Complicated maps

[lior_shapira]

I think these maps are OK and I would use them in my game, and I'll elaborate. When a DM runs an adventure with a map such as this, describing the areas the characters are going through should give the general feeling of the area. For example: "You walk through a twisting cavern, every few feet you must duck as the ceiling juts down. The floor is uneven and you must keep constant care to keep your balance". When the characters face battle, then you can draw a more exact map (or prepare beforehand some battlemaps of specific areas).

If you are the kind of dm (or you have the kind of group) which requires very accurate maps (wastes time in my opinion) then definitely this isn't for you... but you'll have to compromise and use very orderly dungeons all the time

 

[Numion]

In our games the DM updates the players map version a bit at a time. The first map is from Castle Maure IIRC, and it was a bitch to run on our method. So no, I'd probably use easier maps given the choice (quit Castle Maure midway, but not because of the maps - the mod just sucked).

 

[Li Shenron]

Do any DMs use maps like this?

If so, how in the world do you describe to your players what they're seeing?

How do you describe a new room when it's weirdly circular, has 6 entrances, and bunches of alcoves which curve into each other?!

Just curious on if anyone would use maps like this for a dungeon crawl, and how you'd use them if you did.

Where's the problem? If the DM is using these maps so that the PCs are required to proceed step-by-step and describe every single curve in the caves where nothing really happens, then the DM is creating the problem...

I would use these maps in the following way:

- either the PCs have the map in hand, in which case I make it visible to the players, and that means I don't have to describe the layout at all

OR

- the PCs no nothing of the place, only I can see the map
- whenever they get into a small secluded stretch of a cave (map 2), I just ask them how they want to proceed and inform if anything happens on the way; otherwise, no need to describe the cave in details
- when in a room or other open area, I either (1) simply describe what they see and nothing else or (2) show the map of the room where they are in (remove it from view when they go out)

Basically whether the rooms belong to a 1-store cottage or a gigantic dungeon it makes little difference in the way you need to describe them.

And if they get lost, they get to put their Intuit Direction skill into good use, it was there for a reason in 3.0...

 

[Doug McCrae]

When I first started playing D&D as a kid, the players mapped out the dungeon as the DM described it. Now we don't bother with that, which is an improvement imo. It wasn't adding anything to the enjoyment of the game. Occasionally the DM will draw a map for a big battle or to make a complicated layout clear. I've only done it once in six sessions.

 

[Pbartender]

Nope.

I'd reduce it to a Zork-style flowchart map...

"This is part of a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. A skeleton, probably the remains of a luckless adventurer, lies here."

 

[RFisher]

If so, how in the world do you describe to your players what they're seeing? How do you describe a new room when it's weirdly circular, has 6 entrances, and bunches of alcoves which curve into each other?!

You've just done it!

Plus a description at the table can be a dialogue. You can give a basic introductory description & then answer any questions the players have about it.

I mean the maps look really cool, but I've both DMed and been the party mapper in my time, and both of these jobs seem hard enough when I have simple X by X rooms connected with straight corridors!

The first map seems much too dense for me to have created it unless I had some unusual reason for such.

The second is much more detailed than I'd bother with. I tend to see the maps I make as DMs as loose approximations.

When mapping as a player, I also tend to go for abstract--more lines & boxes--than for breaking out the survey equipment.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I would be more likely to use the second map than the first. The first just reeks of insane design. Lets just build walls and rooms at random to fill a space. I don't like it. The cavern system on the other hand looks great. I would describe it to the PCs roughly, indicating branches in the path rough approximations of distance and direction while drawing their location on my copy of the map until they eventually get as confused and lost as the PCs would likely get. Then I would let the PCs make some skill checks to try and determine where they should go, or how to get back.

 

[gizmo33]

I'm not a big fan of that kind of "map" (or photograph, or whatever). It's one thing if the dungeon is complicated, it's made worse by trying to show a picture of what the dungeon looks like instead of a map. I think the people that design such maps should be forced to use aerial photographs in place of road maps until they apologize.

 

[Halivar]

Nope.

I'd reduce it to a Zork-style flowchart map...

"This is part of a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. A skeleton, probably the remains of a luckless adventurer, lies here."

QFT. Infocom knew how to make some maps. BTW, if you get the Infocom Treasure Chest (came out about 10 years ago, has 20 Infocom games and the maps and "feelies" for each), it makes good starting points for dungeons.

 

[RFisher]

The first just reeks of insane design. Lets just build walls and rooms at random to fill a space. I don't lik it.

That's the thing, though. As soon as you say that, doesn't some corner of your brain start coming up with some unusual scenario that would make such a thing plausible?

Maybe that's just me.