D&D General D&D Dungeon Map Design: Good and Bad

[Mannahnin]

The first core D&D book to suggest a 5' grid for tactical use with miniatures was 1981 Moldvay Basic.

But when "Standard" dungeon exploration map scale went from 10' squares to 5' squares is a bit less clear, at least to me. I do have a vague sense that it was around the 3e transition, but I suspect there was a pretty long transitional with different publishers switching at different times. I would be curious to know if there was a clear cutoff point for TSR/WotC switching from one being standard to the other.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I stopped playing playing Dungeons and Dragons for 8 years from 1998 to 2005. I remember when I came back it was very jarring to see the "weird" 5-ft. scale maps. I think 3.5e was made specifically for use with miniatures. I think 3e had a section in the back showing us how to play with minotaurs. Before 1998 I never played with miniatures.

 

[Stormonu]

I stopped playing playing Dungeons and Dragons for 8 years from 1998 to 2005. I remember when I came back it was very jarring to see the "weird" 5-ft. scale maps. I think 3.5e was made specifically for use with miniatures. I think 3e had a section in the back showing us how to play with minotaurs. Before 1998 I never played with miniatures.

I used a lot of gridded maps back in 1E & B/X, having gotten miniatures literally the day after I got my first D&D books. Though the maps in those modules favored drawing things out in 10 ft. squares. I remember getting frustrated with other RPGs back in that time that didn't have gridded maps (like Villains & Vigilantes).

2E's Combat & Tactics had a large section on gridded combat, so way before 3E. There were several 2E (and 1E) modules released (such as the Greyhawk Falconmaster adventures) that came with gridded battlemats for miniature-based play.

The 3E Miniatures Handbook was where that edition started moving towards pushing the grid, especially with the pre-painted miniatures were coming out. As I remember 3.5E came out shortly after the Miniatures Handbook and started doubling down on miniature use.

On topic, multiple paths - even if secret paths - make big differences in the map layout. However, those alternate paths tie in strongly to how the dungeon is stocked - if it's a coin flip for which path to choose instead of being able to making informed decisions (even if the information is incomplete), there's little to no excitement in choosing one path over another.

As others have mentioned, throwing in terrain - even if its as mundane as tables, chairs, torture equipment, daises and other clutter that breaks up a room from just being a bunch of 5 ft. blocks.

I'll also echo the "area you can see but can't immediately reach" is fun and interesting. My wife pulled this in one of the recent adventures, where we were on an upper level and could see the BBEG (talking) in the room below us, but had to find a path down to them made things interesting. It gave us an idea of who'd we be facing, but getting there was the majority of the challenge.

One of the least used tricks (at least in D&D) is the room that needs to be revisited after performing some action or acquiring some gear elsewhere. Labyrinth of Madness from 2E used this extensively, as do video games like the various Legend of Zelda games, but I haven't seen it in WotC adventure design since a long, long time ago.

 

[timbannock]

On topic, multiple paths - even if secret paths - make big differences in the map layout. However, those alternate paths tie in strongly to how the dungeon is stocked - if it's a coin flip for which path to choose instead of being able to making informed decisions (even if the information is incomplete), there's little to no excitement in choosing one path over another.

As others have mentioned, throwing in terrain - even if its as mundane as tables, chairs, torture equipment, daises and other clutter that breaks up a room from just being a bunch of 5 ft. blocks.

I'll also echo the "area you can see but can't immediately reach" is fun and interesting. My wife pulled this in one of the recent adventures, where we were on an upper level and could see the BBEG (talking) in the room below us, but had to find a path down to them made things interesting. It gave us an idea of who'd we be facing, but getting there was the majority of the challenge.

One of the least used tricks (at least in D&D) is the room that needs to be revisited after performing some action or acquiring some gear elsewhere. Labyrinth of Madness from 2E used this extensively, as do video games like the various Legend of Zelda games, but I haven't seen it in WotC adventure design since a long, long time ago.

Seconding all of this.

One great example is a lot of Caverns of Thracia (talk about going back to the founding and finding good examples!) where encounters are, by design, taking advantage of the map. There's an awesome one with a door to a refrigerator-room, there's fun hallway fights against guardians, and there are great open expanse encounters (several with vertical space taken into account, like the bridge on Level 1 and the river on Level 2).

Puzzle Dungeon: Seers Sanctum and Aberrant Reflections has great moments of Zelda-style design: do a thing in one room, it opens up something in another section, then you gotta haul stuff back to close or reactivate something...or something entirely disconnected you didn't know before, but now have the knowledge for.

Dyson Logos has some great dungeon maps that have multiple levels and play with verticality a lot. Almost all of his maps take into account multiple pathways, too, so even his most "pedestrian" (or maybe "realistic") ones are still good starting designs. But his best stuff is truly stellar. There's a few megadungeon-y ones that are huge and do a great job playing with verticality, slides, stairwells, inaccessible-but-visible elements, and looping design. Obviously, a lot of the magic is in stocking those places well, but I think they serve as better inspiration than 98% of what you get in modules fully stocked. Plus Dyson does the occasional one-off that's truly bizarre, like his flying citadels and islands. That's the kind of stuff I wish was the norm in the big name adventures with all their incredible artwork budget, but instead we get mostly linear caves or square citadels.

 

[Sorinth]

Personally I count realism as an important part of any dungeon design, it's not the #1 priority but it does matter. And it's worth noting that by thinking of and putting in the details like where/what the inhabitants eat/drink you do open up opportunities for players to get creative and do something outside the box, which I like seeing.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

Seconding all of this.

One great example is a lot of Caverns of Thracia (talk about going back to the founding and finding good examples!) where encounters are, by design, taking advantage of the map. There's an awesome one with a door to a refrigerator-room, there's fun hallway fights against guardians, and there are great open expanse encounters (several with vertical space taken into account, like the bridge on Level 1 and the river on Level 2).

Puzzle Dungeon: Seers Sanctum and Aberrant Reflections has great moments of Zelda-style design: do a thing in one room, it opens up something in another section, then you gotta haul stuff back to close or reactivate something...or something entirely disconnected you didn't know before, but now have the knowledge for.

Dyson Logos has some great dungeon maps that have multiple levels and play with verticality a lot. Almost all of his maps take into account multiple pathways, too, so even his most "pedestrian" (or maybe "realistic") ones are still good starting designs. But his best stuff is truly stellar. There's a few megadungeon-y ones that are huge and do a great job playing with verticality, slides, stairwells, inaccessible-but-visible elements, and looping design. Obviously, a lot of the magic is in stocking those places well, but I think they serve as better inspiration than 98% of what you get in modules fully stocked. Plus Dyson does the occasional one-off that's truly bizarre, like his flying citadels and islands. That's the kind of stuff I wish was the norm in the big name adventures with all their incredible artwork budget, but instead we get mostly linear caves or square citadels.

I love Dyson! I've been following Dyson for 15 years. But remember, Dustin does a lot of the maps for Wizards of the Coast.

 

[Distracted DM]

A lot of the things that are often brought up as good aspects of dungeon maps are things that I think are great about 90% of the time, whatever the context (though size/sense sometimes restricts the inclusion of all), provided I'm running something bigger than a simple lair:

• Multiple entrances/exits
• Nonlinear/looping pathways/"Jaquaysing"
• Use of verticality and varied slopes
• Disruptive natural elements (subterranean rivers, crevasses, etc.) cutting through whatever grid is there
• Places you can see but can't obviously reach without further exploration
• Mixture of small and large spaces, chokepoints and open areas
• This is verging on dungeon stocking advice, but I want a mix of relatively empty and "busy" areas
• One way gates and portals that interrupt normal spatial navigation
• Structure that can be reasoned about ("symmetry implies a path/secret door here", or "this ecosystem/structure likely has a water source")
• But enough asymmetry to make things interesting

In general, I want to promote interesting tactics both by the party and the inhabitants (flanking, chokepoints, ambushes); encourage exploration, navigation and longterm thinking beyond moving from room to room ("we see that area across the crevasse, how to we get there"); reward players mastering the space (e.g. being able to use the layout against enemies, or thinking about the "archaeology" of the space to find things, like "a mine probably has vent shafts"); and often leave open the possibility of getting lost (one way teleports are useful for this).


I can imagine this for castles but there are a lot of great real world subterranean structures that I think would play quite well. This is part of the underground city of Naples (purple), I think it would make for a nice dungeon layout, maybe "gridified" for convenience:

View attachment 423934

(Side note: in case anyone tries to dispute the plausibility of large underground structures everywhere in your setting, just remember that Rome, Paris and Naples all basically sit atop multilevel megadungeons).

As far designing dungeon layouts that are both fun and make sense in the real world, I think this is usually a place where you can have your cake and eat it too. I've rarely found these two things in conflict (more often, they synergize). While most real world castle layouts might not provide the best gaming, I think you can usually throw together a modification on the theme that keeps most of the elements players would expect (and critically, can tactically reason about) in a castle, and add in just enough gaminess to make it fun without busting verisimilitude. That said, sometimes I find it healthy to throw out sense and just chalk weird stuff up to the nature of the underworld.

I've done a lot of point-crawl "abstract" dungeons, but more often I do pre-planned dungeons and pretty much everything here ^^^ covers what I consider important. Frankly I didn't consider a couple points, like one-ways.