I know it's old news for many of you, but I was reading the Rules Cyclopedia for the first time when this illustration got a good chuckle out of me:



It's right next to a section advising the GM against crazy architecture out of consideration for the party mapper. It rang very true for me, as I have been guilty of planning and excitedly describing places on the level of the water temple from Zelda (http://iam.yellingontheinternet.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/LegendOfZelda-OcarinaOfTime-Future-WaterTempleSide1.jpg) only to get confused and frightened responses from my players.

Still, am I the only one who's sort of tempted to detail and run the map in that bubble?

I'd happily run or play that. Just don't try and describe it all without taking a breath...

Cool maps are cool.

You just don't try to do a verbal explanation that's not going to come across, and expect someone to map it from you description. Especially with all the computer/printer tools we now have, that could just be torture. Unless it's the player being thick, and wanting to be able to map everything that way, which is a different problem.

Dealing with imprecise maps is a large part of what the game was originally about.  A pixel-perfect map is not the expectation.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;858546Dealing with imprecise maps is a large part of what the game was originally about.  A pixel-perfect map is not the expectation.

I think the issue isn't so much about pixel-perfect maps as the complexity of the space.  When there are a lot of elements whose relative position needs to be understood simultaneously to do any meaningful spatial reasoning, it's too complicated.

Nate McD recently posted this old doozy from a Scientific American:

We recently had a thread all about this:

How do you use maps?

with a lot of different approaches. The argument about the merits of the different approaches has been going on forever. The other day I was reading a flame war on the subject from the letters page of a fanzine from the early 80s with exactly the same arguments!

Personally I trace maps for the players (thin paper not tracing paper), filling in only the detail they can see, whilst I describe the scene. It works for all genres and types of map, but only for face-to-face. Some real-life examples here.

Different styles emphasise different aspects of play. I've even heard of people refusing to allow any mapping by players.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;858524It's right next to a section advising the GM against crazy architecture out of consideration for the party mapper.

This made me think badly of the Rules Cyclopedia - this is the reverse of OD&D where it advised putting in features on purpose to confuse the mapper.

But to be fair to the Rules Cyclopedia it's actually advising you to be clear in your descriptions, helpful instructions on how to do this, and then at the end just warning you that by making the map more complicated you will slow down the game.

For mapping while adventuring, a line drawing with simple boxes to indicate rooms and a few notes will usually do the trick. If you can find your back out, then the map did its job.

If you need to find secret doors, then bring an elf.

In the Cyclopedia example that looks like the layout of a castle.

If it is a town or friendly outpost and the PCs are just visiting. Then I would just show them the map.

If it is an enemy stronghold then Id sketch it out as they explored since it has alot of odd angles and turns that would mess up mapping without me getting hyperdetailed in the distances.

If its a ruin overtop the actual dungeon and is more a backdrop then Id just describe it at its basics and move on.

You dont have to hyperdetail everything.

If no one is mapping then I describe things as normal, spot checks for oddities and if they miss something then they miss something.

Nice try Fuseboy, I found Waldo right away.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;858524

Actually, that wouldn't be bad at all.  You don't describe the entire thing in one breath, you describe what the players can see, and imprecision is a feature, not a bug.

Verily.
My map of the Keep on the Borderlands based off the DMs descriptions did not match the actual map. But it allowed us to navigate the place and get an idea of what was where.

After a while we did not need the map.

The Caves of Chaos went much the same. Only worse.

That's one of my favourite pictures in the RC (which has a few humorous gems IMO).  The DM is rocking an epic Canadian mullet.

Regarding mapping: I usually just draw the map for the players as they explore (unless it's really straightforward).  Of course, they still have to search for secret doors, etc.  I just outline what they can see.

I've done this since I started running games at age 11.  It's just too tedious to force players to map based on my verbal descriptions. I've never seen the fun in that.  YMMV.

Terry Dykstra was the artist. Seems to have totally vanished and no info on him that I could ever unearth.

Quote from: Akrasia;858596I've done this since I started running games at age 11.  It's just too tedious to force players to map based on my verbal descriptions. I've never seen the fun in that.  YMMV.

If you've never done it, how do you know?

Quote from: Omega;858604Terry Dykstra was the artist. Seems to have totally vanished and no info on him that I could ever unearth.

People seemed to have a love it or hate it attitude about Terry's work. I appreciated the consistency of having a single artist throughout.