When you're running an adventure that comes with a map, whether it's one you made yourself or one included in a commercial module, what do you do with it?
Do you just describe areas to the players and let them sketch their own maps? Do you draw a new map for them bit by bit as they explore? Do you lay out 3D terrain pieces on the table to correspond to the GM's map? Do you just hand the players a sanitised version of the map that doesn't have any traps or secret doors out such things marked on it? Something else?
The first time I ever saw D&D being played, in 1978, they used a piece of cardboard with the map drawn on it, covered in newspaper. An exacto slices off the newspaper as you explore. That's a fun way to do it.
If you are vulnerable farmers exploring the dark, then you need to describe things for the party to map. The fear of the unknown is a big part of that genre. I remember playing with Rients one time and being terrified of where the corridors we passed went, what was down them, and so on.
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic1560413.jpg)
I've used a variety of methods from drawing it as they go, to just describing it in generalities and specifics as needed, to detailed mappable descriptions, to using tiles, etc.
Quote from: bryce0lynch;846946The first time I ever saw D&D being played, in 1978, they used a piece of cardboard with the map drawn on it, covered in newspaper. An exacto slices off the newspaper as you explore. That's a fun way to do it.
Ooh. That's a neat trick. I'll have to remember that one.
Lately my maps have been more abstract. I don't care to measure hexes or distances. I want to impart information to the players so they can make choices.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cq4N9Usi8Kk/UYjEOHJSJ1I/AAAAAAAAAKU/4Gk1trPycF0/s1600/DarkWood.jpg)
For my cursed forest, I wanted to provide the players with a visual representation of all the location encounters. I wanted to give them the choice of which parts to explore in what order. Each has a teaser bit of information on what kind of encounter they're likely to have. I think this is more appealing and interesting than rattling off a list of places.
For specific places, either I just describe it (easiest way) or draw the map out as they explore. Depends on how important the details are.
For indoor maps, I just map for the party; it is less confusing that way- especially for caverns and other irregular spaces. For outdoor stuff. I prefer abstract and I use a ruler to measure distance.
(http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n552/Junkyinthethrunky/4c78e851099c53c7915722956574e165_zps9ete11rv.jpg)
I try to keep it entirely description based and the players can make whatever kind of map they want.
In the wargaming campaign tradition a larger map might show the disposition of forces and when the belligerents meet you would zoom in and play out a battle. In an RPG, I tend to always stay zoomed in in terms of only describing what the characters can see and the types of things they might encounter go well beyond just the forces of an enemy. Behind the screen, I use the map like a campaign map with appropriate "turns" of time when needed.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;846990Ooh. That's a neat trick. I'll have to remember that one.
Lately my maps have been more abstract. I don't care to measure hexes or distances. I want to impart information to the players so they can make choices.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cq4N9Usi8Kk/UYjEOHJSJ1I/AAAAAAAAAKU/4Gk1trPycF0/s1600/DarkWood.jpg)
For my cursed forest, I wanted to provide the players with a visual representation of all the location encounters. I wanted to give them the choice of which parts to explore in what order. Each has a teaser bit of information on what kind of encounter they're likely to have. I think this is more appealing and interesting than rattling off a list of places.
For specific places, either I just describe it (easiest way) or draw the map out as they explore. Depends on how important the details are.
This is close to what I do. My maps aren't specific nor reliable, they just give a general feel for things and I tend to go by how many days it should take to get to any given spot.
Depends on the game. For our fantasy settings, usually detailed accurate maps are rare commodities. The game world is mapped out in detail by the GM, but players never get to see those maps. They get maps that represent actual maps in the game world, and which are generally incomplete in some ways and have some mistakes, etc., and never try to show the whole world at once, or if they do, don't look much like what the actual GM world maps look like. Collecting maps and exploring and figuring out what is where and what's not shown, has been one of the most interesting aspects of our fantasy campaigns.
In modern games, maps are much more available, but still tend to leave some information out. Many modern maps leave out lots of things that adventurers might want, such as terrain, or industry, or how to get places on foot...
Players can try to make their own maps, but it's based on what they can observe and get descriptions for via the GM through the filter of their character abilities. Illiterate characters have a very hard time using maps. People without cartography skill have a hard time making them, and without surveying or at least not getting lost, may get inaccurate information in the GM descriptions. A real world tends to have a lot more detail and much more limited perspectives than relates to a useful travel map directly.
Like real medieval maps, what may be more available are travel charts, which show most features along one road at a time, with some indication of travel distances between, but little or no indication of the 2D shape of the road on the terrain.
For combat, locations are laid out on a hex grid. What I often do is draw them on a battle mat, or on paper and then overlay a transparent hex grid. Only what's easily visible is shown at first, either by covering sections, or not laying them out until seen.
I also enjoy laying out maps for most locations and having the players put their counters where they go, even when nothing is happening. This can also lead to things happening, because the players start to engage the location and do things based on the layout of a place, just because it's there and seeing the layout has them think of things to do.
Quote from: Aos;847015For indoor maps, I just map for the party; it is less confusing that way- especially for caverns and other irregular spaces. For outdoor stuff. I prefer abstract and I use a ruler to measure distance.
(http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n552/Junkyinthethrunky/4c78e851099c53c7915722956574e165_zps9ete11rv.jpg)
Aos- your maps are fantastic:)
Awesome. Everything he does map-wise is like stuff that could totally fit right into my DCC campaign.
When I get around to making a book for the setting, if I get to have any say in it and you have any interest in it, Aos, there could be an opportunity for you there...
I use maps quite a bit. I like them and they help people to see a similar scene. They also do a good job of mitigating confusion or disagreement about who is standing next to whom. In a face-to-face game I may quickly sketch a map on a piece of scratch paper, roll out a gridded battlemat and draw a floor plan, or I may even have a large map drawn ahead of time and ready to roll out.
Because I now game via video or audio conference I can't easily sketch a quick map for the players. This leads to more work on my part and occasionally to modular player maps. Here's one example of an underground, illegal fighting pit in Paris.
Upper Level (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByZdh96CdXlpelJna2dXenFyNDA)
Lower Level (Players) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByZdh96CdXlpalo2T1JZZ3dqX3c/view?usp=sharing)
I did a recent post about this on my blog for the lair of a loup garou (http://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/2015/08/blue-owl-cave.html). For the players I created 24 mini-maps of the cave for the players to use.
Quote from: Xúc xắc;846945When you're running an adventure that comes with a map, whether it's one you made yourself or one included in a commercial module, what do you do with it?
Do you just describe areas to the players and let them sketch their own maps? Do you draw a new map for them bit by bit as they explore? Do you lay out 3D terrain pieces on the table to correspond to the GM's map? Do you just hand the players a sanitised version of the map that doesn't have any traps or secret doors out such things marked on it? Something else?
I print out any maps (or partials of them) and let the players use them when there is a map found in the game.
Unless its some kind of special player-map included with a module, the only time I'll show them or draw them a map is if the PCs themselves acquire a map in some way.
But otherwise, it's up to them to handle the mapping.
Quote from: bryce0lynch;846946The first time I ever saw D&D being played, in 1978, they used a piece of cardboard with the map drawn on it, covered in newspaper. An exacto slices off the newspaper as you explore. That's a fun way to do it.
That's actually a very cool idea. I've only done the reverse, where I laid out individual rooms as they become visible, which doesn't work well for odd shaped rooms or caves since there may be no good dividing points, and the pieces have to be lined up and kept in place. But when slicing away the newspaper, how did the DM know how far to cut? Or was it cut away in narrow strips until a wall was revealed?
OD&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.
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 (http://explorebeneathandbeyond.blogspot.com/2015/03/mapping-during-play.html) 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 (http://explorebeneathandbeyond.blogspot.com/2015/03/mapping-during-play.html) 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.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;852675Thanks for the vote of confidence ;-)
If you were the DM, your welcome. If you were the player, I just call 'em as I see 'em. :)
QuoteDoes 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.
I don't have the adventure. What does it look like?
Quote from: Bren;852733I don't have the adventure. What does it look like?
Here it is.
Quote from: Xúc xắc;846945When you're running an adventure that comes with a map, whether it's one you made yourself or one included in a commercial module, what do you do with it?
Depends on whether it's my home game, a G+ hangouts game or a convention game.
In my home game, with 4-6 people that all know me, I verbally describe in the traditional method and they map on graph paper. If I see them do something obviously fucked up, I stop and clarify, because maybe we had miscommunication and also, their PCs are, in theory, actually present, so they wouldn't put the door on the wrong wall, the passage splitting incorrectly, etc.
In an online G+ hangouts game, I draw a very basic map, almost like a flow chart, on a doodle pad for everyone to see as they travel. Keeps everyone on the same page and the game moving. Seems to work well. Yes, it removes the Map Challenge element, which some consider sacrilege, but I have found that the medium (G+) requires a little compromise to run smoothly.
In a convention game, where it can be loud, people may not know each other at all and there is usually a time constraint, I'll just draw it out on a battle mat. Again, sacrilege, but one I'm comfortable committing under the circumstances. I don't want to waste people's time dicking around with some random dude over constant variations of "ON the tenth foot or AFTER the tenth foot." One exception here. If you are playing something like Kuntz' Bottle City or some other specifically mapping intensive module, then you can't map it for them. Defeats the purpose. In these cases, I would make this very clear in the event description so that everyone's on the same page when play begins.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;852823Here it is.
Thanks. I'm having difficulty reading it. Partly because I am unused to the blue on blue format which seems needlessly difficult. Blue for the grid and black for the walls would be a more visually distinguishable. Also I don't know which entrance you are assuming the PCs enter from. But assuming they come in from the secret door on the south* I'd say something like this.
The altar** tilts upwards showing you a narrow doorway. Beyond is a 10’x20’ rectangular alcove running east-west. Your entrance is on the eastern half of the southern wall. There is a pillar centered on the north edge of the alcove which is open to a much larger rectangular chamber 40’ wide which runs north out of your sight. Two rows of pillars also extend to the north dividing forming three aisles in the rectangular room: a wide center aisle and two narrower side aisles sort of like a modern church. There appears to be a wide opening, perhaps 10’ wide, of some sort on the west wall that is 10’ from the southern wall. What do you do?* I assume north is at the top of the map.
** The odd step-like thing by the secret door on the south. It may not be an altar but that's my best guess without a key.
Quote from: Bren;852914Thanks. I'm having difficulty reading it. Partly because I am unused to the blue on blue format which seems needlessly difficult. Blue for the grid and black for the walls would be a more visually distinguishable.
Ha ha - all the old TSR modules had blue maps! Not a clue why they did it as it isn't clear.
Quote from: Bren;852914Also I don't know which entrance you are assuming the PCs enter from. But assuming they come in from the secret door on the south* I'd say something like this.
As per my description they come in from the door onto the balcony above the stairs, which is the north door. That odd shape on the south wall is the iron maiden. I do agree the map is far from clear though, even when full size.
Quote from: Bren;852914The altar** tilts upwards showing you a narrow doorway. Beyond is a 10'x20' rectangular alcove running east-west. Your entrance is on the eastern half of the southern wall. There is a pillar centered on the north edge of the alcove which is open to a much larger rectangular chamber 40' wide which runs north out of your sight. Two rows of pillars also extend to the north dividing forming three aisles in the rectangular room: a wide center aisle and two narrower side aisles sort of like a modern church. There appears to be a wide opening, perhaps 10' wide, of some sort on the west wall that is 10' from the southern wall. What do you do?
That's about half the features of the room, and I couldn't draw it from that description. What about the stairs to the balcony, and the other recesses on the right and left? From the entrance you thought they came in by they can see the left one but not the right one. (It's lit by a chandelier as per my description). And you've got to fit in the most important features, the prisoners and the torturers ;-)
Describing the room in this style would be possible but it's an intellectual exercise. The only way to do it sensibly is to describe the room and its contents, and then separately give mapping instructions. It breaks the mood of the game.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;852951Ha ha - all the old TSR modules had blue maps! Not a clue why they did it as it isn't clear.
Was intended to discourage illegal sale/distribution.
Quote from: Frank Mentzer at DragonsfootWe made the maps in blue to foil photocopiers of that era. Worked fine until technology improved.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;852951Ha ha - all the old TSR modules had blue maps! Not a clue why they did it as it isn't clear.
They hired an ex-architect to draw them? Back in the 1970s blue did not photocopy well. It may have originally been an attempt to avoid loss of sales from duplication of adventure supplements by making the map illegible if photocopied.
EDIT:I see my speculation about copy protection was scooped by Chainsaw. Curse my slow typing fingers. ;)
QuoteThat's about half the features of the room, and I couldn't draw it from that description. What about the stairs to the balcony, and the other recesses on the right and left?
I thought about starting from the north, but I couldn't quickly decide what the hell the designer meant by the scribbles up north nor where the entrance was exactly nor where it was coming from. Also it was unclear to me what was and what was not illuminated so I went with the simplest assumption of PC light sources only. As a DM/GM I deal with illumination by indicating in on the map so I don't have to flip between map and description to figure that out. I was more concerned with giving a sense of how one might describe the room quickly and sufficiently for a player to sketch an incomplete map.
QuoteFrom the entrance you thought they came in by they can see the left one but not the right one. (It's lit by a chandelier as per my description). And you've got to fit in the most important features, the prisoners and the torturers ;-)
I couldn't tell from your description where those were.
QuoteDescribing the room in this style would be possible but it's an intellectual exercise. The only way to do it sensibly is to describe the room and its contents, and then separately give mapping instructions. It breaks the mood of the game.
I agree it is an intellectual exercise. One that was a significant part of OD&D play.
I found it actually worked best to describe the room dimensions first and then describe the contents. So they are (sort of separate) but you start with the map. Without first having a sense of the overall shape of the room (as far as they can discern it by light sources) describing the contents of the room just creates a jumbled list with no sense of place and tends to confuse all the players as each one focuses on some item (often not the most visible or important items) from the list.
I agree that mapping is it's own thing that requires it's own share of time, talk, and attention. I'm really not sure what mood you feel is being broken. Obviously you should deal with maps in a way that works for you and your group. Personally, back in the day, the gradual appearance of the shape of the room while mapping set it's own mood which was evocative of dark spaces not easily scanned and seemed very in keeping with exploring a strange, dark, and dangerous place. And the ambiguity or vagueness of some descriptions was evocative of the fact that these are people viewing stuff in the dark and in a hurry, not machines with radar, sonar, and infrared laser detection devices that allow an exact mapping of the space.
But if you didn't feel that, well you didn't feel that. And if that wasn't fun for you, well, it wasn't fun for you. Worked for us though.
QuoteThat's about half the features of the room, and I couldn't draw it from that description.
Yes, I intentionally did not include all the features, both based on lighting assumptions on my part as well as wanting to give only partial information initially and allow the players to tell me what they do, where they look, so they guide what other information they get next.
As far as ability to map based on descriptions, I have seen players and had players draw maps from such descriptions. I certainly used to do so. Not all players can. Some don't have the patience or just don't care to and some lack or have never practiced the skill. I was very good at it 40 years ago, but it's not a technique that I use much now, nor do I have players who care to map like this very often. I did use this technique during one adventure where a couple of PCs went down some tunnels that ran under a Paris cemetery. The mapper seemed to follow the directions without obvious difficulty, though the tunnels, crypt entrances, and basements were simpler to describe, though not nearly as linear and right angle based as that map.
The most difficult maps in the old days were the irregular caverns that did not use right angles at all. Those often ended up as an oval blobbish shape of roughly the proper length and width but with little to no accuracy as to the actual edges. And that worked fine as well. If players wanted to pace out, use balls of string, and take measurements to accurately map an irregular cavern, they could. Though that would take a lot of time and generate a few rolls on the wandering monster table, so lots of people didn't take the time.
From the north:You enter the door to the south. In front of you is a 15’x20’ room. The 20’ is east-west. The north, west, and east sides are raised x’ with a central stair going down to the south in the middle of the room. Beyond that you can see a rectangular room that looks sort of like an asymmetrical church. Initially the room is as wide as the large alcove you in front of you, but it widens to the east and, after the first 10’ it widens to the west as well.
Extending south and aligned with the east and west edges of your alcove are two rows of pillars with at least one additional pillar over in the east extension.
NOTE: From the door or the north landing, the PCs don’t have an angle of sight that lets them see all of the east extension nor all of the west extension, nor can they see past the short wall that goes 10’ south from the southern end of the west landing. Unless the light is very bright, the south end of the chamber is shadowed and probably not clearly view-able.
I admit this chamber was designed to be difficult to describe quickly. But having looked at the map, its frankly not too easy to understand what the it is supposed to look like with the map. Though to be fair, some of that is my unfamiliarity with the conventions of this map.
Quote from: Bren;852994They hired an ex-architect to draw them? Back in the 1970s blue did not photocopy well. It may have originally been an attempt to avoid loss of sales from duplication of adventure supplements by making the map illegible if photocopied.
EDIT:I see my speculation about copy protection was scooped by Chainsaw. Curse my slow typing fingers. ;)
:D
Just missed it!
Quote from: Bren;852994I found it actually worked best to describe the room dimensions first and then describe the contents. So they are (sort of separate) but you start with the map. Without first having a sense of the overall shape of the room (as far as they can discern it by light sources) describing the contents of the room just creates a jumbled list with no sense of place and tends to confuse all the players as each one focuses on some item (often not the most visible or important items) from the list.
I give a description of both together as per my example, which doesn't cause a problem as they're not trying to draw a map from it.
Quote from: Bren;852994I'm really not sure what mood you feel is being broken. Obviously you should deal with maps in a way that works for you and your group.
If you describe the precise dimensions of a room first then I feel that's putting the unimportant details first, and gives an impression that whenever characters see an alcove they see a "10x20 alcove".
But I'm always willing to consider other approaches. There is no "one true way" and without trying new ideas there'd never be innovation, even if the new idea is to revisit the old ways.
Quote from: Bren;852994Personally, back in the day, the gradual appearance of the shape of the room while mapping set it's own mood which was evocative of dark spaces not easily scanned and seemed very in keeping with exploring a strange, dark, and dangerous place. And the ambiguity or vagueness of some descriptions was evocative of the fact that these are people viewing stuff in the dark and in a hurry, not machines with radar, sonar, and infrared laser detection devices that allow an exact mapping of the space.
Sketching the map for them allows exactly the same thing, especially the ability to show only the bits of the room that the players can see. Whatever method anyone uses I strongly recommend that they try and capture exactly that feeling!
Quote from: Bren;852994As far as ability to map based on descriptions, I have seen players and had players draw maps from such descriptions. I certainly used to do so. Not all players can. Some don't have the patience or just don't care to and some lack or have never practiced the skill. I was very good at it 40 years ago, but it's not a technique that I use much now, nor do I have players who care to map like this very often. I did use this technique during one adventure where a couple of PCs went down some tunnels that ran under a Paris cemetery. The mapper seemed to follow the directions without obvious difficulty, though the tunnels, crypt entrances, and basements were simpler to describe, though not nearly as linear and right angle based as that map.
I just meant that I'd have had difficulty drawing this particular room from your description, just as my players had difficulty when I described it to them.
Quote from: Bren;852994The most difficult maps in the old days were the irregular caverns that did not use right angles at all. Those often ended up as an oval blobbish shape of roughly the proper length and width but with little to no accuracy as to the actual edges. And that worked fine as well. If players wanted to pace out, use balls of string, and take measurements to accurately map an irregular cavern, they could. Though that would take a lot of time and generate a few rolls on the wandering monster table, so lots of people didn't take the time.
When I sketch the map I only draw what they can see, which even with good lighting means there are bits of irregular chambers where the map is blank. It's funny how these missing bits on the map draw them and they are compelled to look round these corners.
Quote from: Bren;852994I admit this chamber was designed to be difficult to describe quickly.
I admit I chose it because it was the straw that broke the camel's back for me, but I'd never considered that it might have been an awkward shape just for the sake of being awkward!
Quote from: Bren;852994But having looked at the map, its frankly not too easy to understand what the it is supposed to look like with the map. Though to be fair, some of that is my unfamiliarity with the conventions of this map.
You're correct that another major point to be gleaned from this map is that maps should be one hell of a lot clearer than this!
Quote from: JoeNuttall;853002I give a description of both together as per my example, which doesn't cause a problem as they're not trying to draw a map from it.
Without a map to look at, the description was confusing to me. Some of this may also come down to preferences regarding visual and audio learning. While I can do both, I prefer visual. So starting with a map no matter who sketches it works best for me.
QuoteIf you describe the precise dimensions of a room first then I feel that's putting the unimportant details first, and gives an impression that whenever characters see an alcove they see a "10x20 alcove".
OK. I can see that.
Using actual measures is a compromise. Obviously the characters don't see with that sort of measured detail, but using vague non-measured terms adds a translation step and turns it into a guessing game about what big, small, large, tiny, vast, cramped, or cavernous mean and since those words probably generate different pictures for each person at the table it just adds confusion to the players about something that would not be confusing to their characters. One could use phrases like "10 paces" or "a long bow-shot" but while these would likely be meaningful to the characters they are less intuitive to the players since they may require a translation step. And of course the hobbit, dwarf, elf, and tall human probably have different length paces and their bows probably have different ranges as well. ;)
QuoteBut I'm always willing to consider other approaches. There is no "one true way" and without trying new ideas there'd never be innovation, even if the new idea is to revisit the old ways.
Cool. I look at them as different tools. For different games and groups different tools will work better to get an enjoyable experience.
QuoteSketching the map for them allows exactly the same thing, especially the ability to show only the bits of the room that the players can see. Whatever method anyone uses I strongly recommend that they try and capture exactly that feeling!
I've used this as well. I prefer it for games where dungeon crawling isn't desired or supposed to be a focus of play.
Currently I'm playing over video chat with players remote and with players with me in person and I haven't found or added a way to easily sketch stuff that everyone can see. I did use a version of your method for exploring the lair of a wolf pack led by a loup garou. The blank spots did attract their attention just as you describe. I used a map of an actual cave which I talk about on my blog (http://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/2015/08/blue-owl-cave.html).
QuoteI just meant that I'd have had difficulty drawing this particular room from your description, just as my players had difficulty when I described it to them.
It's a bitch of a room alright. It's easier if there is no light but the party's lanterns and torches so you can go slow and reveal only a little at a time or if the whole thing is lit so that you can show them (via a sketch as you suggest) everything in line of sight.
- For something requiring a lot of detail (like a stronghold where the PCs are going to be regulars), I use the large graph pads (1-inch squares).
- For interiors being explored for the first time, I use the trusty battlemat with dry erase markers and fill in areas as the PCs discover them.
- For outdoor encounters at long range, I use either scratch pads or a coach's dry erase board.
- I do long for the day when they create a black or dark-colored battlemat with white or light-colored markers.
I view campaigns verbal only description as a hindrance. It makes it hard for people to follow what going on in noisy situation or if they are hard of hearing (as I am). It is also an artificial challenge that has little to do with what the players would be seeing or doing if they were their as their character. It slow down the game when the description needs to be repeated.
I get some like it as a style and like the whole theater of the mind. Just like there are excellent verbal storytellers, I played with referees that do verbal only very well.
What I would recommend most times is to keep a whiteboard and markers handle. Just draw the shape of the room, draw dots or letters to highlight anything of special interest, and keep it in general view. Do your verbal description as you draw it. With practice it will be slightly longer than verbal only but you will more than make up for it with the lack of confusion as the encounter plays out.
In my opinion incorporating the whiteboard overcomes the limitations of verbal only without having to resort to miniatures, tiles, and dwarven forge that some don't like. You can still persevere the players having to map by wiping the board after a room or area.
Also it still doesn't change the fact that a campaign is always going to be a mix of presentations. Even if you go the full dwarven forge route there are going to be times where verbal only is more than sufficient, times when all you need a whiteboard sketch, and of course times when you bust out the minis and the dwarven forge.
My preferred mode is
- Use tiles for Wilderness encounters
- Use Dwarven Forge for interiors, dungeons, and caves
- Layout out a huge city map that is laminated and use dry erase to highlight as the players move for urban adventures.
The trick is to have all the props organized in a semi-circle behind me. I learned to do the building on the fly as I do the verbal description. It is slower but not so slow that it bogs down the game. And the players really enjoy the spectacle.
The main problem I have is that don't game much at my house these days so I am having tote stuff around and fitting it into the available space. At home I have a set of shelves that makes this way easier. Thankfully things are changing to where I will be gaming at home more.
I got another system for when I game on-line with Roll20 and Fantasy Ground. It is similar to above but I have a lot more pre-built that I can call up when I need it.
Some links to pictures of a dungeon layout I created during a gaming session
How it looks starting out.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Gs1JGTtGchE/VhGrOLomMGI/AAAAAAAAMTc/SeBjHdRPou8/w708-h531-no/20151003_133316.jpg
A pair of rooms.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-EVmsq_r2JvY/VhGrOL70PnI/AAAAAAAAMTc/aebehicHquU/w708-h531-no/20151003_143038.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-tLO8WMNHKPE/VhGrOOypJcI/AAAAAAAAMTc/Kp5FDf7GPps/w708-h531-no/20151003_140752.jpg
The explored Dungeon
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-JSbfn9p4guE/VhGrOGcQVXI/AAAAAAAAMTc/1bt23mUgDKk/w708-h531-no/20151003_171916.jpg
I run Savage Worlds a lot and SW is kind of like a hybrid of an RPG and a miniatures wargame so I use maps a lot. Mainly I've been using them with just a rough sketch of the place we're gaming in, but now that I'm really getting into Infinity, that terrain can pull double duty with Interface Zero.
SW is greatly enhanced by the use of miniatures wargame terrain.
For area maps:
If the group acquires an area map, I'll print them one though. This tends to be more important in Ted's games like 50 Fathoms and Deadlands or my Shaintar game that have larger areas. I don't think its going to be necessary for Necessary Evil though because the area, Star City, is just an 8 point star (with names like Northpoint and Southpoint making it even easier to navigate).
For combat maps:
I print out our DramaScape maps (as well as any other maps I own from other companies like Grey Matter Games) on card stock, take the edges off, then I mount them on foam core from the Dollar General (black). The print on demand maps on poster or cardstock by DramaScape are better though because they don't have as much pesky human error (i.e. splicing by me) on the edging. Simon also has had our maps printed on vinyl poster which is sublime because of how easy they are to carry and roll out.
On an expedition in weird and perilous caves, when we're working our way through darkness with just a little nimbus of dim and flickering light beyond which are lurking horrible monsters, mapping like surveyors is not a top priority. A map that gets us back out is what counts.
The uncertainties of verbal description, like the vagaries of atmospheric cinema, convey a sense of the mysteries and confusions arising in that circumstance. Techniques employing careful maps tend not only to undermine that but to slow the pace of action and so distract more than contribute to the thrills.