Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[pemerton]

ON MAP & KEY PLAY BEING "A GUESSING GAME"

Just wanted to comment on this. Map & Key play isn't natively "a guessing game" in its skillfully GMed and skillfully played form. If Map & Key play has degenerated into "a guessing game," one failure state or another has occurred:

* GM mapping or keying or scenario design has failed.

My guess is that in a lot of the dungeons @Hussar is thinking of, this first of your four boxes is ticked.

Now whether that really counts as failure is a further question, depending on the point of play. If "solving the puzzle" of the dungeon is a low priority, then a dungeon which is designed so as to largely require guessing is not necessarily a failure. I've read WotC modules where the dungeon design seems intended to introduce colourful NPCs and interesting combat scenarios, rather than to be "solved" in the way a Torchbearer dungeon might be solved.

 

[Campbell]

I think the problem here is a word you use here: "set". To many people (and I'll admit up-front I'm one of them) if the situation is not decided until the moment, even if its derived from prior events (because, after all, what people will see as the obvious and logical/dramatically appropriate extension from that is going to vary considerably) its not "set". That is, indeed, pretty significant in its difference to many people, which is why you get "Shrodinger's X". To them, the difference between a predefined situation and one constructed as appropriate on the moment are vastly different.

There are a lot of reasons to prefer map and key play. I personally really enjoy it in the trad games I play. That puzzle solving dynamic can be a lot of fun for me personally. So can the ability to have those slice of life moments when time and pacing allows.

How we talk about this stuff matters though. No one's preferences are wrong. In all cases we are talking about games that are fundamentally contrived. How we arrive at those contrivances is different, but no form of play is more organic or real than another. It might feel that way to an individual, but in the spirit of this thread if we are to show empathy for each other we should remember that treating someone else's play like it is less real or legitimate is probably something we should avoid.

 

[pemerton]

I don't see any problem per se with any method you're preparing, but I would find this particular resolution very frustrating. The player is immediately caught before resolution begins, and did not have an opportunity for that not to be the case, even after stating that they specifically were trying not to be.

This feels significantly different, in that the PC has now achieved their stated intent.

A guard asking you what your business is isn't being caught. The stormtroopers asked Luke and Ben about their business in town - Luke and Ben didn't get caught!

Sometimes staking out a warehouse might be Acting Under Fire, and hence trigger a player side move. (For instance, suppose the guards know someone is trying to infiltrate the warehouse and so have really stepped up their efforts at keeping people out, moving trespassers along, etc.)

But there is no player side move "When you stake out a facility that restricts those who can enter . . ."; and so if that is the salient descriptor of the PC's action no move is triggered, and the GM's role is to make a move, typically a soft one. Putting someone in a spot is a reasonable soft move. It's not irrevocable.

And obviously it opens up the possibility of the PC using the guard as a way to get into the warehouse!

 

[Thomas Shey]

There are a lot of reasons to prefer map and key play. I personally really enjoy it in the trad games I play. That puzzle solving dynamic can be a lot of fun for me personally. So can the ability to have those slice of life moments when time and pacing allows.

How we talk about this stuff matters though. No one's preferences are wrong. In all cases we are talking about games that are fundamentally contrived. How we arrive at those contrivances is different, but no form of play is more organic or real than another. It might feel that way to an individual, but in the spirit of this thread if we are to show empathy for each other we should remember that treating someone else's play like it is less real or legitimate is probably something we should avoid.

I'm not saying one is more legitimate than the other; I think I've made that clear often enough. However, I think not acting like the temporality of those decisions mattering a great degree to some people is going to confuse what is going on in some of these discussions. As I've noted, semantic loading is a problem in almost all of them, but the whole "Schroedinger's X" line is an attempt by those for whom the temporality is bothersome to express why that is. As with "map and key" the fact its bothersome to those on the other side in some cases is a terminological problem, but those on the other have to express their problem with it in some way.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not saying one is more legitimate than the other; I think I've made that clear often enough. However, I think not acting like the temporality of those decisions mattering a great degree to some people is going to confuse what is going on in some of these discussions. As I've noted, semantic loading is a problem in almost all of them, but the whole "Schroedinger's X" line is an attempt by those for whom the temporality is bothersome to express why that is. As with "map and key" the fact its bothersome to those on the other side in some cases is a terminological problem, but those on the other have to express their problem with it in some way.

So I realize you like to kind of argue both sides a lot, play devil’s advocate and what not… but here you’re defending the use of loaded terms for one group to express dislike of a technique… and for that same group to complain about the use of what most folks would consider a totally benign term?

Seems odd.

 

[Manbearcat]

So I realize you like to kind of argue both sides a lot, play devil’s advocate and what not… but here you’re defending the use of loaded terms for one group to express dislike of a technique… and for that same group to complain about the use of what most folks would consider a totally benign term?

Seems odd.

Is it really that odd when you consider The First Law of Folks Stomping in With the Old Standard Boots?

 

[kenada]

Now whether that really counts as failure is a further question, depending on the point of play. If "solving the puzzle" of the dungeon is a low priority, then a dungeon which is designed so as to largely require guessing is not necessarily a failure. I've read WotC modules where the dungeon design seems intended to introduce colourful NPCs and interesting combat scenarios, rather than to be "solved" in the way a Torchbearer dungeon might be solved.

In that case, the dungeon is effectively a straight line¹, so there’s not really any guesswork. The PCs just need to make it through all the expected encounters until they reach the end.

---

[1]: See: Dungeon layout, map flow and old school game design.

 

[Campbell]

I'm not saying one is more legitimate than the other; I think I've made that clear often enough. However, I think not acting like the temporality of those decisions mattering a great degree to some people is going to confuse what is going on in some of these discussions. As I've noted, semantic loading is a problem in almost all of them, but the whole "Schroedinger's X" line is an attempt by those for whom the temporality is bothersome to express why that is. As with "map and key" the fact its bothersome to those on the other side in some cases is a terminological problem, but those on the other have to express their problem with it in some way.

I can definitely empathize with feeling frustrated and not having the right words to express that frustration. I think we should all show a little kindness there. I think we should also strive to find a way to accurately depict our frustrations and get the roots of them. Also realize that we can respect something even if we would not prefer it.

 

[pemerton]

In that case, the dungeon is effectively a straight line¹, so there’s not really any guesswork. The PCs just need to make it through all the expected encounters until they reach the end.

Sure. But it still uses map-and-key to support framing and resolution. (And not necessarily in a purely redundant way. Eg there might be a couple of side chambers, and the map and key are used to resolve action declarations like "We check out the one on the left.)

 

[pemerton]

I find "Schroedinger's X" unhelpful because it uses "Schroedinger's" as an adjective of a component of the fiction - X - which is not an accurate description of that fictional element.

The obvious terms for the general technique, which is well established, is no-/low-myth. In the past I've also called it "just in time" GMing or "just in time" authorship of fictional elements.