Alternatives to map-and-key

[The Firebird]

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.

The post I was quoting was about resolving obstacles, not generating them. When I am resolving obstacles, I do so as an observer--my narration is constrained by the state of the game world and the rules of the game.

When I generate new obstacles I am participating in a more obvious way. But in that case, is my saying "there are 3 guards on this wall with watches changing every 4 hours...etc." a different type of participation than "bypassing this wall/guards is a complexity 3 skill challenge"? How?

 

[pemerton]

Up until very recently in this thread I had thought that framing scenes based on hidden backstory was part of map and key play.

I'm thinking of the very many map-and-key based modules/scenarios that I have read and played, mostly published by TSR but some published by WotC and quite a few by ICE. I can't think of any rulebook that fully spells out how they work - though the OD&D rules, and parts of Gygax's DMG and Moldvay Basic, come closest - but I think the way I've described it is pretty accurate.

The key is hidden from the players initially, but becomes revealed (at least partly) during play. In some map-and-key play, the players are expected to prompt the GM to reveal (elements of) the key, without activating the latent scenes/situations - Gygax talks about this in his PHB, under the heading Successful Adventures. This permits the players to make decisions about which scene/situations to activate.

But not all map-and-key play is meant to be played this way. Examples are the scenarios found in some late(ish) 1980s TSR publications like the Book of Lairs, and the scenarios in the City of Greyhawk boxed set; and also, I think, many of the WotC dungeons though I'm overall less familiar with them as a corpus.

If you don't agree with my characterisation of map-and-key play, then by all means elaborate.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

Okay. I thought the +2 would have given it away, but fair enough.

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?

Mattering more meaning the fictional action in the specific fictional situation will produce a more appropriate effect. This does rely on an assumption that fiction is generated in a specific principled way such that fiction arising from those principles is deemed more appropriate.

 

[The Firebird]

The guard patrol changes shift, make another stealth roll.
The ground here is more gravelly, make another stealth roll.
You're near the inner palace now, make another stealth roll.
You're climbing now? Make another stealth roll.

In some cases those are covered by the double jeopardy principle. In others, the world. For example, why does the guard patrol change? If the GM decides that arbitrarily to force another roll, that is poor DMing. If the guards change every hour and that time has come, then it follows from the state of the world.

There are no specific rules in D&D for 'infiltrating a compound'. There are separate rules for stealth, climbing, perception, etc that rely on the DM to put them together in what seems to them to be an appropriate way. That's a decision.

Are there rules for the complexity of skill challenge required? That also is a decision...

While yes, the DM chooses when and how to call for rolls, it is crucial for me that they do so consistently. E.g., if before sneaking the grounds required a single stealth check, and there is a new guard patrol that is otherwise identical, then it can't now require two stealth checks. The mechanics flow from the fiction.

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?

I don't understand this.

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.

I gave an example. To repeat: I am trying to infiltrate a compound. I see a guard standing on the wall. In a fiction first game, I will start thinking--can anyone else see that guard? Does the guard move about often? Will there be a shift change? These inform my approach.

In a skill challenge game, I say 'hey, three successes needed, and I'm good at hunting. I'm gonna shoot him'. I know that on a success new fiction will be established such that there are no unanticipated consequences from me killing him.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Yes, I understand how this works.

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

I am not saying that, except in a sense that the GM will put on the map things that are fun and appropriate too. But the things are predefined, just like in map and key, there just isn't a literal map. I am trying to get to why you think that the format of the information (map/text/mental) makes any significant difference.

 

[FrogReaver]

My play typically consists of a world map. NPCs and factions are often linked to specific locations on the map. However, their location can be updated, so it’s not static. And this updating can occur without PC intervention.

But more importantly NPCs and factions have principles and goals that exist prior to the players interacting with those factions/NPCs.

There’s alot of extrapolation much of which is based on highly plausible events with random rolls typically selecting a singular highly plausible event.

However, there is also room for less plausible situations to occur, just not typically in response to PC actions. Though sometimes lack of total information may make players feel like a less plausible situation/outcome occurred.

A description might be dynamic world map with dynamic player and NPC motivations/goals. As both aspects continually update both with and without player input.

Exploration is typically a major component of play. Often both of the unrevealed map and the NPC relationships the PCs have. The map doesn’t have to be unrevealed but often is. Or at least parts of it.

Some people call such an arrangement a ‘living world sandbox’.

Players typically are asked to make their own goals during play, maybe a few before.

The DM typically isn’t creating situations to challenge PC goals specifically. The situations usually emerge naturally through the map and conflicts between NPC and faction goals. Players then utilize such conflicts to try and obtain progress toward their current goals from some of those NPCs or factions.

 

[soviet]

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

This is absolutely not true. 'The fiction' is our shared idea of what is happening. It isn't real. It can't 'evolve causally'. What can happen is either a) participants decide that a particular thing happens next or b) the mechanics determine what happens next.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is absolutely not true. 'The fiction' is our shared idea of what is happening. It isn't real. It can't 'evolve causally'. What can happen is either a) participants decide that a particular thing happens next or b) the mechanics determine what happens next.

A man kicks a ball.
The ball moves.

There was no man, nor a ball, just text, but you might have imagined a man and a ball. And the causal relationship is pretty clear too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Pacing and transparency of stakes.

Ah. I let pacing take care of itself for the most part (I'm not telling a story, after all), and use my own discretion the rest of the time. And I believe transparency of stakes should follow the fiction (as in, the stakes are known when the fiction makes it clear they should be), not be a default position.

 

[soviet]

The characters could observe the keep from afar, they might want to roll history to see whether they might know something that would reveal best direction of approach, they could roll perception to see the guards, and perhaps insight to assess their morale, dungeoneering to assess the structure of the keep. All these actions make sense in the context, but if they fail at three of them, they have somehow failed the skill challenge before they have even approached the keep! Similarly if they succeed in all of these, or succeed in three of them and at stealthing towards the keep, they have somehow succeeded at the skill challenge without making it in the keep! And yeah, the GM can (and must) prevent these outcomes by disallowing some rolls, or have them not count towards progress or something, but I am not at all sure that handling this as a skill challenge instead of just dealing with these obstacles separately is helpful. The fiction is that the characters need to somehow cross the distance to the keep unnoticed, and somehow make it inside the walls. To me it makes far more sense to deal with these specific challenges, and have things that logically would overcome them overcome them, regardless of how many rolls that would take.

I'm not sure all these investigation rolls should be a part of the SC.

I'm not sure players should make five barely related checks (at things they are apparently also bad at) in a three-failure skill challenge. That says to me that the players either want to lose or simply don't understand the rules.

If a situation is more complex you can set the successes and failures required at a higher number.