Alternatives to map-and-key

[Micah Sweet]

D&D should definitely be included, but not given special weight because more people play it. Vastly more people play Call of Duty than Clair Obscur, but the latter does not need to justify itself or have expectations for how it works by default based on the former. Vastly more people play Monopoly than play Dungeon Lord or Battle For Rokugan, but no one treats Monopoly as a norm for how board games work more generally.

So you're arguing that the concepts of norms shouldn't exist? No baseline from which to divurge? Convincing the entire community on that is going to be a tough road to hoe.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The OP does not say what you say that it says:

That last paragraph pretty clearly makes the implication that event-based play is usually railroading and map and key is usually linear. I know that's how you see it, and that's a valid subjective personal opinion, but the university lecture style of the post, to me, presents that opinion as if it were objective truth.

Just my subjective personal opinion.

 

[TheSword]

The OP does not say what you say that it says:

I get that you have framed your argument in relation to a specific type of map/key style or event style. But these are the examples you have selected. By choosing a low quality example as the alternative to your proposal you’re actually undermining your proposal, rather than setting up against a robust alternative. It was totally unnecessary to bring linear adventures and railroading into things.

That aside I agree that NPCs goals and motivations are very important and can generate plausible next steps to the PCs choices.

I also find alternatives to map and key more satisfying to run. So I’m all for alternative structures for campaigns.

Is there something specific about ‘best interests’ that makes it different to simply motivations or goals? Something that all NPCs benefit from in all styles of games.

 

[Argyle King]

One alternative is random generation.
In this case, the GM is not creating the map. Instead, random tables generate content and the GM's role is mainly referee and arbiter of the rules as the players decide how they want to interact with the generated content.

 

[pemerton]

I get that you have framed your argument in relation to a specific type of map/key style or event style. But these are the examples you have selected.

The post is about how latent scenes are established, and how latent scenes become "activated"/"triggered" and hence actual episodes of play. Player-driven map-and-key is one way of doing this (see eg Gygax's PHB). GM-driven map-and-key is one way of doing this (see eg a number of the mini-modules found in the City of GY boxed set). GM-driven "event-based" scenarios are another one (see eg the first part of the 3E module Speaker in Dreams, played as written).

As the OP says, these are not the only ways of structuring and progressing scenes/situations.

That last paragraph pretty clearly makes the implication that event-based play is usually railroading and map and key is usually linear.

No it doesn't:

Map-and-key play can be relatively player-driven

<snip>

Map-and-key play can also be heavily GM-driven

Another important sort of play - what some DMGs call "event-based" scenarios - closely resembles GM-driven map-and-key play in some key respects

<snip>

I think it is reasonably common for the sort of event-based play just described to be called railroading, whereas the similar map-and-key play will often be described as linear (if there is only one path along/through the map) or even as a sandbox (if there are multiple paths).

Notice the contrast drawn between "map-and-key play [that is] relatively player-driven" and "map-and-key play [that is] heavily GM-driven", and then the reference to "event-based scenarios" that closely resemble GM-driven map-and-key play in some respects.

Nothing is said about whether map-and-key play is usually GM-driven (and hence apt to be described as linear) or relatively player-driven. The OP is not a conjecture about how common some approaches to play are. It is describing and contrasting approaches to play.

 

[pemerton]

Is there something specific about ‘best interests’ that makes it different to simply motivations or goals? Something that all NPCs benefit from in all styles of games.

Here is the relevant rules text, from p 6 of In A Wicked Age (I've elided some stuff that deals with particular mechanics and examples):

Naming your characters’ best interests
GM, you start. Start with one of your strongest NPCs, and name two best interests for her. Each should represent a direct attack on at least one player’s character.

From there, you and all the players take turns, until every player’s character has at least two best interests named and every NPC has at least one (and many have two). Just jump around the circle, with you as GM taking a turn whenever you like.

For players
. . . You can cast your character’s best interests against your fellow players’ characters, or against the GM’s characters, freely, without any distinction between the two. . . .

Your character’s best interests don’t even have to be mutually compatible. Since their value is in the conflicts they create for her, you don’t have to worry about whether they’re even achievable, let alone achievable together. . . .

For GMs
. . . You can – and should! – ruthlessly threaten the players’ characters, where they’re weakest.

It’s fine to occasionally cast one of your NPCs against another, but it doesn’t do anything for the game. If you find that you’re naming NPCs in your NPCs’ best interests, STOP. Go back and do over.

Look for hooks and curves. If on paper a player’s character and an NPC are allies, think flexibly and find a best interest that threatens or undercuts their alliance. . . .

You’ll take the lead by naming best interests that are direct threats to the players’ characters. If you’ve led strong, look for the players to react to your attacks, then pass new attacks on to each other.

Jump in with your NPCs’ best interests opportunistically, whenever you can add threats, complications, or the potential for violence, or whenever two players’ characters are starting to look too cozy together. If you look for the angles, the leverage you can use to wedge them apart, you’ll find it.​

"Best interests" create a network of conflicts, and in this way they provide the basis for scenes/situations. From pp 10-11:

GM, it’ll mostly fall to you to open and organize scenes. . . .

Start the chapter by zooming in. . . . Also, start the chapter with at least one player’s character, always, and start with a meeting. Choose characters with something to say to one another – characters with a chain or knot of best interests between them. . . .

To rush up to a conflict:
Choose two characters who want to do harm to one another. Arrange circumstances so that one of the characters has a sudden, momentary, immediate advantage – act now and seize it, or hesitate and lose; and furthermore that if she
should leave her enemy capable, the advantage will dramatically reverse. . . .

To circle a conflict:
Choose two characters who want to do harm to one another. Arrange circumstances so that they have to interact, but so that neither of them have any upper hand, and in fact so that if one should attack the other, she will do so at a significant disadvantage. . . .

To draw a conflict out:
Choose two characters who want to do no harm to one another at all, but whose interests don’t mesh well or overlap. Arrange circumstances so that one has the opportunity to pursue her interests, but only by threatening the interests of the other. Also arrange it so that the other will see her do it, or have evidence that she’s done it, or have some reason to blame her for doing it – so that the offense is unignorable.​

So "best interests" are a particular way of using motivations, to structure and progress scenes/situations in play. I think the In A Wicked Age rulebook sets this out really clearly, but it's an idea that can be generalised.

If the GM keeps the NPCs' best interests secret, or makes them hard for the players to know, then the players are likely to find it hard to anticipate what scenes will occur, and to understand what is at stake in the scenes the GM frames. If, as in In A Wicked Age, the NPCs' best interests are known by the players, then the players have a sense of what is coming, and what is at stake.

 

[pemerton]

One alternative is random generation.
In this case, the GM is not creating the map. Instead, random tables generate content and the GM's role is mainly referee and arbiter of the rules as the players decide how they want to interact with the generated content.

I'm not sure how you're envisaging the randomly-generated content actually being introduced into play. There are different ways to do this. Some replicate map-and-key (eg Appendix A random dungeon generation).

And some rely upon map-and-key. For instance, a hexcrawl with random encounters depends upon a map of hexes with keyed terrain. Or a Classic Traveller trading game relies upon a sub-sector map with worlds generated, but then the rolls for passengers and cargo and so on sit on top of that.

In Torchbearer 2e, camp event rolls don't rely upon map-and-key, but they are not the whole of the game.

Is there something in particular that you have in mind?

 

[TheSword]

Here is the relevant rules text, from p 6 of In A Wicked Age (I've elided some stuff that deals with particular mechanics and examples):

Naming your characters’ best interests​

GM, you start. Start with one of your strongest NPCs, and name two best interests for her. Each should represent a direct attack on at least one player’s character.​

​

From there, you and all the players take turns, until every player’s character has at least two best interests named and every NPC has at least one (and many have two). Just jump around the circle, with you as GM taking a turn whenever you like.​

​

For players​

. . . You can cast your character’s best interests against your fellow players’ characters, or against the GM’s characters, freely, without any distinction between the two. . . .​

​

Your character’s best interests don’t even have to be mutually compatible. Since their value is in the conflicts they create for her, you don’t have to worry about whether they’re even achievable, let alone achievable together. . . .​

​

For GMs​

. . . You can – and should! – ruthlessly threaten the players’ characters, where they’re weakest.​

​

It’s fine to occasionally cast one of your NPCs against another, but it doesn’t do anything for the game. If you find that you’re naming NPCs in your NPCs’ best interests, STOP. Go back and do over.​

​

Look for hooks and curves. If on paper a player’s character and an NPC are allies, think flexibly and find a best interest that threatens or undercuts their alliance. . . .​

​

You’ll take the lead by naming best interests that are direct threats to the players’ characters. If you’ve led strong, look for the players to react to your attacks, then pass new attacks on to each other.​

​

Jump in with your NPCs’ best interests opportunistically, whenever you can add threats, complications, or the potential for violence, or whenever two players’ characters are starting to look too cozy together. If you look for the angles, the leverage you can use to wedge them apart, you’ll find it.​

"Best interests" create a network of conflicts, and in this way they provide the basis for scenes/situations. From pp 10-11:

GM, it’ll mostly fall to you to open and organize scenes. . . .​

​

Start the chapter by zooming in. . . . Also, start the chapter with at least one player’s character, always, and start with a meeting. Choose characters with something to say to one another – characters with a chain or knot of best interests between them. . . .​

​

To rush up to a conflict:​

Choose two characters who want to do harm to one another. Arrange circumstances so that one of the characters has a sudden, momentary, immediate advantage – act now and seize it, or hesitate and lose; and furthermore that if she​

should leave her enemy capable, the advantage will dramatically reverse. . . .​

​

To circle a conflict:​

Choose two characters who want to do harm to one another. Arrange circumstances so that they have to interact, but so that neither of them have any upper hand, and in fact so that if one should attack the other, she will do so at a significant disadvantage. . . .​

​

To draw a conflict out:​

Choose two characters who want to do no harm to one another at all, but whose interests don’t mesh well or overlap. Arrange circumstances so that one has the opportunity to pursue her interests, but only by threatening the interests of the other. Also arrange it so that the other will see her do it, or have evidence that she’s done it, or have some reason to blame her for doing it – so that the offense is unignorable.​

So "best interests" are a particular way of using motivations, to structure and progress scenes/situations in play. I think the In A Wicked Age rulebook sets this out really clearly, but it's an idea that can be generalised.

If the GM keeps the NPCs' best interests secret, or makes them hard for the players to know, then the players are likely to find it hard to anticipate what scenes will occur, and to understand what is at stake in the scenes the GM frames. If, as in In A Wicked Age, the NPCs' best interests are known by the players, then the players have a sense of what is coming, and what is at stake.

Sorry, despite quoting the rules I still don’t know what a ‘best interest’ is? I get that they should be used to target PCs but what are they?

I’m not trying to be obtuse. The phrase itself is someone ambiguous. I feel like the quoted test seems to assume I know what this phrase should mean.