Alternatives to map-and-key

[pemerton]

The criticism is that the default pre-skill challenge method of resolution is more responsive to the fiction than skill challenges. This is because the number of ‘steps’ to overcome an obstacle or achieve a goal isn’t predetermined regardless of not yet established fiction, doesnt treat each ‘step’ as the same weight (the fiction could make some successes be worth more than others), and doesn’t limit the impact of a given success on future ‘steps’ to a mere +2.

I don’t know how any of these basic facts are even in dispute, but it seems they are.

The impact of a given success on a future action in a skill challenge is not confined to a +2. Obviously it can radically change the fictional circumstance.

Skill challenges force the fiction to conform to the rules instead of other way around. This lessens the impact of character actions and fictional positioning.

I posted some examples of actual play. You haven't explained how fictional positioning would have mattered more if these had been resolved based on the GM making decisions (on the basis of notes and/or intuition) about the effects, in the fiction, of the player's action declarations.

 

[pemerton]

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

How is it pedantic to point out that what you said about the OP is incorrect?

The thread isn't about classifying anyone's play. It's about alternatives to map and key for handling scenes/situations - how the latent ones are established, how they are activated/triggered in play, how play progresses from one to the next.

If you have thoughts about that, this thread is the place to post them.

 

[FrogReaver]

How is it pedantic to point out that what you said about the OP is incorrect?

The thread isn't about classifying anyone's play. It's about alternatives to map and key for handling scenes/situations - how the latent ones are established, how they are activated/triggered in play, how play progresses from one to the next.

If you have thoughts about that, this thread is the place to post them.

The pedantry is acting like the former doesn’t imply the later ‘A lot of thinking and discussion about the play of RPGs seems to default to an assumption of map-and-key play.’ Vs ‘the play of RPGs seems to default to an assumption of map-and-key play’.

Why in the heavens would you think that a lot of the thinking and discussion defaults on map and key play if people weren’t defaulting their play assumptions to map and key play?

The statement just makes no sense without that implication.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Same way than in map and key, it is just written/mental instead of there being map. Like my prison escape didn't have a map, nor even written notes, the pertinent details were merely in my head. Now I don't know why this would make any sort of a difference, but as you apparently do, you can perhaps explain it to me?

 

[AnotherGuy]

For what it’s worth, the specific implementation here seems far superior to how I understand 4e skill challenges.

We have used variations for the social pillar and for some puzzles where we focus on Investigation and Knowledge etc and it works well, we have had much fun at the table.
I must though experiment more with some explorative kind of skill challenges as I'm not as confident and quick in the implementation.

And I recall in some older threads some of the 4e enthusiasts here were spinning off some pretty awesome Fail Forward skill challenges fairly easily. That is where I'd like to be.

Here’s a question. What if the players had combined 2 or 3 or 4 or all of the counter arguments into their first counter argument? How would that have been handled?

This is a great question and it is something that has ocurred in the past.
I have tried to as GM-to-players to have arguments and counter-arguments remain ON TOPIC and not thread to other areas.
Think of it as turned-based arguments, but to be honest I'm not happy with such a "forced" solution.

But to seriously answer your question, if a player had their character touch on all arguments within the very first response or an earlier response, then I would have the giants make their counter arguments and have them roll their persuasion checks.
Which I do not believe is something the players would desire, as they have more influence on their rolls than on others.

I have an idea of how I would work the math (I would likely explain my logic to the table, get their input)
Likely something like this

2 Arguments (PC gains success with the argument they countered and puts forward 1 argument)
PC check 15-20 - DC 15 required by the subsequent giant
PC check 21-25 - DC 16 required by the subsequent giant
PC check 26+ - DC 17 required by the subsequent giant

3 Arguments (PC gains success with the argument they countered and puts forward 2 arguments)
PC check 15-20 - DC 14 required by the subsequent giants
PC check 21-25 - DC 15 required by the subsequent giants
PC check 26+ - DC 16 required by the subsequent giants

4 Arguments (PC gains success with the argument they countered and puts forward 3 arguments)
PC check 15-20 - DC 13 required by the subsequent giants
PC check 21-24 - DC 14 required by the subsequent giants
PC check 25+ - DC 15 required by the subsequent giants

I'd allow the PCs counter (with a valid argument ofc) against the giant Successes, but that would turn into a contested roll, they'd have to beat the giant's DC.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not super clear how the SC tangent really relates to the OP

A skill challenge is one way of establishing latent scenes/situations, and then activating/triggering them, and progressing from one to the next. And it is an alternative to map-and-key.

It is "localised", in that nothing in the skill challenge mechanic tells us how to progress from one to the next. But within the challenge, I tend to find it does its job fairly well. The set-up for the challenge should establish an initial sense of what is at stake, and what obstacles might arise in the pursuit of it. For instance, in the dinner party skill challenge that I posted upthread, the situation involves: the baron, whom the PCs want to not upset and perhaps get onside; his adviser, their nemesis who's true identity they know, but whom (i) they can't easily accuse due to his social status, and (ii) they don't want to reveal too much of their own knowledge to; their magical tapestry that they have to keep secret from the evil adviser; the foretold doom of the baron (and the associated catoblepas); and in fairly short order, based on my narration early in the episode, the relationship between the baron's niece and the magician the PCs helped in the past.

This set-up suggests certain scenes/situations: the baron asking the PCs about their deeds, perhaps privately, perhaps in front of his adviser; the adviser trying to get the PCs to promise things to the baron that (unbeknownst to the latter) will help the advisor in his nefarious deeds and set back the PCs' efforts against him; the PCs trying to drive a wedge between the baron and his advisor; the PCs trying to prevent the doom to the baron (perhaps holding off the catoblepas); etc.

Which scene to move to, as the challenge unfolds, follows from the previous scene and its resolution. As this happens, various of the latent situations are resolved, or intensify in their implicit stakes, etc. And part of the GM skill in handling this is to pick up on those things, and draw them out as the challenge gets closer to its resolution. For instance, as things actually played out at my table the focus turned very strongly onto the advisor, and the idea of revealing him to the baron without questioning, or otherwise seeming to be disloyal to, the baron. Whereas the issue of the foretold doom and the catoblepas dropped away (which left the arrival of the catoblepas an open question, unresolved by the players' victory in the skill challenge).

I think what I've tried to describe in this post is related to the difference I noted between skill challenges and your own system - the fact that the resolution structure prevents an "early" attempt to resolve. That feature of the structure is pretty important to the way the structure contributes to the "activation" of, and progression of, scenes/situations.

 

[FrogReaver]

The impact of a given success on a future action in a skill challenge is not confined to a +2. Obviously it can radically change the fictional circumstance.

Im clearly talking the mechanical impacts. Did I misunderstand you earlier when you said it would mechanically grant a +2? Or was that intended as a single possible example instead of an example illustrative of the important bits of the definition.

I posted some examples of actual play. You haven't explained how fictional positioning would have mattered more if these had been resolved based on the GM making decisions (on the basis of notes and/or intuition) about the effects, in the fiction, of the player's action declarations.

We have repeatedly. I will one more time. The possibility space is greater. In your skill challenge framework there must be X successes. This implies that the fictional position (cause, effect) along with die result can never resolve the situation in less than X successes no matter what the players do.

 

[pemerton]

The pedantry is acting like the former doesn’t imply the later ‘A lot of thinking and discussion about the play of RPGs seems to default to an assumption of map-and-key play.’ Vs ‘the play of RPGs seems to default to an assumption of map-and-key play’.

Why in the heavens would you think that a lot of the thinking and discussion defaults on map and key play if people weren’t defaulting their play assumptions to map and key play?

The statement just makes no sense without that implication.

There can be all sorts of reasons that received opinion departs from how things actually work. If that were the case in discussions of RPGing, it would hardly be unique!

In any event, the remark is an observation that I have made. Perhaps you disagree, in which case you should be well-placed to talk about alternatives to map-and-key.

Same way than in map and key, it is just written/mental instead of there being map. Like my prison escape didn't have a map, nor even written notes, the pertinent details were merely in my head. Now I don't know why this would make any sort of a difference, but as you apparently do, you can perhaps explain it to me?

In map-and-key play, the key establishes latent scenes/situations, which are activated/triggered when the players have their PCs go to the keyed places on the map (and perhaps do the triggering thing, like opening a door). And so the map, and the players' movement of their PCs on the map, creates a way of actually progressing, in play, from one scene/situation to the next.

If you're saying that you frame whatever scene you think fun and/or appropriate, that's an alternative to map-and-key.

 

[FrogReaver]

There can be all sorts of reasons that received opinion departs from how things actually work. If that were the case in discussions of RPGing, it would hardly be unique!

In any event, the remark is an observation that I have made. Perhaps you disagree, in which case you should be well-placed to talk about alternatives to map-and-key.

In map-and-key play, the key establishes latent scenes/situations, which are activated/triggered when the players have their PCs go to the keyed places on the map (and perhaps do the triggering thing, like opening a door). And so the map, and the players' movement of their PCs on the map, creates a way of actually progressing, in play, from one scene/situation to the next.

If you're saying that you frame whatever scene you think fun and/or appropriate, that's an alternative to map-and-key.

Thank you.

Up until very recently in this thread I had thought that framing scenes based on hidden backstory was part of map and key play. But sure I’ll try to elaborate. Some I think have covered many alternatives fairly well.

 

[pemerton]

Im clearly talking the mechanical impacts. Did I misunderstand you earlier when you said it would mechanically grant a +2? Or was that intended as a single possible example instead of an example illustrative of the important bits of the definition.

That wasn't clear to me. Particularly because you seem to be making claims about fictional weight/heft. Eg:

We have repeatedly. I will one more time. The possibility space is greater. In your skill challenge framework there must be X successes. This implies that the fictional position (cause, effect) along with die result can never resolve the situation in less than X successes no matter what the players do.

I don't really know that the "possibility space" is that you are referring to. Nor how it shows that fictional position matters more. Where, in the examples I've posted, is fictional positioning not mattering? What would make it matter more?

If you are saying that it might matter differently - eg the GM might decide that some successful declared action wins the day - sure, that seems obvious. But how is that mattering more?