Quote from: Psikerlord;1030345The bulk of your xp still comes from killing things though, the other amounts are minor (going from memory)

You can get the same amount of EXP for avoiding, negotiating, whatevering. Thats in the DMG.

There's one thing I don't like about player mapping...
how to describe this:

Spoiler

Or any map with weird angles, a mix of caverns and construction, etc.

I usually draw on one of those Chessex maps and erase if I need to.  If they want their own copy of the map, they need to make it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1030539I usually draw on one of those Chessex maps and erase if I need to.  If they want their own copy of the map, they need to make it.

Like the old adage "A picture is worth a thousand words".

Which brings another point, while OD&D is not a detail heavy simulation of medieval combat and life, it partly rests on that foundation. Stuff that make sense to do in medieval combat should make sense to do in OD&D.

The same with player mapping, it is a visual experiences. Players are not wandering around an underground with some loudspeaker droning "Now you see a 10 by 10 room with a orc guarding a treasure chest with two other corridors. The opening for one is to left of the orc, and the other is to the right.".

No the players SEE the situation. So showing the area on a map via a notepad, dry erase board, tiles, or dwarven force style pieces, is just as realistic as crushing the party if they stupidly allow a group of hobgoblins to flank them. What not as realistic is leaving EVERYTHING up as they work their way through. The only thing that should be on display are what can be seen.

Quote from: estar;1030543The only thing that should be on display are what can be seen.

Yeah, that's why I like the lighting options for Roll20.  The players only see what's visible based on lighting.  It can make for a creepy environment, especially if you set the vision to only 180 in front of them, so they actually have to turn to see the spiders creeping up on them.  One player said it made him feel paranoid and claustrophobic as fuck...he loved it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1030546Yeah, that's why I like the lighting options for Roll20.  The players only see what's visible based on lighting.  It can make for a creepy environment, especially if you set the vision to only 180 in front of them, so they actually have to turn to see the spiders creeping up on them.  One player said it made him feel paranoid and claustrophobic as fuck...he loved it.

Nice! Where it really paid off for me was when the PCs got separated and couldn't find each other. One of the PCs got ambushed by goblins and went down. We were using D&D 5th edition at the time so having the entire party trying to search the place while the PC is making his death rolls, surviving goblins lurking around every corner generated a lot of tension. (The PC died).

Also the demi-human players really appreciated their darkvision/infravision ability.

A tip for when using dynamic lighting. If the PC isn't carrying a light I set his vision to be a 3 ft radius the dim light set to 3 feet as well. This creates a tiny bubble of visibility around the PC and sufficiently represents them bumping around the dark without. Otherwise the map is completely dark for the player and a real hassle to manage for me as the referee.

Quote from: estar;1030471My point is there is more than one way to have the players explore than handing them a blank grid (hex or square) and giving them a verbal description. That the alternatives are not "coddling" or "spoon feeding" players. What works consistently is a balance.  Keeping in mind the player's interests (to a point), and what details they would have if they were actually standing there.

Again, both approaches are needed it not a case of one or the other. And for different groups it will be a different balance. But whatever the result turns out to be it not any more "Old School" or less than sitting down with a blank grid.

First and foremost, just ignore people on this site talking about gamestyles and using terms like "coddling" or "spoon feeding*". This is the best site I've found for advice from people who are elbows deep in actual gaming and the advice is great, but yes there is plenty of posturing around the idea that those that play differently are being candy asses in some way or another.
*EXCEPTION: the actual use, in this thread, of the phrase spoon feeding is a notable exception. The only reference is spinachcat calling convention play spoonfed railroads. I haven't been to a con in decades, but I imagine that with strangers and such a limited timeframe, that can really happen. The reference seems plausible.

Anyways. The primary thrust of this thread, so far as I can gather, is that making players do the mapping is an avenue of investment and engagement. You clearly have found an alternative avenue of engagement. One that is badass in its' own way. One that the rest of us, with less time and outdoors knowledge can't do. Presumably your players are on board to, and if everyone in the game is having fun, then there is no problem.

Quote from: Motorskills;1030511But is there an (ecological) reason that the monsters are wandering around in the first place?
IIRC, a lot of the subsequent development of (TSR) modules was a pushback against dungeons that made zero sense.

In a word, no. D&D dungeons, as a whole, don't make sense. Not with regards to the inhabitants, nor with anything else. In particular once one realizes how expensive building things (particularly underground) was before the advent of modern construction and energy production. Yes, TSR occasionally (and WotC with greater frequency) introduced reasons for things in their modules, and that helps for people who need that. But as a whole, the dungeons are there so that the PCs can explore them. Just like the prices of goods are based around PCs buying them and in some editions commoners should not be able to sustain themselves (because the economic system is not set up with that in mind). Whether or not this a problem for someone (verisimilitude and the like) is going to be up to the individual. But to the question, "ut is there an (ecological) reason...," the answer is, "no. not at all."

Quote from: CRKrueger;1030539There's one thing I don't like about player mapping...
how to describe this:
I usually draw on one of those Chessex maps and erase if I need to.  If they want their own copy of the map, they need to make it.

I would probably, when describing the corridor immediately to the right of room #66, say "this next corridor is actually only about 60' long, headed southeast, but make it 120' straight east to ease in your mapping..." and then pretend everything works on a square grid or the like.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1030553First and foremost, just ignore people on this site talking about gamestyles and using terms like "coddling" or "spoon feeding*". This is the best site I've found for advice from people who are elbows deep in actual gaming and the advice is great, but yes there is plenty of posturing around the idea that those that play differently are being candy asses in some way or another.

Gronan complaint is grounded in actual play. He making a complaint about the skills of the player at a game he ran. What I object to is the idea that handing a group a blank grid and expecting them to construct a map of the dungeon from a verbal description is a hallmark of old school. Granted I started in the late 70s, and he started in the late 60s. But my experience in my neck of the woods in rural NW PA is that there were those who had props and dioramas (primarily from miniature wargaming) and used them as part of a D&D campaign. While it was no where near as common as theater of the mind, it was part of hobby.

The 40 years later I am reading about folks like M.A.R Barker and his Tekumel setup that would put my rather extensive collection of Dwarven Forge to shame. This includes setup that represented sections of Jakalla (?) Underworld Barker's "megadungeon".

So I stated a contrary view to the idea that mapping on a blank grid from verbal description is a pinnacle of "old school" gaming. Certainly building Dwarven Forge setup yourself is more old school than buying them like I did. But using them? Both are equally "old school" in my view.

Now having said that, in my campaigns players still need to learn to map because I only ever had up a section of the total map if it over a certain size (a dozen room plus). In my recent campaigns, this occurred when they were exploring Tegel Manor and my own "mega dungeon" the Majestic Fastness. And yes the wandering monster check went up. And the players eventually caught on that this was happening while they were taking the time to map. They adapted by making less accurate maps that were quicker to draw.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1030539There's one thing I don't like about player mapping...
how to describe this:

Spoiler

Or any map with weird angles, a mix of caverns and construction, etc.

I usually draw on one of those Chessex maps and erase if I need to.  If they want their own copy of the map, they need to make it.

The ambiguity is part of the POINT.

"Old School" is whatever I say it is, at least in this thread.

Gronan, did both Gary and Dave use player mapping exclusively? When did they feel it appropriate to draw out an area as the DM?

And I fully agree that when you talk Old School, you are talking Original School. Which is an important distinction because once the game left the founders' tables, many permutations occurred in the wild. Thus, I fully acknowledge there would be differences in game play between "Old School" and "Original School".


As for the wandering monster discussion...

When designing dungeons (or any adventures), I do a 1D6 for the wandering monster list for the area. Then I muse upon the 6 wandering encounters for why they are wandering. Nothing wanders in my world for no reason. It's patrolling, its moving from point A to B, its hunting, its fleeing, its lost and scared, its cursed to travel, its been following the PCs for good reasons / bad reasons / curiosity, or whatever makes sense for the locale.

As I've said before, I run OD&D as survival horror. Horror is an offshoot of the mystery genre. Thus, there is mystery behind most everything and its up to the PCs to discover (or not) the reasons behind things that confound them.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1030576The ambiguity is part of the POINT.

So suddenly my character's eyes have a fog over them where they can't see clearly?

If  a referee wants ambiguity than don't draw to scale. If the players want precision then take the time in-game to pace it out and risk the wandering monster checks.

A rule of thumb is that areas further away should be drawn smaller.

Otherwise just use a dry erase or a note pad and draw the damn shape of the room so everybody is on the same page without having to play 20 questions.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1030539There's one thing I don't like about player mapping...
how to describe this:

Spoiler

Or any map with weird angles, a mix of caverns and construction, etc.

I usually draw on one of those Chessex maps and erase if I need to.  If they want their own copy of the map, they need to make it.

I think that's a pretty major point, and one I agree with.

I'll buy that there are some people that enjoy it. But I don't particularly enjoy the process of going back and forth verbally describing map shapes.

Also, I don't think it represents what the characters are doing. The characters aren't listening to someone describe a room in words - they just glance around and see it with their eyes. In one second, they'll have more information than what might take the GM twenty minutes to describe verbally. What particularly bugs me is if the players have a bunch of questions for the GM about what they see - and the GM treats it as if the PCs are standing around for a while doing nothing.

If you enjoy drawing maps from verbal description, then that's great. But I don't think it's a flaw if other people don't.

I like the idea of mapping, but it seems like it would slow the game to a crawl as every room turns into a game of 20 questions with the GM to nail down exactly how it is shaped.

And that's also at odds with what the characters themselves experience. Obviously they can see the room directly, so why would there be any ambiguity?

So perhaps having the GM draw a map and then the player record it for later might be the best way to handle it, then represent an abstract amount of time, say, 10 minutes, spent doing it.

Quote from: estar;1030607So suddenly my character's eyes have a fog over them where they can't see clearly?

We tried live dungeon adventures with actual lanterns in an area with lots of rooms and passages.  You can't see shit.  Even a correctly done coat of arms isn't clearly visible until less than 10 feet away.

And you're measuring things in paces.  Be glad I'm describing them in feet.

Playing 20 questions to get the exact size of the room would be hilarous.  I wonder how many random monster checks it will take to get people to roughly sketch the room and move on?

The "foot" wasn't even standardized in the middle ages.  The whining in this thread is hilarious.  Now excuse me while I slake my thirst on your bitter tears.