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

[Reynard]

Let's talk about map design for dungeons in D&D. What works, what doesn't. What promotes good exploration play versus what hinders it.

I see a lot of maps on r/battlemaps (for example) that are IMO bad dungeon design (even for small dungeons) They are usually linear, without any real choices in paths. But in addition, they are often not even good battle maps because they create a bunch of bottlenecks and/or lack rooms big enough to use space in fights. People seem to focus too much on the "prettiness" of the map and not nearly enough on its utility.

Similarly, many dungeon maps you find online are dense but still effectively linear. An area with 50 10x10 cells is not an exploration challenge -- it is an exercise in tedium.

Another problem you see even in otherwise good adventures is maps that basically require hallway fights, with no way for too many enemies to get around the PCs or otherwise take tactical advantage of the space. It is terribly disappointing when what should otherwise be a fun battle turns into the fighters front-lining the enemy, trading blows for 13 rounds.

Dungeon maps should be both fun to explore, and facilitate interesting tactical situations.

What do you think is important in dungeon design, whether for smallish locations or expansive ones? What tools and techniques do you use when designing your dungeon maps? What found or published dungeon maps struck you as particularly memorable, for good or ill?

Note that I am not really talking about dungeon stocking in this thread. obviously that is important, but I am hoping to stay focused on the map design itself. Thanks.

 

[AlViking]

As I said on the other thread I don't do dungeon maps (or really dungeons) per se, I use theater of the mind for most exploration. So if you have those 50 10x10 cells you can give a description of the first few and then it's a question of how much in-world time they spend without wasting real-world time. Just let them know that if they decide to check every cell it means the clock keeps ticking.

I recently did something like that were I had 20 locations the McGuffin could be and had rolled a D20 to see which location was correct. They told me which location number they were searching every round. This worked because they were also being attacked by monsters, they could either fight off the monsters or search every round. The monsters didn't block movement and once they found the McGuffin that part of the fight was over. Even if you have a detailed map you can still use this technique, let the players know how long it's going to take to search all the cells, ask if they're splitting up to do it more quickly and don't require detailed explanations of what they're doing for every single room.

Other than that I try to vary encounter locations. Sometimes a fight might take place in a corridor, it might be a hall, other times it's a massive cavern or a large open space where the ceiling caved in exposing the sky and there's massive pieces rubble everywhere. You can set up places where there's hazardous terrain, limited line of sight or relatively weak enemies popping in and out harassing the characters.

I tend to avoid the whole lava everywhere for hazardous terrain because it's a bit silly and at this point feels lazy. On the other hand something like fast running water can be just as dangerous and doesn't have that same "how long can there be flowing lava in one place" issue. Give them various options to cross the water and if they fall in, they get banged around and moved somewhere they don't want to be before they can get out. Spells like inner sanctum can shut down teleporting as can simple attrition of spell slots. The options for getting across should vary, maybe some spots you can leap across others you need to do an acrobatics check for a slippery narrow bridge. You can do very similar things with crumbling ruins or floors that are unstable and crumbling with age.

Very often I think it's a mistake to have dungeons that are immaculate and well repaired. Ruins that are falling apart where the structure itself is part of the danger - or opportunity - is more interesting. In the rare cases I do use detailed maps I always try to make them logical. Exploring a haunted house? I think about what the old mansion would look like, including where food is prepped and stored, lodging for both the family and servants, "secret" servant passageways because nobody wants to see the help in the grand halls.

That's what I can think of off the top of my head. You can have areas that will take a long time to search, that doesn't mean you need to spend a lot of real-world time doing it. Vary the terrain, hazards and don't assume the location is well maintained.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think dungeons should be designed on what makes the most sense on how to build the dungeon (why would the builders make this hallway this way?). And how to defend the dungeon by it's inhabitants if they are smart enough.

 

[Reynard]

I think dungeons should be designed on what makes the most sense on how to build the dungeon (why would the builders make this hallway this way?). And how to defend the dungeon by it's inhabitants if they are smart enough.

I have tried to use real world castles in play and they just don't work well for what D&D is trying to do. I don't think realism in dungeon design creates fun play.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't think realism in dungeon design creates fun play.

Gary certainly seemed to agree with that

 

[djotaku]

I guess it depends on the goal of your "dungeon". Some of what you mention is more in line with a labyrinth than a dungeon. And I think that will also depend on whether you're doing a dungeon crawl or playing more of a RP campaign that happens to have a dungeon "episode". If the "dungeon" is a mine - I would expect it to be more linear. If it's the equivalent of an ant or termite colony (even if it's in stone) I would expect more paths. If it is something like our real life Egyptian pyramids, then I would definitely expect lots of false locations and more of a maze feeling as they were trying to stop grave robbers.

One thing that both the OP and AlViking point out that many maps don't do is take advantage of terrain (which for the purpose of this point also includes ruins). One thing I'm not good at if the pre-published adventure doesn't tell me to do it is taking advantage of terrain as a form of combat difficulty. (I'm also currently bad at it if I'm homebrewing) I would like to work at getting better at that because it can help with the "fish slap" battle that D&D (and other TTRPGs with automatic attack of opportunity) encourage. I think this is one of the reasons we get so many complaints about battle being boring and so many videos/essays about how to improve it. There's too much of a penalty to a dynamic fight. But if the floor is crumbling or w/e terrain stuff - then it forces movement.

Now, if the "dungeon" is a house, office building, tavern, etc - I don't care about linearity and so forth. An office (or enemy headquarters) is more about stealth and/or preventing the alarm from being sounded than it is about dynamic combat. However, going back to my previous paragraph I will be trying to remember about the structural integrity of the building. If people are slinging around spells that miss or spells like thunderwave, perhaps the building begins to collapse and we see what that does to the combat (and/or their standing with the town)

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I try to make sure that there are multiple ways to make our way through a dungeon, but all of the ways bring us through the same number of encounters or or nearly so.

 

[AlViking]

One other thing I forgot to mention is that I try to make decisions meaningful. I try to give people a reason to go left or right when I can. Sometimes it doesn't matter much because they're going to explore everything anyway but when it makes sense give them clues as to what each decision leads to. Perhaps the air smells a bit different from one direction, there's flickering light or one path has obvious signs of traversal or disuse. There can be symbols in hallways, either from the original architect or added later.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I have tried to use real world castles in play and they just don't work well for what D&D is trying to do. I don't think realism in dungeon design creates fun play.

Generally castles are designed to be defensible, dungeons in general do not and most do not make sense if you think about them too much. Most of them would be flooded for much of the year.
Back to the OP, linear is fine if they are small and the dungeon is not the play.

 

[GMMichael]

I have tried to use real world castles in play and they just don't work well for what D&D is trying to do. I don't think realism in dungeon design creates fun play.

I'm curious: what makes this a specifically D&D thread? I imagine other games have something to contribute to dungeon-design theory. From this quote, the answer is, "what D&D is trying to do." So, no, realism has no place in dungeon design, or anywhere else in D&D, for what D&D is trying to do.

Realism in other games is an important factor in how fun the play is for me. It's largely immersion-related. For example, if there's one hidden switch in the prior room that disables the electrified puddle trap, I'm not having fun. I'm asking myself a ton of questions instead, most of which don't have good answers.

I see a lot of maps on r/battlemaps (for example) that are IMO bad dungeon design (even for small dungeons) They are usually linear, without any real choices in paths. But in addition, they are often not even good battle maps because they create a bunch of bottlenecks and/or lack rooms big enough to use space in fights. People seem to focus too much on the "prettiness" of the map and not nearly enough on its utility.

So is this about utility or playability?

Similarly, many dungeon maps you find online are dense but still effectively linear. An area with 50 10x10 cells is not an exploration challenge -- it is an exercise in tedium.

Another problem you see even in otherwise good adventures is maps that basically require hallway fights, with no way for too many enemies to get around the PCs or otherwise take tactical advantage of the space. It is terribly disappointing when what should otherwise be a fun battle turns into the fighters front-lining the enemy, trading blows for 13 rounds.

50 10' x 10' cells sounds like, well, a cellblock. I don't imagine that those are too hard to explore. But linear isn't always a bad quality. Some PC groups (most?) have no leader, so linear simplifies things a lot and keeps the game going. It's good for the warrior, so she can simply advance to get to the next fight. The thief, however, is probably interested in alternate routes and/or flanking, and probably doesn't like linearity as much.

Not every fight should be a hallway fight. But they're not inherently bad, either. Many hallways will have some sort of flanking opportunity, so PCs can attempt to be the first flanker, or feel the time crunch as they hope to break through before being flanked. But let's say you're using a bad r/battlemap, and there's no flanking opportunity. The front line can swing it out. Or they could turn it into a shoving match, with the weaker side getting trampled. Are there torches involved? Throw them at the tapestries/giant spider webs, and see what the enemy thinks of having fire in its midst. Maybe they want to go toe-to-toe for 13 rounds, but that's a lot of time for reinforcements to show up. With nets. Let the archer stand on your back, and shoot at some heads. While you're at it, pick up the party dwarf and toss her into the fray . . . sorry Gimli!