Alternatives to map-and-key

[Micah Sweet]

In a discussions like this that essentially asks the question "what are some uncommon / lesser known ways of doing X?" What exactly is the point of emphasizing the most common game? What's the point of weighing it so high?
The whole point is to talk about other approaches and methods.
In this context if we are assigning "weights" to the discussion of default methodology of play D&D (and similar) gets 1, world of darkness (all of the editions) gets 1, all fate system games get one, all pbta games get's one, probably all GMless story-games gets 1, all BRP games gets 1, etc.

Because the unit of measure is the number of default methods of play not "how many people play a particular way."

Anyway, I'm planning on leaving this particular point at that, to avoid derailing the discussion.

In that case the OP should characterize the discussion as "what are some uncommon/lesser known ways of doing x". In short, explicitly rule out the majority, as I suggested above.

 

[FrogReaver]

It is a measure of difficulty. The wider the gap between needed success and failures, the more likely failure is.

Sure. But there’s no basis for which goal should be difficult and which shouldn’t be. Which demonstrates the arbitrariness of using different ones for different difficulties.

Another factor is how many PCs are involved. If the number of successes you need is lower than the number of PCs, for example, then not everyone is going to be able to be effective in the test.

It’s more nuanced though, as some PCs will fail and even the same PC can do all the checks.

In the basic form of this, what you try to do has to at least be plausibly effective. If trying to convince a Senator to vote as you want, doing push-ups at him probably won't help.

My point doesn’t rely on the implausible. I’m perfectly content looking just at plausible actions. Even here, the actions should fictionally carry different weights and have different impacts.

But, once the general idea is in place, there's variations. Maybe some actions seem more effective, and will be worth more. Or maybe it is a longer-term clock, and we are talking about entire scenes that support the goal, instead of round-based actions.

The whole point is that all successes are worth the same.

This isn't used for all goals. If the GM has framed a thing that can be addressed wit a single PC action, it's kind of a challenge-design failure. Much as a single one-hit-die goblin doesn't pose much of a combat challenge to 12th level characters most of the time.

What do you mean it’s not used for goals?

Also note... this is actually of the same form as combat, just with fewer pre-specified, specialized inputs. Combat is "Score X hit points of damage on the monster before it scores Y hit points of damage on you."

Similar in some respects but different in some key ones.

1. Failure for combat actions doesn’t move you closer to defeat, it preserves the status quo.

2. Different combat actions have different weights and impacts with respect to winning the battle.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But, it isn't necessarily specifically related to a map.

The players need to succeed at 6 actions that would plausibly aid them in achieving their goal, before 3 things go wrong. Going from point A to point B on the map might be a success. But so might putting together a disguise, or getting a local to describe the guard's shift schedule, or obtaining sufficient rope to scale the walls....

And, for this, the things the players might succeed at don't need to be pre-determined by the GM - you don't need a map (or chart, or graph) of them for the players to navigate. The player can think, "Hey, would X be helpful?" and the GM can say yes, and do a little scene in which the players try to do X.

Rather than think of it like navigating a map, you might think of it as narrating a montage scene.

I like your description. What I found is that it leads to a lot of distribution of authority over the salience, and shape, of the fiction. So, there could be a lot of things which might be salient to, say, sneaking into the Princess's Quarters in the Palace. Which things the players describe as actions are going to shape what matters and how the GM frames scenes. If you disguise yourself, then that probably leads to "a guard checks your papers!" Or whatever.

If the above was all mapped out ahead, via nodes or whatever, the sequences and options would be pretty fixed and predetermined. 4e allowed for an SC like this, by simply gating each skill use behind conditions, etc. But the more interesting case is as you describe, freeform. There may be primary skills, but the situations are developed on the fly and basically the players have enough leeway to invent an approach at each point. Maybe not carte Blanc, but at least if the player names something fictionally appropriate they should get told what it involves. Now the restrictions on repeat skill use get translated into fictional positions. At some point the GM is obliged to narrate success, or failure.

 

[Thondor]

In that case the OP should characterize the discussion as "what are some uncommon/lesser known ways of doing x". In short, explicitly rule out the majority, as I suggested above.

I think they did. Implicitly if not explicitly in the OP.

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:

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.

Yes, but as I posted upthread:

I get that. Makes sense. These add a lot of depth to NPCs. Make running NPCs much easier and give the PCs lots or interact with.

So much so that I don’t think they need to be mutually exclusive with Map&Key or Events. Rather they would enhance any structure they are used in.

Alright so it seems like the "best interests" that Permerton is talking about could be generalized, because there do seem to be a number of games that tend to structure themselves this way.
I think this tends to harken to more "drama" and less "adventure" based play. Characters will (at least sometimes) have opposing goals.

A general term might be something like "Conflicting Agenda's." These agenda's might be in conflict with other player's or important NPCs, and each player probably has a few goals. The agenda's can be mechanized in various ways, but the game play element that defines this method of play is that the "agendas" are explicitly stated, written down, and all players at the table are made aware of them in a "meta" fashion.

Some games that do this:
Spark engine games (Spark, Sig: Manual of the Primes, After the War). Each player has 3 beliefs. The point of play is to challenge these in play and either double down, or revise them.
All Sword Edge Publishing game's (Centurion, Sword Noir, Sword's Edge, Nefertiti Overdrive) have "pivots." These are goals a player has that drive play in a significant way.
Smallville RPG (Cortex plus ish) is really a kind of "soap opera the rpg, with powers." It has 6 values and each player creates a statement for each value that is really meant to come into conflict over during play. It also has relationship dice between characters, and NPCs. It also has elaborate character webs as a part of character creation.
Hillfolk (dramasystem) probably also fits here.
I want to say something like Fiasco might even be here too . . . but I played it once a long time ago.

In Simple Superheroes #1, I talk about building character webs between players (each other), NPCs and the world. Setting up connections between characters can be a significant guiding force to play.
I then do this for all NPCs and a couple locations of the scenario "The Experiment." That's not the only part of the scenario design though, the other major part is a possible event list.

 

[Argyle King]

Re: D&D 4E Skill Challenges

I've said this elsewhere, but I ran them very differently when I was running 4E.

Instead of X successes before Y failures, I allowed #N total rolls and then used the Margin of Success (if I can steal a GURPS term for a moment) or Margin of Failure to determine a spectrum of possible results.

So, let's say you're trying to negotiate with the Goblin King from my previous post. Turns out that he is friendly to the PCs due to their role in helping him get rich via killing the dragon and leaving the hoard behind. So, he's open to an audience requesting aid to safely travel through an area, and the results are tilted toward being mostly good for the PCs based upon a positive opinion of the PCs.

So, maybe I allow 5 total rolls.
•Over 5 success (possible with critical success); the king spares his best warrior and a contingent of goblin gongfarmer militia (minions) to help guide you through Kobold Pass, and gifts you a magic item that was found as part of the treasure hoard.
•5 successes; the magic item and the militia
•4 success/1 fail; the militia
•3/2; 2 militia guides and maybe a mundane item that will help overcome a known terrain obstacle
•2/3; he would like to help but can't because of [problem that PCs could possibly help with]
•1/4; he appreciates what the PCs have done in the past, but they've insulted him in some way or there's some other reason why he refuses help
•0/5; outright refuses help and may be hostile depending upon something the PCs said or did to ruin the relationship.
•More than 5 failures; refuses and is also actively hostile

There may also be times that a failure or success could be counted without a roll at all if something specific that the PCs said or did was especially relevant to the situation. A lot of that was based on feel and what made sense given the particular challenge.

There were also other skill challenge structures I sometimes used that also differed from the by-the-book way of doing it.

 

[TheSword]

I think they did. Implicitly if not explicitly in the OP.





Alright so it seems like the "best interests" that Permerton is talking about could be generalized, because there do seem to be a number of games that tend to structure themselves this way.
I think this tends to harken to more "drama" and less "adventure" based play. Characters will (at least sometimes) have opposing goals.

A general term might be something like "Conflicting Agenda's." These agenda's might be in conflict with other player's or important NPCs, and each player probably has a few goals. The agenda's can be mechanized in various ways, but the game play element that defines this method of play is that the "agendas" are explicitly stated, written down, and all players at the table are made aware of them in a "meta" fashion.

Some games that do this:
Spark engine games (Spark, Sig: Manual of the Primes, After the War). Each player has 3 beliefs. The point of play is to challenge these in play and either double down, or revise them.
All Sword Edge Publishing game's (Centurion, Sword Noir, Sword's Edge, Nefertiti Overdrive) have "pivots." These are goals a player has that drive play in a significant way.
Smallville RPG (Cortex plus ish) is really a kind of "soap opera the rpg, with powers." It has 6 values and each player creates a statement for each value that is really meant to come into conflict over during play. It also has relationship dice between characters, and NPCs. It also has elaborate character webs as a part of character creation.
Hillfolk (dramasystem) probably also fits here.
I want to say something like Fiasco might even be here too . . . but I played it once a long time ago.

In Simple Superheroes #1, I talk about building character webs between players (each other), NPCs and the world. Setting up connections between characters can be a significant guiding force to play.
I then do this for all NPCs and a couple locations of the scenario "The Experiment." That's not the only part of the scenario design though, the other major part is a possible event list.

That all makes sense.

I couldn’t play this way with NPC agendas and goals out on the table upfront because for me that destroys investigation and mystery. Part of the enjoyment of roleplaying is discovering these things and working out how they fit together through my enquiries and roleplaying - not having them laid out up front.

Though I get how some might like it though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

This is a good question. So this assumes that the GM baked a path into the SC, like the graphs mentioned elsewhere. This is certainly possible, and the problem you mention is then relevant. The GM could either force things back on track, or rewrite the SC on the fly, including additional obstacles where needed. Neither strikes me as terribly elegant.

But in the case where there is no such 'map' this is a non-issue. There are going to be between 4 and 6 obstacles in your complexity 1 SC. As the SC starts the GM will describe a situation with some kind of obstacle or solution required for the overall problem. The players can invent most anything they wish, within some limits, to move forward, and their solution will inform the resulting fiction. When they get to the required success count, the goal is reached.

Obviously the GM is going to take the current degree of progress into account as part of the narrative. This usually works fine, but it does imply a fairly significant role for the players in determining the fiction. I do consider 4e to be capable of Narrativist play, and my own game took this framework to its logical extreme, governing all conflicts in play.

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.

The answer here is to establish the criteria for ticking at the outset. Alternatively the GM can state what will be the consequences of a given player move in clock terms. Note how position and effect are clearly quantified in BitD. Almost as if on purpose...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I get that. Makes sense. These add a lot of depth to NPCs. Make running NPCs much easier and give the PCs lots or interact with.

So much so that I don’t think they need to be mutually exclusive with Map&Key or Events. Rather they would enhance any structure they are used in.

I don't think the two must be mutually exclusive, but they will have to share. As the race happens at the pyramid, if the map dictates a narrative, then to the extent it does that, it will push motives out of the spotlight. If Praya can't ambush El-Mash because he's behind the pyramid, then geography is driving the fiction, and the player is motivated to make geographic decisions. If, OTOH, the geography is secondary, then it may still be used as an explanation for an outcome, but it is not causal in game terms.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yea that’s along the same thought lines I’d had, though said much more eloquently.

My point was more that if someone wanted those decisions to be part of the challenge or have weight and impact more directly tied to the current fictional position then 4e skill challenges aren’t a great fit. They would actually be getting in the way of that kind of gameplay.

But that 'someone' can only be the GM. Yes, at first glance SCs, used in a freeform fashion, are fairly favorable to player-side decisions about salience and position. But don't give up on the GM! First the GM sets the complexity of the challenge, so they have a bunch of leeway here. The challenge itself is a type of encounter, so doesn't dictate the shape of an entire adventure. The GM also gets to set DCs, primary and secondary skills, can declare secondary use as mapping to something other than success/failure, and finally narrates the outcome and thus situation leading up to the next check.

I do agree, up to a point, with @Pedantic , but you can create some pretty thorny challenges with SCs! Much like you can with 4e combat encounters.

 

[Umbran]

Sure. But there’s no basis for which goal should be difficult and which shouldn’t be. Which demonstrates the arbitrariness of using different ones for different difficulties.

There's no basis for which combat encounter should be difficult, and which shouldn't, either. That's, in most common playstyles, still in the GM's purview.

It’s more nuanced though, as some PCs will fail and even the same PC can do all the checks.

Yes. The point is that this is a dial the GM can turn.

My point doesn’t rely on the implausible.

You were talking about grounding in the fiction. Being plausibly effective is about grounding the thing in the fiction: Does this action make sense in the fiction to move the party towards the goal, or not?

I’m perfectly content looking just at plausible actions. Even here, the actions should fictionally carry different weights and have different impacts.

So, this is an abstraction and simplification.

The whole point is that all successes are worth the same.

No. That is not "the whole point". The whole point is to have a technique in the toolbox that a GM can use with little prep, with just a couple parameters to tweak, that done well is more smooth, loose, quick, and open to player creativity and engagement than the typically highly-designed and prepared challenge.

That said, you were presented with the most basic version of this technique. I've found it to usually be sufficient, but if you have a bug about it, having the GM decide how many ticks one action gets you won't have the Game Police coming to drag you away or anything. You can tart it up. It won't explode.

But, as you tart it up more and more, you lose more and more of the actual point, until you are in a situation that is equivalent to running atomic, six-second rounds per normal.

What do you mean it’s not used for goals?

Read carefully. I said you don't use this for ALL goals. Sometimes, the PCs set goals that are achieved more simply, and don't need this structure.

Similar in some respects but different in some key ones.

1. Failure for combat actions doesn’t move you closer to defeat, it preserves the status quo.

You are being a bit too strict in thinking "an action" in this technique is like one player's turn in a combat.

We can use this technique to describe a fight. But then, a success is, broadly, "you dish it out", and a failure is "you take a hit". If you don't dish out enough before you take too much, you lose the fight.

2. Different combat actions have different weights and impacts with respect to winning the battle.

Eh. Used to be, way back when, all damage was 1d6.

I already said this technique has fewer pre-specified, specialized inputs - it is a bit more abstract than typical D&D combat, but thereby allows more freeform input from your players.