Alternatives to map-and-key

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ok. Then I definitely do not think "map and key" is the default. Perhaps @Micah Sweet understood it more broadly as well?


So you then agree with me that in skill challenges no solution is better than other and what the players do do not matter? So it is just a mechanical framework to prompt fiction generation?

And you're assuming that a party who deploys some far less effective methods are ever in line for success! Honestly, there's an answer here within the SC system, which is graduated levels of success coupled with fail-forward techniques.

So, your party has some good idea, of course that effects the ongoing fiction. They get extra success, removed failures, whatever perhaps. But fundamentally the risks inherent in their better fictional position are key. Give them less risky stuff, they're outside the jail now, even if they need to pass a couple more checks to finish it, even failing those just means there's someone on their tail.

These kinds of systems, clocks and SCs do work fine, they're just not ideal tools to wedge into your unstructured play without improving the play, perhaps?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The main difference I see is that with the skill challenge, the number of successes and failures are set and known ahead of time. The players are aware of the success or failure conditions.

The method you’re describing keeps that hidden from them. And that seems very important.

You describe the SC process as hollow because the players are able to declare how they address the challenge. And that it is not hollow if the GM is deciding these things and keeping the overall process hidden from them.

Your assumption here is that only the GM is capable of deciding how a challenge may be addressed. Another is that the players will somehow try to always “spam” their highest rated skill. That players are not able to restrain themselves from tying to persuade a cliff face.

I think those assumptions are flawed.

It is not "hidden" it is just unknown to all participants, as we do not yet know what sort of actions the characters might take and how the fictional position might develop. And this is important, as engaging with the fictional positioning is the point. Here players actually have far more agency as what they do matters much more.

People keep saying that skill challenges are about fiction, but to me it seems obvious that this is not true. If the actions taken regarding fictional positioning are such that they would overcome the obstacle with few rolls this does not matter, as if the predetermined number of successes has not yet been reached, the GM will just frame more obstacles so that the players get to roll more. It is clear to me that here the fiction is in service of the rules here rather than the other way around. And if you like this, that's fine, but let's not try to obfuscate what's actually happening.

How do you know what elements the characters might care about?

Because I know what sort of people they are.

 

[The Firebird]

I mean… do people really think that players are going to use Athletics on the guard and Persuade on the cliff? Like, the presence of a set number of successes needed suddenly makes players make absurd requests?

No. That is why I said they have to have a minimum amount of plausibility. Once that has been reached though, anything goes.

But not knowing that means they make reasonable requests?

"Not knowing" here means they are relying on the world rather than the mechanics to inform their decision making. That leads to more reasonable actions in the context of the world.

Very often, it will be exactly as the GM has described in his notes. He’ll dictate the relevant skills and their DCs ahead of time based on what he thinks is plausible, and during play, will allow or disallow alternate actions… again, based on what he thinks is plausible. He’s pre-determining the means of success, or at the very least greatly reducing the possibilities.

This has not been my experience.

Thoughtfully considering everyone's comments. Regarding the arbitrariness of clocks:

The table was introduced to their 1st countdown clock ever this weekend. In the fiction, they'd been involved in a recent conflict moments before, were wounded and had no time for recovery.

I asked them to take a d6 and place it in front of them on "4." They immediately asked what for?

It represented roughly the amount of time it'd take for their opponents to make their getaway on a boat, which they could see. The clock began to tick.

As soon as it ticked once, they stopped attempting to cut down everyone, and focused their attention entirely on the boat.

I like this kind of clock mechanic especially if the players can see their opponents preparing for a getaway. In-universe, the PCs are watching and can gauge about how long it may be, but communicating that effectively could require longer descriptions each round. This cuts to the chase and helps orient them with what their PCs know.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It is not "hidden" it is just unknown to all participants, as we do not yet know what sort of actions the characters might take and how the fictional position might develop. And this is important, as engaging with the fictional positioning is the point. Here players actually have far more agency as what they do matters much more.

People keep saying that skill challenges are about fiction, but to me it seems obvious that this is not true. If the actions taken regarding fictional positioning are such that they would overcome the obstacle with few rolls this does not matter, as if the predetermined number of successes has not yet been reached, the GM will just frame more obstacles so that the players get to roll more. It is clear to me that here the fiction is in service of the rules here rather than the other way around. And if you like this, that's fine, but let's not try to obfuscate what's actually happening.



Because I know what sort of people they are.

Bah! You don't know how many is the 'right number' of checks either, so telling me that 12 or whatever the SC says is 'wrong' is just nonsense. You, the GM can resolve your jailbreak at any point, or keep it going one more throw of the dice, simply to please your own sensibility. Don't tell me you can't, and don't tell me that is superior to my fixed number. It isn't.

And let me be clear, I think that using an undefined sequence of rolls can be OK-ish. If the GM is highly disciplined and very clear about the ongoing fiction and what each choice implies in terms of what and how much is likely to come next. I just don't think it is a BETTER system.

But lets get back to basics here, "we roll some dice" is not any of the things the OP is talking about.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The way I describe it isn't insulting to both the players and the GM? It also doesn't gloss over the degree of control the players have over the fiction through their PCs, as your description does.

Well, it’s not “my” description. Nor do I think it necessarily does either of the things you say it does.

Anything else? Anything more objective?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No. That is why I said they have to have a minimum amount of plausibility. Once that has been reached though, anything goes.

Yes, of course. All of us who would use an SC are obviously such incompetent fools that we can't judge actions and appropriate circumstances and just don't care. We all just throw up our hands and say "yeah, anything goes!" I am so embarrassed at my own ineptitude. I must study your trad genius so I can see the light!

"Not knowing" here means they are relying on the world rather than the mechanics to inform their decision making. That leads to more reasonable actions in the context of the world.

This has nothing to do with 'decision making', the players are making their decisions for their PCs based on the fiction. There's no link between that the game structure of SCs, which simply regulate reward cycles, and help to gauge when a scene or 'unit of play' is over.

This has not been my experience.

OK, lets stop fooling around, lets see it. No more abstract claims. Show me, hammer and tongs, how did you do it? Real table situations, actual characters, enough vague talk.

I like this kind of clock mechanic especially if the players can see their opponents preparing for a getaway. In-universe, the PCs are watching and can gauge about how long it may be, but communicating that effectively could require longer descriptions each round. This cuts to the chase and helps orient them with what their PCs know.

I think that clocks work, but you have to be very clear about how a given clock works, and you have to be clear about what the stakes are in other respects, like what am I giving up if I go pay attention to this clock? BitD uses them a lot, and it provides that kind of clarity. Now, the example @Piperken gave also seems to do that, the players presumably understand combat and the stakes there pretty well, and they have been told how, why and when the clock will tick, and what it represents. In more complex cases this may need a bit more attention.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Bah! You don't know how many is the 'right number' of checks either, so telling me that 12 or whatever the SC says is 'wrong' is just nonsense.

What is "wrong" is that it is the same amount regardless of what the characters do. This trivialises the fictional position and choices the players make. Now if you don't care about those things mattering, then it obviously is perfectly fine.

You, the GM can resolve your jailbreak at any point, or keep it going one more throw of the dice, simply to please your own sensibility.

I can't. Because I have preset obstacles and principle about how the rules are implemented.

Don't tell me you can't, and don't tell me that is superior to my fixed number. It isn't.

It is superior for making the fiction the matter.

And let me be clear, I think that using an undefined sequence of rolls can be OK-ish. If the GM is highly disciplined and very clear about the ongoing fiction and what each choice implies in terms of what and how much is likely to come next. I just don't think it is a BETTER system.

I think it is better for agency and fiction mattering. It might not be better for some other purposes, granted it is unclear to me what those might be.

But lets get back to basics here, "we roll some dice" is not any of the things the OP is talking about.

No, but I don't think it is unrelated either. If we understand "map and key" more broadly, the question is how we determine what challenges are and how they are overcome outside of a fixed fictional reality as a reference frame. Skill challenges and similar structures are one answer to that, I just don't think it is particularly good one.

 

[soviet]

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

I don't understand how skill challenges, uniquely among all the mechanics of D&D, are apparently not open to GM discretion and judgement. GMs apparently have infinite power to ignore the dice, deceive the players, and negate their input, but once a skill challenge starts up he is helpless. A player wants to persuade a cliff to let him climb up it? Fine, the GM isn't allowed to say no. A player wants to use his Smiths Tools proficiency to impress the King into signing the treaty? Also fine. A player just wants to spam Athletics six times until the whole matter is concluded? Of course.

Surely GMs can just apply the same discretion and input to SCs that they can to any skill check outside of a SC?

In terms of doing something so impressive that it should technically resolve the SC there and then: Surely any GM who has ever said 'What you said there was so convincing you don't actually need to roll Persuasion, automatic success' can simply do that here? Surely any GM who has ever said 'OK you guys have won this fight, let's just say you mop up the last few goblins and move on' can also simply do that here? On what basis do people think the rules (here, uniquely) lock you into following a set procedure that everyone in the group is apparently bored by?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, it’s not “my” description. Nor do I think it necessarily does either of the things you say it does.

Anything else? Anything more objective?

This isn't an objective discussion. Map and key is not objectively inferior to not map and key.

 

[The Firebird]

Yes, of course. All of us who would use an SC are obviously such incompetent fools that we can't judge actions and appropriate circumstances and just don't care. We all just throw up our hands and say "yeah, anything goes!" I am so embarrassed at my own ineptitude. I must study your trad genius so I can see the light!

Not what I said.

This has nothing to do with 'decision making', the players are making their decisions for their PCs based on the fiction. There's no link between that the game structure of SCs, which simply regulate reward cycles, and help to gauge when a scene or 'unit of play' is over.

In my experience, in games with skill challenges or progress clocks, I'm making decisions for my PC based on what I think will fill the clock the fastest. The game becomes "how do I convince the GM Hunt is relevant" rather than "how would my character overcome this obstacle".

OK, lets stop fooling around, lets see it. No more abstract claims. Show me, hammer and tongs, how did you do it? Real table situations, actual characters, enough vague talk.

The original claim here was:

I believe surprise is possible, sure…I don’t agree it’s all the time. I think it’s less likely than thjngs going exactly how the GM has expected.

Very often, it will be exactly as the GM has described in his notes. He’ll dictate the relevant skills and their DCs ahead of time based on what he thinks is plausible, and during play, will allow or disallow alternate actions… again, based on what he thinks is plausible. He’s pre-determining the means of success, or at the very least greatly reducing the possibilities.

Recently, players in my game chose to head to a keep deep in the woods, which was from Sailors on the Starless Sea (DCC). The keep has a gatehouse (guarded) and you can also get in via a rubble pile from a broken section of wall around back. The notes say that when the gatehouse guards are alerted, they ring a bell and flee to a nearby tower. It describes how the tower is fortified against entry from the ground level, the way you would attack if you went through the gate or the rubble.

My players elected instead to climb the wall. This let them assault the tower simultaneously from the ground and upper level, flanking the defenders. Because the module doesn't expect this (it is a more difficult option), there is no information about how the defenders respond--does their morale break more easily? How do their tactics change? It required improvisation compared to the written notes and was surprising after my read through. It caused the module to develop differently than a straight reading would suggest.

What means of success do you think are disallowed based on the notes?