I was searching for one of Melan's ENWorld post which I'm sure Premier or Melan himself or someone else copied on the RPG Site at some point or another, but since I was having such a hard time finding it through a simple Search on the board, I can't imagine any noob ever finding it on purpose.

I am thus reposting the whole thing here. This is really enlightening.

Melan's post follows.

_______


In Quasqueton’s "Is Sunless Citadel a well-designed adventure module?" thread, I made a claim that the dungeon described in the module is too linear and that its layout is responsible for railroading player characters. Although I didn’t mention it, I have similar problems with Forge of Fury. The significance of map design has already been discussed in an earlier thread („Would these maps make for a fun dungeon adventure”), where Quasqueton posted an example map and basically asked posters whether they thought it was well designed or not. I think there is no harm in revealing that the map in question depicted a level of Gary Gygax’s original Greyhawk Castle.

In my opinion, designing a good dungeon also involves creating a good map. It must be stressed that this is obviously only half the battle - without imaginative content, all the effort is for naught; while a dungeon whose map is poorly designed may be saved by well thought out encounters. In this thread, I don’t wish to discuss the latter aspect, only mapping and how it can contribute to enjoyable play. What makes a map good or bad? Fundamentally, a good map should enhance the factors which make dungeon crawling enthralling: for instance, exploration, player decision making, uncovering hidden areas and secrets, as well as maintaining the pace of action.

***

Exploration entails discovering previously unknown territory. To find a lower level, a section the PCs have never been to, or simply some entertaining and imaginative room, is one of the great joys of dungeoneering. However, for all this to feel like an accomplishment, there has to be a meaningful effort on the part of the players and a challenge on part of the DM. There can be no real exploration if the dungeon isn’t large enough or complex enough to allow failure, as in certain areas being missed. If encounters are presented one after another, there is no challenge and no accomplishment in this respect.

Player decision making from the operative to the tactical and strategic level involves dealing with obstacles, negotiating hostile territory and ensuring the success of an entire expedition. Naturally, many individual decisions are based on a „golden rule” such as left-hand-on-the-wall or random chance, especially when there is no way of knowing what the decision „means”; that is, what its likely outcome in one case or the other may be. However, by making a dungeon where the players can choose to avoid or meet obstacles, take or avoid risks by visiting/not visiting „deeper levels”, explore side branches or concentrate on reaching an objective, etc., player decision making becomes a more interesting and meaningful challenge. Generally, branching, complex maps offer many possibilities for decision making, but overly complicated maps do not: they just cause frustration.

Uncovering hidden areas or secrets is yet another form of reward for resourceful players. Finding a secret door leading to a room with treasure is fun; finding one leading to a hidden sublevel or a previously undiscovered section is even better. A good dungeon should have at least a few of these, preferably a good amount, and they should be found primarily due to player ingenuity. Judges Guild’s Caverns of Thracia is likely the best example of a dungeon with well designed secrets: entire levels and sub-levels may be uncovered by observation and resourcefulness.

Finally, maintaining the pace of action is important to ensure the game remains exciting and doesn’t get bogged down for too long. Shoot-and-kill computer games usually call this „map flow”.

***

Turning back to my original point, how do Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury stack up to other introductory modules in the maps department? Do they represent design which encourages and rewards exploration, which presents mysteries and which doesn’t constrain players with a pre-written script? In my opinion, they do not. There are hints of good game design in there, but not enough to call the modules better than average (I could list other reasons as well, but that is outside the present subject). Both of these modules miss „something” many classics have, something which is closely linked with avoiding railroading - constructing a map which isn’t a straight line, but rather one which has side-tracks, circular routes, opportunities to approach a given location from multiple directions, opportunities to demonstrate one’s mapping skills (without it getting tedious) and maybe more. Citadel and Forge are disturbingly linear, and are no less railroady than your usual 2e module. (To preclude derailing the thread, I freely admit that many 1st edition modules are just as guilty of the same sin, especially those designed for tournament play.)

To compare the WotC introductory modules with various other introductory products from the 70s and 80s, I used a graphical method which „distils” a dungeon into a kind of decision tree or flowchart by stripping away „noise”. On the resulting image, meandering corridors and even smaller room complexes are turned into straight lines. Although the image doesn’t create an „accurate” representation of the dungeon map, and is by no means a „scientific” depiction, it demonstrates what kind of decisions the players can make while moving through the dungeon. Briefly going over basic forms, a dungeon may look like any of the following, or be made up of several such basic elements:



In the end, a dungeon without any real branches would look like a straight line (A.), or a straight line that looks slightly hairy (B.). The Slaver modules or Lost Tomb of Martek would fall into this category. Branching dungeons (C.) are a bundle of straight lines (often with sidetracks), sometimes resembling trees. White Plume Mountain is a good example of a branching dungeon. Finally, dungeons with circular routes (D.) are the most complex, especially when these routes interlock and include the third dimension. Again, Paul Jaquays is the undisputed master of this area, with modules like Caverns of Thracia, Dark Tower and Realm of the Slime God. In my opinion, including the second two forms without being overwhelming makes a dungeon map much better than a straight affair.

Let us now look at the modules. I selected six modules aimed at beginners for my analysis and supplemented them with two for high levels (these were included for comparative purposes also). Of the eight, four modules were written by Gary Gygax, which could have skewed the sample a bit. Then again, the aim wasn’t strict „science”, just a fun comparison. On these maps, dashed lines represent secret passages/connections and broken lines represent „level transitions”.

Sunless Citadel



Sunless Citadel’s layout is the perfect example of an almost completely linear dungeon. This isn’t apparent on first sight, because Bruce Cordell introduced a lot of twists to the corridors so they would look more organic, but in the end, it is still a straight line with the „choice” of either going through the kobolds or goblins, woo hoo. Sunless Citadel is, all claims to the contrary, not a classic dungeon: it is designed to be a story, and it plays like a story. Unfortunately, player choice isn’t high in it outside combat tactics... which, granted, are fun. But a good map it is not.

Forge of Fury



Our second module (author Richard Baker) is more promising on first sight, but eventually reveals the same structure: straight line layout, definite beginning and definite end in the form of a boss monster. Little player choice. The only thing that makes Forge’s maps better designed is the presence of optional detours. It is interesting to see the thought process behind them: the big detours lead to „mini-bosses”, a roper and a succubus, respectively.

Keep on the Borderlands



Let us compare the previous modules with the classic Keep on the Borderlands by Gary Gygax. I will omit the keep and wilderness (which introduce some really entertaining possibilities, greatly enhancing the game experience - these elements are regrettably absent in Forge and Sunless) and focus on the Caves of Chaos instead. The layout of this dungeon area is completely different from the aforementioned. The individual monster lairs follow the „straight line” or „branching” structure, but the number of these lairs and the occasional secret connection make adventuring in this environment rewarding indeed. All of the lairs may be entered at will (the long horizontal line on the image represents the ravine). The dungeon is thus both complex and compartmental - with enough room for exploration, but probably not overwhelming if the lairs are tackled individually.

In Search of the Unknown



Mike Carr’s In Search of the Unknown has the most complex dungeon layout in our sample. I would argue that the main draw of the module is precisely this - it presents a lot of classic dungeon exploration challenges like room mazes, secret doors, twisting corridors and such. What makes it even better in my opinion is that it does this without being frustrating, but also because the macrostructure beyond the basic elements is so good. You can explore this dungeon and really find things. Unfortunately, the entire dungeon couldn’t be represented as a single network (the lower level would have made it very convoluted for the observer), but I hope my point was made. B1 harkens back to Original D&D design principles and it shows.

The Village of Hommlet



I freely admit that I dislike this module, and my analysis may be coloured by bias. However, looking at the layout of this dungeon, one of my complaints about it is reaffirmed - this is an early example of the linear adventure. You can even identify the boss monster (and the crayfish miniboss, of course, who is cooler than the boss himself). The moathouse dungeon has two redeeming features (not enough to be cool in my eyes, though): one, hiding the entire „inner dungeon” by two secret doors is a good idea - it forces the players to be alert and attentive, even resourceful. Second, it is a very small dungeon, where it is hard to really shine in mapping. Granted, this is because Gygax wasted too much space on Lameburg and its entirely mundane and boring residents, but hey.

Palace of the Silver Princess



Palace of the Silver Princess is not usually considered a good module, but I actually think it is better than its reputation (the orange one, at least): a straightforward dungeon bash with a lot of unexplained stuff (a good point), a lot of magic and secret to boot. It also has a very good map. I really like the multiple nested circular routes on the lower level, and also the fact that the module has two „conclusions” - one of them is finding and killing the evil cleric, and the other is finding the hidden room of the princess and her lover (who are accursed ghosts - a nice twist on the cheesy „save the princess” cliché). However, most parties would only find the former! That’s great. I wish more modules had that secrets within secrets and mysteries within mysteries element.

Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl



This module wasn’t an introductory product like the others, but it was among the first modules TSR published. I included it because of its tournament design: it has some flaws similar to Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury, in that it is once again too restrictive in some respects... on the other hand, there are so many well designed side areas, especially on the higher level, that this isn’t so bothersome in play. G2 (and Tomb of Horrors, which I didn’t have at hand) demonstrate that the linear structure can work - if balanced by good content (conversely, In Search of the Unknown is only „good” instead of „great” because most rooms just aren’t that great).

Descent into the Depths of the Earth



I will not discuss the underworld section of this module, because it falls into the domain of wilderness adventuring, and will instead focus on the set-piece: the troglodyte/drow warren. Similar to Keep on the Borderlands, this dungeon is greatly helped by an open central area from which „branches” can be accessed. The great cavern links individual monster lairs, some of which are nasty and some of which are very, very nasty. As we can see, the western half has more individual lairs (usually with more dangerous denizens), the eastern half is more „mazy”, and here the challenge is in overwhelming numbers and using the terrain layout to advantage.

***

I hope that these brief demonstrations helped underscore the gist of my argument: good map design contributes to the fun of an adventure, and it is not a total crapshoot - there are clearly identifiable design principles which (admittedly from a gamist/”old school” standpoint), when followed, benefit a given creation. Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury aren’t flawed adventures because they are new, but because they employ a structure which is antithetical to freeform play and represents a more rigid „story-game” approach, something D&D should be rid of. Likewise, many (although not all) old adventures are good because they do these things right, not because of the tired and fallacious „rose coloured glasses” argument. There is nothing preventing modern designers (or just garden variety DMs) from learning these tricks and using them towards their own ends.

It also has to be reiterated (because it needs repeating) that maps aren’t all. They can’t make a module good solely on their own. But I think we can accept that they can help a module be better, and that goal should not be underestimated.

That is all.

The essay is also to be found on JHKim's RPG Site. I have posted a concrete example of maps built using these principles in the Dragonsfoot megadungeon thread. The dungeons described there were published in Fight On! #9-#10 as Khosura: City State of the Four Mysteries (the Undercity is in issue #10).

The latest adventure we have been playing, Cloister of the Frog-God, uses a layout not described here. It is "the accessible dungeon", sort of the inverse of B2: a somewhat linear design, which in turn offers several ways of access, and widely different forms of engagement.

This is excellent and interesting stuff! Thank you!

I get why modules want more linear adventures versus a mega-dungeon where players would be returning repeated to the same location to continue their delving versus just moving on to the next adventure.

I remember playing DOOM and how you would end a level and learn what % of secrets you discovered and it was cool to discover how much you did uncover in your exploration.

But on the flip side, its a kinda bummer for the DM when the players don't get to experience a chunk of what you created because it was off in some corner or they couldn't find their way.

I fully admit that I use Secret Doors more for Wandering Monster ambushes than to trick PCs into not discovering new sections of the map.

The only thing I'd add to Melan's discussion is this. The shift in understanding what 'overland travel' is in D&D is structurally identical to the shift in understanding what a dungeon is.

Type 1 (Blackmarsh):


Type 2 (Paizo, 2 different samplings):



What the hell do lines of intended PC travel do on maps? Why still offer a map when you've nullified its function to artwork?

Observe how the Paizo maps don't even come with scale. PCs travel preconstructed routes and at plot speed.

If I am generous, I see these sorry wilderness maps as illustrative. They invoke the idea of travel and exploration without really offering it as a play experience. Remember the maps from the Indy series? They symbolise travel without really depicting it - with the understanding that "getting there" is boring and should be cut in favour of "being there" and "doing the really interesting things". In the online criticism of hex-crawls, they are routinely depicted as non-fun chores based on bland random encounters and bland random navigation procedures instead of exercises of collective imagination - with the urging to "cut to the good stuff". These maps satisfy this urging.

If I am less generous, I will call them simply vestigial; form without an associated function, maybe even without an understanding of function (whether instinctively or consciously). The kind of non-linearity presented in Blackmarsh is entirely missing, but even graph-based wilderness design, with preset paths you can follow, and which resemble the dungeon charts above*, is alien to the thinking that have contributed to these Pathfinder modules. The brand name is ironic: paths aren't being found, they are being set for you. Exploration, even navigation, are absent from play.

This may reflect an understanding of adventure-as-story. In a way, I see the virtues of adventures which are about navigation in social instead of physical space, and therefore do not need maps of the physical environment except maybe as an illustration. But I have a hunch this is not the case - they really are "character/adventure production lines" operating on the conveyor belt principle. You arrive in F., and you are fitted with a magic sword. Then you are in G., where you gain a plot token that works as foreshadowing. And so on, until you complete your character and complete your adventure experience.

I believe production costs may also play a part. Hex-crawl sessions are usually built from small mosaic pieces (locales, interest groups, NPCs) and rule systems (random tables, encounter systems etc.) as they are assembled during play. Presenting a fully fleshed out adventure with fully fleshed out stats and even artwork - that is expensive for both hobbyists and Paizo-style content mills.

____________________
* See the following example (from the Hungarian edition of Sword and Magic). This figure depicts two understandings of a wilderness; one I had in 2001, and one I had after discovering the Wilderlands.

Quote from: Windjammer;508510The only thing I'd add to Melan's discussion is this. The shift in understanding what 'overland travel' is in D&D is structurally identical to the shift in understanding what a dungeon is.

A very good point. The root cause here is that the scenario structures for wilderness adventure basically disappeared in the early '80s and didn't reappear until Necromancer Games published the 3.5 version of the Wilderlands: When there's no scenario structure for supporting meaningful choice in wilderness exploration, adventure designers are forced to fall back on linear railroads.

QuoteWhat the hell do lines of intended PC travel do on maps? Why still offer a map when you've nullified its function to artwork?

With that being said, they do still manage to provide a vestigial function of visual reference: Insofar as the players are bolted to the railroad tracks, they at least still give the GM some guidance in how to describe the scenery going past the train.

I'll also take this opportunity to toss Jaquaying the Dungeon into the discussion.

I only got to read "Jaquaying the Dungeon" in depth yesterday, and I liked the advice you provided very much, Justin. This is great stuff, and I find myself in agreement on pretty much the whole line of thought. My advice on the megadungeon are echoing quite a few of the key points you mention. Well done.

So I GIS'd "rpg map" and found the nice overland map with roads below. To add to the discussion, I also agree a map is about allowing players to go in whatever direction they wish too, but having an existent, dynamic world ready and waiting for them. Here are a few procedures I'd use in implementing overland maps:

1. Trail following. The characters follow the trail / road / environmental border from one point to the next. Speeds are determined by derived party speed.

1a. More or less Set Distances between common locations probably should be prepared ahead of time. This is easy road maps do this all the time. In the map below Clabbereton to Pollox has a relative set distance baring any major changes (we're talking epic+ here). A triangle demonstrating distances between locations can speed up playing overland travel.

1b. Sometimes Odd Distances will need to be measured as the PCs jump on the road at an unusual point. Sometimes they depart at one. No big deal. Use the hexes or grid and measure out the distance pragmatically using the scale involved. Scale should already by on a map, but if not, be sure to add it. Set Distances can be used to assist judging as desired.

2. Trail Blazing. If the players head West from Meekton into the forest, how do we know how far they travel? What time of day it is? What direction they head and if they run into another path / road / border? This is when trailing the pencil behind the PCs comes into its own with the help of Outdoor Survival or some other system for Lost characters.

2a. Determining direction, distance, and speed per day is usually accounted for in any "lost scenario" game systems. These allow easy tracking and trailblazing through a region without any exterior reference points.

2b. As resources dwindle players may or may not seek out more through hunting, which can slow them up even further. Only when a border is found will characters be able to reorient themselves on the larger dungeon /wilderness map and follow these back to remembered or previously mapped lands.

>> Obviously the volume of the territory as well as the ground terrain, air medium, flora, and fauna (random encounter tables) should be taken into account when assigning a level or levels to an area. In this example, the unnamed forest between Narv, Ryn, and Meekton.

>> Also, Melan's post about routes and system design thinking to include choices applies to the overland map as well. These roads, trails, and environmental borders all apply as maps to stuff like looping and linearity during design.

That's nice, but could you please resize it to non-table breaking dimensions?

Just the other day, Tenkar's Tavern published a post under the title, Chris Perkins Posted Some Excellent Maps at the WotC Site. My interest was piqued. Did he really? I am a sucker for interesting dungeon maps. I wrote my first published module on the basis of dungeon maps I found on the WotC site.

So I headed over to the original post, which really did feature a whole bunch of maps, apparently from various official D&D products. Chris writes:

QuoteThis column often focuses on providing sage DM advice, but this week I'd like to give you something you can USE. I've compiled a number of maps from my personal stash and presented them below. They're all from the Mike Schley collection — he's one of my all-time favorites. I recommend you create your own desktop folder called "Maps," move all of these jpegs into it, and sort them in a manner to your liking. That way, the next time you need an inn, an alley, a temple, a wizard's tower, or a cave complex, you don't need to dig too deep to find inspiration.

So far, so good. Unfortunately, the results are not very convincing. While they have good production values, these maps offer precious little in the way of exploration or map-based decision making. I cannot comment on the original adventures they came from - there is more to a module than a good map - but if this represents the state of the art at WotC, then map-making has not advanced one bit since the 3.0 days. But let's look at the graphs I prepared with the methods outlined above (I only used dungeon maps, and then not all of them):


Of the 13 maps I examined, most were completely or almost completely linear, with only the odd detour. Many were very symmetrical - often not a good thing - and only three of them had a layout that seemed interesting even at first glance.

• The Ancient Temple is actually the best of the bunch. There are unobtrusive circular routes which allow for different directions of access and both monster and character mobility. It is multi-level, although the extra levels are basically vestiges with only a few rooms. There is a central hub and a circular corridor that integrates the level structure.
  
• Palace of Burning Ice is a highly linear map, but - but! - it is vertical, and that's always worth a praise. Verticality is very rare in modern dungeon design; actually, breaking flat planes of levels is missing in most old school adventures as well. This dungeon has good linearity, and even a sub-level you can only access from below. This is not an impressive map yet - but it is the beginning of one.
  
• The Reliquary of Six is a disappointment. With the inter-level connections and side rooms, I expected something good out of it, but it turns out there are so many up and down staircases that the large gallery room provides complete access to any place you might want to go. What's more, it looks like the lower level is empty - there are no interesting keyed areas there, only random tunnels. (Is it an arena? Is the upper level a tavern/gambling hall for decadents?) It is usable but not all that convincing.
  

As for the rest of the levels, they are not much to talk about. I even omitted some of them, which were entrances leading to a lair (at least the Balhannoth Cavern has two entrances), or effectively long corridors with doors to the sides. If these are the good maps, what could the bad ones look like?

Have to agree. I liked some of the other maps, like this one...



Now it's not perfect: it'd need to be some district overtaken by a thieves' guild or something, with multiple secret passages between walls and under the streets to link the different habitations in a way that would form a web of locations to explore, but I found this one had potential with minimal modifications on my part.

But this is a huge disappointment in general terms. These guys either do not understand how game play is linked to the actual map, or they do, but they're fully on board with the linearity they deliver and the staging of encounters that flows from there.

Ha! I cross-posted this to Hofrat, and we like the same map, but with the same points of criticism. Well, here is what I wrote about it:

QuoteThere is actually a piece of mapping that could almost tempt me, here:



That's right! A nicely crooked street in a way you see only rarely in American products. But... on a more thorough investigation, it lacks what a great alley map like the neighbourhoods of City State of the Invincible Overlord have: every building has only one entrance, and the experience is still fundamentally linear (well, you can add a few doors and secret doors yourself, but then you can draw entire maps too...)

For comparison's sake, here is my take on the same concept (on a smaller scale), from my current campaign notes (spoilered for Mr. Premier):

Spoiler

Street-level shops under the headquarters of The White Hand, a semi-secret society

Ah yes indeed, exact same criticism and very same map!

I noticed your remark about the vertical level and I totally agree with that as well, by the way. It's part of the plans I have to take an approach that mixes our observations on the city maps here (the small scale example you posted hits close to what I'm thinking of here, in particular), with the multiple entrances/mini-levels setup of the Caves of Chaos set up in a mezzanine upon mezzanine to build level 1b "troglodyte settlement ruins" (or remnants of hyperborean fort) on this sideview of the volcano mega-dungeon being built on that thread.



So the idea here is that you have troglodyte habitations that were on top of each other on the side of the cliff, with the inside digging through the rock, and the different habitations being linked by stairs, chutes, ancient (probably malfunctioning) teleporters, etc etc. It'd have a kind of Gothic merovingian feel to it in my mind, with creepy stuff, probably some hauntings, some unresolve traces of the Hyperborean research that went on there, undead, spirits, scavengers and animals having taking over some parts close to the side of the rock... we'll see.

My trip into the Périgord Noir two years ago was the inspiration for this. I visited this particular, restored medieval manor there (le manoir de Reignac for the curious, or the tourist, by the way):



Awesome.

So in fact the three principal entrance levels of the mega-dungeon will have very different feels and layouts to them ideally: (1a) the mines are going to be stretching into long tunnels with clusters of disaffected mine activity and other curiosity spread throughout a large scale; (1b) is the Hyperborean fort/troglodyte habitations in mezzanines all linked together from the inside, and (1c) as you can see on the thread is a tight labyrinth spreading on one main horizontal plane (but for the water system and the mezzanine which are going to be added later).

Ideally, the result will be levels that will play very differently from one another, so you can shift between exploration sites and deal with different vibes and threats however you want as you strategize to get inside the mountain and figure out what the hell is going on there.

Yeah, who couldn't take a look at that place and fail to become inspired. I assume you are familiar with Jeff Rients' vertical dungeon level from his Myrdinn campaign, right? That's someting.