TheRPGSite

There is usually one argument among my group when we start on a dungeon crawl. Who's doing the mapping?!

As time has gone on, we do it less and less - either trying to remember the layout of the dungeon or relying on the DM to let us find our way without the bind of getting lost.

So, do you still map?

If you have time, maybe you can explain what you think of mapping in general.

Do you keep track of time and provisions (especially torches)?

We don't do dungeons*, so no maps.

*=Well, not a long time ago we started playing D&D with the Rules Cyclopedia (and yeah, there was a dungeon), but one of the players didn't like the game, so we let it die.

I encourage my players to make maps, as well as write journals and the like. Most are too lazy, so they spend a lot of time lost. :)

My players indeed map.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;281722I encourage my players to make maps, as well as write journals and the like. Most are too lazy, so they spend a lot of time lost.

Ditto.

We don't do dungeons, so we don't map. If we are playing past historical, the GM (me) supplies maps and charts. Current and future gaming the payers can access orbital mapping anytime. So, though we use maps all the time, map is not used as a verb.

That may change as we start in with SH... I should think at least a schematic map would be needed! :D

-clash

Not into dungeons or mapping.

Quote from: flyingmice;281733That may change as we start in with SH... I should think at least a schematic map would be needed! :D

-clash

'Tis true! I have an actual play thread to post when i get the time to write it up - complete with shitty map.

As far as mapping dungeons goes, we sort of gave up on it a few years ago. The DM just tells us how many resources we get through and warns us when/if we are going to run out. This falls down a bit with big places, so instead of mapping, we roll an Int check or something similar to determine if we can find our way again.

Personally, I don't.  However I'm running an old-school style 1e 'Greyhawk classics' chatroom campaign with C&C rules, one of the players maps from my room descriptions and does an excellent job.

Mapping in the "traditional" gaming sense: no.

Mapping to get a feel of the layout of a place: yes.

With the advent of battlemats, Dungeon Tiles and the focus on encounters rather than exploration, mapping the dungeon is pretty redundant for our group.

Early on I adopted the "Lay the map out on the table" route. This means I make a map of the dungeon, with no labels, and lay it out for the players to look at and decide where to go.

Why?
1. I found it to be an immense pain to constantly be updating and correcting the mapper.

2. My players (across multiple groups) found it to be an immense pain to constantly be updating and correcting the map.

3. It added nothing to the campaign for us. I fully acknowledge others might get a sense of drama or puzzle solving but it does little to me.

4. I started with two gamers who could hold perfect representations of the maps in their heads and got spoiled by them. ;)

In the end, I think it is a choice of the group but I have found it really does not take away from the coolness factor. My style evolved so that it was not what the dungeon mapped out to be so much as what was in the dungeon.

Ooh, split right down the middle.

No mapping for my last group, usually. We made a really nice map for one super-dungeon, but that aside, we usually just map on the erasable mat.

Seanchai

Is this poll for DMs?


As a DM I map like a mofo. (and during encounters, I use miniatures,so there are battlemaps that the players get to see and interact with). I often will show a sketch of a particularly complex area and explain it "ok, you guys came in here, and this part right here is the balcony, and there's passages here, here, and here..."

So when I DM, players make maps just to keep up, or at least they can rely on me showing them a reference map.

As a player, I don't usually bother, and rarely have the opportunity to map.

Quote from: One Horse Town;281709So, do you still map?

My players fight over who gets to map. I verbally describe what they see, and they draw it out on graph paper. They really enjoy it, often adding illustrations and stylistic flourishes.

But then, my players are more artsy graphic type guys than numbers and systems guys. They draw finely detailed scenes of their PCs in action while they play, but I have to keep reminding them to apply a dex bonus to ranged attacks.

I used to map for my players... I quit that right away.

I always also try to remember how long torches are to burn for, but I always end up ignoring it.  Seems torches in my game world are ever-burning (and allow you to see for miles, heh).  In Basic D&D parties can only cover tens of feet per turn, which makes sense if they're being careful, but torches don't last but a few turns.  Heck, in my big dungeon they'd need to bring a full dozen each each trip.  Then again, there's always lanterns.

I map when it makes sense. So, for example, when I joined the group I'm in now, I started mapping - it's a habit from way back.

But we got to 11th or 12th level and we were able to obtain a rough map of decent quality of the area we were crawling, so mapping made little sense.

Now, on a meta game level, I think it's probably partially to make it easier for our DM - he doesn't have to keep track of what we've mapped or not mapped and can deal with the larger issues because when you get that high in level, things tend to slide sideways in a hurry.

But it was kind of cool when I got teleported away from the group and so didn't have the maps - so I started mapping again and used the information I had from way back before to help find my way back.

And then there's an entire story of how my son just started mapping pretty much on his own when we started our D&D game. I look over and he's started drawing a rough map on the bottom portion of his character sheet complete with positions of where battles took place and such - right over his character information.

One of these days I'll get back to writing up our session and I'll post a pic of his maps. I'm so proud.

Quote from: James J Skach;281806One of these days I'll get back to writing up our session and I'll post a pic of his maps. I'm so proud.

Please do! Interesting stuff, Jim. I think my group's reluctance to map was from our first sessions. Just seemed like a chore and something we, "should do." Wierdly, i'm a map freak and have a large collection of atlases and books about the development of mapmaking - yet i hate mapping dungeons as a player, and so does everyone else in the group.

My players map, whether it's in the dungeon or out in the unknown wilderness.  I don't help them if they don't bother.

Perhaps it's an "immersion" or "simulation" things - that for some it helps the feeling of being in character because you're thinking along the lines of what you have mapped without the meta thoughts of a) having the whole things laid bare, and/or b) wandering around like you know where you're going when your character would really have less of an idea.

That doesn't make it right or wrong, but I could definitely see how it might matter to some folks and be completely irrelevant to others.

Now as to why my son would start mapping pretty much unprovoked?* I don't know...my daughter's first act as a player - at 6 mind you - was to make a character sketch (http://www.d20haven.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=61).

*He did see maps I had made (and still had dozens of years later!) some time ago when I first started going through my old gaming stuff.

We basically abandoned player mapping to speed up play, as the DM I will either draw the map roughly as its explored or uncover the map a little at a time. I am not opposed to player mapping if they want to take the time to do it.

I love dungeons but since we use tiles a lot, there is no mapping.   If we are running a game where its all verbal and no minis, then the GM usually maps it out for us...or we wander about lost.

I wonder if giving the players a map "prop" of part of the dungeon would encourage them to continue adding to it...

IME, players will either map or they won't bother.  Props or promises of XP never really seemed to motivate them if they weren't already motivated....

Quote from: HinterWelt;281770Early on I adopted the "Lay the map out on the table" route. This means I make a map of the dungeon, with no labels, and lay it out for the players to look at and decide where to go.

Why?
1. I found it to be an immense pain to constantly be updating and correcting the mapper.

2. My players (across multiple groups) found it to be an immense pain to constantly be updating and correcting the map.

3. It added nothing to the campaign for us. I fully acknowledge others might get a sense of drama or puzzle solving but it does little to me.

4. I started with two gamers who could hold perfect representations of the maps in their heads and got spoiled by them. ;)

In the end, I think it is a choice of the group but I have found it really does not take away from the coolness factor. My style evolved so that it was not what the dungeon mapped out to be so much as what was in the dungeon.

I completely agree here.  The process of the players' drawing a map of the dungeon based on the GM's verbal description was just broken, in my opinion.  I find it a laborious process on both sides without any real point to it.  Some attempted fixes have been: (1) a battle mat where the GM draws out the map for the players, (2) various dungeon tiles where the GM lays out the map; or (3) giving the players a scale map already, which may at most require a few corrections.  

For the most part, I've just abandoned such transfer of maps.  I just have some printed maps that we all share.  As GM, sometimes I'll sketch a map of an area for the players, but only if there is going to be a complex scene there.

My players are welcome to map, I certainly try to describe things with  enough detail... in my last game I got a look at one of my player's maps and it was surprisingly accurate, so no problems there.

I don't play games that require minis anymore so there's no need for tiles or grids.  If my players don't want to draw, that's fine, its up to their memory to get out of the maze.

I have been known to occasionally draw a diagram of some complicated ideas (usually rooms with tons of objects or a complicated device).  I just bring a communal pad of graph paper and everyone uses that to scratch notes on.

As a player, I enjoy mapping. It helps me think out the pretend reality of the space my character's in.

When I'm the GM, I have mixed feelings. Most of my fellow players seem to find mapping frustrating. I, on the other hand, find having an entire location drawn out on a battlemat (dungeon, house, etc) or something like that frustrating. It really knocks me out of the game for a moment and I have a hard time visualizing the space. I don't know why two kinds of maps have such a dramatically different set of effects on my head.

Recent published dungeons are also often frustratingly difficult to map. Paizo seems to be really bad about this. Their Dungeon and Pathfinder maps are full of oddly shaped rooms, diagonal rooms, corridors that take paths that are difficult to describe. I don't think a lot of designers are designing from the perspective that a player would have to think out the space they're building.

Quote from: Cole;281869When I'm the GM, I have mixed feelings. Most of my fellow players seem to find mapping frustrating. I, on the other hand, find having an entire location drawn out on a battlemat (dungeon, house, etc) or something like that frustrating. It really knocks me out of the game for a moment and I have a hard time visualizing the space. I don't know why two kinds of maps have such a dramatically different set of effects on my head.

One approach here is to find a good reason for the PCs to have access to the map or equivalent information -- so knowing the layout isn't out-of-character information.  i.e. The PCs are given a map as part of the mission they set out on, or they have a magical device that lets them survey the rough shape of stone/earth, or some such.

As a referee I map as much beforehand as possible, but even having on hand a number of unplaced maps for undefined areas I will as often as not make up the map on the spot according to what the structure or locale is.  Mostly this is basic residences, shops, or terrain, so the validity of the the map design beyond basics is rarely impacting the role playing.  I mean, if I don't have a map for it, by definition it didn't come up in play before.

As a player I map as I find necessary to my desires.  More often than not we map outdoor road travel and coastlines so we don't get lost.  In dungeons we might map, but our Referee will map on battlemat often enough so it isn't a problem.  Then we just do quick maps to help us in case we ever revisit and the place is confusing / hard to remember in order to get around.

My players, when in a dungeon, will map if they know what's good for them.

RPGPundit

The last few dungeons I either DMed or played in, including an RQ "dungeon", all used mapping by the players. With the RQ game the passages were way too irregular to describe or draw with any accuracy in terms of scale, so I resorted a "nodal" map that just showed connections not distances, and it worked well--we all survived, in fact.

I like mapping and I do not like the DM "giving the map to us" entirely, but if players aren't into it, I'll compromise as DM/GM.

Maps work better when rooms are simple geometric shapes and doors are in the middle of walls; it gets more tedious to communicate between DM and mapmaker the farther you go from that model, to the point that a "real" PC mapmaker would probably do it faster and more accurately by eyeballing. On those grounds I think maybe a good approach would be for the DM to draw rooms on a whiteboard or battlemat, or set them up with models, then erase or take them down when the PCs leave.

Regardless of whether you draw maps or lay out the dungeon as you go, I think one thing that's somewhat lost is the sense of disorientation when viewing an underground environment at eyeball level compared to god-view. Particularly when characters are moving quickly (fighting, pursuing, running away), maybe players should be forced to turn their map over and work from memory and GM description. It's a fine balance between being excessively unfair to players who are, after all, dependent on the GM to describe an environment that their characters can experience with all five senses, and making the whole thing too pat.

I actually really like giving maps as treasure and prefer not drawing out battlemat rooms either, unless the players really prefer otherwise.  Still, if they return to a specific locale, it's room by room to see if they remember where they are going.  

Player maps for me are things that exist in the gameworld, so that stuff is all hand drawn or painted as most D&D worlds aren't high tech.

Quote from: One Horse Town;281709So, do you still map?

Only when I want to find my way there. And back again.

So, yes.

No dungeons but there is a city map/planet map/star system map/star cluster map/galaxy map. So, there are maps but they are premade affairs that the players have access to from the start. If we get into combat, then there will be either a premade map (from a starship plan or building plan) or hurriedly scrawled one in pencil. There are no minis (the scale would be wrong), only letters on the page.

So I answered "yes" but I feel that I might have misunderstood the question...

I'm the party mapper in the group. The DM provides us with a partial map, describes the area, and I draw it onto a piece of graph paper. If he doesn't eventually show us at least some of the map, then I won't even remember what we did last week. That's just the way my brain works. So I map, but not without some visual assistance from the DM.

I hadn't realized it until I read this thread, but I seem to map for them (or just show them the map) for any game OTHER than D&D, but with D&D, I just describe it and have them map it on their own.  

I don't how it started but I seem to have a double standard. :)

Quote from: jhkim;281878One approach here is to find a good reason for the PCs to have access to the map or equivalent information -- so knowing the layout isn't out-of-character information.  i.e. The PCs are given a map as part of the mission they set out on, or they have a magical device that lets them survey the rough shape of stone/earth, or some such.

One of our greatest pleasures in D&D is exploring. So for my group, knowing the layout of a dungeon beforehand would remove much of the fun of playing. We consider it cheating of the worst kind for a player to even briefly look at the map of a dungeon.

Quote from: RPGPundit;281903My players, when in a dungeon, will map if they know what's good for them.

RPGPundit

Ditto and likewise for the other main DM in my group. One way to circumvent always having to map in our games, though, is to take a cartography NWP/skill. If the players are being lazy that game, a character with the ability (that declares that he/she is mapping and has the needed tools) can roll for the chance to see if the mapping was done correctly and can find their way back (or wherever they're going), if lost. I'd say our groups maps more than half the time, though, even if it's just some simple lines and shapes on occasion.

Requiring players to map so that their characters know where they are going is liking asking players to bench-press to see if their characters can force open a dungeon door.

I have played and seen many games being played over the years and I have never seen or heard of players mapping out their location.

Is it an American thing?

I am deliberately trying to recapture the feeling of gaming in Gary's study, because it's STILL the most fun I ever had gaming.  SO, yes, the players are mapping.

Quote from: Darran;283299I have played and seen many games being played over the years and I have never seen or heard of players mapping out their location.

Is it an American thing?

I think it's just one of those things folks like to use to say "you're not playing it right".

If I think I'll get lost if I don't I'll draw a sketch or line-map.

I always encourage the group to have a designated mapper, and then I map out the place with tracing paper as they explore.  It doesn't slow anything down and they can visualize the areas as they are, instead of how they interpret my descriptions of them.  When combat or puzzle rooms ect. happen, it gets drawn on the mondomat.  When I first started playing Basic way back we had players draw them, but that went away fast because it was such a pain in the ass.

Quote from: Darran;283299Is it an American thing?

It's spelled out in OD&D and AD&D. The DM describes the dungeon to you, and you make a map. (I'm pretty sure TFT, which was another of the first RPGs, specified player mapping in the rules.)

Quote from: CavScout;283320I think it's just one of those things folks like to use to say "you're not playing it right".

Well, if you're going to put it that way, then yes, you're not playing it right. It's in black & white in the rules.

Seriously, map or don't map. But if you've never done it, you've never experienced an important part of the core original experience of D&D, which is putting yourself, as far possible, into the shoes of actual explorers of the unknown.

Quote from: CavScout;283298Requiring players to map so that their characters know where they are going is liking asking players to bench-press to see if their characters can force open a dungeon door.

I normally let PCs find their way *back* without mapping, relying on visual cues.  Mapping is for exploration, eg for locating secret areas.

Quote from: Darran;283299I have played and seen many games being played over the years and I have never seen or heard of players mapping out their location.

Is it an American thing?

My British players often map.  I don't, but I'm lazy.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;283330But if you've never done it, you've never experienced an important part of the core original experience of D&D, which is putting yourself, as far possible, into the shoes of actual explorers of the unknown.

You really think that drawing a map on graph paper, resting on a table, according to directions a fellow across the table is giving you (maybe even correcting your map), is anything like being an explorer of the unknown? In terms of simulating an experience, it makes just as much sense for the GM to draw a rough map and say "This is what you see."

Quote from: droog;283338You really think that drawing a map on graph paper, resting on a table, according to directions a fellow across the table is giving you (maybe even correcting your map), is anything like being an explorer of the unknown? In terms of simulating an experience, it makes just as much sense for the GM to draw a rough map and say "This is what you see."

QFT.

Quote from: droog;283338You really think that drawing a map on graph paper, resting on a table, according to directions a fellow across the table is giving you (maybe even correcting your map), is anything like being an explorer of the unknown?

It's more like it than not mapping, and whether the GM makes corrections is a separate matter. Back in the day, we were not particularly creative with the shapes of rooms or the locations of doors. This is something I noted above, and it turns out that it struck just the right balance between facilitating communication (to the degree that verbal description became a reasonable proxy for "seeing it with your own eyes") and just giving it all away.

Instead of trying to tear down any reason people offer for why they like mapping, or concluding as our friend John Kim did earlier that the process is "broken", I suggest that you ask why it was a core process of D&D as originally written, and widely (though of course not universally) accepted, without falling back on assumptions about people being dumb or hidebound.

CavScout: I guess that you never give players riddles or puzzles to solve, or require them to decide the best tactical approach to a combat? Or you do that, but everyone at the table regards those things as purely out-of-character thinking?

Quote from: CavScout;283358QFT.

Okay, is that Quoted For Truth or Quit Fucking Talking? I never know which people are using.

I'm with Elliot. Mapping = old school = good.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;283392Instead of trying to tear down any reason people offer for why they like mapping, or concluding as our friend John Kim did earlier that the process is "broken", I suggest that you ask why it was a core process of D&D as originally written, and widely (though of course not universally) accepted, without falling back on assumptions about people being dumb or hidebound.

First off, I'm not trying to tear down reasons for why people like mapping. I am pointing out that your stated reasons for liking mapping (which incidentally claim an expert knowledge of what 'real old-school' is) are illogical.

I said nothing about being dumb or hidebound. My opinion is that mapping is a puzzle game, not a simulative prop.

Yes, you are tearing down the reasons. People say it's a simulative prop, you deny their experience Q.E.D.

By the way I notice that the poll results may be skewed by an error: answering "yes" to the subject of the thread is consistent with answering "no" to the poll question itself. So some people may have clicked the opposite of what they meant, aside from differing interpretations of what it really means to "map".

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;283439Yes, you are tearing down the reasons. People say it's a simulative prop, you deny their experience Q.E.D.

No, dude, that's you:

QuoteSeriously, map or don't map. But if you've never done it, you've never experienced an important part of the core original experience of D&D, which is putting yourself, as far possible, into the shoes of actual explorers of the unknown.

I.e. Only those who map or have mapped really understand the experience that is D&D. Sure thing, Obi-Wan.

I'm arguing about your point, from the pont of view of someone who's done plenty of that sort of mapping. I'm not seeking to deny that mapping can be fun in and of itself. But it simulates very little. Now, you yourself ask above whether CavScout uses riddles or puzzles. That's on the right track if you ask me. Mapping is about tricks and hidden things.

Ahem. An important part, not the entirety.

As for the rest, we can go back and forth on whether mapping simulates something; obviously this is to some extent a subjective question but no more or less so than any issue related to "simulation". The thing about a simulation is: it's not the real thing. It therefore fails to capture all qualities of the real thing, but it is nonsense on those grounds to disqualify it as a simulation; the question is far more what it adds than what it lacks.

Your comment about riddles and puzzles is also undeniable; I think you can boil it down to the fact that they're fun in and of themselves. But the question is, why are these framed in terms of a roleplaying game? I grant there may be people who look at RPGs purely as a framework for inherently entertaining activities such as solving riddles and puzzles, meeting tactical challenges, posing hypothetical moral conundrums, etc. In my opinion they are missing the point, frankly. It's no concern of mine how they play but if their priorities are so exclusive of the imaginative element of "putting yourself in the character's shoes" that they dismiss any game element designed with that goal, then I'm afraid I have nothing to say to them on those topics.

Again, I enjoy mapping sometimes because it adds to the sense of exploring the unknown in a first-person sense. I'm exercising a skill and approaching the environment in a manner analogous to the character who is in the imaginary situation--far more so than if I just rolled dice to see if I can find my way around. Do I understand people who find it onerous? Yes. Am I willing to compromise for the sake of speeding up play or enjoying a game with people who hate mapping? Yes. But when it comes to placing myself in a "dungeon" full of mazelike tunnels, mapping is more like the real thing than just having the map handed to me.

Again, why should a character's success be determined by the players success doing something in the "real world"? My wizard's magical ability is not dependant on my own magic affinity. Why should my wizard's cartography skills be determined by my own cartography skills?

Much of rpging is hypothetical yet vicarious. (What if I was a wizard, but otherwise still me?) Other parts are based on what it's practical or fair to simulate--thus few games resolve combat by actually having at it--though some do, I understand. But, in my way of thinking, there is always an element of putting yourself in your character's shoes, at least in the first game as conceived. You make decisions as your character, using means which are analogous to what the character does. So, again, when you come to a riddle or puzzle, perhaps like the one at the doors of Moria, you solve it with your brain instead of say rolling dice against your character's intelligence. Mapping's the same; in fact I'll guess that the original groups in Blackmoor and Greyhawk may only have mapped because they thought of doing it themselves. The DMs probably just told them what they saw and they made the best of it.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;283392Instead of trying to tear down any reason people offer for why they like mapping, or concluding as our friend John Kim did earlier that the process is "broken", I suggest that you ask why it was a core process of D&D as originally written, and widely (though of course not universally) accepted, without falling back on assumptions about people being dumb or hidebound.

Well, my conclusion was based on my own opinion and my experience with D&D groups.  It is possible that my experience was not representative.  Given that you and others say you enjoy mapping based on the GM's verbal description, I accept that.  The results of this survey do make me reconsider some -- though I note the confusion over exactly what is meant by it.  This wasn't the case for myself and many people I have known.  We accepted mapping because those were the rules -- but it wasn't a part of the game that particularly excited us.  

I don't simply assume that everything about original D&D is arbitrary and that liking it is hidebound.  I think there are many excellent design decisions in original D&D, but also some poor ones.  I think it's fair to make criticisms of it even though it was a good game overall, rather assume that everything about the game was the best choice for some unknown reason.  
(Apropos of Valentine's Day, Titanic was one of the most successful movie ever -- the top measured in absolute dollars.  Still, I find a lot to criticize about it -- even understanding that I'm not the center of its target audience.)

Oh, I agree there are things not to like about D&D (at least there are games I'd sooner use for certain flavors of play, to put it mildly), and there may even be things about it that are just badly-implemented. But mapping is a very general concept. You could compare it to note-taking or just plain remembering details in a game that has some sort of mystery element: you tread a fine line between excessively requiring players to keep things in their heads and just giving everything away. ("Excessively", because players have other things to worry about in their lives, unlike their characters who are there all the time so to speak.)