|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 8, 2013 8:47:56 GMT -6
Good discussion.
Kent; I do see your point. When I look out my window, I do not see squares. When I enter large structures, I don't see squares. I do see elevation changes, landings, all that good stuff. I get your point.
At the same time, while I'm perfectly willing to hear criticism of this and my dungeon levels, I'm not really trying to go for realism. Two reasons. The first one Cadriel articulated very well above me here; the dungeon as mythic underworld, not tied to normal laws or rationality. The second, and conveniently related, is that my dungeons are a game structure. The primary purpose is to create a space for a good game. To that end, it matters little to me if they are not much more than a fancy chess board, so long as it provides a challenging and interesting scenario to the players. Redbaron made good points about the incredible complexity of a true 3d dungeon. For some, that might be a real draw, and for others, a real drawback. I think my own levels above will prove difficult enough (I do want them to be difficult, but not overly difficult). In some ways, I feel that the style of mapping which involves lots of elevation changes within a level, with passages and rooms laying directly above and below other passages and rooms, is just too much. I feel you can accomplish much the same with multiple flat levels linked up by multiple stairs/ladders/shoots/slopes/elevators, but maintain the more simple game-friendly representation.
It has taken me awhile, but I've come around to the dungeon exploration game as GAME. A lot of it is due to seeing how Gygax seems to have done his maps, and also hearing from Mike Mornard how they would describe dungeons in play. I read somewhere about one of Mornard's maps spelling out "BARF" on one of the levels. This is not meant to be a realistic structure, but rather a weird and challenging game structure, not entirely unlike Battleship. The goal is to reveal this structure through play. Fancy levels with tons of odd rooms and crazy elevation changes aren't going to lend themselves to the sort of precise play that will let you discover "BARF." I'm not saying one style is better than another, but only to say that I think I misunderstood this certain type of dungeon game for a long time (maybe I still do!), and I would not be surprised at all if others do too.
This is not about reality simulation.
|
|
bexley
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 104
|
Post by bexley on Aug 8, 2013 9:15:47 GMT -6
If I'm following Kent correctly, then I think making a space easier to imagine and present is not at odds with making a better game. I would argue that it makes a map a superior gamble object.
What I'm not following is how exactly does this translate into representation on a map because I'm not sure I agree that giving structures shadows is going to be the best way to achieve a more imaginable or presentable space.
|
|
|
Post by kent on Aug 8, 2013 11:35:23 GMT -6
If I'm following Kent correctly, then I think making a space easier to imagine and present is not at odds with making a better game. No you don't follow, I don't care two onions whether a space is easy to imagine; in fact it is likely to be boring if it is. Im not going to comment further beyond this post because my approach appears to be completely at odds with those presenting their ideas here. The common approach in this thread is very basic and not worth emulating IMV. It was just a starting point for D&D and we were hardly meant not to explore the idea further. Night of the Walking Wet was written for OD&D in 1977 and it is a shame that Jaquays example is so little understood. My approach is THINK - IMAGINE - MAP. Think about what kind of structure was built underground, say, a crypt beneath a monastery or ancient castle. A crypt has a structure because it has a purpose, it is not a pointless collection of squares on a page. Next think who extended the structure and for what new purpose. Did they come across and make use of natural underground phenomenon, rivers, caverns, sumps? Imagine the architectural features of each place, the cultural form, decoration, degree of disintegration, new constructions as new occupants make the place their own. Now map the thing. What I don't do, and I am surprised anyone does, is fill a page with rectangles with a few token odd shapes before I have imagined the places, then fill the thing like stocking shelves at a supermarket and finally try to wrap this pointless simplistic procedure in Philotomy said 'it is all surreal' rhetoric.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 8, 2013 13:13:52 GMT -6
Kent, I don't want you to leave the discussion just because we don't see it the same way. That would be unfortunate; your point of view makes the discussion better. Leave it behind only if you don't enjoy it.
I think your school of thinking is represented a bit better in Moldvay's Basic D&D than in OD&D (though the evolution was happening in OD&D with Jaquays and countless others who took it in their own direction). That book is much more explicit about having a background to any dungeon. The dungeons tend to be smaller in scale, but with a history and purpose so that each game avoids becoming, to paraphrase Moldvay "a boring repetition of opening doors, killing monsters, and getting treasure." I think 10 different scenarios are presented, with the suggestion that the ref come up with their own for each dungeon.
I have a lot of respect for that approach. I have a lot of respect for your approach, too, Mr. Kent, which seems similar. The thing is, I think what you are saying is actually sort of the conventional view of dungeons (whether it is realized to your satisfaction or not), and I think some of the dissonance people have with the megadungeon concept exists because people aren't willing to zoom out a little and see it as a more game-like structure. Not that it has to be, but I have to wonder if it doesn't work a little better that way, in the specific context of a mega-dungeon.
I think a small dungeon can make up for its size with great complexity, but a megadungeon is already going to be complex just due to its size and the number of connections between levels. By its very nature, it exists in 3d space. Also, by its nature, it isn't going to make sense the way a crypt will.
I agree, the game does seem to advocate stocking in a way you describe, as if filling supermarket shelves. For folks like you who have a much more solid vision, it makes sense to run with it. I don't think I share your creativity in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 8, 2013 13:19:04 GMT -6
One issue this thread was intended to bring up is that of noise vs real information. I can't help but wonder if a lot of the complexity that is possible in dungeons can end up as anything but noise. In other words, does it end up as meaningful to the gameplay or is the extra detail lost on the players?
My goal is to follow the LBB in the sense that I want the dungeon to be a difficult obstacle in its own right, but I want it to be possible to deduce from careful mapping where secret areas might be, and so on. That requires a degree of accuracy to be POSSIBLE in the mapping process. My concern with very complex maps, including some of Arnesons, and those featuring tons of elevation changes in levels, with overlapping rooms/corridors, etc, is that they move beyond being graspable by players, considering the information is presented just verbally by the DM. My goal of making accurate mapping possible (though not necessarily likely or easy) conflicts with some of the complexity that I think Kent advocates.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by crusssdaddy on Aug 8, 2013 13:27:49 GMT -6
For Kent: How do you use this in your play (if you have yet): somekingskent.blogspot.com/2012/10/naqada-djed.htmlTo me this is a surreal space. Do you key it and the PCs wander about? Are encounters episodic in nature and advance a story, like Beholder Contract? Would PCs who explore this space in the manner of a more typical dungeon crawl be destroyed outright within minutes, simply by exposing themselves to phenomena Ultramontane? Is there any analogue in your campaign to the process of ignite torches -- go 60' to end of corridor -- listen at door -- check for secret doors -- okay this area is 30' x 50' with a pit in the center and you can just make out cobwebs in the far corner -- etc... and the rest of that more familiar dungeon crawl activity?
|
|
|
Post by crusssdaddy on Aug 8, 2013 14:01:01 GMT -6
One issue this thread was intended to bring up is that of noise vs real information. I can't help but wonder if a lot of the complexity that is possible in dungeons can end up as anything but noise. In other words, does it end up as meaningful to the gameplay or is the extra detail lost on the players? My goal is to follow the LBB in the sense that I want the dungeon to be a difficult obstacle in its own right, but I want it to be possible to deduce from careful mapping where secret areas might be, and so on. That requires a degree of accuracy to be POSSIBLE in the mapping process. My concern with very complex maps, including some of Arnesons, and those featuring tons of elevation changes in levels, with overlapping rooms/corridors, etc, is that they move beyond being graspable by players, considering the information is presented just verbally by the DM. My goal of making accurate mapping possible (though not necessarily likely or easy) conflicts with some of the complexity that I think Kent advocates. Thoughts? I think one alternative that can meld complexity with ease of access is, instead of having the physical layout of the dungeon provide clues for further exploration, have the contents of the dungeon provide those clues. Captured prisoners can be interrogated to uncover hidden areas. Fragments of maps from prior expeditions, found on a skeleton or among the treasures in a lair, can reveal secret doors. Items that provide access to one-shot oracular magic may be questioned. Other evidence that provides clues: prints in dust, scratchings on walls and floors, etc. Interacting with these features may provide richer or at least alternative roleplaying opportunities than examining the map for open spaces.
|
|
bexley
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 104
|
Post by bexley on Aug 8, 2013 16:55:00 GMT -6
If I'm following Kent correctly, then I think making a space easier to imagine and present is not at odds with making a better game. No you don't follow, I don't care two onions whether a space is easy to imagine; in fact it is likely to be boring if it is. Im not going to comment further beyond this post because my approach appears to be completely at odds with those presenting their ideas here. The common approach in this thread is very basic and not worth emulating IMV. It was just a starting point for D&D and we were hardly meant not to explore the idea further. Night of the Walking Wet was written for OD&D in 1977 and it is a shame that Jaquays example is so little understood. My approach is THINK - IMAGINE - MAP. Think about what kind of structure was built underground, say, a crypt beneath a monastery or ancient castle. A crypt has a structure because it has a purpose, it is not a pointless collection of squares on a page. Next think who extended the structure and for what new purpose. Did they come across and make use of natural underground phenomenon, rivers, caverns, sumps? Imagine the architectural features of each place, the cultural form, decoration, degree of disintegration, new constructions as new occupants make the place their own. Now map the thing. What I don't do, and I am surprised anyone does, is fill a page with rectangles with a few token odd shapes before I have imagined the places, then fill the thing like stocking shelves at a supermarket and finally try to wrap this pointless simplistic procedure in Philotomy said 'it is all surreal' rhetoric. Okay. Sorry to obscure your point. That's what I do and yet I think you would criticise my maps as 'a page filled with rectangles with a few token odd shapes' but as I've said, I think of every purpose to every passageway and room and connection before I map it. That's why I probably spend double the time anyone else does. I'm clocking a week on a megadungeon. So maybe I conflated my own feelings with your point. Let me separate them by asking, is there a presentational way which makes the above process easier to grasp? I'm talking on an aesthetic level here, which is probably the disconnect as I see the actual map as an aesthetic and not true representation of the space.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Aug 8, 2013 17:30:02 GMT -6
Think about what kind of structure was built underground, say, a crypt beneath a monastery or ancient castle. I've loosely based dungeon maps off of crypt maps (i.e. maps of real Italian crypts), because they had interesting paths. But they were no good for gaming, because actual crypts tend to lack the kind of rooms that can hold interesting encounters. My current dungeon started with some real crypt ideas but I had to deviate really far from them to make it a game-worthy space. No one does that, and I think you're making a weird strawman attack here. I'm responding because I want to continue this discussion with the people who want to have a good-faith talk about the structure of megadungeons. But a megadungeon isn't supposed to have a perfectly logical, calculated map. I think it's more important for it to be a game-worthy space, which many published dungeons fail to be. A dozen rooms in a straight line? Nah. A megadungeon is a place of chaos, it's weird because the magic beneath it has gone bad and it is devious by design. There are several design principles I use - levels that are not flat, large and small scale looping, and design that is deliberately difficult to map. That's why rooms are all weird in shape, and there are mazes and teleporters (they're lettered). The level I have the photo of does not yet have internal elevation shifts or traps laid out, but there will be such things. Each of these things is intended to make the megadungeon an interesting game space, where exploration will be a logistical and strategic challenge. For instance, looping is very important. If there are small-scale loops in the dungeon it makes the environment tactically interesting: intelligent monsters (or PCs) who know the layout can use it to make a sneak attack. Large-scale loops are pretty much the only way to ensure that a level is nonlinear. Dungeon nonlinearity is important because it implies that there isn't a "right" way to go through it, and difficult rooms can be bypassed or attacked from a different angle. But no part of design gets to compromise the game space element. My dungeon, even in concept, was dug by kobolds (the evil dwarf-like kind) who want to make exploration deadly without killing all the monsters within. So it's going to look ... strange. That's very much the conceit of a megadungeon game.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Aug 8, 2013 22:39:39 GMT -6
I actually found the links here, but I'll reshare them for anyone who's missed them. International Catacomb Society site (with pop-up viewer): www.catacombsociety.org/maps.htmlUnderlying images: Via Latina: www.catacombsociety.org/images/randanini_map/vialatina_map.gifRandanini: www.catacombsociety.org/images/randanini_map/map.gifVia Torlonia: www.catacombsociety.org/images/randanini_map/viatorlonia_map.gifWhat I did was first adapt some of the Via Latina room shapes (since they are fascinating shapes) then attached them to a map loosely based on the Randanini map. But this didn't really work for a gameable map so I wound up doing a lot of "surgery" to give it a workable flow. This is actually a habit I have. By the time I have a map I'm happy with, it tends to be a composite of two or three earlier drafts that had problems in the overall design, or weren't fully completed. I think this is because flow is important in my mapmaking, and when I'm first laying out a map I have a hard time both fitting all the rooms I'm interested in and keeping it from being linear.
|
|
|
Post by rredmond on Oct 18, 2013 7:54:27 GMT -6
Followed this link (from the Alehouse I believe) and what an awesome thread! As a DM who doesn't create too much, I like modules and pre-written stuff as much as possible I love seeing the stuff folks create. These maps are all great in their own ways. I also have a Dropbox link somewhere for Welleran's Vladikavkaz dungeon if he wants me to share. Great stuff. --Ron--
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2013 19:55:49 GMT -6
The dungeon was originally intended to be NAVIGABLE, not mappable. There is an important difference. BLACKMOOR's maps are a perfect example of this; Dave's idea was explicitly NOT that players would be able to perfectly map the area.
The map is a tool for survival, not the point of the game.
|
|
|
Post by paleologos on Oct 21, 2013 19:31:29 GMT -6
Awesome thread.
I've only recently grasped the difference between a Gygaxian geomorphic map and a Holmesian map. Mike Carr definitely based his B1 maps on the megadungeon concept, but Gygax himself adopted Holmesian maps for B2.
The megadungeon is a fascinating place, more game than story, and very much worth exploring.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Nov 2, 2013 18:10:07 GMT -6
I think this is an excellent thread, and I love these old styles of hand-drawn dungeons!
Allan's maps are pretty close to my "ideal" dungeon maps -- they're neat, clean, varied in their contents, interesting to look at. Also, when I look at them, I feel like I am seeing hints or influences of the dungeons from modules like Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, and the G and D series. It looks like the work of a student of the classics.
Allan: Your Landings map says "drawn under the influence of Gygax and Kuntz" -- does that mean anything specifically? If you were trying to emulate the style that is in the early AD&D modules, which I think had cartography done by DCS III, then I think you captured that very well.
inkmeister's maps are probably very close to the type of maps EGG drew in the mid-1970's. Maximal use of space. When I look at certain sections of the first few levels of the Temple of Elemental Evil, I can see this style -- a remnant of it is still there! Such as with the rooms with all of the ghouls and ogres.
I find the criticism about 3D concerns to be valid but uninteresting. Something can be realistic yet boring. The important thing I think is what is in the rooms, how those things are described and if they are engaging to the players. A realistic 3D dungeon would be icing on the cake, but not necessary for having fun in the game.
P. S. The scans of EGG's hand drawn maps in this thread are PURE GOLD. Amazing what some photo editing can do these days... It reminds me of Bladerunner when Deckard is manipulating that one photograph to get all sorts of fantastic detail and clues.
|
|
|
Post by kent on Nov 3, 2013 1:45:31 GMT -6
A thought just occurred to me as to why I think complicated purposeful 3d designs for dungeons are very important.
Essentially it is because I am 'mapping' something which *does not exist*. This means I am creating *and* mapping an environment simultaneously. This is a different exercise, it seems to me, to mapping something which *does exist*, say a real castle. My approach to mapping a real castle can be simplistic because I can have the real thing in my head or in photographs and the map needs only be suggestive, symbolic or helpful to find my way around. I could show such a map to someone who has visited the castle and they may be able to recognize rooms and walls and picture the real thing in their minds.
If on the other hand I want to both create *and* map a castle at the same time, in other words create an imaginary castle by creating its map, it makes sense to me that the design needs to be much more detailed and thoughtful because there is no existence for the castle beyond my map. The map is not a model for a castle that can be examined somewhere else independently, the map *is* the castle.
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Nov 4, 2013 5:27:57 GMT -6
kent's academic viewpoint of play doesn't mesh with mine, though I can dig on his degree of desire for verisimilitude even in the bizarre isms of the supposed underworld. I'm not certain of the value of bringing to bear a certain...Oakeshott sword typology to things like crazy and weird-fantasy underground environs. I may not be a comic book geek, but I am a comic book a**hole and so my adventures, maps and attitudes reflect that.
You know how some local person may give you, as an unfamiliar outsider, directions detailed on a piece of scratch paper? That is how my maps look and the players' maps even more basic and abstract. Since the dungeon is not 'the' game, but rather the game is the whole of the action none of us have any interest in exacting distances or architecture and since we're reasonably intelligent and highly imaginative persons our individual minds-eye views of the descriptions are what matters and not the 'realistic' or 'meaningful' square by square and bland, game-y blueprints. Recall the scene wherein the Fellowship partakes only partially the full grandeur of the Dwarven realm and their emotional pause. I'm not so misguided to think I'll get that from graph paper and descriptions of x amount of feet and such.
But, especially for this discussion, I must note again that myself and all I've ever met outside of fellow gamers online, have never been partial to dungeons in general and by and large think of 'dungeons' as, not to put too fine a point on it, boring (next to all the other possibilities). Still, they remain a part of the myth of D&D game assumptions and thus a remainder at least of resultant gameplay. All I've ever known to need in front of or behind the screen in all of the past 27 years was rough direction and rough distance and very rough size. My and others' imaginations at the table take care of how dank or hateful or still or grand the locale may be.
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Nov 4, 2013 6:33:44 GMT -6
To my way of thinking, if my or the players' maps look any more detailed than a flow chart drawn by a distracted five-year-old, then we're probably not having much fun or probably not focusing on the fun we are having. I and buddies of mine are much more inspired too by land maps one might see in LorR rip-off paperbacks or Marvel Comics' map of Weirdworld than we could ever dream of being by the likes of Wilderlands or Darlene's (admittedly lovely) maps and the like. I'd rather The Hobbit's 'Wilderland' than the LotR map. I'm more likely to sketch out a rough barely-almost-kinda-maybe map based on the lyrics of RUSH's "The Necromancer" (forest, river that bisects the north and south, a road that leads farther south, etc.) than I am to construct some geographically realistic/agreeable continent (YAWN!).
|
|
Chainsaw
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 303
|
Post by Chainsaw on Nov 4, 2013 7:19:17 GMT -6
But, especially for this discussion, I must note again that myself and all I've ever met outside of fellow gamers online, have never been partial to dungeons in general and by and large think of 'dungeons' as, not to put too fine a point on it, boring (next to all the other possibilities) Weird. This seems completely contrary to my experience growing up, when there was no internet. We played dungeons all the time and loved them. I am guessing that was also the case for the millions of people playing the game in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, who designed and bought countless dungeon-based modules and supplements (long before the internet). Maybe your experience is anomalous or maybe I misunderstood your point. In any case, this game is what you make of it, whether in dungeon, wilderness or town. With a bad DM or players, any can be boring.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Nov 4, 2013 9:48:21 GMT -6
Machfront, my experience with most D&D players is that they either loathe dungeons, or at least prefer to play in other environments. Beyond the games I have run myself, I've never played in a dungeon game. Granted, I've never had the pleasure of playing in an old school game before (though that's all I run). There are plenty of possibilities that don't involve dungeons, but I think for a lot of us here, the dungeon seems like the easiest sort of game to run. I remember reading Jeff Rients, for example, talking about how he always runs dungeons because that's what is easiest for him to prep and easiest for him to run. I think that's a lot of the point, right there. It seems to me that a lot of folks start with the dungeons and then gradually branch out to other styles when comfortable.
I think your flowchart approach is perfectly reasonable for a certain style of dungeon game. Certainly it would seem to speed prep work.
Last of all, while I always find Kent's ideas creative and interesting, I agree with others who point out that the dungeon environment is not really going to be realistic no matter what, so the focus should be on making it a fun gaming experience (which will call for different sorts of work with different groups) rather than on realism.
|
|
bexley
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 104
|
Post by bexley on Nov 4, 2013 10:47:46 GMT -6
But, especially for this discussion, I must note again that myself and all I've ever met outside of fellow gamers online, have never been partial to dungeons in general and by and large think of 'dungeons' as, not to put too fine a point on it, boring (next to all the other possibilities). Still, they remain a part of the myth of D&D game assumptions and thus a remainder at least of resultant gameplay. All I've ever known to need in front of or behind the screen in all of the past 27 years was rough direction and rough distance and very rough size. My and others' imaginations at the table take care of how dank or hateful or still or grand the locale may be. Perhaps there is link between loose, casual dungeons and boredom?
|
|
|
Post by kent on Nov 5, 2013 8:21:00 GMT -6
Last of all, while I always find Kent's ideas creative and interesting, I agree with others who point out that the dungeon environment is not really going to be realistic no matter what, so the focus should be on making it a fun gaming experience (which will call for different sorts of work with different groups) rather than on realism. I think it is useful to distinguish between Dungeon topography and Dungeon trappings, that is between the architecture, spaces and paths, and, the monsters and magic that get added in. For some reason people assume that if more time is spent thinking about the design and detail of the topography that this somehow affects the monsters and magic that will be placed there. They are independent for me and so I don't agree with the notion that realism (more accurately 'purposefulness') of locale comes at the expense of magic, weirdness or wonder. I guess I am repeating myself at this stage but I don't consider the Dungeon topography resulting from imitation of the limited tsr style to be 'weird' so much as basic and convenient. I also think that Gygax's three best dungeon maps are not at all typical of the standard dungeon and quite realistic/purposeful and detailed. Im thinking of the Temple environment of D2, the Ice caverns of G2, and the Temple of WG4.
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Nov 5, 2013 20:34:06 GMT -6
Maybe your experience is anomalous or maybe I misunderstood your point. I suppose really my point was that I was admitting my experience was very likely anomalous. Our earliest games were dungeon-centric when I was introduced to the game in '86. Later I ran such things but, after expanding into the wider world most never really wanted to go back. I haven't abandoned dungeons 100%, but when they have featured, they're small or natural caves or some such.
|
|
Chainsaw
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 303
|
Post by Chainsaw on Nov 5, 2013 20:38:06 GMT -6
Ah, heheh. I suppose that's what I get for posting from work, where I am not always as focused as I should be.
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Nov 5, 2013 20:46:55 GMT -6
Perhaps there is link between loose, casual dungeons and boredom? But I run my wilderness and city stuff in the same style and all is well. I'm not really meaning people sitting around slack-jawed, barely awake with their faces morphed by the hand they're propping themselves up with. I meant more the view of the lack of wide open possibilities of wilderness or sprawling city. Dungeons seem...measured. Same with BTB dungeon-play. Maybe I'm just lousy at making such locale + type of play as interesting as it can be. But, it's not as easy for me to be as inspired playing or running them. Creating a living and massive underworld in great detail as kent has done is impressive. But I'd really just describe it at interestingly as I'm able and let the imaginations of myself and the group be the 'picture' rather than the detailed map. Too much front-loaded work to the likes of me. kent stated he will: THINK - IMAGINE - MAP I suppose I simply want to IMAGINE - PLAY - IMAGINE
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Nov 5, 2013 22:14:56 GMT -6
I and buddies of mine are much more inspired too by land maps one might see in LorR rip-off paperbacks or Marvel Comics' map of Weirdworld than we could ever dream of being by the likes of Wilderlands or Darlene's (admittedly lovely) maps and the like. I'd rather The Hobbit's 'Wilderland' than the LotR map. Probably my three favorite fantasy maps are (in no particular order): 1. Wilderland in The Hobbit 2. the 18 Wilderlands maps (those published by Judges Guild, those published by Necromancer Games, and the amazing maps [all too few!] of the Wilderlands done by Peter Bradley for James Mishler) 3. the map of the lands of Blackmoor (published by Judges Guild) I have yet to draw a map that moves my imagination as much as those.
|
|
bexley
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 104
|
Post by bexley on Nov 6, 2013 9:01:47 GMT -6
Perhaps there is link between loose, casual dungeons and boredom? But I run my wilderness and city stuff in the same style and all is well. I'm not really meaning people sitting around slack-jawed, barely awake with their faces morphed by the hand they're propping themselves up with. I meant more the view of the lack of wide open possibilities of wilderness or sprawling city. Dungeons seem...measured. Same with BTB dungeon-play. Maybe I'm just lousy at making such locale + type of play as interesting as it can be. But, it's not as easy for me to be as inspired playing or running them. Creating a living and massive underworld in great detail as kent has done is impressive. But I'd really just describe it at interestingly as I'm able and let the imaginations of myself and the group be the 'picture' rather than the detailed map. Too much front-loaded work to the likes of me. kent stated he will: THINK - IMAGINE - MAP I suppose I simply want to IMAGINE - PLAY - IMAGINE Hm. That raises an interesting question. Are dungeons, wilderness, and city environments practically the same in play. I see your point and I agree; dungeons, as they are traditionally presented, are measured or limited but that doesn't have to be the case. It certainly isn't the case in my campaign.
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Nov 13, 2013 0:39:43 GMT -6
I think this is an excellent thread, and I love these old styles of hand-drawn dungeons! Allan's maps are pretty close to my "ideal" dungeon maps -- they're neat, clean, varied in their contents, interesting to look at. Also, when I look at them, I feel like I am seeing hints or influences of the dungeons from modules like Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, and the G and D series. It looks like the work of a student of the classics. Thanks Gary. I try to vary the maps up from level to level, and I've certainly studied the maps that I like (and don't like) over the years Allan: Your Landings map says "drawn under the influence of Gygax and Kuntz" -- does that mean anything specifically? If you were trying to emulate the style that is in the early AD&D modules, which I think had cartography done by DCS III, then I think you captured that very well. There's a little bit of story behind that sub-title, yes: I'd spent awhile scanning maps to work through some of my research, theories, and revelations about Castle Greyhawk with Rob, and that culminated in us spending several nights in detailed discussion about the Castle Greyhawk and El Raja Key levels. With all of that still fresh in my head, I started to draft my first "landings level", and basically sub-titled it to acknowledge my sources, as well as a dedication to Gary and Rob. The version of that map that I've run at conventions has quite a bit more detail filled into it---the image I posted back on page 1 is basically the shell of the level, since I sometimes don't flesh out the level (and often go through a few different drafts of it by working from prints or photocopies of the level shell) until I have a better sense of what I want to key into it as well. Here's what the current version looks like, although it's probably still not quite "final" per se despite being run several times: I find the criticism about 3D concerns to be valid but uninteresting. Something can be realistic yet boring. The important thing I think is what is in the rooms, how those things are described and if they are engaging to the players. A realistic 3D dungeon would be icing on the cake, but not necessary for having fun in the game. I think I fall between you and Kent in this, Gary, if I'm grokking your positions properly: I do feel that verticality in a dungeon environment is critical to good level design and to making the dungeon itself a part of the challenge of the game (from a mapping POV and to keep the players on their toes, as well as to keep a level from degenerating into "yet another 60 feet of 10x10 tubing"). For me, that verticality and 3D feeling also stems from reading (and re-reading, and re-reading... ) Roger Musson's "Dungeon Architect" series from White Dwarf during my formative years, as from the study of the "leading with good examples" works of Jaquays, Kuntz, and Gygax. P. S. The scans of EGG's hand drawn maps in this thread are PURE GOLD. Amazing what some photo editing can do these days... It reminds me of Bladerunner when Deckard is manipulating that one photograph to get all sorts of fantastic detail and clues. If you're interested, there's some detailed analysis of the EGG and RJK Castle Greyhawk maps on K&K @ knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=6981 I've also been slowly compiling an index of all of the known levels, in part based on threads like the above, as well as one I started for that purpose @ www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=54277
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 23:10:27 GMT -6
|
|
flightcommander
Level 6 Magician
"I become drunk as circumstances dictate."
Posts: 370
|
Post by flightcommander on Apr 25, 2014 0:45:47 GMT -6
Digging the dungeon layout there. I find a lot of real-world, 2.5D inspiration in the Theban Mapping Project stuff like this: www.thebanmappingproject.com/sites/pdfs/kv47.pdfThat map, in itself, wouldn't make a particularly interesting dungeon. But there are some interesting features like: the two columned rooms; the "airlock" room before the first columned room — obviously trapped; and the odd "appendix" to the penultimate chamber. Your map looks like a bunch of these tomb maps joined together. Nice work!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2014 10:49:11 GMT -6
Here is another recent dungeon map I am currently working on. This map is more along the lines of classical dungeon mapping conventions using graph paper being on a sheet of 11" by 17" paper with a grid of 4 squares per inch.
fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1.0-9/1488294_458061207673659_6491036631836909799_n.jpg
Personally while I find this style more suitable for exploratory purposes, my players cannot stand the overly large and/or complex underworlds. Personally I think they would rather spend their adventuring careers rescuing cats from trees and helping little old ladies across the street while picking their pockets rather than exploring ancient ruins for vast treasure and items of unimaginable power.
|
|