Normally when the PCs in my group have to sneak into an enemy castle, investigate a space hulk, explore a dungeon or storm a decreipt genbeast-occupied semi flooded skyscraper, I don't bother mapping it out for several reasons.
- The group are probably there for a reason, and aren't going to explore every nook and cranny. If they want to do that, I can just continue as below until I decide to say, okay, you've explored everywhere. Drawing out and filling up every corner is a waste of my time and theirs.
- Pretty maps I make or find elsewhere are going to end up being roughly redrawn either by the group or myself and scrawled over heavily. Either that or I physically cut up my maps and keep the bits in a rolodex. I guess an ipad with the right software could help here. Large scale country sized maps work fine though.
- Filling out maps in-session is tedious and breaks immersion. If you have to do it during a fight its even worse.
- Groups can't get good old fashioned lost, which must surely be one of the main hazards in any such exploration.
Instead what I do is get the outline of the location and divide it up into zones. The pace at which the PCs proceed through the zone depends on various factors, how fast they are going, whether they have a map, found a secret shortcut or what have you.
The more time they spend in a zone the more encounters and rooms they are likely to come across unless they are making a specific attempt to be stealthy. And even then that may only improve their chances of surprising an enemy or not stepping in a trap. Getting lost multiplies their time in the zone.
Searching an area for a particular room depends on how complex it is, and again how much time they are willing or able to spend. I can change the state of the location if an alarm rings out or if the local goblinoids are on the warpath (which the group may not even be aware of), increasing the chances of certain types of encounters. I can ad lib as the overall environment changes by just adding a modifier to a roll or two.
I have a list of locations for each zone, like corridor with bulkhead, mess hall, large arched chamber etc, maybe with a couple of other subtables to spice up the randomness, and some landmark locations (like a great fiery chasm running across the middle of the dungeon that they must cross, or choke points deliberately built in). I might also have a couple of signature or surprise locations that they might stumble across.
Then when an encounter comes up, like a trap or gang of mutants, I roll the location as well and may briefly sketch it out.
Basically this follows along the line of thought that in movies for example, or even books, we don't trudge along with the heroes through every single passageway or sewer pipe. We may be given some idea of the passage of time by the state of the adventurers, or torches flickering out, but really its the highlights that make the cut. I get that in some games every room can be a highlight, but that doesn't really work for me.
As a result of this system, unless the group are on a sweep and clear mission, or otherwise have a good reason to search everywhere, each zone within a location might have no encounters, just a brief description as they pass through it, or more likely two or three. Also I can whip up a massive, fully featured dungeon in about half an hour.
Does anyone else do this, or does anyone have any suggestions on how this might be improved or altered? Is there some part of the experience that you feel this approach is missing?
I usually go to one of two extremes. Either I make up the entire place on the fly (which sadly means I don't go very in depth), or I map the place out ahead of time (which means I sometimes go too in depth and players spend time looking in useless places).
This might actually work for my group since I'm trying to find ways to speed up certain aspects and keep people interested. We have quite a few players, and exploration bogs down from time to time.
Could you possibly give some more examples for this?
How big is a 'zone'? Depends on the needs of the moment?
I keep wandering monsters, NPCs and standard buildings on index cards in those plastic card holders (Office Depot sells index cards that are graph-lined, by the way). Most I drew myself, but when I find good layouts I copy them (I used to photocopy, cut and paste but thanks to The Interwebz I can click and save them, then print/cut/paste them later.
I got the idea from the 2nd edition of Twilight/Merc2000, which included game maps of standard buildings (store, police station, apartments, etc) that could be copied for quick use in a game and save the GM a major hassle.
Okay I'll describe how it works at the table to clarify the concept, and its great because it plays for any size area, from a small cavern system to exploring entire planes of existence, all you need is an outline and to divide it up into zones. It doesn't even matter if the group sees the zones, in fact, as long as they could reasonably be aware of whats in the dungeon.
It scales up great too, if the group is seeking the lost Palace of Quills in the vast Razorsand desert, this works perfectly.
I guess it could be described as a powerful sandbox tool now that I think about it, no need for hexes even so you could run it from any map you find, although I'm sure similar efforts have been made. Getting lost in the dark is a big one that I don't think really happens with standard dungeons (open to being corrected), even Gandalf took a few wrong turns in Moria.
So, the bones, glommed from my notes so excuse the roughness; lets say you have a small dungeon, 200m from entry to exit point as the crow flies. We'll say its all one zone to make it easier to understand. The dungeon (or zones within the dungeon) and group have the following attributes:
Zone time multiplier: This is the zone's complexity to traverse, size of tunnels, whether there are crawlspaces, whether its a labyrinth deliberately designed to confuse, etc. This can be arbitrarily large.
Group speed of traverse: The group can progress through the area slowly and carefully, at a normal pace, or in a rush. They get a bonus on their stealth (which in turn affects encounter chances) if they go slowly, and seeking hidden doors as they go makes it slower without adding bonuses. So say it takes double the time if going slowly, no change if going normal speed, and half the time if going quickly. Normal walking speed is 1m per second.
Random time multiplier: This represents random weirdness which can happen in any situation, taking the correct or wrong turns, etc, and also prevents players from gaming the system if they are so inclined. Roll 1d6, for a quarter, half, no multiplier, twice as slow, three times as slow, four times as slow.
Encounter rolls per time unit: This is the chance of encounters in each zone. In a very dangerous area, this can be one roll every minute, in quieter areas it can be one roll per 10 minutes, or hour, or day, or week. Normally the encounter rolls are on a 1d10, where 1 is always an encounter, but the group can affect these chances by proceeding more quietly or loudly. Locations (random, signature, specialised, unique) are rolled at the same time as encounters.
Getting Lost: This is based partially on speed, partially on the complexity of the dungeon, and the rolls the group make to navigate the area. If they do get lost, it multiplies the time they spend in the zone, after all of that time has elapsed they can make another navigation check, and even then they might end up emerging not where they wanted but into another zone, or right back where they entered.
Environment and Community: What tribes and organised groups are in the zone. This is important for deciding the types of monsters that may be encountered, and may trigger an Environmental Alert, where hordes of monsters start pouring in from nearby areas.
Narrating the region the group is passing through is important, as would be showing a few example pictures of the zone, if possible, to build atmosphere.
Example:
A set of modest underground caverns, 200m from entry to exit, with a ZTM of 8. The group decides to proceed at a normal pace, so no multiplier there. The random time multiplier roll gives us "twice as slow". At 1m per second, thats 200x8x2=3200 seconds, or fifty three minutes. The area has an "encounter rolls per time" of five minutes, so that's ten encounter rolls.
I may have to try this out in my next game. Seems like an interesting system.
The basics are pretty straightforward, there's some elaboration needed for say sweep and clear or exploration missions, but not much. The idea first came to me when trying to to figure out the floorplans for an office block in the 23rd century. After hours of WTF and FML I figured this way was not only easier but superior in many respects.
What it means is any size of a dungeon, hundreds of kilometers long, can be put together in a fraction of the time it would normally take, while adding more flavour and feel to the game, all IMO of course. The GM also retains more control of the overall environment and can be flexible in events and power blocs as they ebb and flow, rather than having to count monsters per room if someone raises an alarm. If you want it to be a Moria passthrough or a proper invasion, both are doable.
Getting lost is an important facet of the system, people get lost while using maps on well demarcated road networks, to say nothing of peculiar and dangerous underground tunnels.
I do something similar, although not exactly the same. I described the process on the rpg.net thread.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?574478-Flowchart-Megadungeons (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?574478-Flowchart-Megadungeons)
I find it a useful tool when detailed mapping would not be appropriate.
Quote from: BenS;589200I do something similar, although not exactly the same. I described the process on the rpg.net thread.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?574478-Flowchart-Megadungeons (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?574478-Flowchart-Megadungeons)
I find it a useful tool when detailed mapping would not be appropriate.
I sometimes do something similar, although not exactly the same (no, seriously, I'm not kidding :D ):
(http://enrill.net/images/maps/delverscliff-diagram-P.jpg)
So I basically organized a plane of the mega-dungeon here in terms of exploration units, which each unit (whether mapped or just circled on the diagram) basically representing a particular 3D setup, an area with a particular theme, good to play for one/two sessions of game time. I added some pictures of the corresponding RL 3D setups to show what it looks like in practice. PCs can exit these sections and travel between them. The lines between the sections represent the connections, the winding corridors, mazes of caverns etc that link them. It's possible to have random encounters, to get lost etc between the sections.
If the PCs decide to leave an area in the middle of a game I keep running the game, switching to purely verbal descriptions or 2D mats and tact-tiles and the like.
I use this when I have the intention to play the campaign using mostly Dwarven Forge and the like, and it works really well in practice.
PS: Welcome to the RPG Site, Ben S, by the way. :)
Very interesting, and fairly close to the ideas I've outlined here, although withsome important differences. For example the nodes in the flowcharts would represent unique or specialised locations within a zone here, or maybe choke points/landmarks, while the zone itself is just a loose area which still maintains a direct correlation to realistic travel times and distances.
The comments there about it being "better in a storygame than a roleplaying game" and "similar to interactive gamebooks" probably refer to the perceived plotlike linearity of the method.
"Getting lost means being unable to backtrack" is another issue, with zones you can get lost in the deeps or the jungle and find a hidden temple purely by accident because you were forced to spend more time in a zone, the possible results are more varied. You might even get lost and spend ten times longer than you had planned slogging through a dungeon and end up back at the entrance again. You can also put zones within zones if you like.
I think the main difference would be that I track the group in time rather than space (except in the broadest sense, as in they are within a zone).
Feel free to link this thread in rpgnet if you like, I don't post there any more although I'm not banned (unlike one of the posters in that thread, hence why I don't post there any more).
Oh, and welcome! Most welcome.
The ideas presented in this thread are inspiring; I like seeing other posters' solutions to the question of how best to represent adventures.
It seems Benoist's approach incorporates more traditional hand drawn maps as well as 3D models. If I remember correctly, you formulated an abstract map in the Advice on building a megadungeon, and a campaign around it (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21636&page=7) thread. The abstract map you started with before layering a grid map on top is similar to my approach, but instead of layering a grid map, I layered a table on top of it. Your image in this thread reminds me to not close myself of conceptually by using tables for everyting. There is no reason why a project could not use tables, grid maps, and 3D models all in the same design, depending upon the goals and requirements of each part of the adventure.
The Traveller's approach addresses the passage of time in some clever ways. This is something I have often struggled with. My design in the rpg.net thread puts the burden of pacing and tacking time on the GM without providing much rules support for aiding him or her. I can see that The Traveller's techniques would be even more useful under several circumstances...
1) the party is operating under a deadline (someone is poisoned and needs a cure, a bomb is set to go off, etc)
2) events happen in the game world even if the PCs are not around
3) resource management is an important part of the game (Vancian casting, tracking of food and water)
Quote from: Benoist;589222Welcome to the RPG Site, Ben S, by the way. :)
Quote from: The TravellerOh, and welcome!
Thank you.
I like this a lot.
Going to steal it thanks :)
Quote from: BenS;589310My design in the rpg.net thread puts the burden of pacing and tacking time on the GM without providing much rules support for aiding him or her.
I feel that the zone system works better from the character's perspective too, they may not have any clear idea where they are, but they usually know (approximately) how much time has passed, if only because they've run out of torches.
Zones can of course also encompass areas above and below them if needed, so you could have an entire tower with seperated zones per storey, except for one quarter which acts effectively as all the same zone.
If anyone has any questions or thoughts on the concept fire away, although it should be hopefully straightforward to extrapolate what's needed from the basics!
Quote from: BenS;589310It seems Benoist's approach incorporates more traditional hand drawn maps as well as 3D models. If I remember correctly, you formulated an abstract map in the Advice on building a megadungeon, and a campaign around it (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21636&page=7) thread. The abstract map you started with before layering a grid map on top is similar to my approach, but instead of layering a grid map, I layered a table on top of it. Your image in this thread reminds me to not close myself of conceptually by using tables for everyting. There is no reason why a project could not use tables, grid maps, and 3D models all in the same design, depending upon the goals and requirements of each part of the adventure.
I love hand drawn maps. Not just mine; not just drawing them and designing them. I love to look at them, to imagine the hell out of them. I love that aspect of Dungeons & Dragons. I think it's a strong aspect of the game's initial popularity, whether we are talking about methodology and ways for DMs to learn the game, as well as a means of communication between DMs at separate tables. Everyone playing D&D understands the concept of a map and key. It's part of the language of the game, and it's a strength to me, a feature, not a flaw.
You are remembering correctly about the diagram of interaction between the main areas of the sample level in the megadungeon thread, on which I then extrapolated the detail of the actual map. It was basically starting with the map's flow to then build the detail the dungeon, rather than start with the map itself and then find out when the drawing is over if the map flow came out right or not. You can do that of course, if you are so inclined, and are willing to correct some potentially big mistakes late in the process of drawing your own maps.
I like your approach. It's great food for thought, as they say, and I think there is certainly merit in looking at different ways to organize the elements of the environment to make them usable, approachable and comprehensive for DMs out there.
There was a fellow who ran 4e who had come up with an alternate way to run a mega-dungeon he posted on his blog but I can't find the post for the life of me. It was similar in thinking of the main levels and/or areas of the dungeon in terms of zones, rather purely graph-paper maps connecting with each other. I thought his approach was interesting as well. I'll see if I can find it back.
I find this all a little needlessly complicated.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;589697I find this all a little needlessly complicated.
RPGPundit
A little complexity in exchange for a lot of (possibly wasted) labour and the addition of not a few new options seems to my consideration a fair trade. Which parts do you find needless?
I am going to be running a game that will end up in the Shifting Chaos of Limbo, this might just be perfect for that section since there is no set map and finding something you are looking for takes hours minimum.
Yes it is a bit complicated, but not as bad as some other stuff I have used/developed in games.
Quote from: Stephen (Alto);589924I am going to be running a game that will end up in the Shifting Chaos of Limbo, this might just be perfect for that section since there is no set map and finding something you are looking for takes hours minimum.
Yes it is a bit complicated, but not as bad as some other stuff I have used/developed in games.
Excellent let us know how that gets on, I've been using it in lieu of mid scale maps for five years now myself. Really restores the mystery to mysterious complexes. Large scale country maps are as mentioned fine though, and small scale (one room) maps still have their place.
Mind you its just multiplying a few small numbers together, I'm not sure how complicated that is, plus its front loaded. There's a tendency these days to class anything that's not adding single digits together to be too complicated - lets face it, this isn't a hobby for people who can only count on their fingers.