Why do we map dungeon tunnels?

[Iguanodon]

I was drawing a map for a labyrinth MAZE in a dungeon I was designing when I realized this is stupid. The whole point of a labyrinth MAZE of tunnels is so the PCs can get lost or backtrack if they're not careful. None of this relies on the specific layout of the actual tunnels!

My game (5e if it matters) is pretty much entirely TotM anyway, so it would make more sense to not have a map at all. Would just requiring skill checks to avoid getting lost be enough? Maybe rolling some dice to see how many turns they have to make if would be good if it's relevant. My goal with this particular labyrinth MAZE isn't to get the PCs lost but to allow for some close-quarters combat, potentially. In this case, the labyrinth MAZE is more of a combat environment than a specific setting. Think of it like a terrain type.

Basically, I don't think there's much of a point to drawing to-scale maps of mazes in dungeons. Thoughts? Am I missing something here?

[OldTrees1]

A maze could be resolved with some simple checks unless particular points in the maze mattered. Even then you could make a minimal map (points + connections). I would only suggest a full grid map for a maze if the exact path walked matters (say specifically placed traps).

However with all "roll or be lost" mechanics, be ready to handle crafty PCs.
Maze: "I use the right hand rule. If I return to the start then I use the left hand rule."
Forest: "I walk downhill until I find water, then I follow the water down stream."


Now if the labyrinth was a glyph then mapping it out would help you be consistent so that the players/PCs can discover the shape via show not tell.

[Thrudd]

I was drawing a map for a labyrinth in a dungeon I was designing when I realized this is stupid. The whole point of a labyrinth is a maze of tunnels in which the PCs can get lost or backtrack if they're not careful. None of this relies on the specific layout of the actual tunnels!

My game (5e if it matters) is pretty much entirely TotM anyway, so it would make more sense to not have a map at all. Would just requiring skill checks to avoid getting lost be enough? Maybe rolling some dice to see how many turns they have to make if would be good if it's relevant. My goal with this particular labyrinth isn't to get the PCs lost but to allow for some close-quarters combat, potentially. In this case, the labyrinth is more of a combat environment than a specific setting. Think of it like a terrain type.

Basically, I don't think there's much of a point to drawing to-scale maps of mazes in dungeons. Thoughts? Am I missing something here?

What do you mean by "to scale" maps? Do you mean a map that the players see and put their minis on? No, of course you can't have that. But you should have a map of the dungeon that they don't see, on which you track their progress.

Also consider how you want the players to engage with the game. Sure, you can make the labyrinth a skill roll and just narrate it. Are they the type of players who just walk into a labyrinth without taking any precautions or asking any questions about how far they are going or what direction? Or do they get tricked or dumped in there, with no way out but to find their way through the maze? There is a possibility that the whole obstacle could be over with in five seconds. "make a wisdom or intelligence check" - "22! 20! 19!" "ok...you walk through a series of windy tunnels that twist this way and that and emerge in front of a door."

If you want it to be something they spend time on, like an actual puzzle, then draw the map and let them choose which ways to turn as you describe it to them. If the players are clever and know how to solve a maze, then they will solve it pretty quickly. If not, they might get lost and wander around in circles for a bit. Either way, it's up to them how to approach it.

With a series of rolls, you are making the labyrinth a narrative event, and they have no real input. They roll, and you tell them what happens to their characters. What would you do if they asked to be given specific directions and they wanted to draw a map to make sure they can find their way out?

[veti]

As a player, when I find myself in something called "a labyrinth", I make a topographical map.

That is to say, whenever the DM says "the tunnel turns 60 degrees to the right", or "there's a hairpin bend here" or "it curves around to the left and slopes gently down", I make no attempt to draw that. The only things that matter are intersections - places where you have a choice - and then it's important to remember which choice you took, so that's all I mark.

Quite often the whole "map" ends up looking like a straight line, because the DM was having so much fun with their "maze" that they completely forgot to put in any intersections.

[DigoDragon]

My dungeons can have multiple branching paths, so some players find that doodling a simple map helps them remember any passages they may have skipped and will want to visit on their way back. As for myself, drawing out dungeon maps is a real easy task with all the fancy online maze creating tools there are.

[Yora]

Angry GM has a nice post on zone dungeons. I've been using such an approach for years and have always been very happy with it.

[hymer]

Basically, I don't think there's much of a point to drawing to-scale maps of mazes in dungeons. Thoughts? Am I missing something here?

Drawing them for the players does rather defeat the purpose. I guess a definite map might be useful in the where-did-the-architect-put-the-secret-door game?

[Segev]

A maze could be resolved with some simple checks unless particular points in the maze mattered. Even then you could make a minimal map (points + connections). I would only suggest a full grid map for a maze if the exact path walked matters (say specifically placed traps).

However with all "roll or be lost" mechanics, be ready to handle crafty PCs.
Maze: "I use the right hand rule. If I return to the start then I use the left hand rule."
Forest: "I walk downhill until I find water, then I follow the water down stream."


Now if the labyrinth was a glyph then mapping it out would help you be consistent so that the players/PCs can discover the shape via show not tell.

Notably, the left- and right-hand rules can easily fail to get you to the center of a maze, if said maze has multi-branching paths. Consider an extremely simple "maze" that is several concentric squares, with an open one in the center that is the "goal," with a straight path cutting through the "bottom" of each square and going straight to the center. Blinding following the right-hand rule would send you around the outermost square and back to the beginning. Blindly following the left-hand rule would do the same. Even treating "if I reach the beginning again, I follow the left-hand rule" as meaning that you turn left to go further in, this only takes you around again. IF you keep alternating and track carefully, this would get you where you wanted to go in that maze, but...

If the "path through" actually rotates around the squares, even that strategy fails.



TL;DR: It's not too hard to design a maze that explicitly causes the x-hand rule strategy to fail.


Personally, were I running a dungeon whose purpose was to be a maze, I would use some moveable wall-pieces, possibly on a grid, out only as far as the PCs can see, and have them place within those. As they moved, I'd remove walls they left behind. I'd track where they were on a master map I kept hidden from them. If they choose to map, that's their prerogative, but I would require them to give me Survival (or cartography, or other appropriate) rolls before I placed walls 100% accurately for distance and curvature.

Alternatively, I'd have a fixed layout "maze dungeon" not actually mapped out. I'd just have rooms mapped by tables of what room(s) they wind up in if they wander randomly from room to room. So the Kitchen might have a table that had a high chance of leading to the abattoir or the dining hall, a lower chance of them finding the barracks, and very low chances of a few other rooms, and other rooms with no chance of reaching them before finding one of the others.

If players make a point of mapping or doing other tricks, I would keep track of what rooms they found by following which strategies, and give them a skill roll to determine if they successfully followed the strategy with no mistakes to retrace steps or take advantage of mapping.

If I remember, when I get to the computer that has this on it, I designed a maze recently around concentric hexagonal and triangular spirals that link and cross in order to make a maze with literally no dead ends, but many 3- and 6-path splits after lots of turning around and around. It's actually not too hard to solve in the "maze on paper, trace a path" sort of way, but I imagine it'd be a lot more confusing if one were trapped inside it. I will attempt to remember to edit this post with an image link to it.

[OldTrees1]

TL;DR: It's not too hard to design a maze that explicitly causes the x-hand rule strategy to fail.

By switch to the left hand rule, I meant attach yourself to the wall you have not explored yet (since your right hand is on the wall you did search). While it is trivial to design a dungeon that is not solved by this method (the start and exist are not attached to the same circle, or add a dimension) this is a brute force method for solving easier mazes and searching large areas of harder mazes without getting lost. (The same pros/cons are true for the "find water" forest solution)

Alternatively, I'd have a fixed layout "maze dungeon" not actually mapped out. I'd just have rooms mapped by tables of what room(s) they wind up in if they wander randomly from room to room. So the Kitchen might have a table that had a high chance of leading to the abattoir or the dining hall, a lower chance of them finding the barracks, and very low chances of a few other rooms, and other rooms with no chance of reaching them before finding one of the others.

A dungeon could be meant as a maze, or could have a maze inside a part of it. I think the OP meant the 2nd kind. Your solution for the maze-like mansion here is a good solution for the OP's TotM style.

If I remember, when I get to the computer that has this on it, I designed a maze recently around concentric hexagonal and triangular spirals that link and cross in order to make a maze with literally no dead ends, but many 3- and 6-path splits after lots of turning around and around. It's actually not too hard to solve in the "maze on paper, trace a path" sort of way, but I imagine it'd be a lot more confusing if one were trapped inside it. I will attempt to remember to edit this post with an image link to it.

Yes please! I love collecting D&D mazes.

[Segev]

Yes please! I love collecting D&D mazes.

Fair warning: this wasn't designed for D&D; it was designed just as a mental exercise in creating a "maze with no dead ends." But you could probably use it in D&D if you liked. Hard to impose a grid structure on it, though. The corridors are generally at 30 and 60 degree angles to each other.

Designing it for D&D, I'd probably use square spirals. I chose hexagons as the primary shape so I could have 5 choices at most of the intersections (six choices, if you count "go back the way you came" as a choice). The confusion stems from being turned around and around and around by the corridors and the near-undifferentiated choices at the center of each spiral. I was initially inspired by some images of technical labyrinths (by the definition that a labyrinth has only one path) which consisted of dual concentric spirals.

I find it ironic that the technical definition of a "labyrinth" that many people use apparently is that it has no branches, so one cannot get lost. Just follow it.

[OldTrees1]

Fair warning: this wasn't designed for D&D; it was designed just as a mental exercise in creating a "maze with no dead ends." But you could probably use it in D&D if you liked. Hard to impose a grid structure on it, though. The corridors are generally at 30 and 60 degree angles to each other.

So a hex grid would work.

Eventually I need to sit down and design a hex grid dungeon with multi layered rotating/sliding sections.

I find it ironic that the technical definition of a "labyrinth" that many people use apparently is that it has no branches, so one cannot get lost. Just follow it.

Makes it easier to find the minotaur that way.

[Segev]

Makes it easier to find the minotaur that way.

But harder for the minotaur to be so hopelessly lost that he can't escape. And for the hero to need a golden thread to guide him out; after all, he literally cannot get lost if he turns around and goes the opposite direction.

[OldTrees1]

But harder for the minotaur to be so hopelessly lost that he can't escape. And for the hero to need a golden thread to guide him out; after all, he literally cannot get lost if he turns around and goes the opposite direction.

Indeed. I have no working theory that explains both the myth and the ancient usage of the word labyrinth as a no intersection path.

[Segev]

Indeed. I have no working theory that explains both the myth and the ancient usage of the word labyrinth as a no intersection path.

My working theory - unsubstantiated by anything, really - is that the myths somehow drifted. Apparently, ancient depictions of Daedalus's Labyrinth (the one which housed the Minotaur) did follow the "no intersecting paths" rule. Whether this was a limitation of the artistic talents of the artists, or a flaw in the storyteller's understanding of what the art depicted when the storyteller came up with the "get lost in a labyrinth" theme, I don't know.

[Takewo]

Indeed. I have no working theory that explains both the myth and the ancient usage of the word labyrinth as a no intersection path.

I've just checked Liddell & Scott (the most exhaustive lexicon for Ancient Greek available in English) and it defines λαβυρινθος (the word where labyrinth comes from) as "a large building consisting of numerous halls connected by intricate and tortuous passages." So, nope, the ancient understanding was not much different from the modern.

[OldTrees1]

I've just checked Liddell & Scott (the most exhaustive lexicon for Ancient Greek available in English) and it defines λαβυρινθος (the word where labyrinth comes from) as "a large building consisting of numerous halls connected by intricate and tortuous passages." So, nope, the ancient understanding was not much different from the modern.

I must admit my sources on the matter are less reputable: Wikipedia which draws upon ancient coins, drawing, and traces labyrinth back to the Lydian word "labrys" apparently(I did not understand this part).

So there is plenty of evidence for the ancient usage of labyrinth to describe the no intersection winding path. I doubt this was the only ancient usage of the word hence why I, personally, have no working theory that explains both.

[Admiral Squish]

Whenever I'm mapping a twisty-turny tunnel system thingy, I usually just map it in the sense of points of interest and how to travel between them. I don't draw out every single tunnel and how long they all are in relation to one another, I just map out important areas where there are encounters or traps, and then just fill in the rest with description. I'll use an example from an old game of mine. The players are in the sewer and come across a four-way intersection, where three channels meet up and flow back the direction they came. One direction has bottles floating in the current, and if they follow it, they hear the faint sound of drums, leading players to a literally underground kobold bar. One direction has particularly clean water, and if they follow it they stumble into a gelatinous cube filter-feeding its way upstream. One direction has particularly dirty water, and if they follow that for a ways they get ambushed by an otyugh lurking in a hollowed-out nest beneath the walkway. I didn't map exactly how far they need to go or what turns to take in any direction, I just tell the players that it takes them a few minutes of walking though largely-repetitive sewer tunnels, let them make a few checks, and added in some flavorful details about what they see along the way.

[Takewo]

I must admit my sources on the matter are less reputable: Wikipedia which draws upon ancient coins, drawing, and traces labyrinth back to the Lydian word "labrys" apparently(I did not understand this part).

So there is plenty of evidence for the ancient usage of labyrinth to describe the no intersection winding path. I doubt this was the only ancient usage of the word hence why I, personally, have no working theory that explains both.

Actually there is an easy way to explain this. It is pretty much the same as why they draw soldiers naked. Soldiers did not go to battle naked, but Greeks liked naked bodies, so they painted them naked. The design of the unicursal labyrinth is pretty and they used it as a symbol for coins. That doesn't mean that they built labyrinths (or that they used the word "labyrinth") in that fashion. Also, the article of the wikipedia mentions coins with that design (if we were to make some sort of logo with a labyrinth, we'd also probably prefer something simple and pretty rather than complex and bewildering), but it never says that labyrinth was to be understood always as a unicursal labyrinth.

I'm no expert on ancient labyrinths, but the unicursal thing seems more a matter of prettiness than of how they actually understood the word.

[Segev]

Since I actually remembered while I was at the computer that has this on it, I have uploaded it so I can share!



The circles are there mainly to give an impetus to actually traverse the maze. They can be replaced or removed if some other motive can be presented. The image was made in powerpoint; the imperfect connections of lines should not be read as actual gaps; they're just my lousy art skills showing.

[hymer]

I think that in the old Keep on the Borderlands module, there is a traditional minotaur-in-a-labyrinth. To make it challenging, there is a confuse effect on the area, so the DM is supposed to switch compass directions in his descriptions at random, at least until it wears off. At least that could get the PCs lost, and then looking for the way out.

[Jay R]

The real answer is that we map because we mapped last year. And we mapped last year because we did in the year before. And we did it then because ...
<snip>
... because we were told to do so in Men & Magic, the first pamphlet in original D&D, page 5. Graph paper is listed as needed equipment, right after D&D, Outdoor Survival, dice, the Chainmail game, and a 3-ringed notebook, and before sheet protectors, 3-ring lined paper, drafting equipment, colored pencils, scratch paper and pencils.

The third pamphlet, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, had lots of advice on tricks for the referee (not yet called a DM) to get the PCs lost underground despite their mapping.

These days, I use graph paper only when the DM has the kind of dungeon we might get lost in, which is pretty rare.

[Starbuck_II]

I was drawing a map for a labyrinth in a dungeon I was designing when I realized this is stupid. The whole point of a labyrinth is a maze of tunnels in which the PCs can get lost or backtrack if they're not careful. None of this relies on the specific layout of the actual tunnels!

My game (5e if it matters) is pretty much entirely TotM anyway, so it would make more sense to not have a map at all. Would just requiring skill checks to avoid getting lost be enough? Maybe rolling some dice to see how many turns they have to make if would be good if it's relevant. My goal with this particular labyrinth isn't to get the PCs lost but to allow for some close-quarters combat, potentially. In this case, the labyrinth is more of a combat environment than a specific setting. Think of it like a terrain type.

Basically, I don't think there's much of a point to drawing to-scale maps of mazes in dungeons. Thoughts? Am I missing something here?

If you meant maze, you should not say Labyrinth. You can't get lost in a Labyrinth.
http://www.lessons4living.com/labyrinth_map.htm

[Takewo]

If you meant maze, you should not say Labyrinth. You can't get lost in a Labyrinth.
http://www.lessons4living.com/labyrinth_map.htm

This definition only works in some contexts where people want to appear educated.
On the other hand, the main dictionaries of the English language (Oxford, Cambridge, Webster) define "labyrinth" as an intricate structure containing interconnected passages in which it is easy to get lost, synonymous with maze.

[VoxRationis]

@Segev: That is amazing. I believe I could get lost in such a labyrinth for ages. I've got to try it on my players...

[DigoDragon]

@Segev: That is amazing. I believe I could get lost in such a labyrinth for ages. I've got to try it on my players...

In a D&D-styled Toon adventure, I constructed a really elaborate hedge maze like that above... which was only 35 inches tall (just under three feet).

Playing such a maze straight would be pretty hard to do in my opinion. That's a lot of detail to relate to players. Giving them the map might just get a "Nope" reaction from some. :D

[Iguanodon]

I edited the original post since people seem to be getting hung up on my diction (though I should mention that mapping out a singular hallway is even more pointless than mapping a maze).

I've been reading all the replies, and there's a lot of helpful stuff here. Keep it coming! If anyone has any specific mechanical systems (maybe from published dungeons?) of how to run a maze without a grid or hex map of the tunnels, that would be especially helpful.

[Segev]

@Segev: That is amazing. I believe I could get lost in such a labyrinth for ages. I've got to try it on my players...

Thanks! I think it's actually not TOO difficult, if you have the maze on paper and are doing the "restaurant kid's menu" thing of tracing with a pencil. I think it would be a lot harder if one were actually inside it. Prohibitive, with my resources, to build such a thing IRL, but maybe with a good map-editor in a FPS-style video game. Or even a third-person game.

Playing such a maze straight would be pretty hard to do in my opinion. That's a lot of detail to relate to players. Giving them the map might just get a "Nope" reaction from some. :D

When you remove the visceral "in the maze" aspect of actually following the repeated, disorienting turns, I think the main trick would be to give the decision-points. At each of the spirals' centers, there are either 6 or 3 choices (one of which is "go back the way you came"). Asking people to choose which path to follow back out, as referenced from the one they just exited, would be the best way to manage it. I think.

This would remove the "beauty" of the design, though, and would also remove at least half of the disorientation effect that comes from literally getting turned around and around.

[Reboot]

As a player, when I find myself in something called "a labyrinth", I make a topographical map.

That is to say, whenever the DM says "the tunnel turns 60 degrees to the right", or "there's a hairpin bend here" or "it curves around to the left and slopes gently down", I make no attempt to draw that. The only things that matter are intersections - places where you have a choice - and then it's important to remember which choice you took, so that's all I mark.

Quite often the whole "map" ends up looking like a straight line, because the DM was having so much fun with their "maze" that they completely forgot to put in any intersections.

Thing is that, if (1) it's properly done (i.e., has intersections) and (ii) you're aiming for something other than "centre of the maze and back out the entrance again" (like the Mines of Mordor or Lost Woods scenario, where you want to get from A to B, but the only way to B is through what essentially amounts to a maze), then something like a hairpin bend becomes crucial, else you could easily end up turned back the way you came.

[Thrudd]

I edited the original post since people seem to be getting hung up on my diction (though I should mention that mapping out a singular hallway is even more pointless than mapping a maze).

I've been reading all the replies, and there's a lot of helpful stuff here. Keep it coming! If anyone has any specific mechanical systems (maybe from published dungeons?) of how to run a maze without a grid or hex map of the tunnels, that would be especially helpful.

I suppose you could do it all in text. 1st intersection: round room with four doors. ABCD
door A lead to another intersection with four doors A1,B1,C1,D1
door B leads to an square room with three doors A2,B2,C2
door C leads to a hexagonal room with 4 doors A3,B3,C3,D3
door D leads to a room with a trap which is also a dead end
A1 leads back to B
B1 leads back to C
C1 leads to C2
D1 is another dead end
A2 leads to another intersection, A4, B4, C4, D4, etc.

Don't need to bother with exact distances, just describe what the halls and rooms look like with enough clarity that the players could notice differences, such different shaped rooms, halls with different colored stone, wall sconces or torches in different places, etc. This way if they pay attention it might make it easier to tell when they are backtracking. Then throw in some rooms and halls that look identical to others, just to f- with them. You don't want it to be too easy.

[Iguanodon]

I suppose you could do it all in text. 1st intersection: round room with four doors. ABCD
door A lead to another intersection with four doors A1,B1,C1,D1
door B leads to an square room with three doors A2,B2,C2
door C leads to a hexagonal room with 4 doors A3,B3,C3,D3
door D leads to a room with a trap which is also a dead end
A1 leads back to B
B1 leads back to C
C1 leads to C2
D1 is another dead end
A2 leads to another intersection, A4, B4, C4, D4, etc.

I want to avoid planning out the specific connections between rooms. The fact that room B doesn't directly connect to room D isn't important to the feel of the dungeon run. The players picking door A or door B doesn't make the encounter any more interesting than just rolling a die at game time to see which room the PCs happen to end up in.

I heard an example at some point of a dungeon map with a forked tunnel: Room A was to the right and Room B was to the left. The GM asked the players which way they wanted to go, but this isn't a meaningful choice since they are probably just going to loop back and check both passages anyway.

Basically, the only benefit of a methodical search through a maze is avoiding backtracking, and this can be relegated to character knowledge rather than player knowledge. My idea right now is this: When the players enter the maze from Room A, they roll a skill check to not backtrack or get lost, and the GM rolls to see which of the half dozen rooms connected to the maze they end up in.