Dungeon layout, map flow and old school game design

[el-remmen]

What is with people snipping at each other?

Everyone chill out. Consider this an official mod warning.

Piece of advice: If your post is all about someone else's post and not really about the topic of the thread (or some reasonable related topic), think twice before posting it.

 

[The Shaman]

For site-based adventures, where the only story is the PC's exploration and confrontation of the adventuring milieu, meaningful player choice is necessary to keep things from getting boring (and provides rewards to players as they progress through the area by making the information they are gathering about the layout of the dungeon relevant to success/failure) and a non-linear dungeon with many points of access to important encounter areas is an excellent way to showcase and facilitate meaningful player choice. Interesting encounters are, as always, important as well - but for those of you who claim that is the only important aspect I suggest you may be missing out on a significant way to add to the enjoyment of the adventuring environment if you focus only on the details of individual encounters and ignore the importance of dungeon layout.

:edit: If it's not obvious from the above, just wanted to add a wholehearted "Excellent analysis" to my comments.

The Mingol speaks sagely.

 

[Hussar]

I suppose the question comes down to: Does turning left or right at random equal a meaningful choice?

In a non-linear dungeon, you have little or no information upon which to base a choice. It's all about exploration and filling in the map. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But, I question whether that is somehow a more meaningful choice than in a linear dungeon where you have a pretty good idea of which way will lead to some sort of resolution.

Take two dragons' lairs. The first is more or less a maze of twisting corridors, lots of branches and turns. If you solve the maze, you get to the center and meet the dragon. Add in lots of encounters peppered randomly throughout the maze and this is a looping adventure.

The second is a much more linear dungeon. There are side passages, possibly leading to branches and whatnot for the dragon's servants/slaves but there is also a honking big passage straight up the center leading to the dragon. Very linear.

IMO, the second one allows for more meaningful choices. I KNOW which way leads to the dragon. If I don't want to face him yet, I got hunting around some of the side passages, maybe turn up a secret path that leads to the back of the lair and lets me steal a great big diamond .

I would argue that in a non-linear dungeon, all choices become the same. They hold the same weight and therefore cannot be considered particularly meaningful. Rather the choices are more or less entirely random. Do we go left or do we go right? If you have no idea what lies left or right, how can that choice be considered meaningful?

In a site based, exploration style adventure like KotB, that's fine. But, not every adventure should be like KotB.

 

[meleeguy]

Excellent Analysis

However, I think it is fair to point out that the FoF is not quite as linear as you state. An interesting poll might be one asking what entrance was used in this adventure. I just reread the intro and the clues are there, but I think the picture of the stonetooth needs to be a player handout so that one could see that the smoke and the trail are closely related spatially.

The maps in FoF is what drew me to the module in the first place. B&W, but beautiful nonetheless. There is an asthetic component to maps that is important to me, and I find sidelong impressions of the DMs maps usually makes me think "wow, that guy went to alot of trouble for this", and that adds to the experience.

As I'm sure your aware, all of this touches on graphing theory which is just more fun with numbers. I'm thinking of trying to get copies of some of the other maps you reference as a result of your post and my appreciation of good maps.

 

[Ourph]

In a non-linear dungeon, you have little or no information upon which to base a choice.

That's true, the first time you enter the dungeon. That's why I maintain that linearity is absolutely fine for plot-based adventures, because you usually don't do a lot of "double dipping" in those kind of dungeons. At most, you might pull back and rest for a bit before pressing forward, but a plot-based adventure usually means you enter the dungeon, you "solve the plot" and then you're finished with that area. With a site-based adventure you might go back numerous times to explore further, take on challenges you weren't prepared to face the first time you came across them, etc. So, yeah, the first time you enter the dungeon you might not make a lot of informed choices (although if the DM is doing a good job, the environment should be giving players clues as to what lies ahead as they move through the dungeon), but the next time you enter the dungeon the non-linearity of the area gives (can give, obviously the DM has to make the non-linearity count for something) you an advantage.

Take two dragons' lairs. The first is more or less a maze of twisting corridors, lots of branches and turns. If you solve the maze, you get to the center and meet the dragon. Add in lots of encounters peppered randomly throughout the maze and this is a looping adventure.

The second is a much more linear dungeon. There are side passages, possibly leading to branches and whatnot for the dragon's servants/slaves but there is also a honking big passage straight up the center leading to the dragon. Very linear.

There's a problem with your analysis. Both of those dungeons are linear. A maze doesn't make the dungeon non-linear or "loopy" it just makes it confusing. There's only one way to correctly solve a maze, and a maze on Melan's analytical dungeon-grams would simply be a straight line linear dungeon.

In order for one of the lairs to be non-linear there would have to exhibit one of two design methodologies. 1 - Branching: There is no "end monster". There are multiple tough monsters all reached by individual routes (some of which may interconnect). 2 - Looping: There may be a single "end monster" but that monster's lair (and the lairs of its guards, helpers, etc.) may be approached by several different avenues (e.g. - Conan, Subatai and Valeria sneaking into the Mountain of Power through the caves in the ravine, rather than entering through the front gates).

If I don't want to face him yet, I got hunting around some of the side passages, maybe turn up a secret path that leads to the back of the lair and lets me steal a great big diamond .

You've just turned your linear dungeon into a non-linear one. What does that say about your analysis above? :\

I would argue that in a non-linear dungeon, all choices become the same. They hold the same weight and therefore cannot be considered particularly meaningful. Rather the choices are more or less entirely random. Do we go left or do we go right? If you have no idea what lies left or right, how can that choice be considered meaningful?

I think you're confusing the term non-linear dungeon to mean a dungeon devoid of information, which isn't the same thing. A linear dungeon and a non-linear dungeon will look exactly the same to the players the first time they encounter it (unless there's something obvious like a sign saying "this way to the Dragon's Lair" on the wall). The difference is that a non-linear dungeon makes the information gained from exploring and mapping more valuable. A linear dungeon provides no choices on how to get from point A to point D, there's only one way - so knowing the layout of the dungeon does players no good (other than the baseline of knowing which opponents might be where, but that's true of a non-linear dungeon too). Knowing the layout of a non-linear dungeon provides the players with additional meaningful choices to be made.

"If we want to get to the big diamond room we can either go through the deadly trap room or through the rust monster lair or we can go down to the second level and explore some more to try to find a way back up near point D."

In a linear dungeon, players don't have those options.

 

[rounser]

While a good analysis, the OP makes a deep value laden assumption throughout: that linear is bad and muti-branching is good. The OP worships at the altar of "choice" - without stopping to reflect if it is logical or makes for a good story.

I don't agree with this perspective at all. While I do recognize that many share it - a flawed assumption widely shared does not make that value or belief right or correct.

Meaningful player choice represents a sense of control over PC's fates. Without it you take away much of the woulda-shoulda-coulda which can make the game compelling, the excitement of exploration (if all roads lead to Rome, Rome becomes less mysterious)...in other words, much of the adventure, and responsibility for success as well as failure. As has been noted earlier in the thread, this can be faked, but even bothering to fake it seems to be rare.

It's also entertaining for the DM to watch what path the PCs take...but generally it's unfashionable because it represents a lot of extra work for the DM, some of which may remain unused.* Thus, railroad is the order of the day. I find it a bit difficult to justify a railroaded dungeon, though; aren't those walls railroad enough? You need to channel the PCs more?

I think it can be related to why we roll dice instead of taking 10 for every roll - if the outcome is predetermined, who cares about the outcome?

*: Rarely the case....as has been noted from D&D's first dungeon, Castle Blackmoor, PCs tend to clean everything out as thoroughly as possible, and take everything that's not nailed down.

 

[Melan]

Hello!

Thank you for the insightful comments, all. I will try to write some answers tonight, and post them tomorrow morning. Some of them have been very illuminating - and shed light on how my interpretation of dungeon play doesn't encompass all possibilities and approaches. More on this later, because coherent thoughts are arguably better than initial impressions. However, I would like to offer two preliminary remarks:

1. My article is inherently biased, as I freely admit. There is a good reason I chose the "1E-2E-OD&D" thread tag, and that is because I approach dungeon design from a viewpoint heavily influenced (although not completely dominated) by the works of early TSR, Judges Guild and other "old-school" designers. I am also an unrepentent gamist, with slight simulationist leanings.

2. Some posters have remarked that encounters "make" an adventure exciting. There is no disagreement here. Nevertheless, I wanted to mostly put these considerations aside for this thread, and examine how map structure can influence or enhance the game. This doesn't mean I don't value encounters. That is very far from the truth. I believe, though, that introducing that angle would have damaged the clarity of my message this time. In some other thread, I will gladly discuss my views on that subject as well. Just not now, too much work and too little free time.

 

[The Shaman]

Ola, the Mingol discourses wisely - in particular...

I think you're confusing the term non-linear dungeon to mean a dungeon devoid of information, which isn't the same thing. A linear dungeon and a non-linear dungeon will look exactly the same to the players the first time they encounter it (unless there's something obvious like a sign saying "this way to the Dragon's Lair" on the wall). The difference is that a non-linear dungeon makes the information gained from exploring and mapping more valuable. A linear dungeon provides no choices on how to get from point A to point D, there's only one way - so knowing the layout of the dungeon does players no good (other than the baseline of knowing which opponents might be where, but that's true of a non-linear dungeon too). Knowing the layout of a non-linear dungeon provides the players with additional meaningful choices to be made.

"If we want to get to the big diamond room we can either go through the deadly trap room or through the rust monster lair or we can go down to the second level and explore some more to try to find a way back up near point D."

In a linear dungeon, players don't have those options.

Exactly - legends and rumors, fragments of old maps, parley with dungeon denizens, changes in architectural style all lend weight to the character decision-making process.

 

[jester47]

Melan, you left out two entrance exit points in FoF. also I think there is an extra loop in sunless, not to mention an exit into the underdark,

 

[grodog]

phenomenenal post, Melan!

Melan---

A hearty eye-opening "wowza!" for your phenomenal mapping analysis essay. Thank you!! I put a link to this thread (and the original Quasqueston question about the Greyhawk Castle maps @ http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=165693) over in the dungeon design 101 thread @ the Knights & Knaves site.

One of the assumptions that you make, and that only one or two of the first responders mentioned, is that in the more complex maps, the players themselves must be interested in being challenged by the dungeon environment (vs. the more-standard 3.x paradigm of challenge the PCs instead of the players). In order for that challenge to be effective---to fully leverage the less-linear, more freeform, discovery-laden map models---I believe that the players need to map as they explore: otherwise the big blank areas/hidden sublevels/etc. won't be revealed, and the more complex environment loses a lot of its intrinsic appeal. (Aside: it would be interesting to see how linear some of the more complex adventures and maps appear to be if the players failed to find any secret doors/sublevels/etc.: the "first glance" map vs. the "mapped the whole entire dungeon using Divination, Find the Path, Wand of Secret Door Detection, etc., etc." map).

As has also been discussed here recently, player mapping in D&D seems to be a lost art at best, and a very loathed experience at worst. The trends expressed in a few threads seem to be that mapping wastes too much playing time and/or is too much of a hassle to mess with, regardless whether the map is relatively linear or very complex and specifically designed to mess with mappers (like original Castle Greyhawk and El Raja Key maps were). Based on the mapping threads here, that opinion seems to cut across editions too: many older AD&D players said that they never mapped then and don't map now either. If the players aren't interested in mapping any kind of dungeon environment, is it even possible to employ more complex dungeon building techiniques successfully?

Taking mapping opinions into account, I'm curious to hear what people think about Melan's map creation ideas relative to the idea of needing to map them: not the actual act of mapping itself (which is not likely to reveal much useful to this thread), but whether or not building a more complex, freeform map does in fact necessitate mapping on the part of players in order to get the most out of the level.

(BTW Melan, the Greyhawk Castle maps just arrived on Thursday: I'd be curious to see your flow chart analysis of the top map image from the GH dungeon, or the big Judges Guild maps we linked to in Quasqueton's GC thread, or Wheggi's fabulous Quilt Dungeon map @ http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1153). I'm not sure that the really complex, larger maps would be very easy to flow, which is why I imagine you stuck to the 1 sheet maps from modules?).