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.