Alternatives to map-and-key

[DrunkonDuty]

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.

They sound like what Hero System calls complications (disadvantages in older editions.).

Complications are things you choose at character generation to be things of "interest" to the character. They should be things the player wants to interact with. They can be things the character wants to achieve "Marry the princess" or "Get rich" or "find a cure for the curse." They can be things the character wants to avoid; "Avoid personal danger at all costs" or "disappointing Uncle Ben." Could be ongoing issues like "owes a debt (bank or crimelord) and must do what is asked of them whenever it's called in." They can also be physical weaknesses likes "takes double damage from Kryptonite."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So..they need to move 6 spaces along the map without setting off 3 traps to get inside the fortress. Got it.

I'm a big mapper. I make a lot of physical maps, triptychs (which are properly graphs as they represent time not space) and mind maps of concepts and goals.

A mind map is not technically a map, being a graph, unless the structure actually represents space. Then it is a map. But people like maps and are afraid of graphs (X? Y? Run away!) So "mind map" is the common term for a graph.

To circle around to "how maps/graphs are used in rpgs that aren't explicitly d&d", the XDM books have plot maps (my book is packed so I can't find the exact term) for players to "move through" or "navigate" to get to the completion. XDM has only been around for a 15 years or so.

Shadowrun, which has been around for four-ish decades, uses proper maps for combat and a (poorly explained) graph for advancing plots. And I mean very poorly explained as they sprinkle relationship data on each node (character) without every drawing the map. I mean graph. Except when they discuss places, when it could be a map. But their adventures are absolutely graphs without the handy map. Diagram. Graph. Whatever.

What I'm saying is, a map is a subset of graphs, and darned near everything is a graph but lots of people hate graphs (math!) while everyone is comfortable looking at a map these days. So if you want to de-emphasize geography-based adventures, tell people to map something else. Plot map. Story map. Motivation map. Event map. Scene map.

It is much more approachable to the majority and only the truly pedantic will get huffy about it.

But every graph/diagram/map should have a key. Always, always, always.

I would not characterize, say, FitD clocks, 4e SCs, and TB2e contests as always being equivalent to a graph. In fact, my experience with SCs in particular tells me that this sort of presentation is often overly rigid. The GM is overthinking the thing when building it that way. The PCs will start at point X, but unexpectedly they will move off at a tangent to point P, which you did not anticipate at all, and now your cause-and-effect linkages, the edges of your graph, won't make sense anymore, etc. Clocks also can be structured in several ways, some of which I don't believe really map to a graph very well.

That being said, I don't think there's something inherently wrong with graphs/maps, but as the OP asserts, they do have specific purposes, usually in terms of regulating and limiting the choices available at a certain point.

 

[TheSword]

They sound like what Hero System calls complications (disadvantages in older editions.).

Complications are things you choose at character generation to be things of "interest" to the character. They should be things the player wants to interact with. They can be things the character wants to achieve "Marry the princess" or "Get rich" or "find a cure for the curse." They can be things the character wants to avoid; "Avoid personal danger at all costs" or "disappointing Uncle Ben." Could be ongoing issues like "owes a debt (bank or crimelord) and must do what is asked of them whenever it's called in." They can also be physical weaknesses likes "takes double damage from Kryptonite."

Those all sound like goals or motivations. Is that a fair way of characterizing the description you just gave?

For instance an NPC I ran on Tuesday night.

• Wanted to find out what happened to her missing husband
• Was scared of and wanted to avoid the watch (In this case the PCs)
• Was scared of and wanted to avoid getting on the wrong side of a local crimelord that ruled the slums she lived in.

Is this the kind of thing we’re talking about?

I’m assuming the phrase comes from “in your own best interests” which usually means something that benefits someone. But that isn’t necessarily a goal. In fact that phrase often relates to something done as a justification against your will.

 

[pemerton]

What I had in mind would be similar to how some "rogue-like" video games are generated.

Something is generated; how the players choose to interact with it is up to them.

Though, once something is generated, it may then also continue to evolve on its own as the generated pieces multiply and also start to interact with each other.

I'm not very familiar with video games - I've heard the phrase "rogue-like", but don't know much about these games. So I don't know how they handle the establishment of scenes, and the transition from scene to scene.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm not very familiar with video games - I've heard the phrase "rogue-like", but don't know much about these games. So I don't know how they handle the establishment of scenes, and the transition from scene to scene.

I don't think there's necessarily "scenes" at all. In some, maybe there are.

There might be a defined start point and a defined end/win point, but most everything else is randomly generated. This isn't a great analogy, but it would be like using both a random hexcrawl generator and random tables to flesh out what is inside each hex. There's not necessarily a pre-defined path that you are supposed to follow, nor is there a set way that is correct to interact with the generated game elements. While there may be a defined start and a defined end, how you go from point A to point B (and how you choose to interact or not interact with the steps in between) is largely open-ended.

Also, once a particular game element is established, it may then continue to exist and interact with other elements - even independently of the players.

It's a lot of emergent play and letting the dice fall where they may. There are varying degrees to how much or how little is pre-defined and how much is generated & open-ended depending upon the particular game.

 

[chaochou]

I'm not very familiar with video games - I've heard the phrase "rogue-like", but don't know much about these games.

A key element of rogue-likes is that they are intended for multiple plays. The player makes 'runs' from which they iterate better, more successful tactics for the next run.

This would be similar to an early approach to AD&D, where characters don't even get named until level 3 or 4.

But entirely at odds with more recent approaches, where players are accused of metagaming unless they pretend to forget everything they've previously learned (cf endless pages about trolls and fire).

 

[FrogReaver]

I would not characterize, say, FitD clocks, 4e SCs, and TB2e contests as always being equivalent to a graph. In fact, my experience with SCs in particular tells me that this sort of presentation is often overly rigid. The GM is overthinking the thing when building it that way. The PCs will start at point X, but unexpectedly they will move off at a tangent to point P, which you did not anticipate at all, and now your cause-and-effect linkages, the edges of your graph, won't make sense anymore, etc. Clocks also can be structured in several ways, some of which I don't believe really map to a graph very well.

That being said, I don't think there's something inherently wrong with graphs/maps, but as the OP asserts, they do have specific purposes, usually in terms of regulating and limiting the choices available at a certain point.

So question on skill challenges because that’s the implementation I’m most acquainted with. How can one take into account the changing fiction after each success with a predefined number of successes before failures mandates. Even assuming the players make logical moves each check what prevents them from finding some shorter path to their goal? Say 2 successes should get them there in the fiction instead of 3? Or said another way, shouldn’t some actions have greater weight in the skill challenge than others?

Or an alternative ‘issue’ for something like clocks in BitD there is no mechanical timing mechanism for when the clock ticks. Which to me makes for a veneer of objectivity when it’s really arbitrary around when that clock ticks as the dm ultimately decides. That is the ticking clock is good for foreshadowing in an outside the fiction way, but it’s not really something the players can plan around or intentionally avoid. The DM has ample opportunity in the game to make any clock tick enough to fill. There’s always enough failures and successes with complication to do just that.

 

[pemerton]

A key element of rogue-likes is that they are intended for multiple plays. The player makes 'runs' from which they iterate better, more successful tactics for the next run.

This would be similar to an early approach to AD&D, where characters don't even get named until level 3 or 4.

But entirely at odds with more recent approaches, where players are accused of metagaming unless they pretend to forget everything they've previously learned (cf endless pages about trolls and fire).

That sounds like it is in the neighbourhood of map-and-key? Though I'm not sure if video games really compare to RPGs - I don't think there's coordination of fiction in the same way, as there is not the creation of a shared imagined space.

 

[pemerton]

So question on skill challenges because that’s the implementation I’m most acquainted with. How can one take into account the changing fiction after each success with a predefined number of successes before failures mandates. Even assuming the players make logical moves each check what prevents them from finding some shorter path to their goal? Say 2 successes should get them there in the fiction instead of 3? Or said another way, shouldn’t some actions have greater weight in the skill challenge than others?

There is no "shorter path". The idea of a skill challenge is to establish a degree of "weight" to the attempt to achieve some overall goal. The complexity of the challenge shapes pacing - eg complexity 4 or 5 means this thing won't be resolved quickly - and hence degree of focus/attention that play will give to the overall stakes of the challenge. Within the challenge, the GM's job is to narrate consequences that respond to each check, while keeping the challenge alive until the final resolution.

 

[pemerton]

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?

Here are some examples from actual play, when I GMed a session for a parent and two kids - I've started from the list of characters, to help the best interests make sense:

We ended up with the following (though the last came a bit later - see below).

*The high general Natan

*Ku-Aya, Natan's champion wielding the Spear of Power

*El-Mash, a rider in Natan's service, bearing his token

*Romulus, the brutal warlord, with a chest of gold

*Borak, a simple-minded thug in Romulus's army

*Destorak, the illusionist, and Romulus's jester

*Parya of the Steppes, the High Sorcereress and a wielder of wild magic​

The kids chose Destorak and Romulus as their PCs; the parent El-Mash; the rest were my NPCs.

<snip>

we worked out "particular strengths" (ie special abilities) for those characters who had them - Destorak's magic, Romulus's gold, El-Mash's Gift of Steeds (ie his preternatural riding ability) and Ku-Aya's Spear of Power.

Then we chose "best interests". I started, and chose for Ku-Aya that one of her best interests was to defeat Romulus in single combat. This gave the idea better than any explanation could, and also helped explain my earlier answer to one of the players' question "Are we, the PCs, working together?" - which I had answered "You don't have to." They worked out that I was going to be putting them in tricky situations, relative to their PCs', and my NPCs', best interests. I'm not going to list them all, but some that loomed large included Boraks' (have Romulus acknowledge me as an equal; gain Destorak's friendship), one of Natan's (never have El-Mash deliver his token), one of El-Mash's (to be victorious in the riding contest at Praya's great ziggurat), one of Parya's (have her kinship to ElMash remain secret), and both of Destorak's (seize the Spear of Power; have Parya take me on as her court illusionist). It was that last best interest that required us to add Parya to the cast of NPCs.

They are motivations/desires/goals - but authored, especially on the GM's side, to drive play by underpinning scenes that will prompt play. For instance, if I (as GM) frame a scene in which Destorak and Ku-Aya (with her spear) are present, and Destorak has the opportunity to ensorcell Ku-Aya, then Destorak's player will make the scene move.

I can make it more interesting if Parya is also in the scene, and Ku-Aya is flattering her or negotiating with her - because now Destorak might have to think about how to take the spear from Ku-Aya without making an enemy of Ku-Aya, or giving Ku-Aya a chance to turn Parya against him.

Or consider Parya's best interest - of keeping her kinship with El-Mash secret - in a scene with El-Mash, who wants to be victorious in the riding contest at Praya's ziggurat. That creates a tension, and also possibilities, that can drive the scene. And I can complicate by bringing in Natan - eg will Praya ally with Natan to try and thwart or crush El-Mash? Can El-Mash somehow turn Praya against Natan eg by promising to keep the secret?

The best interests establish relationships that suggest scenes/situations, but also stakes for those scene/situations. That's how they provide an alternative to map-and-key as a way to structure play, and help generate a progression from scene-to-scene.

Those all sound like goals or motivations. Is that a fair way of characterizing the description you just gave?

For instance an NPC I ran on Tuesday night.

• Wanted to find out what happened to her missing husband
• Was scared of and wanted to avoid the watch (In this case the PCs)
• Was scared of and wanted to avoid getting on the wrong side of a local crimelord that ruled the slums she lived in.

Is this the kind of thing we’re talking about?

Yes, but as I posted upthread:

"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.