|
|
Post by geoffrey on Apr 8, 2019 13:57:19 GMT -6
Who doesn't like to look at big, intricate, and fiendishly-drawn dungeon maps? I've drawn a few myself, and a great many gamers have drawn dungeon maps that put mine to shame. Who can fail to marvel at the twisting corridors, the bizarrely-shaped rooms, the passages running under rooms on the same level, the sinuous waterways, the vast expanses, the ingenious connections, etc.? But...
Who are these maps for?
Are they for the DM alone to marvel at? After all, I do not show my dungeon maps to the players. Would that not make the intricate maps rather like a Braille edition of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue (i. e., something that preposterously misses the point)?
Are the maps for the purpose of increasing the players' enjoyment of their explorations? My experiences over the last year or so have taught me that my players at least could not care less if my dungeon maps are things of intricate beauty. No, scratch that. I have learned that many of my players would prefer simple dungeon maps of basically straight corridors and rectangular rooms. When, as an experiment, I started using only simple dungeon maps, I ran into the following:
Many players preferred it, and many players did not notice or care one way or the other. I have not had one player, not one single player (out of perhaps 15 players I've DMed in the last year) say anything like, "Hey, these dungeon layouts are boring! Whatever happened to the more complex ones we used to explore back in the good old days?"
So why in the world was I spending hours on my maps? None of my players care or notice. One way or the other, everyone simply kept playing Dungeons & Dragons: Taking lanterns into deep, dark places chock full of monsters, treasures, tricks, traps, magic, and wonder. The pure joy of exploration. The fancy maps were superfluous.
It reminds me of how I used to write long pages of background for my campaign settings, but none of my players ever gave two figs for any of it. I therefore ceased that fruitless endeavor. So why in the world would I continue spending countless and thankless hours on maps that only I will see and that nobody will enjoy? Why not instead make easy-to-draw maps?
In short:
NO to the dungeon levels of Quasqueton in B1: In Search of the Unknown.
YES to the Caves of Chaos in B2: The Keep on the Borderlands.
YES to the dungeon level of Zenopus in the Basic D&D rulebook edited by Dr. Holmes.
If anyone wishes to say that I'm a nincompoop, I will simply agree. But surely the fifteen players who have explored my dungeons in 2018-2019 are not all nincompoops. I'm sure that some D&D players out there prefer for their DM to use complex dungeon maps, but my experience leads me to suspect that they might be the exception rather than the rule.
Thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 14:14:36 GMT -6
Wrong question.
The purpose of the complex dungeon map is purely to be hard for players to map. Period.
Players should be CONTINUALLY asking "have we been teleported, or does our map suck?"
Complex dungeons and difficult mappings are part of the challenge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 8, 2019 18:06:12 GMT -6
Yeah, I've often wondered why there is such cool artwork and nice maps in DM books not intended for player viewing. The only thing I can think of is that those folks must blow up the maps to use for miniatures play instead of requiring players to make their own maps. This clearly changes the style of play, as the game becomes more of a "count and move" tactical game rather than a "map and explore" game.
|
|
muddy
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 159 
|
Post by muddy on Apr 8, 2019 18:39:13 GMT -6
In part I think it depends on whether you have a dungeon centered campaign. If so you want something large and complicated. Partly it may be lack of mapping skills - one thing I've wondered about recently is whether it's a generational thing. When I started playing it was with my friends from scouts and we were all very comfortable working with maps/ orienteering, etc.
While I don't think it makes much of a difference if the rooms are oddly shaped rather than rectangular, a dungeon that requires mapping is a much different experience than one where the players can easily find their way out. The map becomes something to be protected, parties are much less likely to split up if they are deep in the dungeon, running to avoid a deadly encounter risks the possibility of becoming lost and encountering something even worse. There is much more tension and claustrophobia. There is another dimension to the game.
And obviously it depends on the players - ultimately the goal is to find something that is fun for everyone involved. Some may simply not want the sort of game that a complicated map generates.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 21:46:20 GMT -6
Yeah, I've often wondered why there is such cool artwork and nice maps in DM books not intended for player viewing. The only thing I can think of is that those folks must blow up the maps to use for miniatures play instead of requiring players to make their own maps. This clearly changes the style of play, as the game becomes more of a "count and move" tactical game rather than a "map and explore" game. The market wants high production values and elaborate maps are part of this. A lot of gaming material is bought to be read, not played. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 9, 2019 3:57:22 GMT -6
Functionally, maps can be reduced to a graph of nodes and edges, decorated with information for the ref (some of which may eventually be conveyed to the players).
"Decorated" seems to be an appropriate word because it implies art. Maps can be art, and creating/beholding art can be joyful, regardless of whether it has any function for D&D or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Apr 9, 2019 4:21:15 GMT -6
I just like drawing them.  |
|
|
|
Post by bryce0lynch on Apr 9, 2019 4:36:55 GMT -6
Functionally, maps can be reduced to a graph of nodes and edges, decorated with information for the ref (some of which may eventually be conveyed to the players). Maybe I misinterptret, but it sounds like you are talking about nice based maps. For exploratory adventures these suck. You need mystery and the unknown, and that generally doesn't happen with the player certainty that simple and/or finite maps. Thus a good map heightens player anxiety, provides tactical and strategic options for the DM and players, and serves as a means of cueing the DM to things they need in the spur of the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 9, 2019 5:02:39 GMT -6
Forgive my ignorance, I don't know what "a nice based map" is. I merely meant that a dungeon map can be represented as a graph. Ultimately, it's a bunch of rooms, chambers, intersections, etc. (nodes) connected by corridors, tunnels, passages, etc. (edges). FWIW, I have converted existing dungeon maps into graphs just to explore the number of locations where players have a choice about where to go next. Turns out this exercise produces a much simplified map. It's a pretty useful tool for progressing the players to the next "decision point" each turn in a PBP game, for example. |
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Apr 9, 2019 7:27:05 GMT -6
Forgive my ignorance, I don't know what "a nice based map" is. I merely meant that a dungeon map can be represented as a graph. Ultimately, it's a bunch of rooms, chambers, intersections, etc. (nodes) connected by corridors, tunnels, passages, etc. (edges). FWIW, I have converted existing dungeon maps into graphs just to explore the number of locations where players have a choice about where to go next. Turns out this exercise produces a much simplified map. It's a pretty useful tool for progressing the players to the next "decision point" each turn in a PBP game, for example. Hello waysoftheearth Would you have an example of what you've done that I could look at? I find the idea interesting but unclear |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Apr 9, 2019 7:31:49 GMT -6
I used to draw maps as a kid, then I discovered RPGs as a teen, then the adult me decided, "Hey, there's this job called landscape architect where you imagine yourself in the role of end users and draw maps of places they'd like to be in!"  But I also agree with geoffrey to some extent, my players rarely concern themselves with such things. Mostly they just get lost, even in a simple orthogonal dungeon.  |
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Apr 9, 2019 7:52:50 GMT -6
Thx Piper  I understand that concept, so I wanted to see what Simon was doing and if it was different |
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Apr 9, 2019 8:24:32 GMT -6
Are the maps for the purpose of increasing the players' enjoyment of their explorations? My experiences over the last year or so have taught me that my players at least could not care less if my dungeon maps are things of intricate beauty. No, scratch that. I have learned that many of my players would prefer simple dungeon maps of basically straight corridors and rectangular rooms. When, as an experiment, I started using only simple dungeon maps, I ran into the following: Many players preferred it, and many players did not notice or care one way or the other. I have not had one player, not one single player (out of perhaps 15 players I've DMed in the last year) say anything like, "Hey, these dungeon layouts are boring! Whatever happened to the more complex ones we used to explore back in the good old days?" Geoffrey, my experience running my levels at conventions and in home play over the past decade has been the opposite of yours: while many of my maps are complex (examples at grodog.blogspot.com/search/label/grodog%27s%20castle%20greyhawk and grodog.blogspot.com/search/label/dungeon%20level for folks who aren't familiar with my designs), I've not had folks complain about the challenge of mapping or playing through them, nor have I had folks ask me to design and run quicker/easier/simpler level maps, either. If you and your players both enjoying playing either type of map, mixing it up with simpler and more-complex designs seems a nice way to vary the campaign's playstyle to me. If, on the other hand, your players loathe more complex maps, then perhaps simpler maps are better for their preferences---or, perhaps they need some better tools in their mapping toolkit. (I have an article on player mapping strategies in The Twisting Stair #3, in case that might be of interest). Or, if you just find the additional time required to design more complex maps not worth it the extra effort, then simpler maps may-well be what's best on the table. As some others have mentioned, I enjoy designing a more-complex map, and feel that raises the challenge of playing the game well, both for the players as well as for me as the DM. Allan. |
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Apr 9, 2019 8:28:39 GMT -6
Forgive my ignorance, I don't know what "a nice based map" is. I merely meant that a dungeon map can be represented as a graph. Ultimately, it's a bunch of rooms, chambers, intersections, etc. (nodes) connected by corridors, tunnels, passages, etc. (edges). FWIW, I have converted existing dungeon maps into graphs just to explore the number of locations where players have a choice about where to go next. Turns out this exercise produces a much simplified map. It's a pretty useful tool for progressing the players to the next "decision point" each turn in a PBP game, for example. Hello waysoftheearth Would you have an example of what you've done that I could look at? I find the idea interesting but unclear are you referring to a more flow-chart based map structure? That's what it sounds like, and that recalls Melan's map analysis from ENWorld @ www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?168563-Dungeon-layout-map-flow-and-old-school-game-design but if that's not what you have in mind, I'm also interested in hearing more! Allan. PS - We've also had some good discussions on the Q of map complexity @ knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=6060 (with links to other discussions too). |
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Apr 9, 2019 12:03:06 GMT -6
Wrong question. The purpose of the complex dungeon map is purely to be hard for players to map. Period. Players should be CONTINUALLY asking "have we been teleported, or does our map suck?" Complex dungeons and difficult mappings are part of the challenge. Exactly this. Make the party's Mapper sweat bullets. Make them wonder where they are. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Apr 9, 2019 14:49:46 GMT -6
The gold standard for me is "easy to describe, hard to map".
A map sucks if you have to figure out whether players are understanding the dm correctly when describing an area. If the players understand exactly what the dm is describing, but the players can still get lost even when mapping, that's a perfect dungeon map!
|
|
|
|
Post by jcstephens on Apr 9, 2019 17:51:16 GMT -6
A complicated map makes it easier to hide things; a secret room, a hidden passageway, or the side stairs to that special level. They also make maps a viable part of treasure, and give you a reason to take prisoners.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 9, 2019 21:03:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Apr 9, 2019 21:38:46 GMT -6
Zenopus, you are the expert in all things Dr. J. Eric Holmes. Do you know of any other of his dungeon maps besides the one in his Basic D&D rulebook?
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Apr 9, 2019 22:28:34 GMT -6
While I like exploring the complex maps as a player, I mostly don't like them as a referee. I'd rather use the time at the table to explain the wall textures and the creepy things in the shadows than telling the players the shapes and sizes of the rooms.
I've tried both complex and simple dungeon maps with my group, and they like both.
As has been said above, the complex maps seem to make it more about exploration while the simple ones seem to focus more on the story, with exploration neglected or in the background. These days, I try to use a middle thing, something that is fun to explore but which is still more about the features of the dungeon than about its shape on a map.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 9, 2019 22:52:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 10, 2019 6:21:54 GMT -6
Similar, but probably not quite that sophisticated. Nice link Would you have an example of what you've done that I could look at? I find the idea interesting but unclear Sure. A while back I used one of Tim Hartin's maps as the upper works to a dungeon. It was this one:  When I keyed it, I added four locations (13, 14, 15, 16) in the central passage, so that: (13) is outside the door to room 8 and near the statue. (14) is in the L of the passage, near the doors to rooms 2 and 7. (15) is between the doors to rooms 6 and 9. (16) is between the entries to rooms 10, 11, and 12. So then I turned it into a "graph" like this:  "DL1" indicates access to Dungeon Level 1. The "X" areas are for eXternal, dungeon eXits (or entrances). The crossed lines are for doors, whereas the uncrossed lines are for open routes. If you were keen, you could put more information on these edges (e.g., length, width, light, etc.) So what does it give me? It's basically a simplified map that: * illustrates the available routes clearly, * shows 15-16 is a critical control point between the north and south halves of the map, * shows 2-3-4-5-6-15 is chain of rooms with no choice but ahead or back, * 7 is a dead end, * 9 and 11 control access to the dungeon, * 9 and 11 can both be reached via one room (10 or 12) * 9 is protected by some additional passage and a door. Hope that's helpful |
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Apr 10, 2019 9:17:13 GMT -6
That is perfectly helpful - thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Apr 13, 2019 20:48:55 GMT -6
As grodog mentioned in Tales of Peril, we have some (most?) of his unpublished maps that we hope to make available. The original Maze of Peril dungeon is the largest (multiple pages) but is not excessively complex. Generally, the corridors are straight and the rooms are rectangular with plenty of space between everything. He does vary the corridor width quite a bit, you can see examples of this in the samples I linked above. Agreed. I imagine we'll discuss the next Holmes project at the North Texas RPGCon in June  Similar, but probably not quite that sophisticated. Nice link Gotcha, thanks. So then I turned it into a "graph" like this: Hope that's helpful It was indeed. I'll have to ponder this format a bit, but if you have an annotated one that includes the kinds of further notes you discuss adding (height, width, light, etc.), I'd be interested in seeing it. I'm guessing it's closer to a one-page dungeon format with a combined map/key in a single sheet, but perhaps you still key even the simplified map separately? Allan. |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Apr 18, 2019 22:00:50 GMT -6
Functionally, maps can be reduced to a graph of nodes and edges, decorated with information for the ref (some of which may eventually be conveyed to the players). I can think of a few corner cases in which this abstraction breaks down, largely around magic powers that somehow bypass the given dungeon layout, e.g.: - Use of locate object for detection
- Use of the passwall spell
- Use of dimension door
(Observed by someone who teaches graph theory.) |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 19, 2019 7:06:53 GMT -6
Nice catch delta. I guess, like other maps, a graph-map is only a representation of the “reality on the ground” with various strengths and weaknesses determined by how it’s drawn. A graph-map could, for example, retain directional accuracy and spatial relationships between rooms by positioning nodes at room centres and at every passage turn or intersection, and by drawing edge lengths to scale. Let’s call it a “scale-graph-map”. Taken to an extreme, we could have a node for the center of every 10ft square on the non-graph-map. The question then becomes: what is gained by such detail? Is it worth carrying all that extra map information so that a passwall or dimension door spell can be carried out with spatial precision? Would players know (or care?) if the ref ruled the outcome of these spells less precisely on a scale-graph-map? Would the game experience be different? Thinking about the size and shape of rooms and chambers on maps, these features are essentially narrative in my games; I rarely track the precise location of players within a room. They tend to be abstractly in or out of the room, or near features such as walls, doorways, pools, etc. Certainly, a sketch of the room dimensions helps to visualise what the players are dealing with. So perhaps this type of information is valuable enough to keep on the map? Ultimately, it depends on what you want the map for. Graphs can, I think, be a useful tool for illustrating routes and decision points. All good fun to think about |
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Apr 24, 2019 11:48:28 GMT -6
Here is M.A.R. Barker's (rather sensible) take on the subject, from the original EPT book - I recently stumbled across it while looking for something else:  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2019 15:09:22 GMT -6
And, so the inhuman, curvilinear Serpent Men Kingdom breathed a sigh relief... Death to tardy adventurers! Death to competent er uh whining mappers! The fools!  |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Apr 24, 2019 21:55:44 GMT -6
Here is M.A.R. Barker's (rather sensible) take on the subject, from the original EPT book - I recently stumbled across it while looking for something else: Illuminating! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2019 11:15:11 GMT -6
Wrong question. The purpose of the complex dungeon map is purely to be hard for players to map. Period. Players should be CONTINUALLY asking "have we been teleported, or does our map suck?" Complex dungeons and difficult mappings are part of the challenge. Yup Yup Yup I also keep track of time and roll for wandering monsters. I bet Michael is like me and says things like: oh, it looks like it goes about 60 feet, or so. And when players ask for more specific info he responds with: ok, what are using to measure with? It's hilarious when the band of brave adventurers becomes a band of surveyors as they get out 50 foot ropes to measure everything. Complex maps don't have to be drawn in detail. You can draw a map as lines for halls and circles/squares for rooms and it works just fine. But the OCD mapper will fall into the trap of using more time and attracting a lot more wandering monsters. It's a lot like finding 1,000,000 GP in treasure, but it's all in copper pieces. hee hee hee |
|
