depend upon mechanics? Likewise the initial failure to pick the out-of-reach locking mechanism and the subsequent success at picking the locking mechanism? The bending of the bars? Perhaps also the squeezing through them. And maybe even the taunting of the guard (though that one's less clear from what you've posted).

I mean, what's the point of having mechanics, if they don't affect how the fiction is narrated?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In this example:

​

Wasn't the fiction "moulded" to follow the mechanics? I mean, it seems rife but. Didn't the amazing success with the needle depend upon mechanics? Likewise the initial failure to pick the out-of-reach locking mechanism and the subsequent success at picking the locking mechanism? The bending of the bars? Perhaps also the squeezing through them. And maybe even the taunting of the guard (though that one's less clear from what you've posted).

I mean, what's the point of having mechanics, if they don't affect how the fiction is narrated?

The fiction evolves causally due the actions of the characters. The mechanics merely represent this.

This is different than the GM inventing more obstacles because the players overcome the first one so effectively and more successes are still needed to complete the challenge.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, but it seemed that you needed help. So here is an alternative: instead of having map, the GM makes mental or written notes of the situations and then adjudicates the fiction based on that. Is that the sort of thing you were looking for?

Not really. It doesn't say anything about how latent scenes/situations are established, nor how the progression of scenes/situations is actually generated and handled in play.

 

[FrogReaver]

Here is the OP's first line:

It says nothing about most play. Nor does it say anything about most anything. It says something about a lot of thinking and discussion about the play of RPGs.

Actually never mind. I don’t feel like dealing with the obvious pedantry today.