Requiring Players To Draw The Dungeon Map!

[Doug McCrae]

1) Mapping isn't the same for the player as it is for the character. The character can see the layout, the player has to go by a verbal description.

2) In many cases the characters face mental challenges which the players aren't also required to face, for example spell casting and learning languages.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If the players don't enjoy the kind of activity that may require mapping for navigation, they have no business stepping foot inside a dungeon.

In all games of D&D or just yours?

 

[Gentlegamer]

In all games of D&D or just yours?

That statement came out as more absolute than I intended.

The activity that requires mapping I referred to is navigating a complex dungeon environment. If the players don't like the kind of activity necessitated by navigating such an environment, they ought to stay out of them, in general, because they are probably not going to enjoy dungeoneering even if the DM draws the map for them (or the DM isn't going to enjoy handwaving or drawing the map for the players . . . DM's fun is relevant, too).

For the games I referee, that statement is more or less absolute because I won't do the "players' work" for them (as I see the matter).

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think there is a more or less objective wrong here. It's wrong to run a game where the DM repeatedly challenges players with things they don't enjoy.

I disagree.

It is wrong to run a game you don't enjoy.

It is wrong to play in a game you don't enjoy.

It is not wrong to run a game you do enjoy, and then allow those who do enjoy that game to play in it. It is not wrong to allow the players to determine whether or not they enjoy that game, either.

RC

 

[Mallus]

It is not wrong to run a game you do enjoy, and then allow those who do enjoy that game to play in it. It is not wrong to allow the players to determine whether or not they enjoy that game, either.RC

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding how forcing players to sketch out laughably crude maps in realtime somehow adds to any DM's enjoyment of the game they're running.

Which is funny, 'cause I'm squarely in the 'challenge the players' camp.

 

[pawsplay]

My players like maps. I think it gives them an unjustified sense of having knowledge and control over what happens next, at least geometrically... I think my players feel like I have a map in my head, and if the monsters get the benefit of knowing where everything is, they want that advantage, too.

 

[ruleslawyer]

The difference between the first skill and the second is that the first is primarily one that challenges the mental faculties and the second challenges the physical faculties.

The game itself is one that makes use of the mental and social faculties of the participants, so skillful use of those faculties by the players is part and parcel of the game.

"Physical challenges" fall squarely on the characters to perform, and constitute a large part of the "let's pretend" portion of the game. So, no: players are not required to make broadjumps, swing swords, climb walls, etc. The character's abilities in those areas measure the success or failure; however, even here, there is still large use of player skill such as in what strategies and tactics to use to overcome a physical challenge (most commonly in combat)

I disagree. "Mental/physical" is not really an appropriate distinction in a game that features characters that have Int/Wis/Cha scores, social skill ranks, and knowledge that is separate from that of their players.

Moreover, the analogy between mapping and strategy is a false one, as I pointed out with puzzle solving. Mapping is not a series of decisions; it's an activity. Players should not be required to perform activities in which their characters have demonstrable competence. To analogize appropriately to something like combat strategy, the only relevant decisions the player should face, if his character has a high enough Int score and/or ranks in Knowledge (dungeoneering) and Survival, is whether to purchase mapmaking equipment (a light source, quill, and parchment), and whether to map or not to map. The rest is procedure, just like swinging a sword or casting a spell.

If the players enjoy mapping, great. They're jotting down a graphic chronicle of their adventures that gives the same sense of accomplishment as, say, the party bard composing a great song or epic poem to catalogue the PCs' exploits. But just as I wouldn't force the party bard's player to come up with a new stanza every time he makes a Perform check, I wouldn't force the player of a skilled explorer to sit there drawing a detailed map and cutting into everyone else's active play time and my own narrating as DM.

 

[Irda Ranger]

The activity that requires mapping I referred to is navigating a complex dungeon environment. If the players don't like the kind of activity necessitated by navigating such an environment, they ought to stay out of them, in general, because they are probably not going to enjoy dungeoneering even if the DM draws the map for them (or the DM isn't going to enjoy handwaving or drawing the map for the players . . . DM's fun is relevant, too).

I think you may be confusing two issues. Perhaps not, but I just want to make clear that as a player I chave no problem navigating dungeons. What I (and, I think, everyone on this thread who's on the "no mapping" side) very specifically objects to is the task of rendering a 2D (or worse, 3D) replica of the GM's map based on a verbal description. Since getting it right is impossible short of having surveying equipment and a protractor, I don't see how this is either fair or a fun way to spend a good third of your gaming time (which seems to be the minimum amount of time it can take). The "un-funness" is doubled by the knowledge that the PC would have an easier time mapping a dungeon than you (the player) merely because he can actually see where he's going (the player is mostly blind). Unless you get a direct pleasure from the task of mapping itself, there's just so many reasonable and faster alternatives to "mapping" in the old school sense.

Of course, if you get do derive pleasure from drawing maps (as opposed to all of the other game elements found in D&D), there's plenty of other ways to do this. This sounds more like a hobby similar to model train building than anything I would call "role playing."

For the games I referee, that statement is more or less absolute because I won't do the "players' work" for them (as I see the matter).

Good point. I will follow your example the next time I GM. When that character with 10 Ranks in Decipher Script wants to read the ancient document, I'll hand him a page written in Ancient Greek. No need to roll your Skill Check - it's part of the challenge of RPG's, and clearly anyone who isn't interested in deciphering ancient documents should not step foot in Candlekeep Library. As for that Archer PC (we play Iron Heroes), if he can't explain why he can ignore the cover the Orcish sniper has found for himself, well then, he can just forget about that particular class ability. I mean, if he can't visualize and describe his ability to hit the Orc regardless of cover, then he shouldn't expect to be able to do so. After all, any PC who isn't up for the challenges of playing an Archer should leave that yew branch on the tree.

This is dumb. PC's have class abilities. Players invest Skill Points in skills for a reason. What's the point of putting 10 ranks into Survival if I can't use half the functions described in the books? Heck, by your rules my PC could have a +20 mod each in Profession (Surveyor) and Craft (Cartography) and I (the player) would still be expected to map by hand. What would be the benefit of that? You'd give me the "right" dimensions? Should I assume then that everyone else is getting the wrong ones?

I understand that in older versions of D&D there weren't any skill points, so there was a much clearer divide between what was "the PC's job" and what was "the player's job." I get that. But two points - (1) 3e has Skills, and players expect to be able to use them, and (2) even in OD&D, a Magic-User's player could say "Sorry, I (the player) am not going to map. Emirkol has an Intelligence of 15, and spends an hour every day memorizing complex spell formulas. Memorizing lefts and rights and number of doors will be a cake walk. He will spend several rounds before leaving any room to firmly set the details in his mind."

What would you do then?

 

[Numion]

The activity that requires mapping I referred to is navigating a complex dungeon environment. If the players don't like the kind of activity necessitated by navigating such an environment, they ought to stay out of them, in general, because they are probably not going to enjoy dungeoneering even if the DM draws the map for them (or the DM isn't going to enjoy handwaving or drawing the map for the players . . . DM's fun is relevant, too).

Eh, what? My group loves dungeon crawls, but we never got that 'players draw map' to work. Nobody liked it, and there were too many mistakes anyone who was actually in the dungeon wouldn't make. So, in general, you're basically wrong.

As a DM, I prefer to draw the players map. I draw it one room / corridor / whatever they happen to see at a time, as they go along. It's more fun for me than trying to describe really complex dungeons. I don't really see it as doing the players work .. it's a game.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

I tend to agree with that.

The person who is playing the Int 24 wizard may be, as Jethro Tull puts it, as thick as a brick, but that should not affect the wizard being able to remember a room they have been in.

I would suggest that a person who is "thick as a brick" should not be playing a wizard with a 24 Int. Although to be fair, how many "thick as brick" persons would even try to play D&D in the first place?