benoist
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
OD&D, AD&D, AS&SH
Posts: 346
|
Post by benoist on Aug 3, 2013 14:07:24 GMT -6
Reformated to include the pics in the body of the message: Anyway, here is my first level: 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: Third Level: 4th Level: 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: 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.
|
|
benoist
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
OD&D, AD&D, AS&SH
Posts: 346
|
Post by benoist on Aug 3, 2013 14:10:26 GMT -6
I like your maps a lot, inkmeister!
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on Aug 3, 2013 14:14:31 GMT -6
I use photobucket and link the image. It's free and easy to use.
Fascinating thread, BTW!
|
|
Chainsaw
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 303
|
Post by Chainsaw on Aug 3, 2013 18:51:28 GMT -6
I don't really have much of a style or claim to have any skill (some of this I draw up at the last minute before our games), but here are a few maps from my larger dungeon. The top map is level 2, which contains mostly groups of natural caverns connected by a large underground river (the wider 'passage' running mostly through the middle). Scattered among the natural caverns are a few man-made rooms. My players did not have much trouble mapping any of these areas. The area below is a level 3 piece that connects to the cliff at the bottom right of the top right sheet above. The cliff's about a 500 ft drop down, with a few ledges, small caves and nests sprinkled in. I tried to use some very crude 3D techniques here just as a reminder for my own benefit. This area below is another level 3 piece that connects to the top map at the bottom right. Those narrow hallways are secret passages. My guys pretty much got their asses kicked here.
|
|
|
Post by kent on Aug 3, 2013 19:06:14 GMT -6
Those maps are good, Chainsaw, and I like your 3d effect which is simple and perhaps necessary. The best thing about them is the impression there is architectural purpose at work. What is going on on those levels?
|
|
bexley
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 104
|
Post by bexley on Aug 3, 2013 20:02:21 GMT -6
I like your 4th level inkmeister. How many of those rooms are empty or have a purpose though?
Your 3d level is cool chainsaw. I've experimented with 3d before but you have made it work better than my own scribblings. Good work.
|
|
Chainsaw
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 303
|
Post by Chainsaw on Aug 4, 2013 5:25:13 GMT -6
Those maps are good, Chainsaw, and I like your 3d effect which is simple and perhaps necessary. Your 3d level is cool chainsaw. I've experimented with 3d before but you have made it work better than my own scribblings. Good work. Thanks. The best thing about them is the impression there is architectural purpose at work. What is going on on those levels? The level with my admittedly crude 3d effects is what I call The Space Mummies' Tomb. In this level, explorers can find, interact with and pillage the futuristic technology of ancient astronauts, whose ship crashed here long ago. The astronauts spent some time scavenging and rebuilding technology and machines to help them blast off again, but were ultimately unsuccessful. The general structure is supposed to be some sort of reactor, where energy is created in the very small circular rooms (like 9 and 10) and then focused down the large hallways and combined in the middle, where it was supposed to be harnessed for takeoff. Eventually the area became infested with indigenous creatures, including a nasty old hag and her intestine men slaves (they break open sutures in their abdomens and throw their writhing, angry intestines at enemies to entangle them) and various mutants (the astronauts' technology gives off dangerous radiation). A few of the astronauts also remain of course (these are the so-called Space Mummies) and they are basically cyborg zombies wrapped in shredded white space suits. Yes, this level is a hot mess - literally. The other level is what local legend calls The Lost Dwarven City, though it is fact just the pathetic wreckage of a failed dwarven mining effort. The group's greedy leader bargained with an evil god, devil or elemental to ensure success, but of course this backfired and the dwarves wound up cursed. They've all transformed into either rock, metal or gem variations of themselves, each with their own unique abilities, and, naturally, have gone insane and are doomed to guard the riches forever. The middle room with the symbol contains a gigantic Miner Golem that serves as an impressive statue and guardian against intruders. Those three triangular rooms on the left are in an area where female slaves were kept before being sacrificed to the evil patrons in the area in the upper left. On the upper right is an area with mining carts and elevators that lead down to the actual mines themselves. Below that, where you see the large circles, is the smelting area. Below that is sort of a Great Hall. Below that were bedrooms. The other areas are various other support rooms - supply rooms, library, brewing rooms, training rooms, etc. Generally speaking, the level is filled with cursed dwarves, Xorn (naturally) and some other critters, but the whole bottom right quarter is now controlled by a mysterious figure known as The Electric Wizard. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Schroeder on Aug 4, 2013 11:48:56 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2013 13:50:49 GMT -6
I seem to be having a bit of problem accessing that link. I don't get a 404 or anything, the page simply will not load.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 4, 2013 16:12:04 GMT -6
Thanks for positive comments, Benoist and Bexley. Bexley, as to your question about my level 4, I honestly have no idea what is going on there, or any of the levels except level one. I've never run a true mega-D before, and I'm working on stocking level one and two. I started that project (stocking) this last Friday.
One thing I've found about big dungeons like mine and some of the others is that there are so many decision points in the design process, that a person like me can easily be paralyzed at any given stage. For instance, where should the connections between levels go? What consequences will there be if I put a stair here instead of there? Should the levels stack neatly on top of each other or not? What meaning will it have if I choose one or the other? What should I put in this room? How should that relate to what is in the other rooms? When you have many levels and many rooms per level, this is just overwhelming. Thus, I can't really think of it in those terms. If I'm going to progress, I have to just dig in without much thought, and once I've got some stocking done, and connections in place, then I can go back over and revise it. I think with these big projects, you just have to go for it, unless you really have a very clear vision; some of you seem that talented and creative, but my creativity is NOT in that form at all.
Chainsaw, your maps are amazing. So cool and inspiring. Really dig the 3d. Also, your brief discussion of what is on the 3d level is so cool.
|
|
Chainsaw
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 303
|
Post by Chainsaw on Aug 4, 2013 18:54:08 GMT -6
One thing I've found about big dungeons like mine and some of the others is that there are so many decision points in the design process, that a person like me can easily be paralyzed at any given stage. For instance, where should the connections between levels go? What consequences will there be if I put a stair here instead of there? Should the levels stack neatly on top of each other or not? What meaning will it have if I choose one or the other? What should I put in this room? How should that relate to what is in the other rooms? When you have many levels and many rooms per level, this is just overwhelming. Thus, I can't really think of it in those terms. If I'm going to progress, I have to just dig in without much thought, and once I've got some stocking done, and connections in place, then I can go back over and revise it. I think with these big projects, you just have to go for it, unless you really have a very clear vision; some of you seem that talented and creative, but my creativity is NOT in that form at all. There are varying ideas about how to design and build a megadungeon, but, for me, trying to do more than a level or two (a good base) before the first session seems very daunting to the point of being impossible (for all the reasons you mention). I'd get bogged down, frustrated and probably wind up quitting - I just don't have that much creativity sitting in reserve or that much time to spend on areas that may never see play. Plus, even if I did, I like the dungeon growth to be a little more organic, springing somewhat from the group's adventures and somewhat from my random interests at the time. Once I've got my base, what works for me is designing just enough to get me through the next gaming session (usually like 20-30 rooms, but it's sort of group-specific). Next time I need to prepare, I reflect on the last session (my guys typically give me a heads up on their agenda) and things I've seen, read or done recently. I come up with something and then find a place to plop that in. I don't really care too much if everything fits together perfectly, though generally groups of rooms will be themed. For example, you can see in my top map that I had this idea of a big underground river surrounded by caverns. Later, when I scribbled up Space Mummies for NTRPG Con, I looked for a spot that hadn't been discovered yet and shoehorned it in. Same with the dwarf level (that I did after the PCs indicated they wanted to follow up on that rumor). I'm not designing for publication or whatever, so I don't really give a crap about having a "complete" dungeon or if it holds up to critical scrutiny. My main goal is that my group feels like it has options to explore new and interesting places within the same basic play area. Of course, my game's just beer and pretzels (literally, we are typically drinking beer), so my standards are probably lower than some. Anyway - I would say do a good one level base (and a few rooms around the bottoms of staircases leading down) and build out from that little by little as you need or as inspiration strikes. Don't be afraid of having to wing it if they happen to take the one route that leads to a spot you haven't worked up yet - just throw a horrible creature there. Chainsaw, your maps are amazing. So cool and inspiring. Really dig the 3d. Also, your brief discussion of what is on the 3d level is so cool. They are not really that amazing, but I appreciate the compliment. I think I like your level 4 best (level 5 is a close second), but I'm partial to mixing area types where possible - natural caverns, rooms (various sizes and shapes), rivers, cliffs, lakes, mines, fungus forests and so on. Keeps things from getting too monotonous.
|
|
bexley
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 104
|
Post by bexley on Aug 4, 2013 20:52:43 GMT -6
One thing I've found about big dungeons like mine and some of the others is that there are so many decision points in the design process, that a person like me can easily be paralyzed at any given stage. For instance, where should the connections between levels go? What consequences will there be if I put a stair here instead of there? Should the levels stack neatly on top of each other or not? What meaning will it have if I choose one or the other? What should I put in this room? How should that relate to what is in the other rooms? When you have many levels and many rooms per level, this is just overwhelming. Thus, I can't really think of it in those terms. If I'm going to progress, I have to just dig in without much thought, and once I've got some stocking done, and connections in place, then I can go back over and revise it. I think with these big projects, you just have to go for it, unless you really have a very clear vision; some of you seem that talented and creative, but my creativity is NOT in that form at all. There are varying ideas about how to design and build a megadungeon, but, for me, trying to do more than a level or two (a good base) before the first session seems very daunting to the point of being impossible (for all the reasons you mention). I'd get bogged down, frustrated and probably wind up quitting - I just don't have that much creativity sitting in reserve or that much time to spend on areas that may never see play. Plus, even if I did, I like the dungeon growth to be a little more organic, springing somewhat from the group's adventures and somewhat from my random interests at the time. Once I've got my base, what works for me is designing just enough to get me through the next gaming session (usually like 20-30 rooms, but it's sort of group-specific). Next time I need to prepare, I reflect on the last session (my guys typically give me a heads up on their agenda) and things I've seen, read or done recently. I come up with something and then find a place to plop that in. I don't really care too much if everything fits together perfectly, though generally groups of rooms will be themed. For example, you can see in my top map that I had this idea of a big underground river surrounded by caverns. Later, when I scribbled up Space Mummies for NTRPG Con, I looked for a spot that hadn't been discovered yet and shoehorned it in. Same with the dwarf level (that I did after the PCs indicated they wanted to follow up on that rumor). I'm not designing for publication or whatever, so I don't really give a crap about having a "complete" dungeon or if it holds up to critical scrutiny. My main goal is that my group feels like it has options to explore new and interesting places within the same basic play area. Of course, my game's just beer and pretzels (literally, we are typically drinking beer), so my standards are probably lower than some. Anyway - I would say do a good one level base (and a few rooms around the bottoms of staircases leading down) and build out from that little by little as you need or as inspiration strikes. Don't be afraid of having to wing it if they happen to take the one route that leads to a spot you haven't worked up yet - just throw a horrible creature there. I understand where you guys are coming from. Have you tried one huge level with a unified concept rather than a multi-level complex with multiple themes? I speculate that the indecision or paralysation might become non-existent when you are working from a solid base like that and I personally find that ideas just flow thick and fast because I don't have to reset for every level design. It sounds like you guys are continually stopping and starting the design process with multiple levels. I can understand why you would have trouble if you have to continually start over, it just seems a bit arbitrary to me. Anyway, some food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Aug 4, 2013 21:32:55 GMT -6
My current project I have mapped levels 1 and 2, and plunked down two stairways that will be in level 3B. One thing I've done is to be very aware of where the levels stack. For instance, there is a massive staircase from level 1 that avoids levels 2 and 3 and goes down to level 4. There are five stairways down in level 2, and three of them go to level 3A, with two going to 3B. Level 2 - which I just finished today and doesn't have any traps or internal elevation shifts that I intend to add - looks like this: This one was done on 5x5 graph paper and combines two sublevels I had previously been working on. If you follow the paths there are several intentional large and small scale loops, and many rooms are irregular in shape - this was a wizard's laboratory and various summoned or created beings had to be kept in irregular settings. I also wanted to have rooms that are pretty massive in scale. There's one room whose shape I shamelessly borrowed from Benoist's excellent AFS #3 map.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 5, 2013 10:29:41 GMT -6
The level with my admittedly crude 3d effects is what I call The Space Mummies' Tomb. In this level, explorers can find, interact with and pillage the futuristic technology of ancient astronauts, whose ship crashed here long ago. I love ancient astronauts. They are sooooo 1970s D&D.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 5, 2013 10:32:54 GMT -6
One thing I've found about big dungeons like mine and some of the others is that there are so many decision points in the design process, that a person like me can easily be paralyzed at any given stage. For instance, where should the connections between levels go? What consequences will there be if I put a stair here instead of there? Should the levels stack neatly on top of each other or not? What meaning will it have if I choose one or the other? What should I put in this room? How should that relate to what is in the other rooms? When you have many levels and many rooms per level, this is just overwhelming. I have found that randomization helps. Roll some dice and consult the charts in the 1st issue of The Strategic Review (or Appendix A of the Dungeon Masters Guide). Making dungeon maps that way is less a process of creation and more a process of discovery. What is beyond this door? I don't know! The oracular dice will tell me.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 5, 2013 10:58:21 GMT -6
Geoffrey, I think your advice is good here. I broke out the DMG last Friday to do just as you say. The DMG is AWESOME for that kind of stuff.
The plan is to stock according to random ideas (unless I've got something I want to put in for sure), and then go back over and revise/replace according to my tastes.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 5, 2013 11:19:00 GMT -6
Cadriel, thanks for sharing your level 2 map! Yours seems to exhibit the Holmes style; distinct rooms connected by corridors, very thick walls.
A lot of your rooms are odd shaped, and strike me as difficult to describe accurately (they somewhat remind me of some of the ARduin dungeons).
One of the purposes of my thread is to consider the value of especially odd rooms/structures, etc. A lot of the most awesome maps I've seen make use of very wild/creative structures. Grodog's maps come to mind. What do these odd rooms/structures give you (beyond an awesome map), and what is the cost of placing them?
Many people have maps that just inspire awe - they look amazing. But the thought of running them seems daunting; so many odd shaped rooms, impossible to describe. My own levels, especially 1-4, are set up to be as square as possible, so that I can literally describe the shape of areas in terms of squares - you move 4 shares north, 3 squares east, and now you are in a 3x3 square room. (I'm nervous about the inclusion of the very few cave areas I've got, as well as a few of my odd shaped rooms). Fictionally cool? No. But it's a huge friggin dungeon with 0198059180491 rooms; I'm NOT going to individually describe or stock each room so that they are all distinct and cool. To my mind, sometimes an empty room is just an empty room.
In general, a point of my thread is to consider the tension between the dungeon game as a GAME, and the dungeon game as exploration of an interesting, quirky fictional space. Not to say one is right and the other wrong (it will come down to tastes), but to say that to a degree I think you have to choose one over the other. My own dungeons above are largely quite bland in appearance; lots of right angles, lots of easily measured rooms. But the point is to provide a game space, and with the sheer number of rooms, corridors, dead ends, secret areas, the idea is that it will provide a setting of great complexity and variety.
I think OD&D as originally conceived (and I could be so totally wrong about this; it's just my feeling) was more about the dungeon as a difficult game space. Thus all the random, pointless corridors, pointlessly difficult layout, nonsensical architecture, etc. I think by the time you get to Moldvay D&D, the dungeon is more about being a cool, interesting place with a history and a scenario to capture player's interest. I think these various styles all have their place, but a major point of the thread is to call attention to the differences so that the design maximizes strengths for the particular game.
Just some further thoughts on the overall subject.
|
|
|
Post by scottyg on Aug 5, 2013 14:08:54 GMT -6
Has this come up yet? Being an accurate mapper was supposed to be one of the challenges the players needed to deal with. Some of those unusual areas are there just to challenge the mapper. An accurate map lessens the likelihood of getting lost and makes it easier to see those big, open areas on the graph paper where secret rooms/areas may be located. Most of the games I’ve played in don’t use those old school mapping rules where a player draws a map strictly on what the DM is saying. Usually the DM draws or helps draw the map as the players explore. How you handle mapping may affect your map design style.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 6, 2013 19:12:10 GMT -6
I find it takes away the grind of stocking dungeons to create a list of all the traps, illusions, and monsters that I want to fill my dungeon with before I actually sit down to draw it out. This also helps when I finally sit down to actually draw up the map, as the rooms flow out naturally since I know what each could possibly contain.
Otherwise my rooms tend to have a lot of filler I feel forced to dream up just so I don't have an empty dungeon instead of the well planned and creative tricks and traps that I'm enthusiastic about getting to use.
Sorry for the long sentences, this is my first post. The Red Baron
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Aug 7, 2013 9:13:27 GMT -6
I find it takes away the grind of stocking dungeons to create a list of all the traps, illusions, and monsters that I want to fill my dungeon with before I actually sit down to draw it out. This also helps when I finally sit down to actually draw up the map, as the rooms flow out naturally since I know what each could possibly contain. Otherwise my rooms tend to have a lot of filler I feel forced to dream up just so I don't have an empty dungeon instead of the well planned and creative tricks and traps that I'm enthusiastic about getting to use. Sorry for the long sentences, this is my first post. The Red Baron I like this idea - thank you!
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 7, 2013 9:26:34 GMT -6
Good post RedBaron. Some people a few years ago had a discussion about "Filling The Map" versus "Mapping the Fill." Sounds like you try to map the fill. I'm doing a little bit of that, but I find an improvisational approach is the only way for me to tackle something of this magnitude.
Speaking of the Red Baron (Karl Marx), he wrote that humans were unique among animals because we are capable of truly engineering our reality. We can create a structure in our minds, from nothing, and then manifest it in reality. He contrasted humans to bees. Bees build structures too, but he maintained that bees are only reacting to their environment; it's not really architecture, just a sort of melding with what is already there. I think Marx was utterly wrong on this point; we all react to what is there, and nothing is created in a vacuum. But I do think some people are better at having a vision and realizing it than others. I tend to be better as an improviser, in the sense that I do better throwing stuff down haphazardly, with little forethought or understanding, and then balancing/refining it. More like a bee, I guess. A lot of my structure is not conscious. This has been my approach to art and music, anyway.
I notice that I can sit there thinking about what to put in my dungeon, and little glimpses occur to me, but nothing gels. I'll do this for days, weeks, and nothing comes of it. It's only when I sit down and say "F it, I'm gonna just start throwing stuff down" that I get anywhere. Geoffrey's advice to roll on the DMG tables is exactly the kind of thing that gets me going. Once I've got a lot of it done, I'll go back over it and tweak it, which is a lot easier than coming up with something from nothing.
I truly admire those of you who are so great at just having a clear vision from the get go.
Thanks redbaron for your comment! Welcome to the boards.
|
|
|
Post by welleran on Aug 7, 2013 14:26:45 GMT -6
This is a great thread! I really like the idea of experimenting with different styles, techniques, etc. My personal style looks a lot like Cadriel's above, somewhere between Holmesian and the looser version of Gygaxian styles. For instance, I decided to play with a dense section (the upper center area) -- it's not a whole level, nor does it have many odd angles, but I just wanted to see how it worked in actual play (so far it works fine):
|
|
|
Post by kent on Aug 7, 2013 18:24:43 GMT -6
Im going to offer a particular criticism of what I see is a flaw with the megadungeon LEVELS presented so far.
Gasp, criticism.
Well, unless you are mapping building plans on a surface I can't think why so many connected rooms would be on the same LEVEL. Any underground constructions, particularly architectural accretion over time, will tend to be clustered in 3d rather than form vast expanses in 2d at exactly the same depth underground. Jaquays understood this for the OD&D adventure Night of the Walking Wet as early as 1977 and all his subsequent adventures gave further illustration. This would be obvious to DM designers who consider the architectural purpose of the dungeons rather than blurt out some sort of rectilinear pencil sprawl on paper that has nothing to do with functioning and more to do with naive, preposterous and easily scribbled spaces underground.
|
|
|
Post by welleran on Aug 7, 2013 18:59:22 GMT -6
Im going to offer a particular criticism of what I see is a flaw with the megadungeon LEVELS presented so far. Gasp, criticism. Well, unless you are mapping building plans on a surface I can't think why so many connected rooms would be on the same LEVEL. Any underground constructions, particularly architectural accretion over time, will tend to be clustered in 3d rather than form vast expanses in 2d at exactly the same depth underground. Jaquays understood this for the OD&D adventure Night of the Walking Wet as early as 1977 and all his subsequent adventures gave further illustration. This would be obvious to DM designers who consider the architectural purpose of the dungeons rather than blurt out some sort of rectilinear pencil sprawl on paper that has nothing to do with functioning and more to do with naive, preposterous and easily scribbled spaces underground. That's a very legit criticism. Ironically enough, as I posted mine that very thought crossed my mind, as I've made a conscious effort to do more of that, as I think it adds a lot of interest. The Alexandrian blog's entries on Jaquaying the Dungeon are definitely a "must read" (I even printed them out, something I almost never do). Here's a stab at trying it -- a level and two sub-levels with a number of connections between themselves and other levels. Some examples: - a tunnel under the great domed room between #66 and #91 (the big dome room itself being raised up and with a ziggurat in the center with a way down) - a lower section in the lower right corner, with a pit trap in one room (#68) dropping to one below (#73) - another pit trap dropping down from the hexagonal honeycomb area to the same depth - circular stairs ending in a bottomless pit (#81)
|
|
|
Post by welleran on Aug 7, 2013 19:05:45 GMT -6
Below the Ziggurat are two smaller sub-levels. those two connected by both a ramp and stairs. Also, an open chasm or rift also connects them, with bridges across at the upper level but just openings at the lower (the rift drops far below to the next level, an underground sea). There is also a pit trap that leads from the main level to the upper ziggurat level. I think maximizing variety gives players more choice and can sometimes lead to interesting situations!
|
|
|
Post by kent on Aug 7, 2013 19:10:38 GMT -6
Welleran, I remember seeing a surface map of yours with islands which I thought was very good indeed but if Im honest, for underground maps, you need to get off the square grid, have much more variation in the size of rooms (architectural purpose) and break up the levels into mini levels, slightly up and slightly down. IMO mapping in 3d is not a solved problem, it is too complex, and gifted people like Jaquays are rare. Gygax is an example of someone who was ingenious on the kind-of flat level - G2 & D2.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 7, 2013 19:24:18 GMT -6
I welcome your criticism Kent. Good points, good comments. I still like most of the maps I've seen here. Thanks for posting your levels, Welleran, I think you have a cool style. I'd like to see more secret doors, because, like Geoffrey, I think they are cool.
Kent, your point about 3d is a good one. I also wonder, though, how well that 3d style fits with D&D as a map exploration game. It's a complex exercise as it is - does 3d overcomplicate the map exploration GAME aspect? That is my concern. You are very right that I just start drawing without any thought at all to what the point of it all is. I wrote above why I think that's the case; I get analysis paralysis. Simple as that.
Good conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 7, 2013 19:34:20 GMT -6
Im going to offer a particular criticism of what I see is a flaw with the megadungeon LEVELS presented so far. Gasp, criticism. Well, unless you are mapping building plans on a surface I can't think why so many connected rooms would be on the same LEVEL. Any underground constructions, particularly architectural accretion over time, will tend to be clustered in 3d rather than form vast expanses in 2d at exactly the same depth underground. Jaquays understood this for the OD&D adventure Night of the Walking Wet as early as 1977 and all his subsequent adventures gave further illustration. This would be obvious to DM designers who consider the architectural purpose of the dungeons rather than blurt out some sort of rectilinear pencil sprawl on paper that has nothing to do with functioning and more to do with naive, preposterous and easily scribbled spaces underground. This is also a great way to ruin player's maps. I spend easily 50% of my time when drawing maps checking to make sure my elevations for each level aren't conflicting, and even I get lost in the mess of sloping passageways and internal elevation changes. There were a couple threads up recently about "Jaquaying" a dungeon. If you nest two levels that each have constant internal elevation changes, and then connect up lots of the places where the two dungeons coincide at the same elevation, it will take care of all the organic interflow and nonlinearity that seems to be the intent of "Jaquaying" very nicely. If it took me work not to get lost in my own labyrinths, then I know I can look forward to the squirming of players who've gone up a couple sloping passages and can't figure out how the area they just mapped could have completely changed. Add in a few one way doors and they'll be experiencing that rending of the heart when your unsure if your character will ever again set foot above ground. They'll actually be worried about how long they can make those iron rations last. So I have the opposite problem. My dungeons are a jumbled 3D nightmare.
|
|
|
Post by kent on Aug 7, 2013 19:44:57 GMT -6
Kent, your point about 3d is a good one. I also wonder, though, how well that 3d style fits with D&D as a map exploration game. ... My own levels, especially 1-4, are set up to be as square as possible, so that I can literally describe the shape of areas in terms of squares - you move 4 shares north, 3 squares east, and now you are in a 3x3 square room You know, look out your window. Do you see any squares? I have never had any problem giving the impression to the players that they were in whatever environment I invented. Let them map as best they can from descriptions and jot down a guiding scribble or two but don't let some sort of simplistic mapping system determine the architecture of fantastic environments.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Aug 7, 2013 20:52:04 GMT -6
Im going to offer a particular criticism of what I see is a flaw with the megadungeon LEVELS presented so far. Gasp, criticism. Well, unless you are mapping building plans on a surface I can't think why so many connected rooms would be on the same LEVEL. Any underground constructions, particularly architectural accretion over time, will tend to be clustered in 3d rather than form vast expanses in 2d at exactly the same depth underground. Jaquays understood this for the OD&D adventure Night of the Walking Wet as early as 1977 and all his subsequent adventures gave further illustration. This would be obvious to DM designers who consider the architectural purpose of the dungeons rather than blurt out some sort of rectilinear pencil sprawl on paper that has nothing to do with functioning and more to do with naive, preposterous and easily scribbled spaces underground. There is a school of thought in dungeon design (Philotomy expressed it best) that says that the whole notion of "purpose" you are talking about here is counter to a megadungeon proper. My own concept of the megadungeon is that it's something that was "seeded" by human architecture but subsequently grew into weirder and different underground spaces. So I partly reject the idea that dungeons should necessarily have a tight correlation to function. As far as elevation, my levels aren't as flat as they look, I just haven't added internal elevation shifts to the map that I posted. My first level has three internal tiers complete with stairways that stay on the same level, so it's in a kind of staggered step pattern; the second level is supposed to have at least two, I just have to figure out the logistics of it all.
|
|