Tips for making a dungeoncrawl last longer?

[Nifft]

I'll bite. Why? I track my PC's equipment, my spell list, my saving throws, by skill levels, my ability bonuses, etc. Why shouldn't I also track his path? Eventually, I'm going to have to decide whether to go right or left. Of course I want to make the best decision I can. I can't imagine exploring a complex of rooms and passages without drawing a map.

Because the character has massively more information about the environment than the player.

The character sees the rooms and passages through which the PC walks; the player hears a summary.

The DM sees a map. The DM describes the map, maybe making a mistake or two in description, and the player writes down what the DM says -- also maybe making a mistake or two.

These are mistakes purely in media translation. They force the player to constantly double-check with the DM about something which is not the most interesting thing to the players, nor the most interesting thing to the DM. There are four separate sources for transcription errors; or more if any other player is simultaneously talking.

In contrast, the DM revealing the map slowly using a digital tool has no chance of transcription error.

No DM I have ever seen has done this. Besides, Every competent DM, and every competent player, knows that there is a wide range of values for the map between "exactly perfect" and "worthless".

Did you miss the part about how the module said that the confusion effect made the player's maps useless?

Your competent DMs presumably never used such a gimmick.

That speaks well of their competence.

Think about that for a sec.

In Hackmaster, depending on the Cartography skill of your party, you might not GET to make a map.

Wow, that's double-evil with fudge ripple.

[Jay R]

In contrast, the DM revealing the map slowly using a digital tool has no chance of transcription error.

And therefore no chance of playing out the tense, suspense-filled "lost in the ruins" part of the experience.

Did you miss the part about how the module said that the confusion effect made the player's maps useless?

Evidently, yes, I did - and still do. The post I read said that "there's a section of minotaur caves that has a maze-like quality and a degree of confusion cast over it... even if you're following good mapping practices, you're going to get lost a bit."

"[Y]ou're going to get lost a bit" is so very different from "useless" that I thought, and still think, that it's a misreading to turn it into "laugh mockingly: "Ha ha ha, your map is worthless!"

Your competent DMs presumably never used such a gimmick.

That speaks well of their competence.

Think about that for a sec.

That depends on what you mean by "such a gimmick." They never used something that led them to laugh mockingly: "Ha ha ha, your map is worthless!" They never did anything that made my map completely useless. But I have certainly dealt with competent DM's anti-mapping tricks like rotating rooms, oblique angles, shifting walls, and the like. If I were in a section of caves with a maze-like quality and a degree of confusion cast over it, I would try to get out of that area, seeking the part previously mapped. Because the incomplete and imperfect map is still a useful and worthy tool.

Now, back to the question I asked: Did you just make this up, or have you actually seen somebody run from the room crying, and never play D&D again, because his map wasn't perfect?

[Nifft]

And therefore no chance of playing out the tense, suspense-filled "lost in the ruins" part of the experience.

Right, because the DM can't just turn the display off and say, "You're lost."

Oh wait, they can.

In fact, arranging that experience is even easier if you don't require that one player does the mapping.

And therefore no chance of playing out the tense, suspense-filled "lost in the ruins" part of the experience.

Evidently, yes, I did - and still do. The post I read said that "there's a section of minotaur caves that has a maze-like quality and a degree of confusion cast over it... even if you're following good mapping practices, you're going to get lost a bit."

"[Y]ou're going to get lost a bit" is so very different from "useless" that I thought, and still think, that it's a misreading to turn it into "laugh mockingly: "Ha ha ha, your map is worthless!"[/quote] I'm putting emphasis on the suckiness of having to do something, and then having your efforts as a player (not a character) declared ineffectual due to a module's dictum.

You're nit-picking my rhetorical expression ("DM might use mocking laughter") because you want to have a go at the central point, but you can't, because the central point is solid.

The central point stands: Requiring a player to map the is a bad thing, and invalidating that effort is even worse.

[Tinkerer]

The physically impossible map isn't worthless in that case. It shows that either their perceptions or the physical layout of the place are inaccurate. If I were drawing the map in that case I would first show it to the GM. Most will be nice enough to cop to if they described something wrong, or they go "Nah, that looks about right". In which case you know that your characters are in some serious **** and should start trying to find a way out.

[Jay R]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]You're nit-picking my rhetorical expression ("DM might use mocking laughter") because you want to have a go at the central point, but you can't, because the central point is solid.

No, I am not "nit-picking" it. I am disagreeing with it, because it is both false-to-fact and kind of insulting. Its effect is to equate playing the game differently from you with mocking laughter, sneering at players, and running away in tears. I urge you to withdraw it.

[COLOR="#0000FF"]The central point stands: Requiring a player to map the is a bad thing, and invalidating that effort is even worse.

I disagree wholeheartedly with your "central point". It is semantically equivalent to "Having fun any way other than Nifft's way is a bad thing, and making it more fun with greater challenges is even worse."

But I don't really care about your central point. I don't need your approval to enjoy my games.

So I return to my own central point, which you have continued to ignore: Did you just make this up, or have you actually seen somebody run from the room crying, and never play D&D again, because his map wasn't perfect?

The thing is, you don't have to make up falsehoods about a mocking, sneering DM and a player running out of the room and never playing again, just to defend the way you play. That's the only thing you've done that I disapprove of.

Feel free to play the game your way. Feel free to defend how much fun the game is for you without mapping. Feel free to ask your own DMs to run the game that way.

But please withdraw the made-up statements about people who enjoy different things than you do.

[Nifft]

No, I am not "nit-picking" it. I am disagreeing with it, because it is both false-to-fact and kind of insulting.

False-to-fact?

Are you claiming that no DM has ever laughed mockingly?

I'm going to need you to provide some substantial evidence to back up that rather outrageous claim.

Or you can back the hell off and stop trying to score rhetorical points which have nothing to do with the actual topic. That would work too.

I disagree wholeheartedly with your "central point". It is semantically equivalent to "Having fun any way other than Nifft's way is a bad thing, and making it more fun with greater challenges is even worse."

Nah, it's just my 25+ years of experience.

If you like making maps based on DM description, you go have fun with that.

It's never been more fun for any player with whom I've actually played, and that's been quite a few over the years.

It's certainly not a ~challenge~ in any sense other than court transcription is a challenge -- which is to say: it's difficult, it requires a lot of training to do correctly, and it's so much fun that they have to pay people a significant amount of money to do it.

The payoff for incorrectly mapping is that the PCs behave in very stupid ways:

Player: "We turn left."
DM: "You are now facing a wall."
Player: "I thought that's a corridor."
DM: "Your map must be wrong."
Player: "We look around."
DM: "There's a corridor behind you, and to your right."
Player: "Okay, left was wrong, so we turn right."

The PCs are now walking back the way they came. This is not what even marginally sapient PCs would have done. It's not a ~challenge~, it's just a terrible user interface.

But this is your idea of fun?

You go have that fun.

I want better fun.

[Jay R]

False-to-fact?

Are you claiming that no DM has ever laughed mockingly?

No, I am not claiming that.

There's a simple test for whether I'm claiming something. If you block-copied my words from my post (without taking them out of important context), then that's what I'm claiming.

But if you typed in in yourself, deliberately using outrageous exaggeration, in words you know I would never use, then no, I am not claiming it.

You just made it up, to pretend I said something that you know I did not say. Just like you made up a story about a mocking DM and a player running out of a room, in order to make something you find personal annoying appear to be objectively horrible.

I'm going to need you to provide some substantial evidence to back up that rather outrageous claim.

Don't be silly. I won't provide evidence to support your made-up outrageous claim - especially when the actual topic between us is that you shouldn't make up outrageous claims.

Or you can back the hell off and stop trying to score rhetorical points which have nothing to do with the actual topic. That would work too.

The actual topic I came in to talk about is the fact that you made up outrageous claims in an insulting manner, and I'd like you to stop. That is the ONLY topic between us.

Nah, it's just my 25+ years of experience.

Well, I've seen different things in my 40+ years of experience, starting in 1975 with original D&D.

If you like making maps based on DM description, you go have fun with that.

It's never been more fun for any player with whom I've actually played, and that's been quite a few over the years.

It's certainly not a ~challenge~ in any sense other than court transcription is a challenge -- which is to say: it's difficult, it requires a lot of training to do correctly, and it's so much fun that they have to pay people a significant amount of money to do it.

The analogy, as described in your words, is simply false. Nobody has to pay me a significant amount of money to map dungeons.

And frankly, I've never had any training in dungeon-mapping. None. I've seen, and taught, classes at gaming conventions, and I've never seen any dungeon mapping training. This is, of course, another outrageous claim.

I also don't find mapping very difficult, but some other people do. So I won't say, "It isn't difficult." That flat statement would be as simplistic and as wrong as your flat statement that it is difficult, and for the same reasons.

The challenge is trying to account for shifting walls and pit traps, and to find our way out of an area we got lost in, using the incomplete map as a tool.

The payoff for incorrectly mapping is that the PCs behave in very stupid ways:

Player: "We turn left."
DM: "You are now facing a wall."
Player: "I thought that's a corridor."
DM: "Your map must be wrong."
Player: "We look around."
DM: "There's a corridor behind you, and to your right."
Player: "Okay, left was wrong, so we turn right."

This is players behaving in a very stupid way.

The PCs are now walking back the way they came. This is not what even marginally sapient PCs would have done. It's not a ~challenge~, it's just a terrible user interface.

That's not a terrible user interface; it's terrible users. I've never had that silly a conversation about a map. I've never had a DM that unhelpful, or players behaving that foolishly.

When mapping, I tend to show the map to the DM as I draw, so he can tell me if I switched right and left, or missed something else that would be obvious to my PC's eyes. And I will often say, "We go back to this corridor (pointing to map) and take it." You're describing players who aren't trying to communicate and a DM who isn't trying to communicate. I don't play that way, and I reject your implication that mapping requires playing that way.

But this is your idea of fun?

This is another outrageous claim you've made up. You invent a fake and unrealistic dialog, and then claimed it was my idea of fun. It's not. Behaving stupidly is not my idea of fun.

You go have that fun.

I will go have the fun of mapping the dungeon, making deductions based on the map, getting lost, trying to find myself by finding something that is on the map, etc. But nothing like the outrageous claim made by the dialog you made up above and then claimed was my kind of fun.

I want better fun.

If I ever can get you to care about the actual issue between us, I will try to get you to start saying, "You go have your kind of fun. I want my kind of fun." The real issue between us is your constant assumption that your kind of fun is better than my kind of fun, rather than merely being what you enjoy.

What I enjoy is not badwrongfun. What you enjoy is not "better fun". And you don't need outrageous claims to defend what you enjoy.

That's our real point of disagreement.

[2D8HP]

...the DM revealing the map slowly using a digital tool has no chance of transcription error...

.


I've never seen a "digital tool" used the way you described, nor can I imagine how it would work.

What my DM used to do was just cover the parts of a map that our characters couldn't see with paper.

Later he used dry erase mats that had squares on one side (for corridors/halls) and hexes on the other (for caves/wilderness), and he would draw and erase as we went.

If we thought about it and wanted to trace our way back we'd make notes and sketches, but mostly we just kept going.

My characters died a lot (because I just didn't play as smart as the others at the table) but I never felt that the DM was an antagonist, the game was something we did together for fun (and fun it was, I miss those guys and those days).

The first time I thought of the DM (and the other players for that matter) as an antagonist was at a DunDraCon when I was 12 or 13. My character was your basic Conan expy while the other players (all 20 something college students) played Magic Users, I remember the "adventure" as being kind-of "Alice in Wonderland meets Monty Python on LSD" and the insanity of it bugged me greatly much to the amusement of the DM and other players, who seemed to be going out of their way to befuddle me.

Since me and the other teens and pre-teens I usually played with almost never played Magic Users, and I mostly thought of Mages as "bad guys", I was an even more confimed Fighter player after that (I also gained an antipathy toward college students, which I retained until I married one).

[PH7]

Wow, this one blew up over the weekend.

Look, everyone experiences and enjoys D&D in their own way. No 2 groups are alike (same with 2 DM's).
As for me, I don't need the dungeon to be that big that they really need to make a map (re: like to finish it in 1-2 sessions). I just needed some tips to get them to spend more time trying to get deeper, but then after the time expires (again, story reasons) they'll need to gtfo real quick.

As it stands I'll use the stone door, chasm & pit trap ideas suggested. They'll be able to get a running start to cross the last 2 going out, but not going in. Thank you all for the suggestions.

Peace

[Nifft]

.


I've never seen a "digital tool" used the way you described, nor can I imagine how it would work.

One laptop + one projector, easy as pie.

Roll20 also has tools to do this across multiple laptops, and I bet there are other tools.

I'm sure you've seen a picture of this type of thing.

Here's a fancy version: http://www.gamergroup.com/page.rolep....2827.r.1.html

I just used a wall -- no minis, just the map.

What my DM used to do was just cover the parts of a map that our characters couldn't see with paper.

Later he used dry erase mats that had squares on one side (for corridors/halls) and hexes on the other (for caves/wilderness), and he would draw and erase as we went.

Both of those are great.

They're more work for the DM than the digital tool way, but they communicate the environment in an acceptable way.

Since the DM is drawing, there's no chance of person-to-person transmission error, and the DM can double-check efficiently by looking at the real (secret) map.

If we thought about it and wanted to trace our way back we'd make notes and sketches, but mostly we just kept going.

The first time I thought of the DM (and the other players for that matter) as an antagonist

It's really quite a lot better when the DM is not an antagonist.

[Arbane]

Maybe the dungeon is (partly) an old mine that broke through into natural cavers (full of monsters, which is why they were abandoned). Lots of excuses for long, branching hallways that don't lead to rooms - they're following ore veins.

Mine shafts, with or without working pulley systems.
Bad air the further down you go.
Flooded areas.
An old map showing the area the PCs are in, with 'storeroom' marked at the far end of that caved-in passage they saw.
And of course, mine carts to ride.

[2D8HP]

One laptop + one projector, easy as pie.

Roll20 also has tools to do this across multiple laptops, and I bet there are other tools.

I'm sure you've seen a picture of this type of thing.

Here's a fancy version: http://www.gamergroup.com/page.rolep....2827.r.1.html.....

.
Nope, I've never seen the like.

Pretty neat, thanks!

[Vogie]

Other ideas to use:

Old Traps - They don't work properly, due to being untouched for a while. Someone steps on a stone, hears a click, but nothing happens... yet. It creates a situation where one PC can't move, the others have an unknown amount of time to find and disarm the trap.

Collapsing Dungeons - At a certain point, the way the PCs have entered, and everything they've passed thus far, disappears. It may be a landslide, collapse, fall into an underground river, gratuitous application of lava, et cetera. That effectively doubles the size of the dungeon, as they can't leave the way they came.

West Marches variant - Instead of a series of small dungeons, have the party discover a massive one - one that they themselves can clear. However, people are coming in behind them, building up a zone that will eventually be a town inside portions of the dungeon. This allows a normal one-done dungeon rolls, but also surprise encounters as the town gets attacked, altercations with other adventuring parties, side adventures with backup characters in the same zone, and give them a place that grows with the party that isn't the normal keep or guildhall

[CharonsHelper]

Another excuse for empty rooms - make the dungeon a winding maze-like affair, but in on specific direction it's mostly cleared out. Until they come upon the corpses of the last adventurers to make the attempt...

[Jay R]

And don't forget that you don't need to spend player time when you're trying to spend character time.

A refuse-filled room with piles of paper and bags on the floor might take a half hour to an hour for characters to search. But you just need to say, "After an hour of careful searching, you find no more than thirteen copper pieces."

[Nifft]

.
Nope, I've never seen the like.

Pretty neat, thanks!

Map-sharing tools can make the game a lot faster at the table, and for me table-time is precious.

I swear by 'em.

Old Traps - They don't work properly, due to being untouched for a while. Someone steps on a stone, hears a click, but nothing happens... yet. It creates a situation where one PC can't move, the others have an unknown amount of time to find and disarm the trap.

Heh, cool.

Or what if the traps get re-set by something the PCs do? So they spend time investigating traps that don't work on the way in, and then they have to actually disarm the traps on the way out -- because the traps are intended to kill intruders, not delay intruders.

A refuse-filled room with piles of paper and bags on the floor might take a half hour to an hour for characters to search. But you just need to say, "After an hour of careful searching, you find no more than thirteen copper pieces."

That's actually a pretty decent idea.

[LibraryOgre]

In Hackmaster, depending on the Cartography skill of your party, you might not GET to make a map.

Wow, that's double-evil with fudge ripple.

Better and more immersive, IMO, than getting a minimap that reveals everything... and easier on the DM, so they don't have to contrive ways for hidden passages and the like to remain hidden on a map that may have to include them.

Here's the bit about cartography from Hackmaster Basic

Cartography
Relevant Ability: Intelligence
Cost: 5 BP
Universal: Yes
Prerequisite: None
Materials/Tools: Yes
If a character has parchment, quills and ink, this skill allows him to create relatively accurate maps. If the PC fails to purchase these items, he cannot map the area. (Remember that parchment is flammable and PCs could easily lose their map in a Fireball.)
Characters unskilled or with Novice mastery of Cartography may not use graph paper when mapping dungeons! Those of Average mastery should also not be allowed to pester the GM with repeated questions - give the dimensions once (if they complain, tell them they had better improve their skill). Finally, if a PC can’t see (e.g., he’s in total darkness), he can’t map.

Mastery Level The character can...
Unskilled: Draw a simple map of interconnected lines (“turned left here, went down a corridor for a while, room here”)
Novice: Draw a rough, simple map
Average: Draw a fairly accurate map
Advanced: Draw a very accurate map
Expert: Create a topographical map while airborne
Master: Figure longitude, map continent-sized mass

Cartography is universal if you're literate, so most parties will have someone who is at least Unskilled. If they spent 5 BP on cartography, they upgrade to at least Novice (01-25 Mastery level), and Average is usually only a couple purchases away (26-50). It's a game that thrives at low levels, with a relatively shallow power curve and a good degree of swinginess. One that seeks to establish verisimilitude (for example: while HP based, you can wind up dropping in pain from the first hit, if it's big enough. It is cheaper to buy unprepared food and prepare it... but you have to be skilled in cooking to do that. Wounds heal individually, instead of as a pool of HP that slowly increases). And one that requires that the players take responsibility for their own maps.

[Nifft]

Better and more immersive, IMO, than getting a minimap that reveals everything... and easier on the DM, so they don't have to contrive ways for hidden passages and the like to remain hidden on a map that may have to include them.

Here's the bit about cartography from Hackmaster Basic



Cartography is universal if you're literate, so most parties will have someone who is at least Unskilled. If they spent 5 BP on cartography, they upgrade to at least Novice (01-25 Mastery level), and Average is usually only a couple purchases away (26-50). It's a game that thrives at low levels, with a relatively shallow power curve and a good degree of swinginess. One that seeks to establish verisimilitude (for example: while HP based, you can wind up dropping in pain from the first hit, if it's big enough. It is cheaper to buy unprepared food and prepare it... but you have to be skilled in cooking to do that. Wounds heal individually, instead of as a pool of HP that slowly increases). And one that requires that the players take responsibility for their own maps.

Interesting.

When character ability exceeds player ability -- e.g. " Advanced: Draw a very accurate map" or "Expert: Create a topographical map while airborne", then I assume the DM will be handing out maps.

[LibraryOgre]

Interesting.

When character ability exceeds player ability -- e.g. " Advanced: Draw a very accurate map" or "Expert: Create a topographical map while airborne", then I assume the DM will be handing out maps.

That's how I would do it, yeah. Our basic maps from our AD&D, crawling through Undermountain days really only require an Average level of ability (Advanced if the rest of your group won't shut up so you can hear the room dimensions).

[Nifft]

That's how I would do it, yeah. Our basic maps from our AD&D, crawling through Undermountain days really only require an Average level of ability (Advanced if the rest of your group won't shut up so you can hear the room dimensions).

On that scale, I assume that the designated mapper has an Average ability.

That's what the maps I hand out (or project) are based around.

Mastery Level The character can...
Unskilled: Draw a simple map of interconnected lines (“turned left here, went down a corridor for a while, room here”)
Novice: Draw a rough, simple map
Average: Draw a fairly accurate map
Advanced: Draw a very accurate map
Expert: Create a topographical map while airborne
Master: Figure longitude, map continent-sized mass

Hmm, now I wonder how this sort of thing would mesh with weird dungeon topologies, like the Serpent Reliquary from Elder Evils.

[Pugwampy]

Wandering monsters in passages and bugging you when you try to sleep , will slow your dungeon exploration to a snails pace.

I do my best to avoid those encounters even if a mod wants that.