|
Post by tetramorph on Nov 23, 2014 17:23:53 GMT -6
These two threads: odd74.proboards.com/post/150802/threadodd74.proboards.com/post/153362/threadAnd this blog post: rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/megadelve-the-rat-folk-tunnels/have started me thinking. I am neither an architect, nor a cartographer. However, I have a pretty good imagination and I can describe things fairly well. I am also becoming more and more convinced that, even for OS play, the fundamental unit of an adventure is the encounter, not a "room," or "hex." If you are war-gamming, you need to know where everybody is exactly. My group keeps this stuff pretty abstract -- we use the marching order list for who gets it first and last and to roll up random hits. We don't use minis and we don't really think that way. I've also read about how some mappers just draw their maps in a rather "flow-chart" kind of way. Now, if that is enough to get players in and out of a dungeon, couldn't that be enough to get a DM to describe a dungeon to them? Or a wilderness crawl? Especially in light of the above blog post I link out to -- that guy's maps are freakin' famous. But his flow-chart looks almost as cool to me, and in some ways, because of the way I think, inspires my imagination more, and seems to be easier to DM from. What to you guys think? Would it work? Could it work? Anybody willing to try? If I do, I'll let you know how it goes!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 18:35:00 GMT -6
Sure, it would work.
But in the original game, the dungeon was supposed to be difficult to map! Shifting walls, one way doors, sloping passages, teleport corridors, curving passages, etc, etc, etc. If the players create an exact copy of the map the referee has failed. The "unit of play" was NOT the encounter. It was primarily a game of exploring a hidden map.
I don't know how you'd do that flow chart style.
Also, it's fun to draw dungeon levels.
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on Nov 23, 2014 18:47:39 GMT -6
Also, it's fun to draw dungeon levels. Now that's what I'm talking about I just really like maps of dungeons. Drawing them, or finding the (primarily hand-drawn is what I like) maps done by others online really helps me 'get the feeling' of narrating a dungeon crawl for someone. I'm not sure I could get 'in the moment' like that, as a DM, with a flowchart. Not sure though as I've never tried.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Nov 23, 2014 19:25:24 GMT -6
There are times when you might want to think of the encounter as being the fundamental unit of play. For example, the recent discussion about randomly generating wilderness without mapping it started when a blind gamer asked about tools for solo play.
On the other hand, running just encounters and skipping over "empty" wilderness or dungeon areas has its drawbacks. For one, you don't have the suspense of not knowing if you are about to have an encounter. For another, players don't have to make hard choices about searching an area just in case there's something worthwhile there.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Nov 23, 2014 20:11:43 GMT -6
Good points, all.
I in no way am trying to downsize the empty room surprise aspect of it. I suppose I am imagining two phases of map creation for a DM running "flow chart style."
1. Determine the encounters you most want 2. Use the random encounter generator to generate the rest of the encounters 3. Make sure there is plenty of space in between each encounter filled with:
A. Shifting walls, one way doors, sloping passages, teleport corridors, curving passages, etc, etc, etc. (Thanks, Gronan!) (But I do see some of these as part of the encounters!) B. Empty rooms C. Winding, hard to map, criss-crossing corridors (which the DM has drawn into the flow chart)
So, between these "encounters" you would draw flow chart lines. Along these lines you could write out things like distance, slope, width, etc.
I still imagine it being something that could be mapped. By someone who is a better map drawer than me! Does that make it better for you guys?
|
|
idrahil
Level 6 Magician
The Lighter The Rules, The Better The Game!
Posts: 398
|
Post by idrahil on Nov 23, 2014 22:46:53 GMT -6
When I have to improvise, I use a flowchart. Basically, any small ruin or what have you that I haven't planned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 1:02:44 GMT -6
Also, it's fun to draw dungeon levels. Now that's what I'm talking about Seconded! Also I'd love to see one of Gronan's dungeon levels! Edit; I would also like to point out that while the flowchart Dyson provided in his blog could serve as a spring board in which other DMs could make use of, it is really about the organizational stage at that point. each of those blocks and bubbles represents a singular dungeon section of the mega dungeon greater. Thus it is much like Gygax's dungeon cross section presented in U&WA. Instead of writing Level 1, Level 2, etcetera, one could instead label each section as Sewers, Crypts, Caves, Lost Temple, and so on thus generating a solid conceptualization of what each level is supposed to represent and what will likely be found within. This way an amazing level isn't just drawn and the DM draws a blank with how to stock it. Thus such a "flowchart" can provide a good inspirational starting part bur probably wouldn't make for an exciting end product.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 10:19:12 GMT -6
I've been thinking that this is really the best way to present a dungeon environment. A simple flowchart with each node representing a small group of rooms (IOW a one-page dungeon). If these dungeon areas have several entrances and exits the DM would be able to arrange the dungeon network easily; adding new rooms or removing ones that you don't like.
The connections between these nodes can remain vague: 10 minutes of tunnels, a curvy passage, a flight of stairs, without the need for them to line up exactly.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Nov 25, 2014 12:58:54 GMT -6
Fundamentally important point that it behooves us to chisel into the dungeon entrance, if we're trying to understand (or experience!) the early approach to the game/hobby. It has failed, until now, to stick in my brain mostly because when I started playing in '82 with Moldvay Basic, it was no longer advertised as such. Though to be fair, those rules certainly supported that kind of play.
It is still sometimes so ridiculously difficult for me to think of the point of D&D (or RPGs in general) as anything other than "writing an impromptu fantasy novel with your friends." (that's a paraphrase, really--not a direct quote...)
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Nov 25, 2014 13:18:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Nov 25, 2014 14:44:34 GMT -6
Kesher, awesome point and awesome link. I love that blog. Thanks.
Okay, don't worry folks. I am still a card carrying member of OD&D OS style play!
I am talking about the MAP! I still want it to be a game of exploration. It is still about a hidden MAP!
I am only talking about how I draw up the map. Instead of drawing it up like some kind of architect that I am not, I am thinking about drawing it up more like a flow-chart with descriptions about slope, width, what it looks like, etc. I think that will just work better for me.
Finally, about the encounter as the fundamental unit. Let me clarify what I mean and what I do not mean.
What I mean is that, when you are hanging out after a session, no one is saying "wow, that hour and a half of not knowing where the hell we were in the dark was so awesome!" A DM has failed if you have had an entire 4 hour session with nothing but a possible random monster encounter. Instead, after a session, folks are pumped about "taking out that demon lord," or "dealing with that crazy trap," or "finally figuring out we kept getting teleported." I hope these examples show that I construe "encounter" very broadly.
If the DM isn't building for those the DM is failing to provide something entertaining. Yes, it is about exploration. But it is exploration to build a sense of excitement around sudden discovery: an encounter.
I do NOT mean, by saying that encounters are the fundamental unit, that these should be prescribed and railroaded into somebody's gamed-out fantasy novel.
I mean it in an OS kind of way: it is post-facto: it is about the story we construct after the fact. But it is the stringing together of encounters into a narrative that is remembered as the "fun."
I am thinking about drawing up a dungeon in a flow-chart way so that I can cut to the chase for myself as a DM. I can still draw a line between two rooms and say 100' and that the room is behind a hidden door they may never find.
It is really about remembering a goal of the post-facto narrative and keeping the design simple for someone who isn't an architect.
Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Nov 25, 2014 15:10:26 GMT -6
Do you mean like a sketch map? Just boxes with room descriptions connected by lines, instead of trying to draw out the exact dimensions of corridors? And corridor lengths written alongside?
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Nov 25, 2014 15:23:19 GMT -6
talysman -- Yes, I suppose, something like that. Is my use of the word "flowchart" implying something that I don't want it to imply? Help me out here.
I am also thinking about the way we as human beings encounter space:
We don't live in a Cartesian grid. I think drawing it the way I am trying to describe it (if "flowchart" is wrong) frees me to describe things more imaginatively.
And I am thinking about a point that Lewis made once about how he wrote fiction. First, he thought of a place, a scene, something interesting. Like a gas lamp lighted in the middle of a snow covered forest. Then the story would follow.
OKAY OS FRIENDS: DON'T WORRY! I know, that unlike Lewis, we are not trying to write a fantasy novel.
Nevertheless, we are trying to engage the world that those novels gave us. I still want the exploration, the OS "feel." But I am starting to realize that I was limiting my imagination when constructing dungeons based upon what I thought I could draw well on a map.
So, for example, I am thinking of Thecla Doom's nasty gigantic coven room. I could never draw that. But I could circle a big bubble on a sheet of paper and say: "This place looks just like Thecla Doom's nasty coven."
Ah. Freedom of imagination again. Thanks for the interaction, y'all.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 25, 2014 15:25:48 GMT -6
There seems to be a need today for people to produce high quality pieces of art when mapping their dungeons. Whatever happened to scribbles on graph paper? Unless you're publishing, you just need it to make sense to you. Decoration is not required.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 25, 2014 15:31:48 GMT -6
I think drawing it the way I am trying to describe it (if "flowchart" is wrong) frees me to describe things more imaginatively. That's probably the disconnect here. Is the point to describe it imaginatively, or is the point to describe it so that the players understand it? If you draw a line between two rooms and then imaginatively describe a zigzagging corridor between the rooms, what I as a player would hear is, "I want to conjure an image in your mind that you don't have to act on in any way." Alternatively, one might hear it as, "Blah, blah, blah, corridor, blah, blah, blah, opens into a room." I know it's not part of the game, so I don't have to worry about mapping it.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Nov 25, 2014 15:37:54 GMT -6
Stormcrow -- Okay, rad point.
I will need to think this one out.
I think there are times that mapping has felt like a waste of time, and times when mapping has felt essential.
Your point is helping me to see the importance of traditional mapping for the fear of getting lost or not knowing where you are aspect of exploration.
Sometimes, however, I feel like mapping something out completely makes little sense. As long as I have my dimensions right and the description remains consistent, I should not need to map every aspect of Thecla Doom's nasty coven.
Am I making sense? Or am I still off the mark?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 15:48:00 GMT -6
I can't imagine mapping as a waste of time. It started out because it was needed... how the hell do you get OUT?
Also, I don't see how a squiggly line labled "thirty feet of corridor" is less trouble than drawing thirty feet of corridor.
On the other hand, understand that I think primarily in visual terms anyway; drawing my dungeon level makes it easier for ME to envision and remember what's there. Other people less visually oriented may process things differently.
D&D was first described to my by Rob Kuntz as "Gary has this cool new game called Greyhawk. You're a bunch of guys exploring an old abandoned wizard's castle full of monsters and treasure and stuff."
The point of the referee's map is to have things like this happen:
REF: Ten feet, twenty feet, thirty feet, east ends, north or south. PCS: We go south. REF: Ten feet, twenty feet, thirty feet, forty feet, south ends, door to the south, passage east curving northeast. PCS: Um... that's not what my map says. REF: How about that. PCS: ...crud. REF: You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Nov 25, 2014 15:52:13 GMT -6
talysman -- Yes, I suppose, something like that. Is my use of the word "flowchart" implying something that I don't want it to imply? Help me out here. There may be a slight problem with the word "flowchart" in that it implies the diagram doesn't represent actual physical position, or leaves out details like the zigzag corridor Stormcrow mentions. If the corridor zigzags, can the players attempt to use a "zag" for cover, ducking out from behind to fire missiles, then ducking back? But also, there's a question of how physical dimensions affect the dungeon construction. Are you coming up with a list of encounter areas, describing how they are connected, and ignoring dimensions, except to record distances from one room to another for travel purposes? Or are you visualizing the rooms as being in specific locations, but not worrying about the map being visually exact, as long as it is close enough? The thing is, when you pay at least lip service to those "cartesian coordinates", players can figure out things from the map, like "Hey, this blank area might be large enough for a room! We should check for secret doors!" They might also try to bust a hole in the floor if they know that they are directly above another room, so that they can attack occupants in the room below from the safety of their high perch. Players don't have to use graph paper for this, and technically neither do you, but it may help for visualizing where things are in space.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Nov 25, 2014 16:01:32 GMT -6
talysman -- Got it. Thanks.
So that is why Dyson moves from flow-chart to a more exact map.
I suppose what I've discovered in all this, for myself, can be summed up in two things: 1. start with a flow chart because that is more how I think and imagine then 2. build a more exact map for exploration purposes but don't worry about anything more than "lip service" to old Rene Descartes! (It just needs to grant them the ability to discover.)
Thanks y'all
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 16:08:44 GMT -6
Sounds to me like you've got it! Have fun.
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on Nov 25, 2014 16:10:28 GMT -6
I love the idea of 'lining out' the layout of the dungeon at first, especially if I want long corridors etc. Mine aren't really 'flow charts' though... Just light lines for corridors and light circles for rooms with light words like "Goblins" or "Medusa" or "Statue" or something. Once I can visualize (I interpret things visually, as Mike says above) the layout of the dungeon, then I draw in the rooms and corridors as normal.
I suppose I could run a game with just the light lines and a hip-shot room key in haste. But man, as it was stated above, it is just fun to draw maps!
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Nov 27, 2014 8:28:43 GMT -6
But in the original game, the dungeon was supposed to be difficult to map! Here's an idea for an impossible-to-map dungeon... It has 5 rooms. Each of the 5 rooms is connected to the other 4 rooms via a passageway. Each passageway is exactly 100 feet long, and they do not cross. Here is a first approximation to a map using tetramorph's flowchart style of map (which I'd call a graph). The rooms are shown as dots (graph vertices) and the passageways are lines (graph edges): There are two big problems with this approximation: - The passageways cross
- The passageways are not all the same length
We can solve the first problem by inscribing the dungeon on the surface of a donut like so: Now the passageways don't cross. To achieve this, one of the passageways/edges had to go through the donut hole, namely the pink edge connecting the orange vertex to the green vertex . (A graph's genus is the number of holes needed in the donut so that there are no edge crossings.) But the problem remains that the passageways aren't the same length. In fact, there is no way to draw such a map to scale in 2- or even 3-dimensions. But such an object exists in 4-dimensions. It's called a pentatope, and its projection onto a 2D plane is the simplest example of a non-planar graph. The Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős discovered a way to compute the dimension of a non-planar graph in the paper On the Dimension of a Graph (1965). The ordinary Euclidean dimension of an object is always greater than or equal to its graph dimension. The projection of a pentatope onto a plane is called a complete graph on 5 vertices or K 5 for short. The dimension of any (hyper-dimensional object projected onto a) complete graph K n is always n-1. There are other non-planar graphs besides complete graphs. Here is a partial but useful list... mathworld.wolfram.com/NonplanarGraph.htmlAny of these graphs would make a good dungeon in the sense of being impossible to map to scale in 2D or 3D. The trick to get a higher-dimensional dungeon (in the case of a non-planar graph) is that the passageways must not cross, and they must be the same length. There are other ways to make a hyper-dimensional dungeon though: In the thread on the Gottam Cnihtas campaign setting, I presented another kind of 4D dungeon. The graph for this dungeon was embedded on a Klein bottle. As a consequence of the non-orientability of this space, the PCs left- and right-hand sides would exchange as they moved around the dungeon. Insofar as describing a room in such a dungeon to players, consider using HP Lovecraft's trick of suggesting that maybe the sum of the angles going around the room doesn't add up to 360: - "Old Keziah, he reflected, might have had excellent reasons for living in a room with peculiar angles; for was it not through certain angles that she claimed to have gone outside the boundaries of the world of space we know?" (Dreams in the Witch House)
- "the angles are all wrong" (Call of Cthulhu)
- Creatures inhabiting "the angles of time" (The Hounds of Tindalos)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 11:39:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by scottyg on Dec 2, 2014 12:15:32 GMT -6
Yeah, that's pretty much what my map looks like when I'm playing.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Dec 2, 2014 14:06:36 GMT -6
hedgehobbit -- yes, that is it!
And thanks for the great link!
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Dec 2, 2014 18:38:56 GMT -6
Is this what you had in mind when you say "flow chart style mapping"? Great map! I spent the entire summer of '81 immersed in Zork, and I wish I had that map! Furthermore, the map is connected to original D&D, as I'll demonstrate... The unabridged the map has a legend and notes. It's really comprised of 3 maps: The wilderness, the underground, and a maze. Zork came out in December 1980. The map wasn't published by Infocom, the company that made Zork. Instead, it was published in 1982 by the Zork Users Group (or "ZUG"). ZUG was started by Mike Dornbrook who worked at Infocom as a playtester. He left in October 1981 to pursue an MBA at U. Chicago. He worked on ZUG between classes. ZUG sold maps, hints, memorabilia, and discounted games to club members. Infocom and ZUG had a cozy relationship---ZUG provided promotions and customer relations management for Infocom, while Infocom allowed ZUG to use its intellectual property. ZUG grew to 20,000 members. Activision eventually bought Infocom. In the late nineties, they gave away copies of Zork I-III for free to promote two newer titles. These free giveaways are still floating around the internet, but likely without Activision's permission. Zork itself was pretty much a knock-off of Will Crowther's mainframe computer game, the " Colossal Cave Adventure." Crowther wrote "Adventure" between 1975 and 1976. You can play "Adventure" for free on the internet. In 1977 it was ported to UNIX, and if you're lucky enough to be at a *NIX shell, you can probably just type "advent" to start playing. "Adventure" had two main inspirations: One was the Mammoth Cave system in Kentucky. The other was D&D---in October 1994, in a post in rec.arts.int-fiction, Bernie Cosell wrote: ...So this map has its origins in a D&D game played in 1975!
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on Dec 2, 2014 18:44:26 GMT -6
krusader74, that is an incredibly cool breakdown of an awesome game! When I first played Zork, I had no idea that it was based off of D&D but when playing it, just had to think... "How could it not be???" Thanks for the really neat post!
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Dec 3, 2014 10:37:48 GMT -6
What's lots of fun is that if you get a copy of the Zork binaries, and Frotz (a reverse engineered "Zork Virtual Machine" or Z-Machine), you can play Zork on practically any computing platform (I have it on my iPhone). Adventure has been ported to Inform (a compiler written to produce Z-Machine binaries) so you can play that also. Plus there is a whole Interactive Fiction community with hundreds of titles available.
Frank
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Dec 3, 2014 17:14:17 GMT -6
What's lots of fun is that if you get a copy of the Zork binaries, and Frotz (a reverse engineered "Zork Virtual Machine" or Z-Machine), you can play Zork on practically any computing platform (I have it on my iPhone). Adventure has been ported to Inform (a compiler written to produce Z-Machine binaries) so you can play that also. Plus there is a whole Interactive Fiction community with hundreds of titles available. Frank Frotz is great! It's one of the first things I install on a new computer. Check out this repository full of Interactive Fiction Maps. These are all "flowchart"-style maps. The source code for these maps is in IFM format. There is software for drawing the maps and converting them to PDF format or image files. There are also "auto-mappers" that automatically draw a map for you as you play an interactive fiction game. One example is Trizbort.
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Dec 3, 2014 18:10:19 GMT -6
Flowchart-style mapping also works great outside the traditional location-based adventure. Here's an Event Map for an event-driven d20 Call of Cthulhu RPG scenario I ran in 2002. It was based on a customized version of the Lost Temple of Yig. And if you were running a character-driven plot, you could make a Character Map like this:
|
|