Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;852319OD&D is based on the idea of the players not having a map.

"Ten feet, twenty feet, thirty feet.  Passage east ends, door north, door south."

That's how I do it.

Wait, so you as the DM don't make maps or you simply don't make them for your players? I've actually run a few games where I made no maps outside the one in my head but rather just had a single page for each area of wilderness or dungeon that had a general description of its features and distances.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;852319OD&D is based on the idea of the players not having a map.

Unless they find a map (to treasure, magic or both); it's in the treasure tables.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;852319"Ten feet, twenty feet, thirty feet.  Passage east ends, door north, door south."

That method works great for simple dungeons, but personally I found it difficult to describe the layout of anything non-trivial sufficiently well in order to allow a player to draw a map of it. I found descriptions switch from a flavoursome description of what the characters see to a boring utilitarian description whose primary aim is to enable them to draw a map. After trying several alternatives I hit on tracing the map on thin paper for the players as they explore and have never looked back.

Quote from: Arkansan;852350Wait, so you as the DM don't make maps or you simply don't make them for your players? I've actually run a few games where I made no maps outside the one in my head but rather just had a single page for each area of wilderness or dungeon that had a general description of its features and distances.

I make full dungeon maps.  I don't make them for the players.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;852362That method works great for simple dungeons, but personally I found it difficult to describe the layout of anything non-trivial sufficiently well in order to allow a player to draw a map of it. I found descriptions switch from a flavoursome description of what the characters see to a boring utilitarian description whose primary aim is to enable them to draw a map. After trying several alternatives I hit on tracing the map on thin paper for the players as they explore and have never looked back.

I have complex areas and I describe them vaguely.  The PCs don't have surveying equipment, they're using a stylus and wax tablet or parchment and quill, and pacing things off.

The players should ALWAYS be in doubt about the veracity of their map.  "Did we get teleported or does our map suck?"

And that's why they have to use the map to get OUT of the dungeon, too, instead of "hup ho, home we go."  So you can have THIS sort of fun:

"Ten feet, twenty feet, thirty feet north, north ends, west or southeast."
"Um... my map shows passage east and a door to the north."
"Oh, does it?  How about that."
"...fuck."
"You're welcome."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;852399So you can have THIS sort of fun:

"Ten feet, twenty feet, thirty feet north, north ends, west or southeast."
"Um... my map shows passage east and a door to the north."
"Oh, does it?  How about that."
"...fuck."
"You're welcome."

The good old days. I remember them well. I was very proud of the the first dungeon map I made (as a player) that got an entire 8.5x11.0 level mapped and accurate with the exception of one 10' offset.

Maps are part of treasure finds in old D&D. Both as a player and as the DM, I enjoy the handling of a map as an actual artifact.

I've got some old grids -- a small one or two on opaque leather-look vinyl, a big one on clear plastic -- that don't seem to get along with either wet- or dry-erase pens now. Maybe a grease pencil would work, at least on the latter?

The big, transparent hex grid is nifty in that I can lay it on top of any map to turn it into a game board.

I don't use that sort of thing much, though, for RPGs.

In my current campaign (D&D style fantasy) my maps tend to be more notes as to what is where relative to other stuff. I don't carefully measure and grid off everything.

The players can make what ever maps they like. Most tend to be boxes with features in them connected by lines.

An issue especially in the classic dungeon scenario is gradual revelation.

One old method is to make a matte with a cut-out corresponding to light radius. The trick is coming up with a convenient way to move the opening while keeping the rest hidden.

Some folks might have digital gadgets that can do that well enough to put on a tabletop. Others might use networked "virtual" maps.

All told, though, I just find the GM's voice to give a more engaging experience. Gary Gygax recounted that he asked some kids whether they preferred radio or television. One said, "Radio, because the pictures are better!"

It's hard to beat the power of imagination.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;852399I have complex areas and I describe them vaguely.  The PCs don't have surveying equipment, they're using a stylus and wax tablet or parchment and quill, and pacing things off.

The problem isn't the accuracy of the map, it's trying to get the players to understand what on earth you're describing. Try describing room 12 in the dungeon of A2 Secret of the Slavers Stockade. I couldn't, and that's the point at which I gave up trying.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;852399The players should ALWAYS be in doubt about the veracity of their map.  "Did we get teleported or does our map suck?"

Yes, that's the trade off.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;852399And that's why they have to use the map to get OUT of the dungeon, too, instead of "hup ho, home we go."  So you can have THIS sort of fun:

"Ten feet, twenty feet, thirty feet north, north ends, west or southeast."
"Um... my map shows passage east and a door to the north."
"Oh, does it?  How about that."
"...fuck."
"You're welcome."

Except in my experience at that point it's always been "the DM's fault" for making an error in describing the map.

I've personally never missed it, it speeds up play massively, and it simultaneously freed me from maps always being on grid paper.

People should use whatever works best for their group, there isn't a "one true way".

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;852399I make full dungeon maps.  I don't make them for the players.



I have complex areas and I describe them vaguely.  The PCs don't have surveying equipment, they're using a stylus and wax tablet or parchment and quill, and pacing things off.

The players should ALWAYS be in doubt about the veracity of their map.  "Did we get teleported or does our map suck?"

And that's why they have to use the map to get OUT of the dungeon, too, instead of "hup ho, home we go."  So you can have THIS sort of fun:

"Ten feet, twenty feet, thirty feet north, north ends, west or southeast."
"Um... my map shows passage east and a door to the north."
"Oh, does it?  How about that."
"...fuck."
"You're welcome."

This is exactly how my first session as a player went. I was the group mapper and mapped well enough from the description that when I asked the DM about my map being off. The other more seasoned players, and characters, realized we had walked through a stealth teleporter arch somewhere along the line.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;852439Except in my experience at that point it's always been "the DM's fault" for making an error in describing the map.

Only if it actually is the DM's fault. One of two things is probably going on.

1) The bad map is due to the DM making gross errors in description or using an unusual, hard to follow style of description. I've had one or two DMs who weren't good at describing rooms or doing the "10' 20' at 30' there is a T-intersection with a door opposite your passage" thing. Like most things, describing mapped movement to the players is skill. Some people pick it up easily, others find it much more difficult. Practice and standard methods of describing things all help.

Most DMs who aren't good at describing movement seem to be aware* of their lack of expertise. So do their astute players. So ascribing responsibility shouldn't be too difficult....well unless both the DM and the mapper suck at the process.

2) The bad map is due to the player mapper making gross errors in their map or just not paying attention to what the DM says. I've seen more than a couple of players who either weren't very good at that sort of detail oriented task or who just didn't have the patience to focus. Like most things, recording mapped movement is a skill. Some people pick it up easily, others find it much more difficult. Practice and standard methods of mapping all help.

Only some of the players who aren't good at recording mapped movement seem aware that they aren't good at it. Unless the DM can see the mapper as they map and has the attention to watch that while doing the rest of the DM tasks, they may not know that the mapper isn't very good. Mutual agreement on fault here is more difficult even if we ignore the fraction of players who are both bad mappers and whiny cry babies who want to blame the DM for their own mistakes.


* Sample may be skewed by my early experience with all DMs running more than one group of players in their campaign. So if one group maps poorly and the other maps well it is easy for the DM to tell that the likely problem is not their mapping ability, but the player mapper's ability. If the DM only runs one group ever, it's harder to assign responsibility.

I used to be, and well ok still am, a mapping fiend.

I'd map the dungeon as we explored, and I had maps for all the SSI D&D, Dragonlance, and Buck Rogers games. And Bards Tale, Wasteland, and all 100 damn levels of Lamorte in the DND roguelike.

Quote from: Omega;852647I used to be, and well ok still am, a mapping fiend.

I love having a player who loves maps and is good at mapping. Like having a player(s) who like interacting with NPCs, solving puzzles, enjoy humor in game, or yes, even combat, (though that is seldom missing from any party larger than 1), having a mapping fiend lets you add an extra dimension of play.

Quote from: Bren;852539Only if it actually is the DM's fault.

Thanks for the vote of confidence ;-)

My players loved mapping at first and all wanted to try, but after a couple of sessions only one was still interested, and by the fourth adventure he was getting tired of it, and whenever we got to an interesting area instead of the "wow how exciting" response it was the "oh God now we all sit around whilst you describe it tediously and he draws it".

Does anyone care to describe the room I referenced in this 10' 20' 30' style? I'd say "The door opens onto a balcony above a large high pillared chamber lit by a chandelier, a central fire pit, and braziers against the walls. A dozen or so Goblins are engaged in torturing several prisoners. Three hang in cages from the ceiling, two are strapped to racks and there's an iron maiden against the far wall. Around the chamber are archways leading to alcoves. You can't see any other exits from up here, but you can't see all the room." The shape of the room and the number and position of pillars and alcoves is not of particular interest, and these details would become apparent when I sketched the parts of the room that the players can see. If they enter the room I'll sketch the rest of it. Often we'll go quite a while with pure verbal description before I update the map for clarification.

The same approach works for walking around a town or a city, or wilderness, or space station.