Dungeon Map Style

[inkmeister]

This is a thread to consider various techniques and approaches to drawing dungeon maps.

On the one hand, we have what might be called the Gygaxian approach (but those more familiar with his levels may argue that this is just a small subset), best exemplified by the geomorphs. The only picture of Greyhawk dungeon that I've seen comes from the popular picture of Gygax at a game table with his map, and the map also closely resembled the basic geomorphs. This style is very dense, utilizing virtually all the available graphing paper, and makes extensive use of "line walls" which may be only a few feet thick at best. The lines themselves tend to be straight; diagonals and odd shaped rooms are used sparingly. Corridors are used, but there are often many densely packed rooms, and heavy use of doors, so that one may deal with room complexes and room mazes as much as corridors.

Then we have the style seen in the Holmes sample dungeon; relatively far spaced rooms (often fairly big) connected by long corridors. These dungeons seem much less dense, and generally simpler in layout. Often, in the more dense cases, this style results in 10' thick walls.

Then there are the dungeons of ARneson's Blackmoor, as seen in the First Fantasy Campaign supplement released by Judges Guild. These dungeons are fascinating to look at because of their high degree of complexity. Though drawn on graph paper, these levels constantly seem to be trying to defy the graph paper; diagonals, both in corridors and in rooms, are more common than straight corridors and plain square rooms. The shapes of rooms and corridors do not depend on the lines of the graph paper. The levels are fairly dense, and it is often difficult to tell when a corridor ends and a room begins because of so many oddly placed walls and so many odd shapes.

Further, ARneson supplements the "normal levels" with more levels drawn at a 40' per square where corridors are indicated by single lines, and rooms are indicated by squares or cavernous blobs. Here corridors seem to be far more numerous than rooms, with many, many links between various strands of corridors, often going nowhere.

Some of the Judges Guild maps follow loosely in this pattern, with levels that blend the Holmes style - spacious maps, regular corridors connecting larger rooms, but with many diagonals and shapes that seem to defy graph paper.

And then there are folks who advocate not using graph paper. Freeing the dungeons up to run any which way. The results are often artistic. Dyson's maps (from Dyson Logos) seem to exemplify this style.

As to gameplay, it seems that the old Gygax geomorph approach, with dense dungeons, thin walls, generally (but not always) straight lines and rectangular rooms, lends itself to the idea of OD&D being a hidden map exploration game. Here, most areas are easy to describe, because you are generally dealing with straight lines and rectangular rooms. It's easy to keep precise track of movement, turns, areas of effect, etc. At the same time, this approach allows considerable complexity due to density. The thin walls lend themselves to heavy use of secret doors, and it is easy to set up a dungeon that has some maze principles at work, so that it is difficult to progress in a straight line across the dungeon. Travel will require detailed, accurate maps. Mapping is very important here, too, as a careful map can reveal that 20' by 20' blank spot that could easily be concealing a secret room.

The Holmes approach strikes me as simpler/easier than the above, and seems to emphasize dungeon rooms as the focus of an adventure (that's where the stuff - monsters, treasure, traps, etc - usually is). I think this is a default structure for most people. Corridors link encounter areas. This seems like a generally less tedious structure if you aren't into dungeons for the idea that maps are meant to heavily challenge players.

The Arneson approach baffles me and intrigues me. I almost wonder if this wouldn't work as well as a free-form dungeon. It strikes me that these levels would be incredibly difficult to map accurately - maybe impossible. As a mapper, I would expect you would not be focusing on details so much as with the Gygax dungeon, but rather on general routes.

The free-form style yields some of the most artistic dungeons, but seems less useful as a game tool; distances are much more subjective, so turns, areas of effect, etc, will be as well.

This isn't meant to be a complete analysis, just some loose observations thrown out there to spur more conversation on dungeon mapping.

What style of mapping do you embrace? Do you utilize different styles for different places or styles of gaming? What makes a good dungeon map in your opinion? Why?

Do you try to make the design of your maps challenging to the players, or is the map only a setting for the interesting stuff of your dungeon adventures? Do you like your maps complex or simple? Do you like to use lots of strangely shaped rooms and areas that are difficult to describe (Strange shapes, strange angles, strange entrance points for corridors/connections)?

Discuss!

[Deleted]

There's one other type of map and that's the map from the Dungeon! boardgame. Long winding corridors, no grid alignment, many small rooms together with a few large chambers.

[benoist]

My style has been influenced by cartographers like Darlene, classic dungeons like Tamaochan or Tomb of Horrors, the compact and play-driven style of game masters like Gary Gygax (the original maps you are talking about in your OP), Ernie's, Rob Kuntz's, and I'm sure a bunch of other sources, but I think my style is my own, whether we're talking wilderness or dungeon maps.

If I had to describe it I would say it's hand-drawn and textured, suggestive rather than photo-realistic, and generally uses a mellow, water-colored type of palette.

Examples:

[librarylass]

Dang, Benoist. That is a nice map.

[benoist]

Jul 26, 2013 13:09:17 GMT -6 librarylass said:

Dang, Benoist. That is a nice map.

Thanks Library Lass! The first map is my map of Dunfalcon, which blends Yggsburgh and the East Mark with Greyhawk, among other things, and the other is the Hyperborean Labs that can be found described with tons of advice for use at different tables with different sets of rules in AFS Magazine Issue #3.

[geoffrey]

Jul 22, 2013 12:57:49 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

On the one hand, we have what might be called the Gygaxian approach (but those more familiar with his levels may argue that this is just a small subset), best exemplified by the geomorphs. The only picture of Greyhawk dungeon that I've seen comes from the popular picture of Gygax at a game table with his map, and the map also closely resembled the basic geomorphs. This style is very dense, utilizing virtually all the available graphing paper, and makes extensive use of "line walls" which may be only a few feet thick at best. The lines themselves tend to be straight; diagonals and odd shaped rooms are used sparingly. Corridors are used, but there are often many densely packed rooms, and heavy use of doors, so that one may deal with room complexes and room mazes as much as corridors...

As to gameplay, it seems that the old Gygax geomorph approach, with dense dungeons, thin walls, generally (but not always) straight lines and rectangular rooms, lends itself to the idea of OD&D being a hidden map exploration game. Here, most areas are easy to describe, because you are generally dealing with straight lines and rectangular rooms. It's easy to keep precise track of movement, turns, areas of effect, etc. At the same time, this approach allows considerable complexity due to density. The thin walls lend themselves to heavy use of secret doors, and it is easy to set up a dungeon that has some maze principles at work, so that it is difficult to progress in a straight line across the dungeon. Travel will require detailed, accurate maps. Mapping is very important here, too, as a careful map can reveal that 20' by 20' blank spot that could easily be concealing a secret room.

That's my favorite style, which is also found in Bob Bledsaw's Tegel Manor (which is one of the best dungeon maps of all time). I use this sort of map style in both dungeon levels of my Dungeon of the Unknown. In hindsight, I only wish I had used more secret doors!

[grodog]

Jul 22, 2013 12:57:49 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

This is a thread to consider various techniques and approaches to drawing dungeon maps.

On the one hand, we have what might be called the Gygaxian approach (but those more familiar with his levels may argue that this is just a small subset), best exemplified by the geomorphs. The only picture of Greyhawk dungeon that I've seen comes from the popular picture of Gygax at a game table with his map, and the map also closely resembled the basic geomorphs. This style is very dense, utilizing virtually all the available graphing paper, and makes extensive use of "line walls" which may be only a few feet thick at best. The lines themselves tend to be straight; diagonals and odd shaped rooms are used sparingly. Corridors are used, but there are often many densely packed rooms, and heavy use of doors, so that one may deal with room complexes and room mazes as much as corridors. [snip]

Then there are the dungeons of ARneson's Blackmoor, as seen in the First Fantasy Campaign supplement released by Judges Guild. These dungeons are fascinating to look at because of their high degree of complexity. Though drawn on graph paper, these levels constantly seem to be trying to defy the graph paper; diagonals, both in corridors and in rooms, are more common than straight corridors and plain square rooms. The shapes of rooms and corridors do not depend on the lines of the graph paper. The levels are fairly dense, and it is often difficult to tell when a corridor ends and a room begins because of so many oddly placed walls and so many odd shapes.

I'm not so sure that the two styles are so widely divergent as you characterize them here, inkmeister: I see the two sets of maps as pretty similiar, all-in-all, although I think your observation that Dave's maps employ more diagonals in general is true. If you look at the two levels of Gary's that we have good visibility to* (as seen most-recently at Two Levels of the Real Castle Greyhawk), you can see a lot of use of diagonal and non-square/non-rectangular rooms---moreso on the second map, of course, but it's not all a grid-based map by any means.

* This also reminds me that I've wanted to create an "all the maps of Castle Greyhawk we've seen over the years" page, since it would help to be able to talk about a larger sample of maps than just the above two.

Jul 22, 2013 12:57:49 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

What style of mapping do you embrace? Do you utilize different styles for different places or styles of gaming? What makes a good dungeon map in your opinion? Why?

Do you try to make the design of your maps challenging to the players, or is the map only a setting for the interesting stuff of your dungeon adventures? Do you like your maps complex or simple? Do you like to use lots of strangely shaped rooms and areas that are difficult to describe (Strange shapes, strange angles, strange entrance points for corridors/connections)?

I broadly prefer more-complex maps with a fair amount of variability within the level, as well as across levels, but showing is better than telling, or so I hear, so....:

This is the Hidden Temple of Celestian level: this is a smaller level (the paper's only 4 squares per inch), and is simpler than most levels I design:



This is my Iounic Caverns/Greek level: this one is more-typical of my standard sized levels, although it's more generally cavernous than most of my dungeon levels are:



This is The Egg Chambers level, and it's more-typical of most of the dungeon levels I design:



And lastly, my first Landings Level:



Anyway, that's what I do.  What about the rest of you?

[inkmeister]

Very nice maps, Benoist and Grodog. Grodog, I've been a fan of your maps for years. That said, I am curious what your experiences have been like in play using some of the more complex maps. I suspect I would find it hard to accurately describe some of the odd angles and complex room shapes you have in a way that would allow a reasonably accurate PC map. I don't see quite the same level of difficulty in the Gygax geomorphs, since so much of the time they utilize basic right angles, square rooms, etc, with just a few exceptions here and there to add some difficulty.

Originally I was not much of a fan of Gygax geomorph style, but more and more I see it as a game-friendly approach, and am coming around to preferring it.

I love the maps and discussion so far!

[geoffrey]

Jul 28, 2013 16:27:49 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Originally I was not much of a fan of Gygax geomorph style, but more and more I see it as a game-friendly approach, and am coming around to preferring it.

Same for me. I'm a convert.

[cadriel]

I've been thinking a lot about this myself, and I really appreciate grodog posting some of his maps. I was reworking a level I'd designed and run a little of earlier this year, and I've been trying to apply some Jaquays-style techniques such as internal height changes, loops within levels, and multiple entrances / exits within a level, all with a style that uses rooms like in the old TSR modules. In digging through my maps for the one I'm modifying, I also found a couple of maps I drew as an extended riff on the Dungeon Geomorphs. I still find that I prefer thick stone walls, because I can really imagine a place that they are. Whereas with the geomorphic levels, the maps look neat but the place is secondary. To me those maps are really "about" being interesting maps.

Also, I think pacing - which I wrote about in my blog not long ago - is harder to do with geomorphs. If you're in a huge dungeon like that, you pretty much are going to have to do a lot more exploration to find anything, which means an "all slow levels" dungeon is more likely.

[Vile Traveller]

I tend to prefer a more Holmes-like approach to dungeon layouts, i.e. spreading things out a bit, long corridors, a lot of empty rooms, and some vast spaces. This mostly goes with my unwritten background that the Underworld (capital "U") is an alien, otherworldly place with its own rules and realities. I mean, come on, the doors keep closing by themselves!

[grodog]

Jul 28, 2013 16:27:49 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Very nice maps, Benoist and Grodog. Grodog, I've been a fan of your maps for years. That said, I am curious what your experiences have been like in play using some of the more complex maps. I suspect I would find it hard to accurately describe some of the odd angles and complex room shapes you have in a way that would allow a reasonably accurate PC map.

Thanks for the kudos, inkmeister. I ran the Iounic Caverns level 5-7 times last year at GaryCon, NTX, and KantCon, and I believe that the mapping players had good experience at each event. I also ran the first Landings level at the first or second NTX and GaryCon events, too, probably 4 times or so total. So, they've had some vetting. Sometimes I'm a little off on my descriptions or don't communicate well with a particular mapper until we get a mutual vibe going, but once that's work through, thing seem to be OK usually. Some rooms are and areas are not intended to be mapped accurately, too---and that's intentional on my part: the area may be very large, or just difficult to map, or whatever, and in those cases players may just put a round blob on their map.

I see player maps as tools to keep track of where the PCs have been, where they're going, and to make notes about traps, other areas to explore later, etc. I never expect anyone to recreate an exact reproduction of my maps (although I have had some player get very close to that, too!). I have copies of several player maps that I could post for some of my levels---sort of A/B comparisons, so to speak---if you think that's a worthwhile addition to the topic (or a split topic)?

Jul 28, 2013 19:13:07 GMT -6 cadriel said:

I've been thinking a lot about this myself, and I really appreciate grodog posting some of his maps.

Wayne has played at least one of my Castle levels (the Black Reservoir, which is a bit different from most of them, in that it's mostly a huge underground lake), so he can certainly speak to whether he felt the maps were too complex or not. (He'll have another level or two under his belt after early August too ).

Jul 28, 2013 19:13:07 GMT -6 cadriel said:

Also, I think pacing - which I wrote about in my blog not long ago - is harder to do with geomorphs. If you're in a huge dungeon like that, you pretty much are going to have to do a lot more exploration to find anything, which means an "all slow levels" dungeon is more likely.

I had some interesting discussions about this idea with some folks at GaryCon this year, as well as with my publishing partner, Jon Hershberger. When I run my Castle levels, I run them as-is: players and PCs get a snapshot of playing in my mega-dungeon campaign, essentially. So, it is entirely possible for them to run around in a dungeon session and not end up meeting very much in the way of monsters/combats, tricks, traps, enigmas, etc., depending on where they go, the choices their PCs make, and the luck of the WM dice.

At its heart, I think that D&D is a game of exploration and sometimes that means "not finding anything good" or "not finding much at all." That may make for a frustrating session, perhaps, which is what I think Wayne's getting at with the pacing comment re: "[you] have to do a lot more exploration to find anything, which means an 'all slow levels' dungeon is more likely." If I'm putting the wrong words or intent into your mouth, Wayne, please set me straight!

Regardless of the pacing/exploration discussion, though, if your entire dungeon complex consists of levels that are all crazy-hard to map, or are simple to map, or are underwater, or are blue, or whatever, then that's a bad design IMO: DMs need to vary the types of levels themselves---the environmental/ physical-challenges-side of the dungeon levels, so that the players (and mappers!) don't get bored/go insane and claw their eyes out/etc. (Mappers also need to know when they should stop trying to create perfect copies of the DM's map, and to shift modes into trailing maps, descriptive maps, flowchart maps, or whatever mode that works for them to get their job done. That's yet-another topic, however....).

[bexley]

I'm not really sure how to describe my style as I'm not familiar with mapping styles. I haven't traditionally been very interested in modules and I've just worked mapping out to what I thought was cool. Reading through this thread I would say that I have a Jaquay mapping style with a Barker-esque philosophy. I haven't mapped out my megadungeon in it's entirety yet but it's based on the 'underworld' principle.

There are no entry points to my dungeons, as entrance into them are usually portals or gateways accessible through smaller dungeons. i.e I mapped a sea-cave complex for under my port-city but each cave has it's own portal/gateway which starts the players on different spots in the megadungeon. I also prefer to have one sprawling level than multiple levels.

I use diagonal or sloping passageways but these only lead to something akin to specials. So far I have a city of the dead, a shambhala-esque wilderness, and various throne rooms/palaces of the gods. I guess this is a kind of level system but instead of going up or down they are extra-dimensional spaces.

I prefer to use odd shapes for rooms rather than straight squares, oblongs, or rectangles.

The last defining characteristic of my dungeons is the passageways themselves. Artistically I come from a graffiti background and my passageways are very much influenced by what is known as wild style.



So they loop, interconnect, stop dead, go over and under each-other, zig-zag, and fill in the rest of the grid that is not taken up by rooms or exits to specials.

[cadriel]

I wrote about pacing in a recent series on my blog: initiativeone.blogspot.com/search/label/megadungeons

I think that explains a lot of what I was talking about above. Allan's dungeon levels are good, but there can be a lot of blind poking about before you get somewhere.

My recent train of thought stems from the fact that, in a lot of older dungeons, there were really the possibility of tactical missions - exploring to find a way to the treasure rather than stumbling onto it through monster attrition. Fast and slow levels are concepts that I derived from this possibility, like the first level of Blackmoor with nine ways down. The challenge of that level is figuring out which of the nine gets you to the treasure without getting killed in so doing. Slow levels are the ones where the treasure is, and you explore to find it.

The thing about geomorphic levels is that unless you have a TON of ways down, it's harder to have fast levels in this sense, and you have a danger of it being a grind.

A lot of this comes not from Allan's dungeons (which are fun) but from my experience running Stonehell, which is all slow and gets REALLY grind-heavy in the first level. Fundamentally I want to avoid grinds and create levels that alternate between 1-2 sessions and longer levels based on how treasure-dense they are.

[inkmeister]

Great discussion.

Grodog, I think everyone would love to see a comparison of player maps versus DM maps - I would like to see that from anyone's game! Very cool! Please do so if it is not too much trouble.

Cadriel, I've been reading your blog a bit and I like your discussion of fast/slow levels. It does seem to me that this is more a function of how many exits you put on a level than the exact form of mapping used. For instance, a Holmes or Arnesonian level could be very slow if one isolated only a couple exits on one of one's larger levels.

I agree with what I seem to recall you saying; sometimes you want some slowish levels, but it is probably best to have a mix. Certainly you want some levels where the players have a lot of choices out of the level (and some unwanted traps that force you down unexpectedly).

What interests me beyond the complex single level map is the complexity that could result from many such levels interconnected in all sorts ways. I definitely favor many vertical routes. This opens up the possibility, which I think you point to, of avoiding particular challenges on a target level by going to a different level, moving horizontally, then dropping (or ascending) into the vicinity of the goal on the target level.

Within a level, there can be a ton of routes, but by the time you introduce shoots, elevators, portals, stairways, ladders, etc, you can get to a point where the variety of possible experiences of the dungeon is endless. I like the idea that 100 different players might have 100 totally different ideas of what is down there.

All of this makes me question the value of dungeon level = PC level. I think the two could be divorced with some interesting results. You'd still have the general idea of deeper is more dangerous, but not in any formulaic sense. Thoughts?

[benoist]

Jul 29, 2013 7:39:53 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Great discussion.

Grodog, I think everyone would love to see a comparison of player maps versus DM maps - I would like to see that from anyone's game! Very cool! Please do so if it is not too much trouble.

Good idea.

Alright, I'll start.

From our game session this week end, running an intro module for the Hobby Shop Dungeon Ernie and I came up with. Player map:



DM map section concerned (from the draft of the map):

[kent]

Looking at sh!tty player maps makes me smile every time and reminds me how much of the game is played inside our heads, (99% ?) , not only that but everyone at the table is seeing something different that works for them.

[benoist]

Jul 29, 2013 13:40:43 GMT -6 kent said:

Looking at sh!tty player maps makes me smile every time and reminds me how much of the game is played inside our heads, (99% ?) , not only that but everyone at the table is seeing something different that works for them.

This is a game that is played in one's mind, and yes, everyone will see something slightly different. That's actually an advantage of a game relying on one's imagination, rather than being a passive spectator of say, what someone else has already imagined for you on a computer screen.

[kent]

Jul 30, 2013 11:25:44 GMT -6 benoist said:

This is a game that is played in one's mind, and yes, everyone will see something slightly different. That's actually an advantage of a game relying on one's imagination, rather than being a passive spectator of say, what someone else has already imagined for you on a computer screen.

I think the kind of exercise of the imagination keeps rpgs as close to fantasy fiction as computer games are close to film, the active and somewhat subjective imagination is distinct from the passive and pseudo-real.

[grodog]

Jul 29, 2013 7:39:53 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Grodog, I think everyone would love to see a comparison of player maps versus DM maps - I would like to see that from anyone's game! Very cool! Please do so if it is not too much trouble.

OK, here are some player maps from my Castle Greyhawk sessions at NTX RPG Con #2 in June 2010. The first two were drawn by Jennell Jaquays:



and the back:



The second map is drawn by Joan MacDonald; she had never mapped in D&D before this session!:



and the back:



These maps span two different dungeon levels. They began on the Second Landings Level:



then proceeded through to The First Hub Level:



Apparently I'll need to re-scan the most-recent version of the latter, since I don't have it on my HD, on the web server, or on my external HD. *sigh*

[thorswulf]

I have used both the Holmesian and Gygaxian approaches within dungeons. But the fact is that Barkers advice on building underworlds in EPT is probably the most inspiring source material for me. The idea of a massive hall full of huge pillars, some of which are hollow and micro-dungeons just gets me. Talk about cyclopean....

[inkmeister]

Thorswulf, interesting! Any chance you could post up a quote from Barker in EPT about dungeons?

Also, I'm curious if no one has embraced ARneson's other style, the line drawn dungeons/caverns where one square is 40'. It seems it would be a useful way to do cavernous areas and really spread out areas. IT would undoubtedly play differently, though, with less emphasis on details and secrets and stuff. These might be more like "fast levels" that Cadriel speaks of. I think they would help give a variety of feel to a large dungeon.

[grodog]

Jul 31, 2013 8:26:47 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Also, I'm curious if no one has embraced ARneson's other style, the line drawn dungeons/caverns where one square is 40'. It seems it would be a useful way to do cavernous areas and really spread out areas. IT would undoubtedly play differently, though, with less emphasis on details and secrets and stuff.

IIRC, both the 1e MERP Northern Mirkwood (with Erebor) and Moria products used this technique, inkmeister, and the drowic underworld map from G3/D1-2 works in a similar manner (although it's hex-based rather than grid-based). Wolfgang Baur also used this mapping style in his Open Design "Empire of the Ghouls" underworld environs, too. I used a similar technique to show levels relationships in my S4 Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth maps, as well, but I haven't sat down and tried to show all of the level connections between my Castle levels in awhile, and wasn't very happy with the versions I'd produced to date, either. That might be worth a redraw again at some point soon.

[inkmeister]

I'd like to share some of my dungeon levels that I've drawn, but I frankly have no idea how this is done. Anyone care to point me in the right direction? I can scan/photograph what I've got, but I don't know what to do from there. I gather it has to do with some kind of image hosting, but I have no idea about any of that stuff.

[grodog]

Jul 31, 2013 12:05:42 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

I'd like to share some of my dungeon levels that I've drawn, but I frankly have no idea how this is done. Anyone care to point me in the right direction? I can scan/photograph what I've got, but I don't know what to do from there. I gather it has to do with some kind of image hosting, but I have no idea about any of that stuff.

Once you've got the files scanned, you just need a place to host them. Flickr or Facebook or ImageShack or Pinterest or DeviantArt or a number of other possible free hosting options exist. Basically you scan the files, then upload them to the host service. If you have your own web site, you can also link to them there (that's what I do). Then once they're published online somewhere, you're able to link to them in your posts using the IMG tags using the full URL of the image on the host. If you've already got the scanner, then you've got the hard part taken care of.

That help?

[inkmeister]

Yes Grodog, thanks very much! I upload to a free hosting site, then link to that image using IMG tags. I'll have to check into those IMG tags to make sure I know what I'm doing with that, but it sounds pretty easy. Hopefully I'll have some levels up in the next few days.

[grodog]

Aug 1, 2013 17:16:07 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Yes Grodog, thanks very much! I upload to a free hosting site, then link to that image using IMG tags. I'll have to check into those IMG tags to make sure I know what I'm doing with that, but it sounds pretty easy.

You've got it, inkmesiter. The Create Post screen also manages the IMG tags for you, if you click on the sixth button from the right, between the Email and Insert Video buttons; in fact, it looks like this: Then all you have to do is paste in the URL to the prompt, and you're good to go.

Aug 1, 2013 17:16:07 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Hopefully I'll have some levels up in the next few days.

Looking forward to them

[benoist]

Jul 30, 2013 19:33:48 GMT -6 kent said:

I think the kind of exercise of the imagination keeps rpgs as close to fantasy fiction as computer games are close to film, the active and somewhat subjective imagination is distinct from the passive and pseudo-real.

In a sense yes, though with fiction you are led at another level, the structure/plot level, by someone else who's done your imagining for you. I know that plot structures are popular in certain RPGs, but it doesn't have to be that way. I think the full potential of RPGs from that standpoint is revealed by non-linear structures and "sandbox" play, for lack of a better word. The type of dungeons we are talking about here embody this to me on a manageable scale, where you have an environment to explore that is made of rooms and corridors and caverns and chasms, but where non-linearity can also reign supreme, with proper map flows, inter-connectivity of various levels, teleporters, etc etc.

[inkmeister]

Hmmm, I'm going to try to post some of my dungeon levels here, but I'm not seeing anything about IMG tags or any of that, I only get a box that says "create post" and that is what I'm typing into right now. There are no buttons to add italics or bold letters or anything, just a plain text box. What am I missing here?

Anyway, here is my first level:
www.flickr.com/photos/99774711@N03/9427760675/in/photostream
It is what I consider Gygaxian style. As are 2 and 3. I used to do maps on 8 sq/inch paper, but I decided to embrace 5sq/inch, and I like it. I like this very dense style for the options I think it will enable in play.

Second level:
www.flickr.com/photos/99774711@N03/9427762677/in/photostream

Third Level:
www.flickr.com/photos/99774711@N03/9427764107/in/photostream

4th Level:
www.flickr.com/photos/99774711@N03/9427770379/in/photostream
This is the "chasm" level. A giant rift has been formed through the center of the level. 2 Rickety bridges connect the two sides.

5th Level:
www.flickr.com/photos/99774711@N03/9430539860/in/photostream
This is a much older level, drawn last fall. 8sq/inch paper. I now envision this as what lies far below the chasm level; the bottom of the chasm is a river, which flows through this level. In the center is an isle which will contain a spiral stair to lower levels still. I love the organic feel of this level.

All of these are works in progress. I'm still keying level 1 and 2, and am not really worried about 3+ until I see how this plays.

Any help getting these images to display will be appreciated.

[Deleted]

Aug 3, 2013 12:36:15 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Hmmm, I'm going to try to post some of my dungeon levels here, but I'm not seeing anything about IMG tags or any of that, I only get a box that says "create post" and that is what I'm typing into right now. There are no buttons to add italics or bold letters or anything, just a plain text box. What am I missing here?

The problem lies with the URL you are attempting to link. Go to Flickr, choose a specific size of the graphic you want to share, then choose "Share" (or similar) from the menu that the FAQ says should appear to the left of the screen. If there is one for BBCode with square brackets and IMG tag, use that one.