dungeon crawls and relationship maps

[talysman]

in another forum, I started a discussion about GMless role-playing (defined loosely to include any shared or rotating GM duties.) I started the thread mainly because it was obvious from other comments that most of the people there had a very firm belief that all role-playing games had a single player who held a specific role, the "GM", which had strong control of the world, story, and rules. my purpose was purely informative: my post covered historical examples of GMless role-play as well as techniques of getting GMless play to work.

none of that is relevant here, of course, because we've all seen GMless games and know the various techniques. however, while discussing history and defining the term "auteur GM" (GM as creator of story -- in other words, any Illusionist or Participatory technique,) I contrasted the technique with the original approach of the dungeon crawl. I think something like this has already been mentioned on the Forge, but here is how I phrased it in the thread:

the GM's duties in this style of play is to "set up the board"; there is no GM "story", although there may be a backstory explaining how the setting came to be the way it is, or NPCs may have plans and goals rather than merely waiting around for the PCs to mug them. the story is really up to the players, not the GM.

now, what I later started to discuss was that "setting up the board" does not necessarily mean a dungeon map, but can cover quite a few things. one of the specific ideas I had in mind was relationship maps -- because it occurred to me that setting up a relationship map is analogous to stocking a dungeon. this doesn't mean that it's used in a bland manner -- because a stocked dungeon doesn't need to be used blandly, either.

but yes, I do think that functionally, the two are similar... which sort of helped me to understand more something Ron has said a couple times: that Gamism and Narrativism are more like each other than they are like Simulationism. the two modes share a common approach in some ways, one of which (I think) is that they work much better when "story" and "success" is not a part of the setting, but arises naturally from play in some kind of "map" or matrix. the GM's duty (when present) is not to author the "story", but to compare the current position in the matrix/map with the player's decisions and interpret the results. depending on the system used and the GM's approach, the map may be very rudimentary with most of the results improvised, or may be more detailed, needing only the player input.

where am I going with all this?

first, I just thought it was an interesting insight; some people might appreciate the thoughts it stirs up.

second, I began to think how to adapt this principle to other kinds of maps. obviously, one possibility for a political game would be to include countries on the relationship map. you could generalize this to any kind of social interactions between groups. another possibility is to have the map represent ideas, with the play thus focusing on evolution of knowledge... a game based on Connections, maybe?

so I guess the question is: does anyone have any thoughts on how to approach the abstracted map concept, or on other ways to adapt the concept to new modes of play? maybe divide the types of story into Event, Place, Idea, and Character stories, with each having its own subtypes of maps and its own typical map entries?

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah, the only difference in much Narrativist or Gamist GMing is what sort of obstacles one places in front of the characters. Are they meant for the players to overcome, and prove their play prowess? Or are they meant to be points at which the character has to make decisions, thus creating story? Otherwise there are definite potential similarities.

This is all very problematic, however:

does anyone have any thoughts on how to approach the abstracted map concept, or on other ways to adapt the concept to new modes of play? maybe divide the types of story into Event, Place, Idea, and Character stories, with each having its own subtypes of maps and its own typical map entries?

What do you mean by Modes of play? Sim? Or do you just mean other arenas than personal or "dungeon".

When you say "stories" do you mean something like "potential stories"? You don't mean to imply pre-plotting, do you?

Just need to get the question straight befor answering.

Mike

[Matt Wilson]

Hey John:

I'm thinking, from what you're saying, that it'd be kind of cool to play a gamist game with a relationship map, or even combine a dungeon crawl with one. The kobolds in area 5 are trying to take over the bugbears' lair, but the bugbears bought a magic item from the evil priests in area 11 in exchange for some labor digging up the idol in area 15. One of the priests has been approached by a kobold, and ...

That would make for a pretty cool crawl, I think.

-Matt

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I'd like to note that yet again, people are mixing up "relationship map" with "back-story" and "what NPCs all think of one another."

The latter two things are wonderful in any role-playing game. The former thing is a fine way to make the latter two much more intense in terms of real-person emotions and judgments.

I guess there's no point in outlining it any further.

Best,
Ron

[efindel]

Well, Ron might not feel like outlining it further, but I will!

A "relationship map" as the term is used in Sorcerer involves only certain kinds of relationships -- namely, kinship and current or past sex/love relationships.

So, rather than things like "the kobolds are trying to take over the bugbears' lair", a relationship map has things like "the chieftains of the two orc tribes are brothers" or "the evil priest is in love with the maiden."

"Kinship map" might be a better way to think of it.  What generates interesting bits is the way other relationships and actions cross it.  Why are the two brothers leading competing orc tribes, instead of working together?  How will the evil priest reconcile his duty to the dark gods with his love?

That's what a Sorcerer relationship map is about -- how people are related in the basic ways of love and family, and then how that interacts with the circumstances they're in.

--Travis

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

A little private messaging just went on ...

Matt, he goes:

I'd like to note that yet again, people are mixing up "relationship map" with "back-story" and "what NPCs all think of one another."

Well, by people presumably you mean me. I bought the book where you explain what it is, and apparently I still don't get it. Can you explain why a RM isn't back story + opinions? What else is it?

And I'm all, like,

No, "people" isn't just you. This is a widespread thing.

A relationship map, by definition, uses kin-relations and sexual contact for its primary links among people. These links may or may not be lines of "travel" for PCs to follow. They definitely don't include how a character feels or thinks about other characters. The whole point is that the lines can never go away. Even if character X now hates character Y with all his heart, even though in the previous session he loved her, the line is still the line it was.

Here's one variant that I think is relevant to your point. Seth ben-Ezra introduces the notion of "storymap" in Legends of Alyria, which is best described as a relationship map with a ton of context, priorities, and events. People pick characters from the storymap to play. It's a very effective convention or one-shot method of prepping, but it's an application of relationship mapping, and in my view, a fairly limiting one.

Another variant, which I think is the kind of "social map" you're describing, I think, is indeed very much like a dungeon. You'll find them in GURPS Goblins and also implied in a lot of 90s scenarios and rulebooks. These are also very useful play devices, but may or may not have relationship map elements (and those elements may or may not be interesting or relevant).

People have been using my term "relationship map" for both of these devices for a while, and it seems very hard for them to see why they're getting off the rails.

I've been deciding how I want to participate in the thread, but the main thing for me now is to say that you *are* discussing something important, but it's not relationship mapping. Do you think it would help for me to lay out the ideas like I did above, and then we can get to talking about the good stuff you've brought up?

So Matt goes:

Okay, if I'm understanding right, your meaning for RM is something permanent and unremoveable, as in "he will always be my brother, though I despise him so."

I can see its immediate application to scenarios that encourage narrativist situations, but there are a lot of cultural and genre-related assumptions in saying that blood and sex are the exclusive biggies. Why only those two? I'm kind of interested in the idea that the limiting factors of a RM might change depending on your game setting. If your setting is "Brave New World," what would replace them?

And I go:

Oh, we've been over this ground a lot of times ... way back on GO, and lots in the Adept Press forum. In fact, Seth's storymap method literally emerged from those discussions.

Here's what you're missing: no one said anything about those lines of connection being the only things in the actual play and story.

there are a lot of cultural and genre-related assumptions in saying that blood and sex are the exclusive biggies

I disagree. Culture, genre, foreign, ancient vs. modern, whatever you want to point at, there they are.

Granted, if that's all we're talking about, you get a lot of "see Dick run" kind of stories. But as I keep saying, using a relationship map is a foundation, not a straitjacket. If you'd like to comment, as an author, on the importance of ties that are not based on, for instance, kinship, then it'd be important to have some kinship in there as a basis for the comment, wouldn't it?

They are the exclusive biggies in terms of what everything else is pulling apart or over-riding. Can you override kinship? Sure - but you can't do without it as an issue. The total absence of a family in a story automatically provides a comment on alienation; more commonly, the family is evident in dialogue, flashback, or any other sort of internal context even if they're not physically present.

Brave New World emphatically supports the notion that such connections are central, and that removing them creates a "thing" which, although it is two-legged and social, is not a human being. That's what the book is about.

Matt, he says,

All right, I think I see where it's going. So the "sex" relationship is really about intimacy or a desire for it. Ed and Gina hooked up, and she didn't think much of it, but Ed still wants Gina, and presto.

Am I getting it now?

I say,

Just as "kin" is a general term for parent, child, brother, sister, cousin, etc, "sex" is a general term for affair, marriage, one-night-stand, grope session, etc.

I do tend to avoid "wants to" in the sex category - that's a motive or desire, not an incontrovertible established sexual act.

However! As I've said many times ... once you set up the primary lines, other characters can then be hooked on by secondary ones, which are usually preambles to sex or obligations like jobs.

And Matt finally says,

Ah, so by your RM thinking, the line between Lancelot and Gueneviere isn't really a primary line, so to speak, at the start of that story.

And about then we take it here to public, and I say, sure, although "that story" is a whole bunch of stories, and a lot of them start with that line established.

Best,
Ron

[talysman]

I'd like to note that yet again, people are mixing up "relationship map" with "back-story" and "what NPCs all think of one another."

yes, but deliberately.

it's true that, strictly speaking, a relationship map is just a matrix of connections between characters without backstory or personality notes, much the same way as a dungeon map is a matrix of connections between physical areas and what is in these areas. but just as putting an ogre in a room next to some goblins can imply interactions by invoking the personalities and backstories in a particular combination, so does noting that Bob used to work for Carl. in either one, essentially, you have islands of backstory embedded in a matrix.

so yeah, you can combine more than one kind of map/matrix to add more detail, as Matt suggested. I've seen some "crawl"-style modules that had a relationship map sort of built into the dungeon. and yes, the idea that you are thus playing in a relationship map the same as you would play in a dungeon is one of the concepts that jumped out at me when I wrote the original article. you can play on relationship map in a Gamist way... and conversely, you can play in a dungeon map in a Narrativist way.

an elaboration on this concept: people have commented in the past on the rather unusual morality of the traditional adventure party/dungeon crawl form of play. here we have a group of people stealing for a living; in some cases, they are robbers, stealing by force, in others, they are robbing from the dead. that right there could be the basis of Narrativist play: what would you be willing to do for wealth? is robbing the dead ok? do you draw the line at killing intelligent humanoids?

of course, this is a side point. I think there have already been people playing Narrativist dungeon crawls or Gamist or Sim crawls with relationship maps as an added value. what I'm more interested in is the possibility of other kinds of mapping or other techniques of using spatial or relationship maps as a gaming technique. new modes of play, as I suggested. (no, Mike, not GNS modes; I mean modes in the ordinary sense.) like, for example, the suggestion of an Innovation Map I briefly mentioned. at some point, I was planning on writing a hard sf space exploration game; maybe I'll think more about Innovation Maps as a possible technique for that game.

it's just a thread to toy with theories about rpg tools.

[talysman]

ok, I crossposted, otherwise I might have added these comments to clear things up:

1. I do understand Ron's use of relationship map, although I tend to include economic and other relationships in the map -- perhaps mixing a little bit more backstory into the map than Ron would, but I see the important part of a relationship map being "if X sees Y or hears someone mention Y in conversation, has X had a relationship with Y before?" economic relationships aren't as intense as kinship and sex, but if you run into your ex-boss on the street, you will probably react.

2. you can add information to a relationship map, as Ron mentions. what you add depends on what you need.

[Matt Wilson]

I think that after the discussion Ron and I had (noted above), I understand the thinking behind it, but I'm not quite ready to agree that blood and sex are the tightest bonds.

But I think that's okay. What strikes me is that the scenario designer should decide what the "most important" elements are, and build from there. That may be in relation to the style of play desired, the genre expectations, or whatever.

Ron might disagree, but I ain't afraid o' him. *raises fistses, spits menacingly*

[jdagna]

I think I'd have to say that relationship maps (or back-story maps, to keep it separate from Ron's definition) don't really equate to a dungeon crawl.  In both cases, the GM is setting up the board, and in both cases, he doesn't really control how the players go about the mission.

However, I think the principle difference is the GM's intent for the story.

In a dungeon crawl, the GM doesn't tell you which room to go to first (or last), but the goal is assumed: kick down the door, kill monsters, take their stuff.   Even in a more complex dungeon crawl, there's still the assumption that you're going somewhere to get something (or someone).  Ultimately, either you get what's in the dungeon or you don't.

In a back-story crawl, there's no assumed goal.  Presumably there's a conflict (otherwise it would make for a boring backstory), but it just provides a place for players to run around in.  They might choose to resolve the conflicts - a choice that has to have at least three distinct courses and outcomes (favor side A, favor side B, find a compromise).  But they might choose not to resolve the conflict, which is a fourth distinct option (with lots of variations).  Mercenaries might benefit from exacerbating the conflict and then working for both sides at once.

I might be oversimplifying dungeon crawls... the few I experienced in the early 80's were bad enough to put me off RPGs for a couple of years.

I'm thinking, from what you're saying, that it'd be kind of cool to play a gamist game with a relationship map, or even combine a dungeon crawl with one. The kobolds in area 5 are trying to take over the bugbears' lair, but the bugbears bought a magic item from the evil priests in area 11 in exchange for some labor digging up the idol in area 15. One of the priests has been approached by a kobold, and ...

That would make for a pretty cool crawl, I think.

Check out the Oldenhaller Contract in the core WFRP rulebook.  Two rival gangs and a cult of Nurgle all fighting each other.  Though the adventure (as written) doesn't really let players delve into those relations.

Still, it was enough extra stuff to get me into RPGs.

[John Kim]

I thought I would weigh in on this topic, since it relates to an important point for my current campaign.  Unrelated to this thread, I've referred before to the family trees being my "dungeon map" for adventure.  The majority of the action in my campaign has been maneuvering amongst the various principle families involved.  Marriages have been important events, and all of the PCs have gotten married during the campaign (except Kjartan who is engaged to be married at the end of this summer).  

You can check out the family trees at:
http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/rpg/vinland/campaign/

I'd say about a third to a half of all the names in the family trees have been notable characters in the game.  For example, the characters were involved in a fight in the Tjaraholt hall where they killed two huscarls (fighting men).  The weregeld (i.e. legal settlement for the killings) was negotiated by Vigfus the Proud and Tosti the Golden.  Vigfus is the father of the PC Skallagrim's wife Borgny the Sharp-Tongued, and is the grandfather of the PC Kjartan's fiancee Thjohild.  etc. etc.  

I'm not sure I have a particular point here, except that the family trees have worked pretty well as a map for play for me.

[Gordon C. Landis]

I think that after the discussion Ron and I had (noted above), I understand the thinking behind it, but I'm not quite ready to agree that blood and sex are the tightest bonds.

For a pretty full discussion of blood and sex, take a look at this here Relationship map issues thread.  Further issues probably shouldn't be persued in THIS thread, but that's the definitive (for me) public discussion of such things . . .

Gordon

[Emily Care]

so I guess the question is: does anyone have any thoughts on how to approach the abstracted map concept, or on other ways to adapt the concept to new modes of play? maybe divide the types of story into Event, Place, Idea, and Character stories, with each having its own subtypes of maps and its own typical map entries?

Interesting. So you're basing the subdivisions of types of narratives on the kinds of objects/groups/entities that get mapped, yes? The map in a dungeon crawl functions to give descriptions of complications and obstacles (and rewards).  That's basically what all these maps could do, but just contain different info, held in a configuration appropriate to the info.  Am I getting your point?

Place: Political, I can imagine using a diplomacy board for a historical sim game.  Place functions as a short-hand for group.  Other types of interactions (trade, politics, alliances) could be indicated on the map.  

Idea:  Connections--wow. That makes me think of the technological advancement aspect of the Civilization computer games.  Each level of technology, or research into a certain area could lead into or ripple out into the rest of the idea pools... You would certainly want to map this out, since the time frame can be broad--going from the black death in the middle ages, through the industrial revolution and into the computer era.

Character: relationship maps, geneologies, family trees.  Have you ever heard of network theory?  It's used in tracing connections between mobsters, corporate crime and the like.  Facinating stuff. Visually similar to Ron's relationship maps, but more like looking at the more ephemeral relationships between individuals as information flow and as dynamics of the power structure of an organization or cartel.  

Events:  Timeline?  Yeah.  Not sure what else, but certainly that.

It sounds like part of your point in bringing this up, John, was to facilitate non-trad narrative power distributions.  All of these could help that process since each of them makes clear connections, resources and directions of energy/information flow.  And they are all good tools for teasing out complications and consequences to help the plot flow.  

--Em Care

[talysman]

hi Emily! glad you have time to come back to the Forge.

Interesting. So you're basing the subdivisions of types of narratives on the kinds of objects/groups/entities that get mapped, yes? The map in a dungeon crawl functions to give descriptions of complications and obstacles (and rewards).  That's basically what all these maps could do, but just contain different info, held in a configuration appropriate to the info.  Am I getting your point?

definitely, Emily. and I like the examples you've traced out for each of the four categories -- which, incidentally, are categories of story I adapted from a "how to write science fiction" book by Orson Scott Card (he used "Milieu", "Idea", "Character", and "Event" to spell out "MICE", but I've decided it's simpler to say "Place" and call it "EPIC".)

definitely I thought of Civ when considering Innovation maps; one of the projects on my backburners is a science fiction rpg concept I came up with back when people here were discussing whether there were any "true" science fiction role-playing games, as opposed to adventure games with SF color. I'm planning to use a much shorter timeline for that game, however.

I may have heard of network theory, briefly, but know nothing about it. do you have a good suggestion on where to get more info?

It sounds like part of your point in bringing this up, John, was to facilitate non-trad narrative power distributions.  All of these could help that process since each of them makes clear connections, resources and directions of energy/information flow.  And they are all good tools for teasing out complications and consequences to help the plot flow.  

definitely, I'm hoping to stimulate thought about non-traditional narratives, although I don't think I was thinking specifically about power distributions. that may be another fertile area of investigation, though... especially since I want to concentrate on games that can be played GMless. I'm thinking, though, that the best-known rpgs promote GM-as-auteur so much that many gamers don't realize what other styles are available, and I'd like to mix things up a bit, give people new ways to play out a story without actually creating a plot beforehand.

a lot of this was just brainstorming. toss out some ideas, see what people thought, read other people's ideas, and let that breed some more ideas in my own head. I thought this discussion might be of particular interest on the Forge because I'm seeing a lot of people here creating games that go against the auteur theory; I think some of this material may be relevant.

[Thierry Michel]

The problem I have with the idea is that a traditional dungeon-crawl map is relatively easy to do, because everyone knows how rooms connect in reality, whereas the properties of a social network are far more elusive(*).

So verisimilitude is not that easy to achieve, too many connections and it will feel like an inbred mountaineer family (**), too few and it won't feel  like a real community either.


(*) I would recommend reading Duncan Watt's "Small Words" for an idea of the constraints of real networks (but there's quite a bit of maths).

(**) just an example, folks -substitue islanders if you wish, as long as it is sufficiently creepy and lovecraftian .