Reynard
aka Ian Eller
Another good one is having the bodies of guards or whatever the PCs have already killed disappear, with the only clue being a drag mark ending at a wall.
D&D General D&D Dungeon Map Design: Good and Bad
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
Another good one is having the bodies of guards or whatever the PCs have already killed disappear, with the only clue being a drag mark ending at a wall.
Mannahnin
Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
Definitely. I've run multiple adventures using maps from Dyson and others where a tunnel or sub-section of a dungeon level is hidden behind/connects multiple secret doors, and I generally assume that they're not hidden from the inside of the hidden area.
Last edited:
the Jester
Legend
I love a 1/8" grid for this exact reason.
the Jester
Legend
One thing that annoys me is the lack of clarity on which end of each set of stairs is the top and which is the bottom. I shouldn't have to look around for clues to figure that out.
I really like how easy it is to get flanked in a couple of rounds in many of these rooms if you try to hold a choke point.
One thing I ALWAYS appreciate about Dyson Logos' maps is how clear they are, with an emphasis on usability rather than on making them look super moody or atmospheric or whatever. There are some maps in 4e adventures especially that get that backwards.
Lakesidefantasy
Legend
I like 1/4 inch or 5 mm because I wear glasses. I think we should err on the side of accessibility.
Lakesidefantasy
Legend
I always give each door in a chamber a character mark, something for us to refer to when speaking about the doors. Instead of asking about the second door on the left wall we can ask about the door with the crack in it, or the door with the black handle, or the door with a happy face carved into it.
rmcoen
Adventurer
I tend to make "real" places. Actual locations that people would actually build - complete with bathrooms/latrines, and kitchens and eating areas - or natural locations that might exist (cave systems with the water that created them, for example). This lets the PCs intuit some of the "design" based on what they know or (skill check) what their characters might know. One memorable location was a pre-apocalyptic genetics lab they found preserved in a time bubble. Administration offices up front, a couple conference rooms, a big cafeteria for the staff, a couple storerooms for food, public bathrooms, and then multiple labs and small areas in the back. Plus the manager's office - complete with his own private bathroom. When they found a codelocked door they needed to bypass, they thought about the location and went to the manager's office to get clearance. When they realized their food had gone bad, they executed a raid on the cafeteria's supplies.
I mention all this because... yeah, there were a lot of "hallway fights" and chokepoints. (And a wonderful melee in the "multiple entrances" cafeteria.) Not "good dungeon design", but understandable, and the PCs used what they knew to their advantage (including sealing off hallways with silence and sound bubble to prevent combat noise from drawing more foes).
Set piece encounters require / benefit from specific designs, but in general, I want a "dungeon" to have (a) multiple paths, (b) cover / obstacles that both PCs and monsters must deal with, (c) terrain features that can be taken advantage of (like a ravine, lava, precariously balanced boulders, traps that can be found and used against their makers, etc.), and (d) believable / understandable opportunites for interaction between the residents of the location.
(d) is my "answer" to "Random Encounters". My encounters are never random... there are never "1d6 goblins" that show up 1/6th or 1/8th of the time. The goblin recruitment camp specifically has 19 goblins in it - 2 of whom are leaders, 1 in the cook, 1 is the weird wizard, 2 are the wolf-trainers, and the rest are the recruits. They have jobs, and will be at certain places at certain times because of it. The two ogres are lazy, and are only found in their hut - except from 6 to 8 when the wizard forces them to patrol the woods (on a clockwise path that takes 2 hours). There are always 2 dire wolves to the north and south of the camp; west is the mountain spire the leaders live in, and east is the main gate with two guards. Training sessions occur at 10am and 3pm. If the PCs assault the gate, the ogres come out of their hut in 3 rounds, while a runner heads into the spire to alert the leaders. Etc. etc. etc. The party decided to wait until the ogres went on patrol, ambushed them and the two wolves on that side quickly and efficiently, then slipped in the back where the pallisade met the mountain spire, and snuck into the cave system to assault the leaders without all the other goblins involved. The cook managed to raise the alarm, so while the rest of the party was hunting leaders (and rescuing a couple dwarf prisoners), the paladin/sorcerer was guarding the entrance (using darkness and Blindfighting)...
I mention all this because... yeah, there were a lot of "hallway fights" and chokepoints. (And a wonderful melee in the "multiple entrances" cafeteria.) Not "good dungeon design", but understandable, and the PCs used what they knew to their advantage (including sealing off hallways with silence and sound bubble to prevent combat noise from drawing more foes).
Set piece encounters require / benefit from specific designs, but in general, I want a "dungeon" to have (a) multiple paths, (b) cover / obstacles that both PCs and monsters must deal with, (c) terrain features that can be taken advantage of (like a ravine, lava, precariously balanced boulders, traps that can be found and used against their makers, etc.), and (d) believable / understandable opportunites for interaction between the residents of the location.
(d) is my "answer" to "Random Encounters". My encounters are never random... there are never "1d6 goblins" that show up 1/6th or 1/8th of the time. The goblin recruitment camp specifically has 19 goblins in it - 2 of whom are leaders, 1 in the cook, 1 is the weird wizard, 2 are the wolf-trainers, and the rest are the recruits. They have jobs, and will be at certain places at certain times because of it. The two ogres are lazy, and are only found in their hut - except from 6 to 8 when the wizard forces them to patrol the woods (on a clockwise path that takes 2 hours). There are always 2 dire wolves to the north and south of the camp; west is the mountain spire the leaders live in, and east is the main gate with two guards. Training sessions occur at 10am and 3pm. If the PCs assault the gate, the ogres come out of their hut in 3 rounds, while a runner heads into the spire to alert the leaders. Etc. etc. etc. The party decided to wait until the ogres went on patrol, ambushed them and the two wolves on that side quickly and efficiently, then slipped in the back where the pallisade met the mountain spire, and snuck into the cave system to assault the leaders without all the other goblins involved. The cook managed to raise the alarm, so while the rest of the party was hunting leaders (and rescuing a couple dwarf prisoners), the paladin/sorcerer was guarding the entrance (using darkness and Blindfighting)...
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I'm the other way around: I despise 5-square maps (except when the area being mapped is very small) because I hate having to count all those little squares in order to narrate how big the room or area is. Even 10' squares are too small in some maps: I recently ran H2 Bloodstone Mines and while the maps there use 10' squares, the smallest areas on the main map are still often well over 100' in one dimension or another and sometimes multiple hundreds of feet. Too. Much. Counting!
Worth noting I also don't subscribe to the 3e-and-later notion that a PC fills exactly one 5x5 square. I'm fine with 1e where three of them can fight side by side across a 10'-wide passage.
Last edited:
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
There's a difference between map design (how to make good maps) and dungeon design (how to make interesting dungeons to be mapped).
Much of the above discussion has been on dungeon design; I'll here touch on actual map design.
What makes a good map:
--- clarity clarity clarity. It's first and foremost a functional document for quick and efficient use by the DM, meaning needless artistic flourishes - and on a functional document any and all artistic flourishes count as needless - have to go.
--- colour can be your friend; use different distinctive colours for different elements e.g. red for room numbers, green for elevation markers, etc.
--- clearly show which way the stairs go i.e. which end is up and which is down, and yes this includes short three-stair sets into a sunken or raised room.
--- show both ends of the stairs on the same map so we can tell how much horizontal distance they cover
--- show elevation changes by actually putting elevation numbers on the map! Set the entry room as 0' altitude, then anywhere the elevation differs (including other levels of the dungeon!) show the floor's elevation variance from that original zero point.
--- show which way the doors open (this has of late become my pet peeve with dungeon maps)
--- do not show things on the map that can move or be moved; this includes any and all dungeon occupants and most small furniture.
--- if the rooms etc. are mostly rectangular, line them up with the damn grid rather than have the grid at an angle to everything (one old Judges Guild module I own and ran has the grid at about a 10-degree offset angle from 95% of the otherwise-nicely-rectangular-chambered dungeon, very annoying!).
--- use grid sizes that make sense for what's being mapped. 10' grid does for most things and IMO should be the default, 5' is fine if the area is very tight or small, 20' or even bigger is all that's needed for large spaces.
--- do not use hard-to-multiply or odd grid sizes. I've seen maps with 8' grid, 7.5' grid, even one with 3' grid - no.
--- if there's lots of verticality involved, show a side view as well as a top-down map. Avoid isometric at all costs.
Much of the above discussion has been on dungeon design; I'll here touch on actual map design.
What makes a good map:
--- clarity clarity clarity. It's first and foremost a functional document for quick and efficient use by the DM, meaning needless artistic flourishes - and on a functional document any and all artistic flourishes count as needless - have to go.
--- colour can be your friend; use different distinctive colours for different elements e.g. red for room numbers, green for elevation markers, etc.
--- clearly show which way the stairs go i.e. which end is up and which is down, and yes this includes short three-stair sets into a sunken or raised room.
--- show both ends of the stairs on the same map so we can tell how much horizontal distance they cover
--- show elevation changes by actually putting elevation numbers on the map! Set the entry room as 0' altitude, then anywhere the elevation differs (including other levels of the dungeon!) show the floor's elevation variance from that original zero point.
--- show which way the doors open (this has of late become my pet peeve with dungeon maps)
--- do not show things on the map that can move or be moved; this includes any and all dungeon occupants and most small furniture.
--- if the rooms etc. are mostly rectangular, line them up with the damn grid rather than have the grid at an angle to everything (one old Judges Guild module I own and ran has the grid at about a 10-degree offset angle from 95% of the otherwise-nicely-rectangular-chambered dungeon, very annoying!).
--- use grid sizes that make sense for what's being mapped. 10' grid does for most things and IMO should be the default, 5' is fine if the area is very tight or small, 20' or even bigger is all that's needed for large spaces.
--- do not use hard-to-multiply or odd grid sizes. I've seen maps with 8' grid, 7.5' grid, even one with 3' grid - no.
--- if there's lots of verticality involved, show a side view as well as a top-down map. Avoid isometric at all costs.
