Mapping

[dwayanu]

Most dungeon maps I've seen are made up predominantly of straight corridors and (perhaps more to the point) simply rectangular rooms. I think that, in recent OD&D play, I've seen one reason for that.

In my formative experience, (A) D&D was an essentially verbal game, and (B) mapping was important. A 30' x 40' rectangle is as easy to describe as ... well, as I've just done. More complex shapes? Not so much.

Module B1 has plenty of odd shapes, but I don't remember them being a hassle back in the day. Precise dimensions and angles usually just did not seem important.

Now, I've got players (perhaps one in particular) who obsess over such details. They're also 3E / 4E players, so of course they insist on putting a big gridded "battle mat" in the middle of the table, and figurines as well. The odd thing is that, even in 4E, usually only a few squares are really involved in square-by-square maneuvers! (This particular mat actually uses hexagons.)

Anyway, they want a detailed map of every chamber they enter. I can understand that sometimes a verbal description is unrealistically vague next to what one could see. Unfortunately, they have out of habit insisted on having it drawn to scale on that mat -- and I have too often complied. Besides being perhaps too precise (and certainly too much information if it extends beyond their torchlight), it's a drag for me to draw -- partly because it's physically awkward, partly because it's harder for me to "eyeball" things as I would in a small sketch. Drawing a "game board" like that is also a bit time-consuming.

It may be a long haul for them to accept that (as Gygax put it) "it makes no difference if there is a 20' error somewhere as long as the chart allows the group to find its way out!" It may in turn take me a while to get used to making much use of miniatures in D&D.

In the meantime, I'm thinking it might be best to put the mat away -- and maybe the graph paper for mapping as well. I want to get back into the old swing of mixing verbal descriptions with the occasional sketch for clarification.

Bringing these musings full circle, I think I'll also emphasize rectangular rooms on my dungeon levels!

[dwayanu]

Here are some questions for other DMs:

How much do you rely on verbal description? How much on visual depiction? My guess is that, as a practical matter, play by forum posts relies wholly (or nearly so) on the former.

How precise are your "first look" descriptions? How much game-time do you dock for more precise mapping?

Do you use miniature figurines? A battle mat? A set of tiles? Three-dimensional dungeon models (e.g., Dwarven Forge or Hirst Arts)?

Especially in the case of tiles and models, do you limit what's laid out to what can be seen? How do you handle it when that's less than a whole piece?

Do you ever correct players' maps? I actually got such a request, for (IIRC) the first time ever, last session.

[jjarvis]

Almost all verbal descriptions from me. If a fight looms before the mapper could whip out in and pen the players only get a quckie description with very loose description of size and details.

I do use battle mats, wall tiles and such but am not always super-picky abut placement, roughly correct is good enough for me. I do limit what is laid out to what can be seen.

I have corrected players maps in the past when I can tell they clearly didn't get a verbal description that no one would really screw up if they were standing in an actual place and drawing a map, if they are off in scale and connect things that clearly aren't connected because they think they do connect, I don't bother mentioning that to them.

[Deleted]

How much do you rely on verbal description? With rare exceptions, that is all I use.

How much on visual depiction? I've been known to use drawings, on occasion. Sometimes to help define concepts difficult to verbally communicate, others to simply help "set the stage".

How precise are your first look descriptions? Without a clear reason, I never present inaccurate information to the players. I figure PCs as "trained observers" who will quickly note important details, even in combat situations. Accurate, of course, does not imply "complete" and the devil is in the details ...

How much game-time do you dock for more precise mapping? Unless it is bogging down game play, I simply use real time as a basis for time spent mapping. If the session is beginning to drag out, game time speeds up and wandering monsters start appearing.

Do you use miniature figurines? A battle mat? A set of tiles? Three-dimensional dungeon models (e.g., Dwarven Forge or Hirst Arts)? For complicated or large battles I've been known to use various tokens for the combatants, including poker chips, chess and checker pieces, coins, and dice. In the game I'm participating as a player, we use minis with a (sort of) battle map arrangement.

Especially in the case of tiles and models, do you limit what's laid out to what can be seen? How do you handle it when that's less than a whole piece? Yes. The unseen parts are simply not drawn in, with the unknown areas indicated to the players, "This is as far as you can see."

Do you ever correct players' maps? I actually got such a request, for (IIRC) the first time ever, last session. If it is a gross error that would obvious to the PC, I will correct the map. If it is a minor error that would not affect gameplay I will not.

[dwayanu]

Without a clear reason, I never present inaccurate information to the players. ... Accurate, of course, does not imply "complete" and the devil is in the details ...

That's why I referred not to accuracy but to precision.

To describe a room as "L-shaped," or having "two passages east, and one to the south," may be quite accurate -- yet not precise enough to duplicate the drawing on the DM's map. Getting down to that level of precision, it's more expedient just to make a drawing than to give a verbal description (the more so the more complex the shape is than a simple rectangle or circle).

Completeness is an issue when visibility is limited. These players go very slowly into a room. A fuller view would be possible with proper distribution of light sources. That could be attained easily even from the doorway if they would bother with a light spell on something they can toss. Even a thrown torch would do, with some associated risks. Light from the floor is more likely to meet obstructions that leave areas in shadow than light raised, but it's better than nothing.

Watching the right kind of movies is good training for D&D!

Mystery shrouded in darkness is an essential part of the dungeon experience. Players' trying to map with precision virtually step by step has terribly slowed the game, and I'm inclined to consider that as taking up enough time to bring on Wandering Monster checks. When description needs clarification, I'll use quick sketches. Once they've had a chance to see a whole chamber (even if not all at once), I think they should get a sketch as precise as my quick drawing based on looking at the DM's map.

Some questions based on relative factors may assist in refining the estimates. If they want to measure dimensions, that'll take more time -- and they've got to do it when they're actually in the room! Asking me to give such figures after they've left the dungeon is silly.

Handing them a perfect map as they go seems to me to give up part of the challenge and verisimilitude of the game. On the other hand, too much vagueness would be unfair. Most of the burden rests on the DM's description, but communication is a team effort -- and getting the most out of that description is an aspect of skill at play. So is time management!

[badger2305]

I tell my players what their characters would see, and the amount of detail depends on the circumstances and amount of distraction:

• If they are just glancing into a room, with very little time, they might mistake some features or not notice something (a small but real chance).
  
• If they have time to look and are not distracted, then an accurate description is the standard. Precise measurements are given only as they say they take the time to get them (and only then)
  
• If there is some kind of distraction, such as a monster pursuing them, they might miss things under those circumstances, as well.
  

Just some thoughts.

[grodog]

How much do you rely on verbal description? How much on visual depiction?

When DMing (which I'm not in our AD&D campaign atm), I rely heavily on verbal descs. I don't usually draw stuff that's not a room feature (quick sketch of a funky statue's headpiece, funky symbol on arch keystone, etc.).

How precise are your "first look" descriptions? How much game-time do you dock for more precise mapping?

My first look descs are general, with eyeballing distances---they're more relationship-establishing between room features than exact measurements. For mapping, I use the straight-up time values from the 1e DMG/DM Log, with some tweaks of my own.

Do you use miniature figurines? A battle mat? A set of tiles? Three-dimensional dungeon models (e.g., Dwarven Forge or Hirst Arts)?

I definitely use minis as DM (and we also them in our current campaign too), and I'm fine with blocking them out on a battlemat, though I tend to use the battlemat with 3 1/3' squares so you can have 3 abreast in a 10' corridor vs. the more-traditional 5' squares. I have several sets of Heritage Dungeon Tiles (that came as part of lots I've bought over the years), but haven't broken them out for play---they seem to me to move around a bit too much on the table, and I tend to think that they would be distracting (though certainly prettier than a battlemat! ).

Do you ever correct players' maps?

In general, no. If I've grossly confused them through bad descriptions, I'll try to reset and redescribe, but in general players' maps are their own devices. Playing with RJK and with our current DM, when they have seen that we've screwed up the map, they'll sometimes fix it, which I'm OK with if they want to do that

[yesmar]

How much do you rely on verbal description? How much on visual depiction?

I don't use a battle mat. The party does have a mapper, and I do give basic details as the player characters 'see' them. I will get more detailed if the player characters indicate that they are examining things more closely. Keeping things verbal keeps things moving. Mind's eye > battle mat.

How precise are your "first look" descriptions? How much game-time do you dock for more precise mapping?

They are 'good enough,' which means that they are tailored to the context of the situation. It's dark? You can't see far, shadows shift and move in the flickering torchlight. The player characters are rushing? They definitely won't see as much. Precise mapping slows things down. If the player characters spend too much time (totally arbitrary decision on my part) then it's time to check for WMs. You know the drill.

Do you use miniature figurines? A battle mat? A set of tiles? Three-dimensional dungeon models (e.g., Dwarven Forge or Hirst Arts)?

We use miniatures for two things: 1) "Here's what my PC looks like!" and 2) marching order.

Especially in the case of tiles and models, do you limit what's laid out to what can be seen? How do you handle it when that's less than a whole piece?

I conspicuously avoid tiles and mats because it detracts from the awesome experience of 'seeing' in the mind's eye.

Do you ever correct players' maps? I actually got such a request, for (IIRC) the first time ever, last session.

Nope. (I secretly hope that the player characters get lost!) [insidious laughter]

[chgowiz]

How much do you rely on verbal description? How much on visual depiction?

That depends. I start with verbal but in some cases (say a player map of the "Known World") I'll provide a player's copy. Of course, it might be inaccurate, it's probably not to scale and who knows what will happen when they use it.

For dungeons proper, I'll rely primarily on verbal. If players want to use miniatures, I'm not opposed to basic positions, but I don't use them by default. The exception is if the encounter is a set piece or major encounter where I want to use the miniatures (or need to, in the case of mass combat).

How precise are your "first look" descriptions? How much game-time do you dock for more precise mapping?

As precise as the situation and PCs actions befit. If someone is carefully walking and exploring, then I'll tell them what they could reasonably see in flickering light. If they are running full tilt away from the monsters, they get a cursory description.

I've been a lot more generous with my wife as she's learning, so I've not rolled the Wandering Monsters too much, but I do assume for her that if she's taken the time to draw on her paper, a turn has passed. If she or others were to carefully map out an area, I'd probably use the "searching carefully" rule of thumb and log turns that way. It all depends on what they're doing.

Do you use miniature figurines? A battle mat? A set of tiles? Three-dimensional dungeon models (e.g., Dwarven Forge or Hirst Arts)?

I'd love to do Hirst Blocks, only because I'm a model geek at heart. I don't need them and I find that a lot of that kind of thing gets in the way. I'll use mats or minis if needs be, or for set pieces, but not by default.

Especially in the case of tiles and models, do you limit what's laid out to what can be seen? How do you handle it when that's less than a whole piece?

That doesn't apply to what I do, but if it was a set piece where there was only part visible, then that is what I'd lay out.

Do you ever correct players' maps? I actually got such a request, for (IIRC) the first time ever, last session.

No. I've sat down with my wife and explained trailing/circuit mapping to her and have helped her to "rebuild" what she had already drawn, but I didn't correct her map then and I wouldn't in the future. If someone gets that wrapped up in mapping, I'd point them to that page in the OSRIC rules that talks about mapping.

[lordtwang]

We use a battle map, and we don't do mapping at all. I just assume the characters are competent explorers and more or less know where they are. It's not very old-school or traditional, but there are a couple of reasons for this:

1. I have trouble picturing things like that in my head when they're described to me. I could never play text adventures or MUDs because I'd get lost. So I find it hard to do it to other people.

2. My players would rather not play than map, I think. Okay, that's an overstatement, but they really detest mapping. (And if they did, two of them would certainly go overboard, which may be why they don't like it.)

3. We don't do many mega-dungeons. Mostly wilderness adventures, monster lairs, and small dungeons. This is how I've played and DMed for 20 years. For smaller dungeons, it's not as big a deal.

4. Most dungeons I run these days are laid out like a flow chart, all circles with lines drawn between them to show the connections. I don't have the time to think up a precise layout, and I haven't found much reward in doing so as of late.

I'm trying to stop using a battle map and see how it goes. As for mapping, I don't know. I have so little experience with it and it seems tedious. I like laying traps and tricks and strategic and tactical decisions a plenty, but not if they tap into getting the characters lost.

I should try it with a small dungeon some time and see how it goes, just for kicks if nothing else.

For the longest time, I didn't think anyone did mapping. But that's what happens when you learn to play D&D as a kid, out in an isolated community. You think the way people in your area play it is the way everyone plays it.

[evreaux]

I consciously try to limit the number of straight passages and rectangular rooms on a level--in fact, too much of that can be a common criticism of mine in looking at other maps. Triangles, circles, polygons, trapezoids, parallelograms, ovals, irregulars, the works. Winding corridors, zig-zag corridors, spirals, etc. All with lots and lots of "nesting," so the final product is enough to give a mapping-notfan a migraine.

My players are generally excellent mappers, and because we use skype to pull in some of them, everyone in the party maps. On tricky spots, I will tell them to place their pencil points on such and such a place and then give literal directions: "go two squares northeast, one square north, three east, then straight back to where you started." Sounds clunky, but it works amazingly well and honestly only takes a couple of seconds.

How much do you rely on verbal description? How much on visual depiction?

99.9% verbal. If I've described a room several times, and the mapper just isn't "getting" it, and I feel that I'm not doing a good job, I'll sketch something out. That might happen once every other session. Otherwise, it's verbal.

How precise are your "first look" descriptions? How much game-time do you dock for more precise mapping?

Reasonably precise--I like to put the challenge of mapping the dungeon into the twists and turns of the geography itself rather than by utilizing a first person perspective approach to it. I find it personally difficult to keep things interesting if I'm updating the landscape every time the party moves another 20' into the room. A compromise between "metagaming" and "gaming" is our solution. So, I might say something along the lines of, "you enter a vast cavern--[to the mapper: it's roughly 300' N-S, and half that E-W--there is a huge dais at the far end]--you can really only make out about the first 30' or so in torchlight, the rest is lost in shadow" and "as you move north along the wall, more ruined murals are revealed by your advancing lantern light." But the nuts-and-bolts of the room/chamber I normally lay out at the outset.

I suppose another way to put this is that torch/lantern light affects their perception of the content of the room, rather than the structure. And I do this purely for game flow reasons; no criticism at all of DMs who can handle it more deftly than I! I find it challenging enough to manage the party's interaction with what's in the room, and trying to additionally maintain a relative approximation of the room being revealed to them a bit at a time is more than my paltry skills can handle. ;-)

Do you use miniature figurines? A battle mat?

Yes to these, but really only for big set-piece battles (maybe once or twice a session). For normal combat, it's all verbal and I almost never use the battle mat to aid mapping.

Do you ever correct players' maps? I actually got such a request, for (IIRC) the first time ever, last session.

Never, unless I realize that I made a mistake (e.g., a passageway goes north and everyone assures me I said "south" 10 minutes ago). However, my two really good mappers do periodically like to hold up the map to have me give a general thumbs up or down to the accuracy--but this is really more about bragging on their part than an attempt to get correction. They are almost always quite surprisingly accurate. Not surprisingly, they are also the two who usually collaborate on looking for hidden rooms/passages/space based on their mapping*, while the other two are looking at their flowchart/how-do-we-get-back-out maps in despair. :-)

* Even though one of this pair is F2F with me and another is skyped in, their map interactions run something like this:

Evreaux: "The room runs 40' before ending in a mosaic-covered wall."
Player 1: "That leaves a 10x10' space in the northeast corner wall."
Player 2: "Yep. We should look for a secret entrance to it from that weird jog in the corridor before last."
Player 1: "Absolutely."

Even though they are looking at different maps, they are usually completely on the same page.

[codeman123]

I usually use alot of verbal descriptions but it seems to me in dungeons a map can be a good thing. I like to use minis and a mat just so the players can see this giant structure forming out around them. It's really fun to also mix things up the next game when they left off in a room and you switch the direction backwards! lol i did this last session and my group flipped out and couldnt remember were they where or were they where going! It was awesome and of course they where to lazy to draw a map on graph paper... (insert evil DM cackle here.)

[ragnorakk]

How much do you rely on verbal description? How much on visual depiction? My guess is that, as a practical matter, play by forum posts relies wholly (or nearly so) on the former.
I prefer the 100% verbal route, backed by quick sketches to represent things difficult to communicate. But recently, I've largely given in. I've never had a player inclined (read: willing) to map - lazy bums! At this point, I draw a brief sketch of a room - this also helps in explaining less-than-platonic shapes (which I am a fan of). I even do this to scale on graph paper. BUT - I do not connect them. They are just drawn left-to-right on the paper
as they are encountered. I leave it to the players to keep detailed maps, but I find that
drawing out every room (whether it's an encounter or not) helps players feel like they know what they're getting into. I started a PBP game and I'm posting rough pictures (made with GIMP on the spot) of the rooms - it's kidna cute .

How precise are your "first look" descriptions? How much game-time do you dock for more precise mapping?
First looks are general, general dimension & shape (I always try to remember to give a ceiling height. Personal problem of mine...). I don't dock any time for mapping (as I've said,
my players already have me over a barrel on the whole issue...)

Do you use miniature figurines? A battle mat? A set of tiles? Three-dimensional dungeon models (e.g., Dwarven Forge or Hirst Arts)?
I use the room sketches as the 'battle mat' and just use letters or pencil dots as 'figures'.
I used to play with miniatures A Long Time Ago (and hex maps). I'll probably go crazy over dungeon tiles if I ever get any

Especially in the case of tiles and models, do you limit what's laid out to what can be seen? How do you handle it when that's less than a whole piece?
The sketching/drawing thing handles this. If they're standing in a hallway looking through a doorway, I draw what they see. Once they pass through the doorway, I draw the rest - unless they are jumped or something, in which case, fleshing out the other details of the room waits until they are out of combat.

Do you ever correct players' maps? I actually got such a request, for (IIRC) the first time ever, last session.
I have before, yes, when I had players who would map, when I thought the problem in the map was because of miscommunication and such.

To continue sounding like a broken record for a moment...
I wish my players would MAP!
(they also detest searching for secet doors. I envy you you players sir!)

[grodog]

Some nice variety of mapping options appears in the current (4th) level of Joe Bloch's "Castle of the Mad Archmage": rapidshare.com/files/214698702/WG13_0903.pdf

[Spike]

I've not DMed a game myself yet, but am getting ready to give it a try at one of our upcoming Paint-&-Play-Sunday game club events. Being that those events are for introducing new players to the game, I'd not want to overwhelm them with having to map their way through a dungeon right away. In fact we started our players out in a pretty fancy 3-D dungeon model with minis and everything. As we told the players, "You've been here before and know your way around."

But now I'm thinking it's time to introduce the concept of dungeon-orienteering. I have graph paper for the party's map-maker and a larger graph-page for those times when I need to draw an area out. I put my graph page in a plastic page protector so I can draw on it with dry-erase marker and use it like a small battle map if I need to.

My philosophy is this.

1 - If it can be easily imagined with help of a good description, then let the map-maker's imagination do the work. If it's a simple square room..three squares by three squares and the door is in the center of the east wall....no real need for fancy geometry to explain. If the players can tell left from right, east from west and can count, it should be easy enough. With younger players, it might be necessary to remind them which way is N,S,E and W with a basic compass drawing at the top of the page.

2 - There are certain things which should be obvious to the eye when standing in a room that might not be quite so obvious or clear in a verbal description. An example might be a room with multiple doors, a zig-zaggy western wall or a series of pillars holding up the roof. In these cases, a picture is worth a thousand words and will save you a lot of explaining. A quick outline of the walls and any other major architectural features such as statues, crypts or staircases can be made in less than a minute and save your players much confusion, especially if there is a combat encounter in the room they are exploring.

3 - Don't show and tell everything. Just like somebody else mentioned earlier, if the players just take a quick glance in a room, there's no need to draw a map at all. "It's a big room with lots of doors along the south wall" is about all a quick look in should reveal unless there's a wandering monster waiting for them there.

4 - With younger or inexperienced map-makers, I think it would be plenty fair to every once in a while "correct" their hand-drawn map based on a successful INT check or at least every dozen turns or so.

5 - I'll update my own map with locations of slain creatures, dropped or overlooked weapons and treasures, landmarks and so forth. Having the party pass back by the remains of the rat swarm they killed eleven turns ago adds flavour to the game. Better yet, having a thoroughly disoriented party suddenly notice that they passed that same tacky blue tapestry just after they descended the stairs to that level will hopefully help them become unlost and find their way back to the entrance or at least discover where the map-maker went wrong.

As for minis, even when they're not being used on a battle map, having them placed on the table in "marching order" is a good way to remind the players and DM who is where in line.

[Falconer]

I don't even know what a battle mat is.

I describe verbally as much as possible. I have a whiteboard on the wall behind my chair. The whiteboard has a grid. The whiteboard is magnetic. Occasionally I will draw something. I don't have to reach over the "DM Screen" to do it. I have 100% control over it. I have magnets (pawn shape) to represent the characters and alphabet magnets (A B C ...) to represent monsters. This works pretty well! I like to get a vague visual on the combat situation. I guess I don't like the idea of players moving elaborate minis across the tabletop (let alone a landscaped tabletop). Let it be a game of the imagination, and let their attention stay focused on the words coming from my mouth! Regards.

[Arminath]

How much do you rely on verbal description? How much on visual depiction?

Everything is described from the way the player's characters would see them.

How precise are your "first look" descriptions? How much game-time do you dock for more precise mapping?

First looks aren't ususally very detailed, just 'at a glance' type descriptions. We don't stop to map, one player is really good at it and maps on the fly.

Do you use miniature figurines? A battle mat? A set of tiles? Three-dimensional dungeon models (e.g., Dwarven Forge or Hirst Arts)?

Primarily having players with a wargame background, we use a battlemat and mini's for 99% of our combats. The 3d stuff makes things cluttered when you try to use them with minis and there's not enough room to really move around.

Especially in the case of tiles and models, do you limit what's laid out to what can be seen? How do you handle it when that's less than a whole piece?

I don't draw out the entire map as we play, just specific rooms/passages when an encounter occurs. During the time I'm drawing out the area, I'm describing what's going on and taking in character actions, so there's really no 'dead' time during the game.

Do you ever correct players' maps? I actually got such a request, for (IIRC) the first time ever, last session.

I never got that request, even if the mapper made a huge blunder. He would just play it off as everyone else misremembering the particular area wrong. That's only happened 1 time recently and maybe 3 times since the last campaign started.