NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="T. Foster" data-source="post: 2963570" data-attributes="member: 16574">I'm not Melan, of course, but this is a topic I have a lot of interest in, have given a lot of thought to, and have a lot of opinions on, so if you don't mind I'm going to "answer" (which is, to say, use as springboards for semi-related musing) these questions as well:I don't see this as 'metagaming' (in the standard, pejorative sense) but rather as "good play" (and, incidentally, pretty much the only reason to ever go to the bother trying to draw an accurate map instead of a "trailing" map. This brings up the point of whether mapping in a dungeon is considered purely a player-level phenomenon or if it also has an in-game character-level component. It seems to me most people view/play it as the former, but I've always prefered the latter -- if the players are drawing a map, then one of the characters must also be doing so (and have the proper equipment, light, etc.). If the "mapper" character dies and no one recovers his body, or loses his equipment to a fireball, or just doesn't show up for the session, then his maps aren't available and the players must either draw new maps or rely on their memories. This is the same reason I'll never draw on the players' map (I might sketch out the shape of an oddly-shaped room on a piece of scratch paper if the players seem confused by the verbal description, but that's it) -- the accuracy of their map is their concern, not mine. In most cases, there's no need for a player map to be particularly accurate or to scale, and trying to do so is a waste of time. However, there are a few circumstances where having an accurate map can be, if not necessary, at least helpful -- determining if you've circled back to a previously-explored location or are exploring new territory, finding your way back if you become lost or misdirected (if you get caught on the wrong side of a one-way door or sliding wall, knowing where you are and where the exit is can be valuable, even if you can't get there directly; likewise if you're teleported to a new, unfamiliar location comparing your new map to your old one might help you to regain your bearings more quickly, if you're able to spot familiar features), and, last but not least, being able to deduce locations of secret rooms. If you've got an accurate map that is more-or-less completely filled in but has a conspicuous blank spot or two in the middle, deducing that there might be secret locations there that are worth searching for isn't 'metagaming' at all, it's the reward for careful mapping. The group that chose not to make a careful map and relied instead on a trailing map (or just their memories) likely had an quicker/easier time of it, both on a player level and a character level, but the opportunity cost is that they're more likely to miss the "easter eggs" of secret/hidden rooms.As a player I love exploring mazes -- it's, in some sense, my very favorite part of the game. And as I DM I love designing them. But, alas, I realize that I seem to be in the distinct minority, and that most players apparently find them terribly frustrating and boring (the same way I feel about riddles and math-based puzzles, I suppose). Therefore in my dungeon-designs I try to split the difference by including maze-like areas but making them "optional" -- the players (unless they're exceptionally dim) will be able to recognize it for what it is and have the choice to explore it or not -- it's never "mandatory" for them to explore a maze-like area (in order to find the stairway to the next level, or the great macguffin necessary to defeat the BBEG, or whatever). It's a trade-off, like the mapping situation above -- players who choose to explore the maze will get "easter eggs" in the form of extra treasure (or knowledge, or whatever); those who don't will miss out on the easter eggs but they won't have had the hassle of exploring the maze, so they have to decide which they prefer. I don't see that the two necessarily have to be opposed. As a general principle, however, when in-game logic/realism comes into conflict with fun-condusive game-play and it's not possible (or feasible) to resolve it in a manner that satisfies both, I always favor the latter. Players, I find, will almost always excuse something that "doesn't make sense" as long as they're having fun, whereas if they're bored and not having fun, the fact that the dungeon is appropriately ventilated and has sufficient kitchen and bathroom facilities isn't going to make them enjoy themselves any more. Which isn't to say I'm in favor of totally random, arbitrary, and wilfully non-sensical dungeon design because in fact I do think a dungeon that follows some discernible logical patterns and "makes sense" (at least on the big-picture level) tends to be more satisfying to players than something that feels completely arbitrary, like it was rolled off the random tables in the back of the 1E DMG, I just think that keeping the players at the table engaged and entertained should always be the first priority, and in-game logic/realism should only be a consideration so long as it's compatible with that. (Plus that, the fact that the sort of "megadungeons" we're mostly talking about in this thread tend to have been built either by insane wizards or mysterious pre-human races excuses a lot of "illogical" design -- yes, a rational person would never design his home in such a way that you have to traverse thousands of feet of corridors and dodge assorted traps to get from the kitchen to the library, but who can say but that from the perspective of the Mad Archmage Zagig or the Serpent Men of Yuan or whoever originally built the dungeon that just such an arrangement wouldn't have been perfectly sensible. As long as the players are engaged and having fun, these sorts of flimsy excuses are usually sufficient to explain away seemingly illogical design-choices; if you've got players who consistently complain about the logic and realism of the designs and refuse to accept these sorts of explanations, there are likely bigger, player-level issues at stake which the realism-complaints are serving as cover for).</blockquote>

Verification