D&D General Mapping: How Do You Do It?

[Thomas Shey]

I think you are conflating players and characters here. The point is challenging the players in this style of game,

And the latter phrase is the part I was trying to get you to clarify. Note "exploration" and "mapping" do not automatically go together. Mapping failure as a player game element doesn't have to be present in an exploration game. I've run all kinds of exploration games in the past where there was no such thing, but I don't think anyone would have called them anything but exploration games.

The question is whether exploration is about "what is here" rather than "where is what". And as I noted in my second note to Lanefan, even the second part assumes that the proper way to do that is on a player level.

Edit: Basically, the problem was that you were making an assumption in your first post you didn't spell out: that "exploration focus" and "player mapping" were necessarily linked concepts.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

This looks to be boiling down to We-Like-Puzzles Players versus We-Hate-Puzzles Players. And I think we lean toward, er...topple over to the puzzle-averse side because puzzle haters hate puzzles more than puzzle likers love puzzles.

Mapping a dungeon is a puzzling activity. The recommendation has always been to provide multiple ways, employing multiple modes of play, to get around the puzzle. This is good advice.

However, one mode of play is to roll a skill check to solve the puzzle. Oft times when presented with a puzzle, puzzle averse Players want to immediately jump to that mode. That's when I say, "Hold your horses. Let's give it a chance (in case we have any puzzle tolerant Players at the table). We'll roll a die in a moment." But, this assumes we succeed at that die roll.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This looks to be boiling down to We-Like-Puzzles Players versus We-Hate-Puzzles Players. And I think we lean toward, er...topple over to the puzzle-averse side because puzzle haters hate puzzles more than puzzle likers love puzzles.

Mapping a dungeon is a puzzling activity. The recommendation has always been to provide multiple ways, employing multiple modes of play, to get around the puzzle. This is good advice.

However, one mode of play is to roll a skill check to solve the puzzle. Oft times when presented with a puzzle, puzzle averse Players want to immediately jump to that mode. That's when I say, "Hold your horses. Let's give it a chance (in case we have any puzzle tolerant Players at the table). We'll roll a die in a moment." But, this assumes we succeed at that die roll.

Though that still assumes the map element is important. It deals with the "is this a player skill or character skill?" question, but it doesn't handle the cases where the question is whether the process is important and interesting at all.

As I said, I can run an exploration game where mapping is not really a big focus; its just a place to note what you've found, not an exercise in, as you say, puzzle solving itself.

 

[payn]

Cool!

What...happens...after...that...?

Check your map memory skill again to see if you pass! Its the oldest trick in the book to deliver XP.

 

[Lanefan]

And the latter phrase is the part I was trying to get you to clarify. Note "exploration" and "mapping" do not automatically go together. Mapping failure as a player game element doesn't have to be present in an exploration game. I've run all kinds of exploration games in the past where there was no such thing, but I don't think anyone would have called them anything but exploration games.

The question is whether exploration is about "what is here" rather than "where is what". And as I noted in my second note to Lanefan, even the second part assumes that the proper way to do that is on a player level.

Exploration is about both "what is here" (knowledge) and "where is what" (geography). The latter is where mapping comes in.

There's no use finding the Lost Temple of Jiggyriggy in the deep jungle if, on returning to town to recruit a proper excavation team, you can't then find your way back to it later because you didn't think to make a map or even note key landmarks. There's also no use in exploring what's inside said temple if you can't then find your way out.

And given that the in-character act of making a map or notes or whatever can be perfectly reproduced by the at-table act of a player doing the same thing, the obvious question becomes why wouldn't this be the natural default?

And if making the map slows things down at the table, that reflects as well: the characters are slowing down in the fiction in order to get their map right.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

Though that still assumes the map element is important. It deals with the "is this a player skill or character skill?" question, but it doesn't handle the cases where the question is whether the process is important and interesting at all.

As I said, I can run an exploration game where mapping is not really a big focus; its just a place to note what you've found, not an exercise in, as you say, puzzle solving itself.

What did you think of the Magic Square dungeon idea?* Doesn't that sound like fun?

* I'm making myself vulnerable here so be gentle.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

What is the purpose of the player drawing map if it does not correspond to any character activity? I really do not see what is gained by the player attempting to draw a map from the DM's description.

It corresponds to the character forming a good-enough memory of the venue to be able to draw a map afterwards.

I can draw sketch-maps, from memory, of a venue I've visited.

I can draw sketch-maps from the description the GM is giving me right now.

Drawing sketch-maps from the memory of a description I was given in the past is much more difficult, and often impossible.

 

[Pamphylian]

The OD&D variant Seven Voyages of Zylarthen suggests using dominoes to lay out a room ( removing them after the PCs have left), up to the PCs to map if they want. No idea how well it works in practice (current game is remote), but the tactile and aesthetic appeal is enormous. Best of both worlds as far as encouraging mapping while avoiding verbal back and forth about room dimensions. Maybe a really big room would be a pain.

Whenever I've done simple mapping, it has improved the vividness of how I imagine the space (I guess continuing the negative correlation between map art vividness and imagination vividness), though I imagine this relationship breaks down if the verbal back and forth required becomes too much.

 

[Reynard]

Edit: Basically, the problem was that you were making an assumption in your first post you didn't spell out: that "exploration focus" and "player mapping" were necessarily linked concepts.

I will cop to that. I was assuming context based on the thread premise. I was not trying to say that all exploration focused games are map dependent.

I mean, we are really talking about a narrow gameplay style here. And it is totally okay that folks don't like that or want to do that. But the subject of the thread assumes that (general) you DO want to do that, and the so the question I was interested in is HOW do you do it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Exploration is about both "what is here" (knowledge) and "where is what" (geography). The latter is where mapping comes in.

Again, I disagree. If you think both of those are required to be "exploration", then you're going to have to supply a word for a game that only uses the first as I've run.

There's no use finding the Lost Temple of Jiggyriggy in the deep jungle if, on returning to town to recruit a proper excavation team, you can't then find your way back to it later because you didn't think to make a map or even note key landmarks. There's also no use in exploring what's inside said temple if you can't then find your way out.

I don't think you get it. That's absolutely true but it doesn't mean its relevant in play. You can just assume once they've found it, they can find it again. That was still an exploration game.

And given that the in-character act of making a map or notes or whatever can be perfectly reproduced by the at-table act of a player doing the same thing,

No, it can't. Like other things, the character could be better or worse at it than the player is.

the obvious question becomes why wouldn't this be the natural default?

Mine would be "Why should it be?" As I said, I don't go in thinking player-skill things are the automatic default as to how to handle things just because they were a half century ago.

And if making the map slows things down at the table, that reflects as well: the characters are slowing down in the fiction in order to get their map right.

That doesn't mean its a worthwhile use of time.