# Dungeon layout, map flow and old school game design



## Melan

In Quasqueton’s "Is Sunless Citadel a well-designed adventure module?" thread, I made a claim that the dungeon described in the module is too linear and that its layout is responsible for railroading player characters. Although I didn’t mention it, I have similar problems with *Forge of Fury*. The significance of map design has already been discussed in an earlier thread (_„Would these maps make for a fun dungeon adventure”_), where Quasqueton posted an example map and basically asked posters whether they thought it was well designed or not. I think there is no harm in revealing that the map in question depicted a level of Gary Gygax’s original Greyhawk Castle.

In my opinion, designing a good dungeon also involves creating a good map. It must be stressed that this is obviously only half the battle - without imaginative content, all the effort is for naught; while a dungeon whose map is poorly designed may be saved by well thought out encounters. _In this thread_, I don’t wish to discuss the latter aspect, only mapping and how it can contribute to enjoyable play. What makes a map good or bad? Fundamentally, a good map should enhance the factors which make dungeon crawling enthralling: for instance, exploration, player decision making, uncovering hidden areas and secrets, as well as maintaining the pace of action.

***

Exploration entails discovering previously unknown territory. To find a lower level, a section the PCs have never been to, or simply some entertaining and imaginative room, is one of the great joys of dungeoneering. However, for all this to feel like an accomplishment, there has to be a meaningful effort on the part of the _players_ and a challenge on part of the DM. There can be no real exploration if the dungeon isn’t large enough or complex enough to *allow failure, as in certain areas being missed*. If encounters are presented one after another, there is no challenge and no accomplishment in this respect.

Player decision making from the operative to the tactical and strategic level involves dealing with obstacles, negotiating hostile territory and ensuring the success of an entire expedition. Naturally, many individual decisions are based on a „golden rule” such as left-hand-on-the-wall or random chance, especially when there is no way of knowing what the decision „means”; that is, what its likely outcome in one case or the other may be. However, by making a dungeon where the players can choose to avoid or meet obstacles, take or avoid risks by visiting/not visiting „deeper levels”, explore side branches or concentrate on reaching an objective, etc., player decision making becomes a more interesting and meaningful challenge. Generally, branching, complex maps offer many possibilities for decision making, but overly complicated maps do not: they just cause frustration.

Uncovering hidden areas or secrets is yet another form of reward for resourceful _players_. Finding a secret door leading to a room with treasure is fun; finding one leading to a hidden sublevel or a previously undiscovered section is even better. A good dungeon should have at least a few of these, preferably a good amount, and they should be found primarily due to player ingenuity. Judges Guild’s _Caverns of Thracia_ is likely the best example of a dungeon with well designed secrets: entire levels and sub-levels may be uncovered by observation and resourcefulness. 

Finally, maintaining the pace of action is important to ensure the game remains exciting and doesn’t get bogged down for too long. Shoot-and-kill computer games usually call this _„map flow”_.

***

Turning back to my original point, how do *Sunless Citadel* and *Forge of Fury* stack up to other introductory modules in the maps department? Do they represent design which encourages and rewards exploration, which presents mysteries and which doesn’t constrain players with a pre-written script? In my opinion, they do not. There are hints of good game design in there, but not enough to call the modules better than average (I could list other reasons as well, but that is outside the present subject). Both of these modules miss „something” many classics have, something which is closely linked with avoiding railroading - constructing a map which isn’t a straight line, but rather one which has side-tracks, circular routes, opportunities to approach a given location from multiple directions, opportunities to demonstrate one’s mapping skills (without it getting tedious) and maybe more. *Citadel* and *Forge* are disturbingly linear, and are no less railroady than your usual 2e module. *(To preclude derailing the thread, I freely admit that many 1st edition modules are just as guilty of the same sin, especially those designed for tournament play.)*

To compare the WotC introductory modules with various other introductory products from the 70s and 80s, I used a graphical method which „distils” a dungeon into a kind of decision tree or flowchart by stripping away „noise”. On the resulting image, meandering corridors and even smaller room complexes are turned into straight lines. Although the image doesn’t create an „accurate” representation of the dungeon map, and is by no means a „scientific” depiction, it demonstrates what kind of decisions the players can make while moving through the dungeon. Briefly going over basic forms, a dungeon may look like any of the following, or be made up of several such basic elements:







In the end, a dungeon without any _real_ branches would look like a straight line (A.), or a straight line that looks slightly hairy (B.). The *Slaver* modules or *Lost Tomb of Martek* would fall into this category. Branching dungeons (C.) are a bundle of straight lines (often with sidetracks), sometimes resembling trees. *White Plume Mountain* is a good example of a branching dungeon. Finally, dungeons with circular routes (D.) are the most complex, especially when these routes interlock and include the third dimension. Again, Paul Jaquays is the undisputed master of this area, with modules like *Caverns of Thracia*, *Dark Tower* and *Realm of the Slime God*. In my opinion, including the second two forms without being overwhelming makes a dungeon map much better than a straight affair.

Let us now look at the modules. I selected six modules aimed at beginners for my analysis and supplemented them with two for high levels (these were included for comparative purposes also). Of the eight, four modules were written by Gary Gygax, which could have skewed the sample a bit. Then again, the aim wasn’t strict „science”, just a fun comparison.  On these maps, dashed lines represent secret passages/connections and broken lines represent „level transitions”.

*Sunless Citadel*






*Sunless Citadel*’s layout is the perfect example of an almost completely linear dungeon. This isn’t apparent on first sight, because Bruce Cordell introduced a lot of twists to the corridors so they would look more organic, but in the end, it is still a straight line with the „choice” of either going through the kobolds or goblins, woo hoo. Sunless Citadel is, all claims to the contrary, not a classic dungeon: it is designed to be a story, and it plays like a story. Unfortunately, player choice isn’t high in it outside combat tactics... which, granted, are fun. But a good map it is not.

*Forge of Fury*






Our second module (author Richard Baker) is more promising on first sight, but eventually reveals the same structure: straight line layout, definite beginning and definite end in the form of a boss monster. Little player choice. The only thing that makes Forge’s maps better designed is the presence of optional detours. It is interesting to see the thought process behind them: the big detours lead to „mini-bosses”, a roper and a succubus, respectively.

*Keep on the Borderlands*






Let us compare the previous modules with the classic *Keep on the Borderlands* by Gary Gygax. I will omit the keep and wilderness (which introduce some really entertaining possibilities, greatly enhancing the game experience - these elements are regrettably absent in Forge and Sunless) and focus on the Caves of Chaos instead. The layout of this dungeon area is completely different from the aforementioned. The individual monster lairs follow the „straight line” or „branching” structure, but the number of these lairs and the occasional secret connection make adventuring in this environment rewarding indeed. All of the lairs may be entered at will (the long horizontal line on the image represents the ravine). The dungeon is thus both complex and compartmental - with enough room for exploration, but probably not overwhelming if the lairs are tackled individually.

*In Search of the Unknown*






Mike Carr’s *In Search of the Unknown* has the most complex dungeon layout in our sample. I would argue that the main draw of the module is precisely this - it presents a lot of classic dungeon exploration challenges like room mazes, secret doors, twisting corridors and such. What makes it even better in my opinion is that it does this without being frustrating, but also because the macrostructure beyond the basic elements is so good. You can explore this dungeon and *really* find things. Unfortunately, the entire dungeon couldn’t be represented as a single network (the lower level would have made it very convoluted for the observer), but I hope my point was made. B1 harkens back to Original D&D design principles and it shows.

*The Village of Hommlet*






I freely admit that I dislike this module, and my analysis may be coloured by bias. However, looking at the layout of this dungeon, one of my complaints about it is reaffirmed - this is an early example of the linear adventure. You can even identify the boss monster (and the crayfish miniboss, of course, who is cooler than the boss himself). The moathouse dungeon has two redeeming features (not enough to be cool in my eyes, though): one, hiding the entire „inner dungeon” by two secret doors is a good idea - it forces the players to be alert and attentive, even resourceful. Second, it is a very small dungeon, where it is hard to really shine in mapping. Granted, this is because Gygax wasted too much space on Lameburg and its entirely mundane and boring residents, but hey.

*Palace of the Silver Princess*






*Palace of the Silver Princess* is not usually considered a good module, but I actually think it is better than its reputation (the orange one, at least): a straightforward dungeon bash with a lot of unexplained stuff (a good point), a lot of magic and secret to boot. It also has a very good map. I *really* like the multiple nested circular routes on the lower level, and also the fact that the module has two „conclusions” - one of them is finding and killing the evil cleric, and the other is finding the hidden room of the princess and her lover (who are accursed ghosts - a nice twist on the cheesy „save the princess” cliché). However, most parties would only find the former! That’s great. I wish more modules had that secrets within secrets and mysteries within mysteries element.

*Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl*






This module wasn’t an introductory product like the others, but it was among the first modules TSR published. I included it because of its tournament design: it has some flaws similar to Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury, in that it is once again too restrictive in some respects... on the other hand, there are so many well designed side areas, especially on the higher level, that this isn’t so bothersome in play. G2 (and *Tomb of Horrors*, which I didn’t have at hand) demonstrate that the linear structure can work - if balanced by good content (conversely, In Search of the Unknown is only „good” instead of „great” because most rooms just aren’t _that_ great).

*Descent into the Depths of the Earth*






I will not discuss the underworld section of this module, because it falls into the domain of wilderness adventuring, and will instead focus on the set-piece: the troglodyte/drow warren. Similar to Keep on the Borderlands, this dungeon is greatly helped by an open central area from which „branches” can be accessed. The great cavern links individual monster lairs, some of which are nasty and some of which are very, very nasty. As we can see, the western half has more individual lairs (usually with more dangerous denizens), the eastern half is more „mazy”, and here the challenge is in overwhelming numbers and using the terrain layout to advantage.

***

I hope that these brief demonstrations helped underscore the gist of my argument: good map design contributes to the fun of an adventure, and it is not a total crapshoot - there are clearly identifiable design principles which (admittedly from a gamist/”old school” standpoint), when followed, benefit a given creation. Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury aren’t flawed adventures because they are new, but because they employ a structure which is antithetical to freeform play and represents a more rigid „story-game” approach, something D&D should be rid of. Likewise, many (although not all) old adventures are good because they do these things right, not because of the tired and fallacious „rose coloured glasses” argument. There is nothing preventing modern designers (or just garden variety DMs) from learning these tricks and using them towards their own ends.

It also has to be reiterated (because it needs repeating) that maps aren’t all. They can’t make a module good solely on their own. But I think we can accept that they can _help_ a module be _better_, and that goal should not be underestimated.

That is all.

[Note: I will probably be offline until Monday, so I may not be able to discuss the subject until then.]


----------



## RFisher

That is a wonderful bit of work, Melan!

I tend to like less-linear dungeons better than more-linear ones, but the more-linear _can_ work.

(An ironic point is that one of Gygax's favorite modules--_The Abduction of Good King Despot_--is just about as linear as a dungeon can get.)

If _all_ the dungeons in a campaign are more-linear, that can be bad.

I also think too many dungeons suffer from density. Too much crammed into too little space. Not enough solid rock--just relatively thin walls between rooms. Not enough empty rooms. That can be appropriate from some dungeons, but it seems too common to me. Wish I could write an _opus_ like yours on that subject...


----------



## arscott

_Does designing a good dungeon involve designing a good map?_  No.  In fact, it involves designing a crappy map.  And I'll tell you why.

You've clearly spent a bit of time making those charts.  But they're fairly usless as far a gauging the adventure goes.  You've eliminated the crooked hallways, the superfluous twists and turns all thats left are basically straight lines connecting the encounters.

But the encounters themselves are not indicated, except in the broadest strokes.  And it's the encounters, not the hallways, that make or break the dungeon.

There's a saying that my parents are fond of:  "Getting there is half the fun"
That saying is a lie.  Getting there is Boring and Painful.  Being there is fun.

Any fun trip is a series of 'being there's  The fun isn't in getting to _getting_ to San Francisco from La.  The fun is in _being_ in Santa Barbara to visit your old college roommate.  The fun is in _being_ at Solvang, buying their touristy things.  The fun is in _being_ at Pismo Beach, Enjoying the waves.  The fun is in _being_ at Hearst Castle, enjoying the art and history.  Or, sometimes not.  Solvang isn't for everyone.  But it's the _being_s that define the trip for better or worse.  The _getting_s just get in the way.

And adventure maps, no matter how carefully planned out are all _getting_.  The _being_ is in the encounters.  Mazes of twisty passages, all alike?  They're getting in the way of the interesting stuff.  And the more complex the maze?  the less fun it is.

Things are in the adventure so that the players can encounter them and interact with them.  Nobody wants to pay good money for an adventure module and then not get to use half of it because the players took the left fork first.  A simple "Point A to Point B" structure is the simplest and most efficient way of giving people a chance to experience the full breadth of the adventure.

Saying "In order to reach your destination, you have to get past the Dragon" isnt' railroading.  Railroading is saying "In order to get past the dragon, you must fight her with the obsidian weapons you found in room 3".

It's not about the players making choices--It's about the players making meaningful choices.  Deciding whether to fight the dragon, to bargain with her, or to sneak past her is a meaningful choice.  Deciding whether to go left or to go right is a waste of everybody's time.


----------



## Vrecknidj

The analysis here is very good, and is the sort of thing that designers should consider.  We see this, at varying levels, in things like the Design and Development articles.

I, for one, found that all my players loved Forge of Fury (we didn't play Sunless Citadel).  Sure, it's linear.  But they didn't mind a linear adventure.  I made some substantive changes to the module, but I didn't change the dungeon, and I left the vast majority of the critters alone.

Also, I find that complex dungeons, ones with mazes for instance, just plain bother most of my players.  It's not that they don't like choice--Keep on the Borderlands was brilliant fun then, and it would be brilliant fun now.  But, dungeon design is just a part of adventure design, I think, and anyone (mis?)reading Melan's article here might be persuaded that linear dungeons cannot be good adventures.

Dave


----------



## xnosipjpqmhd

I pretty much agree with arscott and Vrecknidj.

What if I designed a really awesome, multi-dimensional dungeon map with lots of ways the players could go, and then instead of making a key of encounters, I just sat down and made a list of all the fun and important encounters that the PCs should experience before they got to the end? 

Then no matter which way the players went, they would still end up fighting the kobold sentries, solving the riddle of the magic pool, talking to the prisoners who give the PCs clues about the BBEG, finding the secret door, killing the guardian of the helm of brilliance, and then using it against the half-dragon lich in the final encounter.

Now this might sound like railroading, but it results in a cool adventure. Much more fun than if the players completely bypass the clues, miss the helm, and become lich-food.

So I think one reason some published modules tend to be linear (with or without dungeons) is that the story makes more sense or is more enjoyable when one encounter sets up (or in some way prepares for) the next. Just as in fiction, every scene should have a purpose. IMHO.


----------



## Henrix

An interesting dissection of scenario maps. Good show, and thought provoking.

(Naturally the encounters are an important part of the adventures, but that is evidently not the part you are interested in discussing here. Encounters have been discussed before, although they could probably bear being analysed in similar terms.)


----------



## Piratecat

That's a fascinating essay - and a very good way to look at an adventure's flow.

I'll point out that I love linear dungeons, as long as they make sense logically.  If I put in branching, it definitely tends to be the "loop around" type so that I can have a linear beginning and ending with a lot of choice in the middle.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Nice.  I like the analysis, but in my case, I'd add a caveat - I don't always want my dungeons to be of the large non-linear sort.  Oftentimes, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the background of the adventure.  I tend to add my non-linearity outside of undeground complexes and then build the "dungeon" according to the needs of the denizens, and if non-linearity results from those needs then great.  So I wouldn't say that linear design makes a dungeon inherently bad, but rather I'd say that nothing but linear design makes a _campaign_ less than it could be.

I'm not generally a person who is really into big dungeons, although I try to include one or two in every campaign.  And when I work on the next ones, I'm going to keep your analysis in mind - especially the insights regarding hidden sub-levels and undiscovered sections being rewards for careful and insightful players.


----------



## EricNoah

Sometimes, a "simple" layout is just what you need as part of a more complex storyline (a web of inter-related NPCs or whathaveyou).  Complex isn't always good -- from the player's side, even a little complexity can be enough to add the right level of mental challenge to the game, and what seems straightforward to the DM can seem strange and mysterious to the player.  

Those illustrations are great.  They could just as easily become flow-charts for urban/political adventuring.  

I happen to like choke-points in adventures -- and then sections that are more free-flowing -- and then another choke-point, and so on.  I guess the pattern might be -- line --> loop --> line etc.

As you say, it is fun to discover a secret that can turn a "branch" into part of a "loop."  Sometimes part of a loop will be hard to navigate by typical medium-sized terrestrial humanoids (gorges/ravines, underground rivers, small tunnels for rats, etc.).  A good place for those who have focused on movement-related skills (climbing, swimming) and utility magic to shine.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Firstly can I say that this was a great read and thank you Melan for all the obvious effort that went into your starting post.    It's threads like this and poster's willing to give so much of their thought and time that makes ENWorld such a special place.

Secondly, I'm not too sure that linearity is as evil as people sometimes make out. The example given by ironregime is a case in point:


			
				ironregime said:
			
		

> What if I designed a really awesome, multi-dimensional dungeon map with lots of ways the players could go, and then instead of making a key of encounters, I just sat down and made a list of all the fun and important encounters that the PCs should experience before they got to the end?
> 
> Then no matter which way the players went, they would still end up fighting the kobold sentries, solving the riddle of the magic pool, talking to the prisoners who give the PCs clues about the BBEG, finding the secret door, killing the guardian of the helm of brilliance, and then using it against the half-dragon lich in the final encounter.
> 
> Now this might sound like railroading, but it results in a cool adventure. Much more fun than if the players completely bypass the clues, miss the helm, and become lich-food.




For a lot of players this level of DM direction is a good thing. A lot of fun can be had purely by the great encounters planned and the non-stop action. However, there is one important ingredient that this approach is vacant of. Action and reaction. Without this, the depth of the game maintains a tepid consistency. In subtle ways, people wonder: what would have happened if their PCs had have zigged instead of zagged? Well, they would have gone up that tunnel and taken on the Sentries through the other door. Would this affect things much? Maybe but not really. It is more a cosmetic fascade for an encounter that was always going to happen.

I believe the thing that can make a game special is when the DM alters the finish line, introduces another "player" in the game or reacts in some way to what the PCs are doing. Entire arcs may appear or disappear depending upon whether a PC forgets to write that letter, goes out of their way to make a snide remark to an NPC with a long memory or perhaps befriends someone for information rather than capturing them. These are the elements of a game which to me make it fun and more involving. I believe players talk about what their characters are going to do, much more so than what cool encounters they have endured.

Now, what I believe Melan has successfully done is shown how this selfsame principle is embodied in the layout of "good" dungeons. It is certainly something I think worthy of further exploration. While it is generally far more practical to have linear elements in published adventures, perhaps some of the more complex elements have momentarily faded from the screen? Or perhaps these are the things good DMs will augment their adventures with anyway?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## EricNoah

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I'll point out that I love linear dungeons, as long as they make sense logically.




It helps when, with experience, you get good at disguising linearity a bit.  Bending, twisting, the third dimension, etc. can help, as can the occasional branch or self-contained loop.


----------



## Henrix

I don't think that any of the dungeon forms is better than any other, really.

But having the form appropriate for the scenario is the way to do it. If the dungeon in question is just one stop in a larger adventure then perhaps anything but a fairly simple and linear dungeon is wrong and distracting*.

Melan wants old-school exploration dungeons, where a lot of wandering around and finding stuff and secret doors is one of the prime objectives. In that case the dungeon should probably be more complex.


* And perhaps it is just the dungeon in question that is linear, not the whole adventure, if we follow Eric's and PCat's suggestions and use them to discuss the flowchart of the adventure.


----------



## Hussar

I think I can agree with most of that. 

One thing to add though.  If you always go for highly complex set ups, then there is a risk of the party being paralyzed by choices.  If they know that the maps are going to be looping, with lots of secret doors and what not, then they are going to start acting on that - taking time to search every square inch, going back to the same spot time and again - that sort of thing.

Once in a while, that might be a good thing, but, for every adventure to follow that track, I'm not so sure.  Sometimes that pirate smugglers cave is just a series of four chambers with access to the sea.  It doesn't make much sense for every adventure to be so complex.

From what I've seen, Life's a Bazaar from the Shackled City AP is a lot more looping than linear.  But that could just be my impression.  

From the rather large amount of dungeon crawling I've done in the past year, I've seen what it can be like given a wide open map versus a channeling map.  Wide open serves best when there are numerous plot lines occuring.  When you have numerous factions that need to be separated and compartmentalized.  A linear map is better when you have only one story to worry about.  

IMC, Region B of the World's Largest Dungeon is wide open.  There are five separate factions in the region as well as two large "no mans land" areas.  The map is very complicated.  There are a few chokepoints, but, by and large, you can take a large number of paths through the region.  And, there are any number of possible endings for the region.

Region C OTOH is much more linear.  Makes sense.  While there are a couple of factions, the entire region is subject to a rather large black dragon.  Eventually, all paths in the region are going to lead to that climax.  Because of that, the map does need to be somewhat linear so that you actually MEET the dragon.  There's not much point in having a BBEG if you can't find him.  

Definitely food for thought.


----------



## EricNoah

Hussar said:
			
		

> From what I've seen, Life's a Bazaar from the Shackled City AP is a lot more looping than linear.  But that could just be my impression.




I haven't looked at the map in detail in some time, but this might be the perfect example of a) linearity with a very effective illusion of "loopiness", and b) learning a secret to turn a line/branch into a loop (once you figure out how to open the locked doors you can go in directions you couldn't go before).


----------



## Odysseus

Doesn't this assume the monsters stay put in their encounter location.
Certainly in the adventures I run. Monsters move about.


----------



## EricNoah

Melan said:
			
		

> Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury aren’t flawed adventures because they are new, but because they employ a structure which is antithetical to freeform play and represents a more rigid „story-game” approach, something D&D should be rid of.




This is the most problematic part of the initial essay.  You are, of course, free to value freeform play over story-game style play, but to insist that D&D -- for everyone -- should be "rid of" it ... it's not helpful.  

Rather, what would be helpful would be for each DM and player to know, ahead of time, what style of play he likes, and to then have the DM know how to design for that purpose.  I have had my players tell me, in essentially these exact words, that they do not like freeform play.  They want to be part of a story-game.  Were I to force this style upon them, it would be as poor a choice as to force freeform players into a linear story.  

Part of being a good DM is creating illusions.  The DM who has a map/locations and a bunch of encounters, but not keyed ahead of time, can play in a freeform style but create the illusion of a linear story, given practice and skill.  Likewise, the DM who has a linear adventure can effectively create the illusion of freeform play with some appropriate pre-planning.  The effectiveness of these illusions will depend on the DM's experience and skill.  

My gut instinct is that most players and DMs do in fact like a little of each over the course of an adventure and/or campaign -- some freeform play and some linearity to give shape and purpose.  Or maybe it's just me, and that's why I often design with a line --> loop --> line shape, with chokepoints to make sure certain things happen, and with areas of relative freedom to encourage and reward player choice.


----------



## EricNoah

Odysseus said:
			
		

> Doesn't this assume the monsters stay put in their encounter location.
> Certainly in the adventures I run. Monsters move about.




A loop certainly makes it more possible for creatures to move about in less predictable ways.  That can make for a fun portion of an adventure -- when you loop back to what you think is an explored region to find it is newly inhabited!


----------



## Henrix

Yes, the Jzadirune area in Life's Bazaar is an interesting case. If I recall correctly it was almost all linear at first, then became successively more looped.


----------



## Delta

Melan, great work, and a fascinating read. I agree with you that nonlinear dungeons are more interesting. More importantly, I agree with you in the value of not forcing a particular story plot on the players through any kind of adventure design. (And that, I think, is a minority opinion nowadays.)


----------



## el-remmen

I like the dissection of the forms of dungeon layout - but really different forms accomplish different things for different adventures - they all are equally valid.

Personally, being a tactics and terrain guy I like complexity in my maps and battle locations - but not just for the sake of complexity - what is there has to make sense.  

At the same time, as someone alluded to above, sometimes the layout is very simple, but it is the behavior of the occupants that makes up the complexity and the "coolness factor" of the dungeon.


----------



## Steel_Wind

While a good analysis, the OP makes a deep value laden assumption throughout: _that linear is bad and muti-branching is good_.  The OP worships at the altar of "choice" - without stopping to reflect if it is logical or makes for a good story.

I don't agree with this perspective at all.  While I do recognize that many share it - a flawed assumption widely shared does not make that value or belief right or correct.


----------



## Bagpuss

Multi branching isn't always good, if the players never find the branch then the DM has wasted all that effort.


----------



## Squire James

EricNoah said:
			
		

> This is the most problematic part of the initial essay.  You are, of course, free to value freeform play over story-game style play, but to insist that D&D -- for everyone -- should be "rid of" it ... it's not helpful.
> 
> (snip)




I'm pretty sure he was just expressing an opinion that applied mostly to his own games.  Answering "this is the one true way" posts with admonishments are equally unhelpful, and has echoes of religion/politics arguments.  All of this is only my opinion, of course!


----------



## Delta

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Part of being a good DM is creating illusions.  The DM who has a map/locations and a bunch of encounters, but not keyed ahead of time, can play in a freeform style but create the illusion of a linear story, given practice and skill.




What happens when players use _augury_ or _scrying_ or careful scouting to determine which way to go in that case?


----------



## Steel_Wind

Squire James said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure he was just expressing an opinion that applied mostly to his own games.




I'm pretty sure he did no such thing - and instead the writer did exactly what Eric said he did.

Did we read the same article?


----------



## jgbrowning

Excellent post.

joe b.


----------



## Mark

Interesting analysis.  Naturally, different groups of players might be looking for different types of games, i.e. some prefer linear gaming, others like the illusion that they can simply go anywhere and do anything and that there is always a where to go and a thing to do.  I generally prefer players who take the initiative but am always ready to nudge them into action, if not into a specific direction.  That said, and as said above, smaller environs don't necessarily engender an easy way to present a non-linear scenario and there are times when you want to place a needle on an obsidian table and not in a haystack.  There are good and bad ways to present either style of play and the real trick is discovering in time which has the better chance of being well-received with a particular group on a particular day.


----------



## Erik Mona

This is a fascinating post, in part because I wrestled with some of these same issues when writing "The Whispering Cairn," the Age of Worms Adventure Path kick-off module from Dungeon #124. The Cairn is a much smaller dungeon than many of the ones analyzed in Melan's thought-provoking post, but in order to make it more than just a simple dungeon crawl, I put a lockout mechanism in the dungeon and forced the players to leave the cairn midway through and go on a seemingly unrelated mini-quest. I'm very curious what Melan thinks of that type of encounter setup, and how he might incorporate it into his visual model.

One of the most important points in this thread, I think, is that there is not "one true way" of designing a fun adventure. Melan, for example, hates the moathouse section of "Village of Hommlet," but it is one of my favorite dungeons of all time, both as a player and as a DM (I have run it, one one form or another four times).* 

Not everyone comes to D&D for the same reason. In my own Age of Worms campaign I have players who love roleplaying and players who seem utterly bored with it. Others are less enamored with fighting and would prefer to spend the whole session shopping. As a member of the RPGA, I played at nearly 500 tables with literally thousands of D&D players. You would be surprised at the range of interests and stylistic preferences out there in D&D land. Some people love mapping, some love puzzles. Some gamers enjoy anachronistic puns, and some cringe the slightest sign of silliness.

Accordingly, players and Dungeon Masters have a wide range of tastes when it comes to dungeon complexity and "linearity." As some have mentioned in this thread, a wide-open approach means planning for lots of encounters the players might not find. With some groups, you can change "might not" to "probably won't." That's fine for a published adventure, because it's not you doing the work. But a lot of DMs, including (I'd wager) some who have posted to this thread, prefer to design things themselves. Creating whole wings of dungeons hidden by secret doors or off the main path to the treasure room is an investment of time they might not be able to afford.

So some context is in order.

I actually agree with you, to a point, that the dungeons that look more complex on your charts are most likely to be more interesting from a mapping perspective, but it cannot be said loudly enough that an interesting map is just the first of many steps involved in creating a great adventure. Monster choice is certainly important, and for my money a certain degree of "plot" is also of paramount importance. There has been a great deal of development for the good in the years since 1974, and it is best to incorporate some of that into new designs rather than conforming to a rigid orthodoxy.

The visual model Melan has developed is useful, and I have really enjoyed reading this thread. I think it might also be worth looking at the models in terms of value. Does a more complex model suggest a larger investment in play time? Does that therefore result in an adventure that provides more bang for the buck? Melan suggested that much of "The Village of Hommlet" was wasted by a boring** village background. Had it been 95% dungeon would it have been a "better" adventure? A better value?

Very thought provoking.

--Erik


* As an aside, Melan, how dare you call the moathouse dungeon crayfish a more interesting encounter than Lareth the Beautiful? The cleric's staff of striking alone is enough to fell one character in a single round. The encounter has always been very fun when I've run it. 

** The town itself is no more boring than places like Orlane or Restenford, but the map is absolutely great as a utility player when you need a village on the fly. Were the adventure redesigned today, I'd expect a lot more development of the village to make it a truly useful backdrop, but all of a sudden we're talking about substantially more than the module's original 24 pages.


----------



## SWBaxter

Well, my take is that what makes a good or bad map is not an independent objective quality, it can only be judged in the context of the rest of the adventure and the desires of a given group. What works in one area might not work in another. It seems obvious to me that a more "open" design with a lot of options works well in a context in which the PCs are supposed to be kicking around and exploring. IME it doesn't work nearly as well when the PCs have a focused goal they're trying to attain, in that case a more linear design is preferable. 

For example, that design works fine for the _Caves of Chaos_ because that's a kill-critters-and-take-their-stuff romp, but I always found it pretty jarring in _Descent into the Depths_ simply because the framing for the latter is that the PCs are in hot pursuit of the Drow conspirators from G3, and every side exploration that dead ends (or worse, leads off to an unmapped part of the underdark) just builds player frustration.

So to me, the key is to figure out "what do I want the high points of this adventure to be?" and design the map accordingly. There's no One True Way that's guaranteed to lead to fun, because different people like different types of adventures, which demand different types of maps.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes

*map complexity*

Wow, this thread is a perfect example of why I read EnWorld.

For what it's worth, I'm pretty much in Melan's camp.  I prefer a simulationist game, where choice is real, to a linear, more story-driven game.

In my experience, people who like linearity tend to identify as 'storytellers'.  People who don't tend to identify as 'simulationists'.  I'm guessing this has to do with the fact that, to tell a story, a GM needs to stage a set of carefully balanced encounters in a certain sequence.

Modules got a lot more linear in 2E.  Did people who favor a linear dungeon find those modules better than the 1E modules that preceded them?

Ken


----------



## Ourph

I think Melan's post makes a lot more sense if you inser the caveat "Non-linear dungeon design is better for site-based adventures".

If your intent is to tell a story then you don't want or need the players to make a lot of choices.  They follow the pre-arranged steps you've set out for them and you keep their interest by providing interesting encounters and a satisfying story element.

That particular style of gaming is somewhat antithetical to many "old schoolers" perception of the game as being a game.  I'm fairly certain that's why it didn't occur to Melan to include the caveat in his original post.

For site-based adventures, where the only story is the PC's exploration and confrontation of the adventuring milieu, meaningful player choice is necessary to keep things from getting boring (and provides rewards to players as they progress through the area by making the information they are gathering about the layout of the dungeon relevant to success/failure) and a non-linear dungeon with many points of access to important encounter areas is an excellent way to showcase and facilitate meaningful player choice.  Interesting encounters are, as always, important as well - but for those of you who claim that is the only important aspect I suggest you may be missing out on a significant way to add to the enjoyment of the adventuring environment if you focus only on the details of individual encounters and ignore the importance of dungeon layout.

:edit: If it's not obvious from the above, just wanted to add a wholehearted "Excellent analysis" to my comments.


----------



## SWBaxter

Ourph said:
			
		

> If your intent is to tell a story then you don't want or need the players to make a lot of choices.




Now that's just silly. What you actually want is for them to make choices that are important in the context of the story, just as in a exploration-themed adventure you want them to make choices that are important in the context of discovering new things. Choosing whether to go left or right, to explore this cavern or that labyrinth, probably isn't that important in story terms (but it is pretty critical in an exploration adventure); choosing whether to spare the noncombatant or orcs or choosing to fight or parley with the BBEG is important in a story, while in an exploration adventure it's not a big deal if the group never faces those choices. The key is to figure out what kind of game you're running - which generally means figuring out what kind of game the players like better - and setting up the choices so they matter in that context.


----------



## Settembrini

There is and implicit misunderstanding, which I´ll think I can clear up:

The encounters allow for tactical decisions.
The flow-map allows for strategic decisions.

If you have no possibility to learn about the consequences of your strategic decision, then the strategic choices become irrelevant.

You can have non railroading linear adventures, because you still have power over all tactical decisions.

I prefer adventures, where you can make strategic decisions, which means I have, or are able to get knowledge about what is behind the next "door" i.g. about the next encounter.

@Erik Mona: I loved the Whispering Cairn as a player. BUT:
The multi location nature was of a linear type! From a design perspective, we as players were forced to the next encounters to open the door. Very linear w/o the possibility to make a choice. In a flow-map, it doesn´t make a difference if the next encounter is in the wood of weir or just behind the wooden door, as long as there is no alternative to the next encounter. The forks (links) which come out of a node are the important part, not whether you actually leave the dungeon.
Still, Whispering Cairn had memorable encounters, great graphics very good rhythm to it. One of my favorites!


----------



## The Shaman

I think the map should fit the adventure, but that said, I prefer complex maps to linear ones in most cases because they offer more opportunities for meaningful player choices.

I always create much more material than I actually use, and I don't plan "stories" that require the players to choose from a limited set of options in order to hit plot points along the way, so there's no issue of "wasted" work or players "missing" something.

Back in the day, our _AD&D_ group rotated dungeon masters within a shared setting, so that we could each take turns playing and running games with the same pool of characters. One of the other DMs ran an adventure that involved tracking down an assassin and his minions in abandoned mine, and I followed with a quest for a jeweled idol in a volcanic cavern complex. The subject of linearity came up during my adventure, and all of the players (including the previous DM) preferred my cavern complex because it offered so many choices and much more diversity than my friend's more linear lair.


----------



## blargney the second

That was great!  You helped me figure out how to put the finishing touch on an adventure I'm putting together right now.  All it needed was for two of the branches to close up into a loop.

Next I'm going to try overlaying your site skeleton with my adventure flowcharts.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead

> Uncovering hidden areas or secrets is yet another form of reward for resourceful players. Finding a secret door leading to a room with treasure is fun




I'd find another reward type! Treasure isn't a reward in 3.x, it's the raw material for power.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Holy mackerel, impressive first post.

The only quibble I'd have with the metagame considrations is that I'd like the dungeons to make sense for the purpose of the NPCs. Defensibility is normally high on the list (adventurers want to kill them and take their stuff) but in other cases, other needs may be important, such as the structure of mining tunnels and so on.

I would want to balance the needs of the group with the needs of the NPCs. Believability helps with fun, for me.


----------



## Geoffrey

Insightful post, Melan.

Thank you for helping me understand why *B1: In Search of the Unknown * is my favorite introductory module, and why I never cared for *T1: The Village of Hommlet*. I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking T1 overrated.


----------



## Ourph

SWBaxter said:
			
		

> Ourph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your intent is to tell a story then you don't want or need the players to make a lot of choices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's just silly. What you actually want is for them to make choices that are important in the context of the story.
Click to expand...



Congratulations!  You win the Nitpick Olympics.

If you want and need them to make choices "that are important to the context of the story" then the easiest way to do that is to only give them options which advance the context of the story.  Which is totally in line with my original point - i.e. linear dungeons are fine for plot-based adventures, not so great for site-based adventures.


----------



## SWBaxter

Ourph said:
			
		

> Congratulations!  You win the Nitpick Olympics.




So, noting that your statement was completely wrong is a "nitpick"? Congratulations! You just won the "respond to what I thought I said, not what I actually said" gold medal.


----------



## el-remmen

What is with people snipping at each other?

Everyone chill out.  Consider this an official mod warning.

Piece of advice: If your post is all about someone else's post and not really about the topic of the thread (or some reasonable related topic), think twice before posting it.


----------



## The Shaman

Ourph said:
			
		

> For site-based adventures, where the only story is the PC's exploration and confrontation of the adventuring milieu, meaningful player choice is necessary to keep things from getting boring (and provides rewards to players as they progress through the area by making the information they are gathering about the layout of the dungeon relevant to success/failure) and a non-linear dungeon with many points of access to important encounter areas is an excellent way to showcase and facilitate meaningful player choice. Interesting encounters are, as always, important as well - but for those of you who claim that is the only important aspect I suggest you may be missing out on a significant way to add to the enjoyment of the adventuring environment if you focus only on the details of individual encounters and ignore the importance of dungeon layout.
> 
> :edit: If it's not obvious from the above, just wanted to add a wholehearted "Excellent analysis" to my comments.



The Mingol speaks sagely.


----------



## Hussar

I suppose the question comes down to: Does turning left or right at random equal a meaningful choice?

In a non-linear dungeon, you have little or no information upon which to base a choice.  It's all about exploration and filling in the map.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.  But, I question whether that is somehow a more meaningful choice than in a linear dungeon where you have a pretty good idea of which way will lead to some sort of resolution.

Take two dragons' lairs.  The first is more or less a maze of twisting corridors, lots of branches and turns.  If you solve the maze, you get to the center and meet the dragon.  Add in lots of encounters peppered randomly throughout the maze and this is a looping adventure.  

The second is a much more linear dungeon.  There are side passages, possibly leading to branches and whatnot for the dragon's servants/slaves but there is also a honking big passage straight up the center leading to the dragon.  Very linear.

IMO, the second one allows for more meaningful choices.  I KNOW which way leads to the dragon.  If I don't want to face him yet, I got hunting around some of the side passages, maybe turn up a secret path that leads to the back of the lair and lets me steal a great big diamond .

I would argue that in a non-linear dungeon, all choices become the same.  They hold the same weight and therefore cannot be considered particularly meaningful.  Rather the choices are more or less entirely random.  Do we go left or do we go right?  If you have no idea what lies left or right, how can that choice be considered meaningful?

In a site based, exploration style adventure like KotB, that's fine.  But, not every adventure should be like KotB.


----------



## meleeguy

*Excellent Analysis*

However, I think it is fair to point out that the FoF is not quite as linear as you state.  An interesting poll might be one asking what entrance was used in this adventure.  I just reread the intro and the clues are there, but I think the picture of the stonetooth needs to be a player handout so that one could see that the smoke and the trail are closely related spatially.

The maps in FoF is what drew me to the module in the first place.  B&W, but beautiful nonetheless.  There is an asthetic component to maps that is important to me, and I find sidelong impressions of the DMs maps usually makes me think "wow, that guy went to alot of trouble for this", and that adds to the experience.

As I'm sure your aware, all of this touches on graphing theory which is just more fun with numbers.  I'm thinking of trying to get copies of some of the other maps you reference as a result of your post and my appreciation of good maps.


----------



## Ourph

Hussar said:
			
		

> In a non-linear dungeon, you have little or no information upon which to base a choice.



That's true, the first time you enter the dungeon.  That's why I maintain that linearity is absolutely fine for plot-based adventures, because you usually don't do a lot of "double dipping" in those kind of dungeons.  At most, you might pull back and rest for a bit before pressing forward, but a plot-based adventure usually means you enter the dungeon, you "solve the plot" and then you're finished with that area.  With a site-based adventure you might go back numerous times to explore further, take on challenges you weren't prepared to face the first time you came across them, etc.  So, yeah, the first time you enter the dungeon you might not make a lot of informed choices (although if the DM is doing a good job, the environment should be giving players clues as to what lies ahead as they move through the dungeon), but the next time you enter the dungeon the non-linearity of the area gives (can give, obviously the DM has to make the non-linearity count for something) you an advantage.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Take two dragons' lairs.  The first is more or less a maze of twisting corridors, lots of branches and turns.  If you solve the maze, you get to the center and meet the dragon.  Add in lots of encounters peppered randomly throughout the maze and this is a looping adventure.
> 
> The second is a much more linear dungeon.  There are side passages, possibly leading to branches and whatnot for the dragon's servants/slaves but there is also a honking big passage straight up the center leading to the dragon.  Very linear.



There's a problem with your analysis.  Both of those dungeons are linear.  A maze doesn't make the dungeon non-linear or "loopy" it just makes it confusing.  There's only one way to correctly solve a maze, and a maze on Melan's analytical dungeon-grams would simply be a straight line linear dungeon.

In order for one of the lairs to be non-linear there would have to exhibit one of two design methodologies.  1 - Branching:  There is no "end monster".  There are multiple tough monsters all reached by individual routes (some of which may interconnect).  2 - Looping: There may be a single "end monster" but that monster's lair (and the lairs of its guards, helpers, etc.) may be approached by several different avenues (e.g. - Conan, Subatai and Valeria sneaking into the Mountain of Power through the caves in the ravine, rather than entering through the front gates).



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If I don't want to face him yet, I got hunting around some of the side passages, maybe turn up a secret path that leads to the back of the lair and lets me steal a great big diamond .



You've just turned your linear dungeon into a non-linear one.  What does that say about your analysis above?   :\ 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I would argue that in a non-linear dungeon, all choices become the same.  They hold the same weight and therefore cannot be considered particularly meaningful.  Rather the choices are more or less entirely random.  Do we go left or do we go right?  If you have no idea what lies left or right, how can that choice be considered meaningful?



I think you're confusing the term non-linear dungeon to mean a dungeon devoid of information, which isn't the same thing.  A linear dungeon and a non-linear dungeon will look exactly the same to the players the first time they encounter it (unless there's something obvious like a sign saying "this way to the Dragon's Lair" on the wall).  The difference is that a non-linear dungeon makes the information gained from exploring and mapping more valuable.  A linear dungeon provides no choices on how to get from point A to point D, there's only one way - so knowing the layout of the dungeon does players no good (other than the baseline of knowing which opponents might be where, but that's true of a non-linear dungeon too).  Knowing the layout of a non-linear dungeon provides the players with additional meaningful choices to be made.

"If we want to get to the big diamond room we can either go through the deadly trap room or through the rust monster lair or we can go down to the second level and explore some more to try to find a way back up near point D."

In a linear dungeon, players don't have those options.


----------



## rounser

> While a good analysis, the OP makes a deep value laden assumption throughout: that linear is bad and muti-branching is good. The OP worships at the altar of "choice" - without stopping to reflect if it is logical or makes for a good story.
> 
> I don't agree with this perspective at all. While I do recognize that many share it - a flawed assumption widely shared does not make that value or belief right or correct.



Meaningful player choice represents a sense of control over PC's fates.  Without it you take away much of the woulda-shoulda-coulda which can make the game compelling, the excitement of exploration (if all roads lead to Rome, Rome becomes less mysterious)...in other words, much of the adventure, and responsibility for success as well as failure.  As has been noted earlier in the thread, this can be faked, but even bothering to fake it seems to be rare.

It's also entertaining for the DM to watch what path the PCs take...but generally it's unfashionable because it represents a lot of extra work for the DM, some of which may remain unused.*  Thus, railroad is the order of the day.  I find it a bit difficult to justify a railroaded dungeon, though; aren't those walls railroad enough?  You need to channel the PCs more?   

I think it can be related to why we roll dice instead of taking 10 for every roll - if the outcome is predetermined, who cares about the outcome?

*: Rarely the case....as has been noted from D&D's first dungeon, Castle Blackmoor, PCs tend to clean everything out as thoroughly as possible, and take everything that's not nailed down.


----------



## Melan

Hello!

Thank you for the insightful comments, all. I will try to write some answers tonight, and post them tomorrow morning. Some of them have been very illuminating - and shed light on how my interpretation of dungeon play doesn't encompass all possibilities and approaches. More on this later, because coherent thoughts are arguably better than initial impressions. However, I would like to offer two preliminary remarks:

1. My article is inherently biased, as I freely admit. There is a good reason I chose the "1E-2E-OD&D" thread tag, and that is because I approach dungeon design from a viewpoint heavily influenced (although not completely dominated) by the works of early TSR, Judges Guild and other "old-school" designers. I am also an unrepentent gamist, with slight simulationist leanings.

2. Some posters have remarked that encounters "make" an adventure exciting. There is no disagreement here. Nevertheless, I wanted to mostly put these considerations aside for this thread, and examine how map structure can influence or enhance the game. This doesn't mean I don't value encounters. That is very far from the truth. I believe, though, that introducing that angle would have damaged the clarity of my message this time. In some other thread, I will gladly discuss my views on that subject as well. Just not now, too much work and too little free time.


----------



## The Shaman

Ola, the Mingol discourses wisely - in particular...







			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> I think you're confusing the term non-linear dungeon to mean a dungeon devoid of information, which isn't the same thing.  A linear dungeon and a non-linear dungeon will look exactly the same to the players the first time they encounter it (unless there's something obvious like a sign saying "this way to the Dragon's Lair" on the wall).  The difference is that a non-linear dungeon makes the information gained from exploring and mapping more valuable.  A linear dungeon provides no choices on how to get from point A to point D, there's only one way - so knowing the layout of the dungeon does players no good (other than the baseline of knowing which opponents might be where, but that's true of a non-linear dungeon too).  Knowing the layout of a non-linear dungeon provides the players with additional meaningful choices to be made.
> 
> "If we want to get to the big diamond room we can either go through the deadly trap room or through the rust monster lair or we can go down to the second level and explore some more to try to find a way back up near point D."
> 
> In a linear dungeon, players don't have those options.



Exactly - legends and rumors, fragments of old maps, parley with dungeon denizens, changes in architectural style all lend weight to the character decision-making process.


----------



## jester47

Melan, you left out two entrance exit points in FoF.  also I think there is an extra loop in sunless, not to mention an exit into the underdark,


----------



## grodog

*phenomenenal post, Melan!*

Melan---

A hearty eye-opening "wowza!" for your phenomenal mapping analysis essay.  Thank you!!      I put a link to this thread (and the original Quasqueston question about the Greyhawk Castle maps @ http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=165693) over in the dungeon design 101 thread @ the Knights & Knaves site.  

One of the assumptions that you make, and that only one or two of the first responders mentioned, is that in the more complex maps, the players themselves must be interested in being challenged by the dungeon environment (vs. the more-standard 3.x paradigm of challenge the PCs instead of the players).  In order for that challenge to be effective---to fully leverage the less-linear, more freeform, discovery-laden map models---I believe that the players need to map as they explore:  otherwise the big blank areas/hidden sublevels/etc. won't be revealed, and the more complex environment loses a lot of its intrinsic appeal.  (Aside:  it would be interesting to see how linear some of the more complex adventures and maps appear to be if the players failed to find any secret doors/sublevels/etc.:  the "first glance" map vs. the "mapped the whole entire dungeon using Divination, Find the Path, Wand of Secret Door Detection, etc., etc." map).  

As has also been discussed here recently, player mapping in D&D seems to be a lost art at best, and a very loathed experience at worst.  The trends expressed in a few threads seem  to be that mapping wastes too much playing time and/or is too much of a hassle to mess with, regardless whether the map is relatively linear or very complex and specifically designed to mess with mappers (like original Castle Greyhawk and El Raja Key maps were).  Based on the mapping threads here, that opinion seems to cut across editions too:  many older AD&D players said that they never mapped then and don't map now either.  If the players aren't interested in mapping any kind of dungeon environment, is it even possible to employ more complex dungeon building techiniques successfully?

Taking mapping opinions into account, I'm curious to hear what people think about Melan's map creation ideas relative to the idea of needing to map them:  not the actual act of mapping itself (which is not likely to reveal much useful to this thread), but whether or not building a more complex, freeform map does in fact necessitate mapping on the part of players in order to get the most out of the level.  

(BTW Melan, the Greyhawk Castle maps just arrived on Thursday:  I'd be curious to see your flow chart analysis of the top map image from the GH dungeon, or the big Judges Guild maps we linked to in Quasqueton's GC thread, or Wheggi's fabulous Quilt Dungeon map @ http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1153).   I'm not sure that the really complex, larger maps would be very easy to flow, which is why I imagine you stuck to the 1 sheet maps from modules?).


----------



## hong

grodog said:
			
		

> Based on the mapping threads here, that opinion seems to cut across editions too:  many older AD&D players said that they never mapped then and don't map now either.  If the players aren't interested in mapping any kind of dungeon environment, is it even possible to employ more complex dungeon building techiniques successfully?




Sure. You just abstract the map into a graph, like Melan did, and wing the actual in-play descriptions. Like this:



		Code:
	

          X---------X-----X
          |         |
    +-----X----X----X
    |               |
----X-------------- X-----X
    |               |
    +-----X----X----X
               |
               X----------X


where each X represents an encounter, trap, NPC or otherwise noteworthy location. You can make the connections between the X's as twisty or straightforward as you like.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

I care a great deal more that the maps layout make sense than whether it is looping or linear. If the 'dungeon' is a dwarfen mine then it is likely to be branching, with galleries and shafts leading back to a few entrances. If it is a dwarfen underground highway then darn straight it is going to be linear, while if it is a dwarfen stronghold it will contain loops so that the defenders can reinforce one another (and a good deal of it will be above ground, to control an area).

And for what it is worth I liked the Village in VoH at least as much as the moathouse, and used it as a setting for a large number of adventures aside from the main theme of the adventure.

The Auld Grump


----------



## grodog

hong said:
			
		

> Sure. You just abstract the map into a graph, like Melan did, and wing the actual in-play descriptions. Like this: [image snipped]
> 
> where each X represents an encounter, trap, NPC or otherwise noteworthy location. You can make the connections between the X's as twisty or straightforward as you like.




Sorry, I need to elaborate more hong:  certainly players can map simply without needing to create maps that are exact replicas of the DM's map; but, if players aren't even interested in creating trailing-style maps during play (like the one you made), then does that basically defeat the purpose of freeform dungeons?


----------



## Melan

With a slight delay, here are my replies and comments on points raised by posters up to #47. 

***

1. Two approaches to dungeon design

One already useful result from the thread is that I am now able to coherently formulate a thought on the purpose of dungeons which had been germinating in my mind for some time. There seems to be a split in the game fandom on this subject, and accordingly, it polarises discussion. First, there are those who identify dungeons as a *vehicle for plot-based play*. These people also tend to have fewer problems with linear dungeon layout, or even prefer it to other types. Their preferences are probably better served by a dungeon with a definite beginning, a definite finish and a sequence of encounters, which, when strung together, builds a narrative (or something to that extent). In this game form, the layout or structure of a dungeon doesn’t matter too much. As a provocative statement, I will risk drawing flames by saying that
a) there is no overwhelming need in this case to even have a dungeon map – as a DM, you could direct  the game with statements like _„having defeated the mildly annoying tarnisher monster, you press onward, and after bypassing some side passages, you enter the court of the lich-vampire. You see a marble fountain spraying six sorts of coloured liquid before a great bronze portal._ (etc.)” I am not convinced all players otherwise accustomed to plot-based adventuring would take well to this - as Eric Noah noted, players like their illusion of choice - but taken to the extreme conclusions, that is what linear design is: focusing on a predetermined sequence of encounters.
b) this form of adventure isn’t a real dungeon in the classic sense. For one, it has zero explorative element. What it is instead is *a set-piece, a backdrop to set plot-based adventures in*. This is in stark contrast to the dungeon as originally imagined - a place to adventure in. That kind of dungeon has no _plot_ - this kind doesn’t have _place_. Naturally, I am writing about absolutes, when there is ample room in between.

It is interesting to note how this interpretation of dungeons has influenced game design since the early 80s, so much so that it is considered to be synonymous with it. Even the designers of *Sunless Citadel* and *Forge of Fury*, who admittedly wanted to showcase 3e’s „return to the dungeon” aspect, chose this form which is demonstrably different from the comparatively non-linear introductory modules like *Keep on the Borderlands* or *In Search of the Unknown*. It seems to me that today’s dungeons aren’t the spiritual successors of this form - instead, they can trace their ancestry to _tournament modules_ like *Slave Pits of the Undercity* or even *Tomb of Horrors*. Tournament modules are understandably more linear than others, because they need to standardize the flow of play for comparative purposes (post-tourney appraisal). I also suspect they are associated with less designer guilt, because, after all, a dungeon without a „real purpose” is „dumb”.

The second approach is treating dungeons *as an environment the players can explore*. Although there may as well be some nebulous main objective („Humanoids are raiding the countryside. Kill ’em and take their stuff.”), there is a single reason for the existence of the dungeon in the campaign: to allow exploration in a reasonably freeform environment. In theory, the dungeon is only „finished” when the players tire of it or exploit its adventuring potential. The sequence of play may emerge from goals set by the party or spontaneously. (As an interesting observation from personal experience, the game session seems to often have a buildup, peak and denouement even in such unregulated cases - due to the simple phenomenon that as players exhaust their resources due to attrition, every successive encounter poses more risk of loss, and eventually, one comes which severely taxes the party and may lead to exceptional successes or spectacular failures.) This style is arguably better served - or outright requires - more complex and more extensive maps. In fact, unlike in the other one, negotiating the hostile environment is in itself an element of play. I also posted my OP in a thread on Dragonsfoot, and Evreaux made a very insightful comment to this effect, far better than I could:


> I think a key design principle behind good dungeon design (one foregrounded in your comments and largely missed in the conversation on your post at EnWorld) is that the dungeon itself should be at least as much an obstacle--and entertainment--as any monsters or traps. Shifting walls, one-way secret doors, hidden regions of the dungeon, intricate layouts, all of these features and more are designed to keep the place itself challenging, above and beyond the encounters. This is whence came Gary's caution in the adventuring section of the PHB that if PCs are cut off, their goal should immediately become finding a way back out, regardless of what they had been seeking previously. When tackling an adventure, the dungeon must be addressed first, monsters second. Otherwise, your PC will die deep in the ground, loaded with treasure and unable to get back out. This is why your second two options tend to be better dungeon design (at least, for my money) than the linear ones; they stress the dungeon itself as an opponent, rather than just being an interstate highway with exits at monster rooms. Dungeon design should ideally be the adventuring values of the place expressed formally.





***

2. Meaningful choices and dungeon maps

There seem to be two questions that need to be addressed here. First, what are meaningful choices? Hussar (among others) wrote:


> I suppose the question comes down to: Does turning left or right at random equal a meaningful choice? In a non-linear dungeon, you have little or no information upon which to base a choice. It's all about exploration and filling in the map. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But, I question whether that is somehow a more meaningful choice than in a linear dungeon where you have a pretty good idea of which way will lead to some sort of resolution.



Ironically, I originally had a lengthy paragraph about this question in the original post, but ended up cutting most of it because I thought it would have made the article too long. Oh well.  Meaningful choices may be identified on multiple levels of decision making. Rounser already touched upon them, but here they are again. On the simplest level, not all choices are meaningful. At a nondescript intersection, you may as well flip a coin or follow the golden rule („left hand on the wall”). A DM could provide some information with descriptive hints: a charnel stench to the right, scattered equipment to the left - or use „intersections” which inherently require a meaningful choice (do we take the twisting chimney to a lower level or do we use the marble stairway that is decorated with skulls?). In many cases, this is impossible. But even in a theoretical information-poor dungeon where individual branches are nondescript, choices become meaningful on the strategic level where the goal is managing a whole expedition. For instance, the following questions may come up:
_„Do we delve deep into the dungeon or stay near the entrance and cover more territory?”
„Do we use the shortcut where random encounters are very common, or do we go through that abandoned level we don’t know fully yet?
„How far are we going to go? Do we undertake higher risks for a higher probability of rewards?”_
etc.
As an example, when I was running Necromancer’s *Tomb of Abysthor* module (which I consider a dungeon with a very good layout), the players eventually realized that every time they left the dungeon to recover, their opponents, the cultists Orcus would organize ambushes, try to block certain routes and prepare for their next assault, and that these assaults were progressively getting more and more brutal. It was an interesting dilemma for sure - and it encouraged them to explore further, look for alternate entrances and so forth. The suitably complex structure of the dungeon made this kind of choice possible.

The second question is: how do encounters fit into the map? Some posters seem to have come to the incorrect conclusion that a complex layout means
a) a lot of frustrating mapping puzzles
b) that interesting rooms will be few and far between.
Neither problem is an inherent feature of a well constructed dungeon. It is also possible that certain mapping puzzles are _fun_ if not overdone - they are no different from any other dungeon type encounter like getting across a pit or avoiding a mechanical trap. As Ourph correctly remarked, most of them can be treated as a single unit of the dungeon. In the OP, I can easily point to multiple examples: the complicated minotaur maze in *Keep on the Borderlands* is represented by a crosslike structure (you can essentially get to the minotaur, a fire beetle lair or a secret door that leads to the bugbear chieftain’s hideout), and the room maze in *In Search of the Unknown* is essentially a straight line, because it eventually leads you to the same destination no matter where you go in it. Some mapping puzzles are of course frustrating. I file numerous mazes under this category, such as the minotaur maze in *Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth* or *Borderlands* (I am presently preparing to write up one of my minotaur mazes as a free adventure so there will be one that doesn’t suck ).

It is also not definite that a big, complex dungeon will be miles upon miles of empty space with the occasional encounter. In fact, Paul Jaquays proves in his excellent dungeons (*Dark Tower, Caverns of Thracia, Realm of the Slime God*) that this is far from the truth: the secret is simply putting a lot of good encounters into your dungeon.  Bob Bledsaw’s *Tegel Manor* is another example of a dungeon module where most rooms have an interesting encounter, and the dungeon layout is 100% perfect (coincidentally, I wrote the revised version for Necromancer Games, so I had to become very familiar with how it works - it works very well indeed).

The obvious downside to this approach is that such a dungeon becomes time-consuming to design. That is a real problem with no optimal solution. Iron regime proposed making a map and plopping down encounters as the players explored it. While I wouldn’t advocate this solution as perfect, I remember having a lot of fun this way when I was fourteen and I was running *Ruins of Undermountain* with nothing but the maps, dice and my imagination.  Today, I’d rather be a bit „uneconomical” in my design and let unexploited encounters or even mini-adventures return at a later date, possibly in another campaign. Of course, in a dungeon which accommodates multiple forays and there is no definite end to adventuring, it is more likely that the PCs will stay around and explore unknown sections. And there are some things which remain mysteries - for example, in *Rappan Athuk*, there is a 



Spoiler



hidden tomb on the „purple worms” level which none of Bill Webb and Clark Peterson’s PCs found under 25+years.


 Occasionally, that is no problem either.

***

On to specific comments.

Hussar:


> One thing to add though. If you always go for highly complex set ups, then there is a risk of the party being paralysed by choices. If they know that the maps are going to be looping, with lots of secret doors and what not, then they are going to start acting on that - taking time to search every square inch, going back to the same spot time and again - that sort of thing.
> 
> Once in a while, that might be a good thing, but, for every adventure to follow that track, I'm not so sure. Sometimes that pirate smugglers cave is just a series of four chambers with access to the sea. It doesn't make much sense for every adventure to be so complex.



Yes. That’s why I _usually_ consider it wise to put secrets where their discovery is not due to painstaking searching, but observing your map, examining a natural or man-made feature, or following a hint/rumor/map. As for the second point, I use a lot of small dungeons too, but consider them a part of wilderness adventuring. These should be probably be called „lairs” to differentiate them from the real deal.

Erik Mona:


> This is a fascinating post, in part because I wrestled with some of these same issues when writing "The Whispering Cairn," the Age of Worms Adventure Path kick-off module from Dungeon #124. The Cairn is a much smaller dungeon than many of the ones analyzed in Melan's thought-provoking post, but in order to make it more than just a simple dungeon crawl, I put a lockout mechanism in the dungeon and forced the players to leave the cairn midway through and go on a seemingly unrelated mini-quest. I'm very curious what Melan thinks of that type of encounter setup, and how he might incorporate it into his visual model.



Keeping in mind that I am unfamiliar with Whispering Cairn, my guess would be to insert this detour into the flowchart, even though such „lockouts” tend to make linear design even more linear. There is nothing preventing it. I am ambivalent about these sorts of plot devices; for example, I think a similar element hurt the final dungeon in EGG’s otherwise excellent *Necropolis* mega-adventure by breaking the flow of exploration. But I don’t know, maybe it works in Cairn.



> As an aside, Melan, how dare you call the moathouse dungeon crayfish a more interesting encounter than Lareth the Beautiful? The cleric's staff of striking alone is enough to fell one character in a single round. The encounter has always been very fun when I've run it.



Lareth never impressed me that much. However, I have a high opinion of giant crayfish, *giant frogs  * (most assuredly!), rust monsters, gelatinous cubes, green slime and similar squiggly horrors. They emphasize the whimsical and weird aspect of the game, and are an important part of its character. In fact, they are part of what makes D&D a _non-_generic fantasy game (along with Vancian magic, a decidedly materialistic worldview, etc.). But this is a subject for another thread...



> The town itself is no more boring than places like Orlane or Restenford



Also boring.  Not boring: City State of the Invincible Overlord, Modron, Lankhmar, the Keep.

Settembrini: very good observations! You should post more. 

Ourph: likewise, that’s some very good stuff.

meleeguy:


> The maps in FoF is what drew me to the module in the first place. B&W, but beautiful nonetheless. There is an asthetic component to maps that is important to me, and I find sidelong impressions of the DMs maps usually makes me think "wow, that guy went to alot of trouble for this", and that adds to the experience.



I have also been a lifelong fan of maps, from before I was roleplaying. My dad had a book with maps of caves in them... that had to do something with me getting into dungeoneering.  WRT Forge of Fury’s maps, I was initially very impressed by them, but after a while, I realized that they just weren’t as good as my initial impressions made them seem. The art is very good, though, and I don’t think they are „dangerously bad” in any case.



> As I'm sure your aware, all of this touches on graphing theory which is just more fun with numbers. I'm thinking of trying to get copies of some of the other maps you reference as a result of your post and my appreciation of good maps.



Actually, the images were (indirectly and distantly) inspired by my job - I am a regional economist, and really like abstract, graphical models of economic geography. 

As for getting good maps, I *highly* recommend anything Paul Jaquays did (Necromancer Games recently re-released *Caverns of Thracia*, which is a good start), but there is no way his maps are getting graphed. Simply too complex - Paul's use of the third dimension is unparalleled in game design.


----------



## Melan

hong said:
			
		

> Sure. You just abstract the map into a graph, like Melan did, and wing the actual in-play descriptions. Like this:
> [snip]
> where each X represents an encounter, trap, NPC or otherwise noteworthy location. You can make the connections between the X's as twisty or straightforward as you like.



Precisely. I know players who have done this successfully.



			
				grodog said:
			
		

> (BTW Melan, the Greyhawk Castle maps just arrived on Thursday: I'd be curious to see your flow chart analysis of the top map image from the GH dungeon, or the big Judges Guild maps we linked to in Quasqueton's GC thread, or Wheggi's fabulous Quilt Dungeon map @ http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/php...opic.php?t=1153). I'm not sure that the really complex, larger maps would be very easy to flow, which is why I imagine you stuck to the 1 sheet maps from modules?).



I chose the one-sheet maps because they weren't too complicated and because the thread was intended to make a point and demonstrate a general principle. I would love to chart some of the more complex maps I have, but it would be a much harder thing to do. I will see what I can do with the Sunstone Caverns, though - that's yet another map deserving of praise.


----------



## Soel

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Personally, being a tactics and terrain guy I like complexity in my maps and battle locations - but not just for the sake of complexity - what is there has to make sense.




I totally agree as a player. As a dm, I do like complex maps, but perhaps I let a little too much logic into things, and am forced to question why they would make passages that circle around, with secret doors, and traps about. If I can answer those questions in the sense of the adventure, or its backstory, then I use complexity.

However, most of the time, logic wins out, and complexity is thrown out in favor of utility (from the perspective of the dungeon's builders.) I always seek some sort of middle ground, if I can.

BTW, thanks, Melan, for the analysis, research, and discussion (and inevitably, idea,) sparking!


----------



## Quasqueton

Nice work Melan, but you sprinkled too much personal opinion in there for its own good. It's asking for argument rather than discussion.

Linear dungeons are not inherently better or worse than "all over the place" dungeons. As you note, there are examples of well-loved classic dungeons using all the various mapping styles. (People often overlook the vast diversity of classic adventure modules.)

Linear style is better for "mission" adventures, and "all over the place" style is better for "exploration" adventures. A party can have both kinds (and others) during a full campaign. If every dungeon was linear, or if every dungeon was "all over the place", it would get pretty boring to me.

What I dislike about linear dungeons is when there is no way for the inhabitants to get around -- like how do the rear creatures get past the front creatures? (This is what I hate about _White Plume Mountain_.) What I dislike about "all over the place" dungeons is lots of anticlimatic deadends or mazes. (This is what I hate about _In Search of the Unknown_.) Both styles can have their flaws, just as both styles have their benefits.

The adventure I'm running for my D&D group right now is a linear dungeon leading to a "all over the place" dungeon. It is a pyramid (entrance at the top) that leads them down through a series of encounters in a linear style, and then opens up to a prison where they have plenty of choices for direction -- some routes loop back around, but some are deadend branches

Quasqueton.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes

I have to defend Melan on this 'personal opinion' thing.  It's only fair that he states his biases up front.  I think it's fine to state opinions as such, especially when they are so eloquently defended!

Your post also has personal opinions, Qasquetron.  I'd love to see a post from you, supporting them with as much data and analysis as Melan has given us.  Perhaps a thread on how to run a linear dungeon without railroading?

Ken


----------



## Raven Crowking

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I think the map should fit the adventure, but that said, I prefer complex maps to linear ones in most cases because they offer more opportunities for meaningful player choices.
> 
> I always create much more material than I actually use, and I don't plan "stories" that require the players to choose from a limited set of options in order to hit plot points along the way, so there's no issue of "wasted" work or players "missing" something.




I pretty well agree with this.

I think that linear dungeons are sometimes actually simply "encounter areas" in a less-linear setting, and I also think that linear (i.e., simple) dungeons are sometimes necessary because of realism.  The lair of the Bonewardens (i.e., Dragonskull Dungeon), IMC, was fairly linear because of the nature of its builders.  OTOH, my mega-dungeon (The Dungeon of Thale) back in 2e days allowed my players the joy of locating new spots and hidden areas -- and this was a big draw to the dungeon.  (I had several groups in the same campaign, and they competed to locate new areas first...)


----------



## Quasqueton

> Your post also has personal opinions, Qasquetron. I'd love to see a post from you, supporting them with as much data and analysis as Melan has given us. Perhaps a thread on how to run a linear dungeon without railroading?



First off, my name is "Quasqueton" (name taken from the classic BD&D adventure _In Search of the Unknown_). 

Of course my post has personal opinions, it was a post of my opinion of the data he presented. The "support" for my opinion is the data right in the opening post. I don't think I said anything in opposition to, or contradictory to the data Melan provided. But I did state my opinion in opposition to and contradictory to the opinion Melan provided.

He looks at the data and sees one side of the subject, and I look at the data and see several sides of the subject.

And I didn't say that his having a personal opinion, or even stating his personal opinion was bad. I said:







> Nice work Melan, but you sprinkled too much personal opinion in there for its own good. It's asking for argument rather than discussion.



Presenting data as support for one's opinion tends to invite argument over the opinion. Presenting data straight, as is, invites discussion of the data.



> Perhaps a thread on how to run a linear dungeon without railroading?



How can you run a linear dungeon without railroading? Run it like you would anything else. Railroading is a phenomenon that has nothing at all to do with linear dungeons.

Quasqueton


----------



## Garnfellow

One thing about the old school, branching adventures: their non-linear structure probably reads a heck of a lot better to budding DMs than they actually play at the table. 

I cut my teeth on the old modules, and the stuff I loved -- freaking loved! -- about those modules were all the weird, secret things that were devilishly hidden behind lost portals or under long-forgotten trap doors. You know what I’m talking about: strange magical effects that would only be produced if one were to correctly place the right number of mystical items in just the right combination at precisely the right moment. Put three rubies in that magical censor and you would be instantly disintegrated, no save. But put two EMERALDS in the censor, and you would open up a gate to the Elemental Plane of Water, where a powerful demigod would give you a permanent +2 to your Wisdom score!

When I would run those modules, I would wait in fevered anticipation for the players to approach one of these special, secret areas. Would this be the time they summoned the Elder Elemental God? Would this be the time they free the angry spectre trapped in the mirror? Oh my, oh my, the possibilities!

But instead, they usually just missed that secret door. 

Or maybe worse, sometimes they went over every square inch of the dungeon with a whisk and a magnifying glass, cataloging and mapping every feature with a thoroughness that would make the team from CSI: Greyhawk green with envy. When the PCs did find the super secret special areas, they would systematically dismantle it with grim efficiency, almost never stopping to experiment. They never found out what would happen if two emeralds were placed in the mystical censor, because dammit, those things had real gp value and besides, that dungeon trick stuff was just as likely to screw you as help.

Sometimes I would be so eager to see one of these special secret areas that I would drop hints (often clumsily). The players often missed these hints, or were (rightfully) distrustful. And even if they did follow up, I was usually let down by the result because it felt like I was cheating.

After a while, I began to question the point of some of the more esoteric secret areas. My time making and running dungeons is precious and fleeting. If these super secret area are so hard to find or use that almost no one ever does so, why even put them on the map? A cleverly hidden treasure vault makes perfect sense in a wizard’s tower, and the players will be naturally scouring the tower area for it. But a secret temple lost millennia ago and that absolutely no one knows about and is buried under 12 tons of rubble? Why bother to fully key out something like that when a cryptic suggestion in the text would serve just as well?


----------



## Delta

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Presenting data as support for one's opinion tends to invite argument over the opinion. Presenting data straight, as is, invites discussion of the data.




That I would have to disagree with. You might consider philosophers such as Habermas or Foucault on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Or, as Richard Unger wrote in the preface to _The Ship in the Medival Economy_, "It is easy to fall into the trap of concern for the data itself."


----------



## Quasqueton

Habermas, Foucault, Unger weren't posting on Internet message boards.

Quasqueton


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> One thing about the old school, branching adventures: their non-linear structure probably reads a heck of a lot better to budding DMs than they actually play at the table.




I don't know about that.  My 13 year-old self had a real problem figuring out how to use those original modules.  When I saw the open-ended module, I couldn't figure out what to do with it.  I needed more guidance at the time, whereas now I can figure out what to do with them.



			
				Garnfellow said:
			
		

> But instead, they usually just missed that secret door.




I'm with you there.  Secret doors are a challenge - they're secret, yet as DM, you want them to be found.

As for Melan's point - I think that non-linear vs. linear dungeon design and story concerns can be isolated from one another.  One can have a perfectly good story that is non-linear.


----------



## Ourph

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I'm with you there.  Secret doors are a challenge - they're secret, yet as DM, you want them to be found.




That attitude is part of the reason why linear dungeons have become so popular.  If you have a vested interest in the PCs finding a secret door or discovering a specific item you're much more likely to get that outcome if the PCs have only a single path to follow.  If the adventure pretty much stops when the PCs miss the secret door then they'll probably keep searching until they find it.  Whereas if there's always another hallway to explore or another level to move onto, that secret door may go undiscovered for the entire campaign.  A non-linear dungeon requires the DM to be an impartial judge rather than a cheerleader or storywriter.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Ourph said:
			
		

> If the adventure pretty much stops when the PCs miss the secret door then they'll probably keep searching until they find it.




True.  I tend to avoid such things as much as I can in my games - the secret door may conceal something cool, but I don't have any problem if they miss it.  Any unused/undiscovered design-work from one scenario can be made use of in a later one if it fits, or even used in a later campaign.


----------



## Mark

I don't view secret doors as a device to keep things hidden from PCs but rather to explain why other NPCs or creatures haven't discovered what is beyond them.


----------



## Rothe

Melan, excellent post.  Have you done any other dungeons or take requests perhaps?
I would love to see The Caverns of Thracia analyzed what with the mulitiude of secret doors and sub-levels.


----------



## Rothe

Melan said:
			
		

> ...snip...
> As for getting good maps, I *highly* recommend anything Paul Jaquays did (Necromancer Games recently re-released *Caverns of Thracia*, which is a good start), but there is no way his maps are getting graphed. Simply too complex - Paul's use of the third dimension is unparalleled in game design.




Should have read the whole thread first.     Can you be convinced to try otherwise?


----------



## Mycanid

Very nicely thought out Melan. Man, I would never have the patience to sit down and organize it all out like that.

On the whole, though, I find that I also tend to like linear dungeons that MAKE SENSE. For me this is the biggy. Items and "clues" and what not (i.e. "important" things) can easily be put at "bottleneck" locations between areas on the map if you wanted to have variety in types of mapping, of course, but, as the others have said, I really think the map has to make sense and harmonize well with the basic dungeon/adventure design.

But others have already said basically this anyway. Just wanted to say "hoorah" to your effort and add my two cents.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes

*secret passages*

We could start a whole extra thread on the subject of whether the PCs should always find all the hidden/secret areas in a dungeon, lest they be 'wasted'.

In my opinion it is fine if they aren't found.  When I play D&D I don't want the DM to decide what treasure I should get this week.  Rather, I want him to sprinkle a campaign world with treasures, some well guarded, others merely hidden, and let my character try to find them to the best of his ability.

For my PC's +13 Search skill (in which I invested many ranks, and which is achieved with the help of a magical item my PC paid dearly for) to matter, the DM can't have predetermined how much treasure the party 'should' get, or rather, how much he is going to 'give out'.  If I know a DM has all this predetermined, I won't bother taking ranks in search at all!


Ken


----------



## Mycanid

Yes, yes, yes! An excellent idea regarding the secret passages....

I'd love to hear other's ideas on these in overall design.


----------



## Melan

Rothe said:
			
		

> Should have read the whole thread first.     Can you be convinced to try otherwise?



Probably, but it would be abstracted further than the maps I analysed, and the end result would still be a very complicated (and probably graphically unintuitive) diagram. Maybe later.

Quasqueton: being objective leads to information-free truisms like "the sky is blue", "racism is wrong" and "water is wet". Since roleplaying games and are inherently subjective, I don't see much value in discussing them "objectively".


----------



## Delta

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Habermas, Foucault, Unger weren't posting on Internet message boards.




Philiosophy of knowledge does not change due to the communication medium.

Nontheless, here is Unger posting on an Internet message board: http://dmmc.lib.virginia.edu/lists_archive/Humanist/v07/0055.html


----------



## reanjr

ironregime said:
			
		

> I pretty much agree with arscott and Vrecknidj.
> 
> What if I designed a really awesome, multi-dimensional dungeon map with lots of ways the players could go, and then instead of making a key of encounters, I just sat down and made a list of all the fun and important encounters that the PCs should experience before they got to the end?




That's exactly how I run dungeons.  I admit I don't do many dungeons, but when I do, it seems to work out pretty well.  Linear dungeons (depending on the scenario) just don't make sense.  Real complex structures have many ways to go from one place to another.  Think of the Pentagon, one of the largest office buildings in the world.  It is 0.25 square miles floorspace, 17.5 miles of hallway, yet you can get from any one place to any other pace in the building in a matter of minutes.

But, having the players meander around aimlessly describing hallway after hallway and room after room and running incidental encounter after incidental encounter is booooooring.

On the other hand, if a dungeon is being used for multiple scenarios, I have the following suggestions.

First you can have the layered approach.  Each section of the dungeon has only one or two entrances into it that must be reached by moving through other sections.  This progression should be linear.  Section 1 comes before section 2, etc.  But within the sections, the map can be complex but the scope should be small so as to avoid confusion or too much wandering.

The spoke approach is similar, except that one section (the hub) is connected to all other sections.  The other sections should not connected.  Preferably, the hub is the entrance to the dungeon, but this is not necessary.

Secret doors, in my experience, are a terrible idea unless used VERY sparingly.  Drop an incidental secret door somewhere and suddenly you have a party that must stop in every room to take 20 on search checks.  There should be no more than 1 or 2 secret doors per dungeon and they should be in "obvious" places.  The secret door in the back of the wardrobe in the King's Quarters makes sense, giving the king a way to escape in case of emergency.  The secret door leading from the kitchen to the conservatory does not and will spark your players into a plethora of search checks.

More specifically, linear is ok if it's riddled with good encounters and good story.  The detour approach (sidetracks) is not so good.  It is either not rewarding (great we wasted all that time going down this way, now we have to turn around) or (if rewards are given) rewards players who "comb the desert" looking in every little corner to make sure they found everything (a common trope in video games that should be avoided in RPGs).  Branching is the simplest to run and works well for natural cave structures.  Works especially well for chase or search and destroy.  This can fall to the same problems as sidetracks though, so be careful to make encounters promote the idea that by forging on ahead the players will not only find their goal, but will get there in the least amount of time and be rewarded for such.  Complex mazes (circular design) are the most realistic for a manufactured structure.  They are great for many types of adventures, but can suffer from player overload if they do not have a good grasp of object visualization (they will get lost or turned in circles).  This will only lead to chalk arrows on the wall which, again, slows down the game.  This is the hardest to design right.  The rooms should be logical and follow a natural progression that gives clues as to their purpose and how they fit into the scheme of things.  Players should be able to make a very good guess as to which direction to travel to reach the throne room, for instace.

The Sunless Citadel map looks pretty good.  The branch goblin/kobold idea is good, but would probably be better served by choosing which you wanted them to fight (kobolds or goblins) and making that whatever path the players take.  The one they don't take could be filled with some sort of reward or "extra" encounter (a single big creature would be best rather than a bunch of little opponents) for those players who decide to be thorough.  There are a few too many branches, though except for the crypt one, they appear to be short and insignificant.

The main problems I see with Forge of Fury is that it has secret doors that (seem) pointless and the mix of motifs.  It switches from linear to branch to sidetrack to circular with too much frequency.  This causes players to avoid getting into a single mindset of how to approach the dungeon.

Keep on the Borderlands is fantastic.  My one complaint is there might be a few too many secret doors.  If they are presented to the players in such a way that they KNOW they are simply shortcuts, it should be alright.  Wonderful use of branching to present the hub concept.

In Search of the Unknown looks ok, but as I mentioned before, a good circular dungeon structure must be backed up by good logical design.  It is probably too complex for neophyte players (in terms of dungeon-crawling at least) or those who are horrible at keeping track of objects in their head.  May be inappropriate for many parties.  Remember that if only one person can handle the map complexity, then that pushes the other players into second class citizen roles, so most of the party has to be ready for something like this.

Hommlet looks to me like it might have too many branches (or at least the branches are too large in comparison to the rest).  It also suffers from secret door anxiety.  Actually if you removed all the secret door and placed one in front of the crayfish with a big reward it would probably be a great dungeon.

I had intended to finish this, but someone just arrived to visit, so I will have to cut it short.


----------



## Hussar

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Ola, the Mingol discourses wisely - in particular...Exactly - legends and rumors, fragments of old maps, parley with dungeon denizens, changes in architectural style all lend weight to the character decision-making process.




Of course, the danger here is leaving a trail of breadcrumbs.  If you start giving out hints, legends, whatnot about the adventure, we're right back to the idea that every secret room should be found.  If the choice is weighted, then the dungeon becomes more or less linear again.  If I KNOW that there is a secred door in the back of the mountain, then I'm certainly not going to waltz right into the front gate.  If that's true, then the existence of the front gate really doesn't matter.

As far as secret doors goes, well, we run into the idea that adventures should be loaded up with two or three times as much treasure because the PC's will only find half of it.  Unfortunately, that assumption shouldn't be made by game designers.  If I assume that the party will only find half the treasure and your adventuring party finds 90% of it, then my module has just taken a nice big doo doo in the middle of your campaign.  

So many people have commented about having to strip much of the treasure out of those old modules because they were so overloaded.  I don't think that they are complaining for nothing.


----------



## MonsterMash

This has been a really excellent thread. Melan I like your analysis and it ties into what I like or dislike in an adventure and has made me think about what I'm going to do for some adventures I'm trying to write up.


----------



## Treebore

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure he did no such thing - and instead the writer did exactly what Eric said he did.
> 
> Did we read the same article?





I'm just reading through this thread, so someone may have already addressed this later in the thread, but the OP does use a lot of "In my opinion" statements. I interpret the regular useage to mean he is not trying to preach, but give his opinion.

So, in MY opinion, I think you and Eric missed Melan's intended stance.

Isn't it cool, and irritating, how we can read the same writings and look at the same pictures, but form different impressions/opinions/etc..?


----------



## Gold Roger

Interesting thread.

I think there are two kinds of "dungeons".

One are short dungeons that are done in one or two sessions, are visited with a specific goal in mind or as short diversive sidetracks. For these it doesn't really matter how linear they are, because they will be completely explored in that short time anyway.

The other are the classical mega dungeons. Such dungeons are either part of the campaign in one big dungeon crawl or visited frequently over the curse of one campaign for various reason, each time discovering more.

I think it's that second kind of dungeon that Melans analysis aplies to. Of course from his old-schooler perspective only the second type can really call themself dungeons or even site based adventures. And to a certain degree I agree. After all you don't really explore the first kind, but rather you solve them.

Do both types have a place in a style-balanced campaign- certainly, I know I like to have both in my campaign along with city adventures, wilderness adventures and event based adventures.

I, for my part, aplaude Melans effort, because I know it helped me understand some basic design principles of mega dungeons I was lacking earlier on. And I was really in need of those, seeing how mega dungeons are where I'm weakest at but jet something I desperately want to be part of my campaigns.


----------



## GQuail

This was a very interesting post.  While it is, as the author admits, coloured strongly by some of personal opinions, I find the dissection of modules most interesting.

In my current group, dungeon crawls are seen more as a nuisance than a joy: I specifically gave them a large, optional, non-linear Dwarven hold to choose to explore, and they set about it like a chore, so uesd were they to me railroading them through everything.    I have tried to remedy this with my current dungeon by using the old "get to dungeon bottom then it starts to flood" trick: combined with some other obstacles, this will hopefully make the Dungeon far more memorable to them.

Re: secret doors and the like: for me, at least, if I put something into the Dungeon it's to be found.  Pregenerated dungeons which include "hidden extras" are one thing, and can be a bonus to paticularly lucky or smart players, but I simply will not spend an hour on designing encounters, treasures, maps etc that my players may just walk past and never get to.  That doesn't mean I throw everything into their hands, per se: but I certainly would keep the time spent on bonus optional extras to a minimum.  Either it's something short and sweet (like a secret treasure stash for players on the ball to subtle hints, or a hidden chamber with a mural which confirms a plot suspicion) or it's something big that I fully intend them to perhaps work out later on.

An example of the latter was a dungeon I made with five floors, each of which had the same general map: but which doors were visible, locked, secret etc was different, as was the staircases.   Players saw no clue on the first floor or two to the fact a whole western section was cut off: but those who got as far as level three found a door in an unexpected place, and from there found a mirroring location on the second floor.  Getting back up to the first floor and searching for the door that matched gave them access to a chunk of the dungeon they'd missed, and with it stairwells to the lower depths.  It wasn't guaranteed the players would work it out, of course, but it was designed to be found rather than to be an "elite players only" prize.


----------



## Psion

EricNoah said:
			
		

> It helps when, with experience, you get good at disguising linearity a bit.  Bending, twisting, the third dimension, etc. can help, as can the occasional branch or self-contained loop.




I think the thing to keep in mind about linear versus branching or looping design is this: with linear design, the flow of play is predictable (which has upsides and downsides.) The less linear you are, the more randomized the number and nature of the encounters is, and you get things like two different groups reporting entirely different experiences. Non-linearity essentially randomizes the number of encounters in the game. 

This can be important if you are trying to manage your time. Nobody wants to be stuck in the middle of a dungeon on the last game before a vacation. On the other hand, I have no problems pulling out a nice branching/looping dungeon like Rappan Athuk or Undermountain if I am just interested in running a few encounters and kicking back with some friends, and am not really concerned about reaching a goal at the end.

THAT SAID, I use Undermountain in a fairly linear goal-oriented fashion fairly frequently, simply by providing maps and guides. So sometimes, the wall and corridons don't tell the whole story.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes

Shouldn't parties that are good at finding treasure find more than parties that suck at it?  Isn't that what the search skill is for?

Ken



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> As far as secret doors goes, well, we run into the idea that adventures should be loaded up with two or three times as much treasure because the PC's will only find half of it.  Unfortunately, that assumption shouldn't be made by game designers.  If I assume that the party will only find half the treasure and your adventuring party finds 90% of it, then my module has just taken a nice big doo doo in the middle of your campaign.


----------



## Hussar

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> Shouldn't parties that are good at finding treasure find more than parties that suck at it?  Isn't that what the search skill is for?
> 
> Ken




I dunno, I use search for all sorts of things - finding traps, maps, non-coin kinds of stuff.

If a module contains three times the wealth that is appropriate for the level, but assumes that the party will only find a third of it, I would say that that's a poor design.  Those additional rooms are either filler for parties that don't enjoy going over everything with a fine tooth comb or they pretty much consign a game to the halls of Monty if the party does.

I would say that adventures that take a big dump in the middle of my campaign are poorly designed regardless of the maps that generated them.


----------



## Mark

Hussar said:
			
		

> As far as secret doors goes, well, we run into the idea that adventures should be loaded up with two or three times as much treasure because the PC's will only find half of it.





I don't think that's the assumption.  Treasure needs to be spread around, IMO, near where a challenge is overcome and in appropriate measure to those challenges.  If you don't get beyond a secret door, you don't face the challenges beyond that secret door, and don't glean the rewards.  However, the challenges prior to a secret door need to have their own rewards.  I've never been one to pile all the treasure up at the end of an adventure.  Sometimes, too, it is good to dole out some specific treasure near the beginning to be sure the group has the tools and resources to overcome later challenges.  Of course, it needs to be decided what incarnation or form such treasure takes but all DMs and designers are clever by birth, right?


----------



## T. Foster

Hussar said:
			
		

> If a module contains three times the wealth that is appropriate for the level, but assumes that the party will only find a third of it, I would say that that's a poor design.  Those additional rooms are either filler for parties that don't enjoy going over everything with a fine tooth comb or they pretty much consign a game to the halls of Monty if the party does.




What if the dungeon contains double the wealth that is appropriate for the level but hides two thirds of it, so that a careless party that doesn't find any of the hidden treasure comes out poorer than what's appropriate, a reasonably thorough party (that recovers 1/4 of the hidden treasure) comes out even, and a very thorough (or just lucky) party that recovers half the hidden treasure comes out a bit ahead of what's appropriate? That seems pretty reasonable to me -- punishing careless play and rewarding careful play. 

As for the theoretical party that is so thorough that they discover _all_ of the hidden treasure, there are already correcting mechanisms within the rules (the OD&D and 1E rules (which are the only ones I know) at least) for this -- more time spent searching equals more wandering monster checks; encumbrance means you can only carry so much treasure now matter how much you find; experience caps mean if you get too many XP (more than enough to go up 1 level) the extra amount is wasted; the measure of challenge system means if you dawdle facing opponents that aren't your equal you get reduced XP awards. Combining all of these factors, skillful players will recognize that trying to recover every last bit of hidden treasure has a poor cost:benefit ratio and they're better off recovering just enough treasure to get to the next level and then moving on to bigger challenges (with corresponding richer rewards).

Plus, the fact that the dungeon isn't stripped totally bare makes it reusable -- unrecovered treasures remaining on the first dungeon level while the main party is busy exploring dungeon level 4 means a second group of players (or a second set of characters for the original players) can explore dungeon level 1 and find the treasure that the first party missed without the DM having to turn back the clock or "magically" restock the place. The fact that as the second group explores they'll see evidence of the first group's passage helps create the atmosphere of the "living dungeon" that is so vital to the ongoing mega-dungeon style campaign.


----------



## riprock

*Monsters Moving in Loops*



			
				EricNoah said:
			
		

> A loop certainly makes it more possible for creatures to move about in less predictable ways.  That can make for a fun portion of an adventure -- when you loop back to what you think is an explored region to find it is newly inhabited!




I really like the original article.  I feel one of the things that gives D&D a great deal of atmosphere is the fact that the aesthetics of dungeon exploration are unlike anything in history -- it combines the thrill of an archaeologist opening King Tut's tomb with the thrill of a commando killing enemies on a mission.  If you are preserving that weird thrill, then dungeons with lots of exploration and loops are great.  (Also passwall and divination spells are powerful!)

The original article reminded me a lot of Deus Ex's level design -- the original Deus Ex was designed so that there would be at least three ways to get to any interesting detail.  That way, there is a stealthy way, a gun bunny way, etc.  Even if a player is bad at one game skill, he can probably have a fair chance to find the neat stuff.

Also, the original article made me recall my first criticism of dungeons is that living things don't like to live in holes with just one entrance.  Rabbits, dogs, humans -- all of us are smart enough to make sure we have a back door to run out in case the front door is blocked.  Many linear modules put in escape routes, but they cheat because they don't have exits labelled on the map.  You could comb the wilderness and never find the escape route exit.

If dungeons have multiple entrance/exits, then maneuver becomes more realistic and more fun.

Getting to Eric Noah's quote above, moving monsters do indeed move in loops.  Consider the way humans use a fairly large suburban house.  They have a front door, a garage door, a back door, and they use them at different times for different purposes.

If I have one "lesson learned" from D&D maps, it's that it can be hard to balance challenge with survivability.

E.g. if the dungeon is fairly realistic and the monsters have an alarm system (e.g. a gong or drum as suggested in the AD&D books) then it's usually easy for a group of monsters to surround invaders and crush them with overwhelming force.

My own history with D&D is that I tended to start with dungeon exploration and move on to more outdoor adventures with a large maneuver warfare element, where cavalry tactics became very prominent.  However, as I progressed, I lost the characteristic thrill of D&D -- I lost the "archaeologist" thrill and only got the "commando" thrill.

I am a very big fan of immersion in RPGs.  Immersion is easily lost in wargames and combat simulations.  D&D's weird thrill -- combining the archaeologist, the commando, etc. -- often was rooted in very atmospheric modules which really produced a "sense of place" in the reader.


----------



## Ourph

Hussar said:
			
		

> If I assume that the party will only find half the treasure and your adventuring party finds 90% of it, then my module has just taken a nice big doo doo in the middle of your campaign.
> 
> So many people have commented about having to strip much of the treasure out of those old modules because they were so overloaded.  I don't think that they are complaining for nothing.




Well DUH!!! What do you think Rust Monsters are for?  (kidding   )


----------



## Melan

Hussar said:
			
		

> If a module contains three times the wealth that is appropriate for the level, but assumes that the party will only find a third of it, I would say that that's a poor design.  Those additional rooms are either filler for parties that don't enjoy going over everything with a fine tooth comb or they pretty much consign a game to the halls of Monty if the party does.
> 
> I would say that adventures that take a big dump in the middle of my campaign are poorly designed regardless of the maps that generated them.



You are still operating from the assumptions that
a) a party's wealth has to be balanced by level and player skill should not be a significant factor;
b) a dungeon will be designed for one use only, strip-mined of loot and encounters, and never revisited.
Naturally, there is no accounting for taste, but neither assumptions should be taken as evident.

riprock: good first post!


----------



## Treebore

Hussar,

You were really starting to annoy me with all your argumentative attitudes on so many posts, but then it just hit me you are one of those people who likes to argue to see if anything truly brilliant comes out if it. You'll even argue positions you don't personally agree with just to see if who your arguing with can give you an interesting new perspective.

Now I think your A OK.  

You going to GenCon? I am. Lets see if we can share a drink at the Ram. Do some friendly arguing. We'll have to keep our language pretty clean, though. My daughter is coming with me.


----------



## Hussar

Melan said:
			
		

> You are still operating from the assumptions that
> a) a party's wealth has to be balanced by level and player skill should not be a significant factor;
> b) a dungeon will be designed for one use only, strip-mined of loot and encounters, and never revisited.
> Naturally, there is no accounting for taste, but neither assumptions should be taken as evident.
> 
> riprock: good first post!




After we've cleared out the baddies, why would we keep going back?  Take Keep on the Borderlands for example.  After I've gone through all the caves, why would I go back?  Actually, after I've gone through a given cave, what reason would I have for going back?

As far as party's wealth being balanced by level, I would think that that's a self evident goal.  Monty Haul campaigns have existed since the game started and have been universally condemned.  Sure, it might be fun for my 3rd level character to be waltzing around with a Frost Brand, but, generally, that's considered a bad thing.  

If playing in Module X means that every adventure that I use afterwards has to be massively adjusted upwards because Module X has far too much treasure, then, well, I would never say that Module X is well designed.

An adventure shouldn't screw over every other following adventure.


----------



## Keith Robinson

A very interesting thread and an excellent post by Melan   

It made me look at and think about my own dungeon designs.  I may even use the models to design some future dungeons.  Mostly, however, I find that dungeons I am designing evolve organically and then get filled later.  I have a basic premise to work with (so there are x number of chambers or rooms that will be required to house these specific denizens), but then I fill out the rest as I feel fit.  Often, this will then get revisited as I revise the dungeons by adding, removing and changing things.

Often, some of the more unusual or interesting encounters will actually evolve from the map - you just look at part of your creation and then think _oh, this would be a good idea for there_.  Often enough, the map will get changed again to fit the new idea.

Working from a template to design a dungeon would be an interesting idea and one, as I say, that I may adopt.  After all, the template doesn't stop the flow of imagination or the dungeon evolving dynamically - it just allows you to have an understanding of how the dungeon dynamics will work.

As for there being one better dungeon type than another, I think this thread has shown that not to be the case, as all sorts of people have all sorts of opinions and preferences.  And besides, some kinds of dungeons just don't fit the concept.

A very interesting and thought provoking post and thread.  Thanks for sharing


----------



## Melan

Hussar said:
			
		

> As far as party's wealth being balanced by level, I would think that that's a self evident goal.  Monty Haul campaigns have existed since the game started and have been universally condemned.  Sure, it might be fun for my 3rd level character to be waltzing around with a Frost Brand, but, generally, that's considered a bad thing.



That's not a Monty Haul campaign. A Monty Haul campaign is one where rewards aren't balanced out by threats. _If_ low level characters operate highly efficiently and get treasure beyond their normal _PC levels_ by being clever, it is not Monty Haul gaming - it is just rewards for being clever and effective. Outsmarting the DM, performing well above expected norms. If a third level character gets a frost brand in the process, so be it. He gets to keep it, and as long as it can be held onto (for it will be desired by thieves and other, higher level NPCs, not to mention the possibility of corrosive oozes, rust monsters, crushing ceiling traps and whatnot), it can serve the PC's purposes. It is a great reward for the smart _player_.


----------



## Hussar

So, tossing in a Frostbrand into a 3rd level adventure is a sign of good design?

And, if the players actually get said Frostbrand, the DM should automatically go into adversity mode and actively try to strip that reward from the player.  So, how is the clever player being rewarded again?  

How is finding a secret door and getting that Frostbrand "outsmarting the DM"?  If the DM didn't want the party to have it, it shouldn't be there.  Putting stuff into an adventure with the idea that no one will ever find it seems awfully strange to me.  Sort of a Nelsonish "Ha ha" moment when the party blithely walks past the secret door they had no chance of finding anyway.


----------



## Melan

I feel I am sucked away from the original topic of this thread, but...



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> So, tossing in a Frostbrand into a 3rd level adventure is a sign of good design?



It is a question independent of good or bad design. An adventure may generally be calibrated for a certain level range, but may include challenges and rewards outside that area. For example, the upper levels Necromancer's *Rappan Athuk* is generally for 5th to 7th level PCs, but there are challenges like 



Spoiler



the Well, the archmage tomb on level three, the rakshasha


 which are much more difficult and much more rewarding. 

That, plus instead of "adventures", in the case of "old school" games, we should be speaking of environments. Adventures happen in these locations based on the risks the players are willing to take through their characters, and this is the primary way game balance is achieved instead of CR or some other game mechanism. High level areas may be immediately available (again, Rappan Athuk is a typical example), but probably not "advisable" to explore. If the environment is freeform, the PCs may play safe and go where they will meet threats and rewards at their level of competence, or play above their league for extra rewards, substituting player skill in the stead of character power. Rumors, consultation with sages, recon, sending in lower level probe teams may all be useful tools to gauge which area is dangerous and which is an acceptable challenge. [As a side note, I find these kinds of player strategies very, _very_ fascinating. They were features of 1970s gaming but were eventually forgotten or superceded by other forms of game management - generally by much stricter constraints.]



> And, if the players actually get said Frostbrand, the DM should automatically go into adversity mode and actively try to strip that reward from the player.  So, how is the clever player being rewarded again?



The players have chosen to play above their league, found a reward granting them additional power. If they can exploit that power cleverly, they get to keep it. But it is only logical - not to mention _fun_ to a certain extent - for the DM to test them if they are worthy of it. It even has that verisimilitude stuff, to boot.



> How is finding a secret door and getting that Frostbrand "outsmarting the DM"?  If the DM didn't want the party to have it, it shouldn't be there.  Putting stuff into an adventure with the idea that no one will ever find it seems awfully strange to me.  Sort of a Nelsonish "Ha ha" moment when the party blithely walks past the secret door they had no chance of finding anyway.



Nope. Some players will never find anything concealed by secret doors or otherwise secreted. Others will find small amounts. A select few will find those which are hidden by unconventional means through lateral thinking. There is no need for all treasures to be found by all groups.

But again, I think we are departing from the subject of mapping and straying into a discussion centered around "what goes in those maps".


----------



## riprock

Melan said:
			
		

> You are still operating from the assumptions that
> a) a party's wealth has to be balanced by level and player skill should not be a significant factor;
> b) a dungeon will be designed for one use only, strip-mined of loot and encounters, and never revisited.
> Naturally, there is no accounting for taste, but neither assumptions should be taken as evident.
> 
> riprock: good first post!




Thanks, it's nice to relax and talk about something other than my Chinese classes.

By the way, I heard a war story of an in-depth player who liked getting deep into the story.  At one point his 16th level D&D party cleared out a mountain that was full of tunnels.  With all the monsters dead, the player recalled that there was a homeless tribe of dwarves wandering around.  The player character invited the dwarves to take over the mountain as a new home.

The player character in question was a paladin, but he was hoping the dwarves would be grateful enough to become his allies in his quest to defeat the lich who killed his brother.  The campaign ended with real-life acrimony over differing play styles, but the player gets my kudos for combining in-character paladin generosity with in-character strategic thinking.


----------



## Evreaux

Hussar said:
			
		

> After we've cleared out the baddies, why would we keep going back?  Take Keep on the Borderlands for example.  After I've gone through all the caves, why would I go back?  Actually, after I've gone through a given cave, what reason would I have for going back?




I think your totally reasonable question highlights something that should be made explicit--namely that two things are being discussed in this thread, _dungeons_ and _Dungeons_.

To me, a dungeon is an episodic set piece that probably occurs in the midst of a larger campaign filled with other dungeons, as well as wilderness and urban adventures.  It probably has no more than a few dozen rooms (and sometimes far fewer), a clear goal, and a relatively static environment.  _The Keep on the Borderlands_ is a good example; some orcs in a raiding party may return, but by and large you can clear out the baddies and there isn't any reason to return.  It is, in simplified terms, a discrete underground area with monsters.

A Dungeon, on the other hand, has hundreds of rooms (mine has over 1200), is teeming with creatures, and changes both in reaction to and independent of the party's actions; such a place most likely forms the centerpiece of the campaign itself.  It is quite literally impossible to clear out the baddies and, thus, multiple parties can go back in again and again, encountering new monsters and discovering new areas every time.  The original Dungeon under Castle Greyhawk is the ur-example.  It is, in simplified terms, a vast and unfathomable region of the mythical underworld.

In my experience, there are different design values implicit in each concept.  They serve different purposes and play different roles in the campaign.  I agree with Melan that this is getting slightly off-topic, but I do think the distinction is important when analyzing what style of map design is most effective for your adventure goals.

Just my thoughts on the issue.  YMMV.


----------



## grodog

Melan said:
			
		

> I feel I am sucked away from the original topic of this thread, but...




Melan, it seems that some folks find it difficult to separate the encounters from the maps, per your original intent:  whether because the maps influence the encounters, they hide encounters too effectively, etc.  Perhaps you need to provide some more suggestions on how the dungeon environment plays an _active role_ in the game, rather than a passive one:  the mapping process, the varied environmental challenges excemplified by Roger Musson's "The Dungeon Architect" articles from White Dwarf or some of Gygax's "Up on a Soapbox" columns about Greyhawk Castle's development, Rob Kuntz's brilliant dungeon design in the Maze of Zayene #1 Prisoners of the Maze, etc.  Some of those interesting design recommendations include:


use of the vertical dimension
lots of interlevel movement; voluntarily via stairwells, trapdoors, sloping tunnels, etc., and involuntarily via pits, teleporters, chutes, sloping tunnels that are very hard to detect, etc.
use of challenges that allow PCs to learn the dungeon environment from their successes and mistakes; some good examples of this occur in Scott Casper's Greyhawk Castle gaming fiction written @ http://kinazar.com/SouthProv/viewtopic.php?t=336&start=0 (down at the moment, but will likely be up again soon)

If the players need to be educated about the differences evident in this kind of Dungeon vs. dungeon (to borrow Everaux's phrase, or a dungeon vs. a lair, as some folks use the terms), there's nothing wrong with teaching them through play how to approach the environment.  That way the players can learn the paradigm, and they can develop their PCs appropriately (in 3.x, more emphasis on Spot, Search, etc., perhaps).  As an example, some folks commented over in Quasqueton's Tomb of Horrors design thread that putting secret doors in a pit was just beyond evil: who would ever think to look there?  Well, after the PCs have found one, that should certainly alert them to the possibility that more may exist.  If you're a kind DM, perhaps you when an (AD&D) elf falls down into a pit, he detects a concealed door there, or the PCs find a secret door in a pit that's already been opened by other denizens.  Then, in the future, they know to check for these kinds of features/opportunities.  Gygax's "Up on a Soapbox" article entitled "Lesson #8:  Ain't it the Pits? - A Trap for all Occasions" from Dragon # 294 is a great exemplar of this principle (and some of the posts in Scott Casper's GHC fiction illustrate this well, too):  see http://www.greyhawkonline.com/grodog/gh_castle_sources_soapbox.html for others.


----------



## riprock

rounser said:
			
		

> ....as has been noted from D&D's first dungeon, Castle Blackmoor, PCs tend to clean everything out as thoroughly as possible, and take everything that's not nailed down.





My gaming experience is heavily skewed by long association with one large group, so I may be speaking from a non-representative sample.

But ... in my experience most gamers don't *like* having to search and loot.  Most folks I've played with hate the notion that there might be hidden treasure and they might be missing vital treasure if they don't search every nook and cranny.

I think the early groups started a lot of memes, and some of them worked wonderfully.  I'm sure if Gygax or Arneson were running the game, they could make searching fun.  Heck, the old module descriptions are often very well written, with neat room quirks to make people *want* to search.  

However, this can degenerate with less skilled DMs into what computer gamers call a "pixel hunt."  Searching becomes like trailing a mouse pointer over a computer screen, trying to find the one pixel which will make it highlight.

When I read my AD&D DMG, as I frequently do from sheer nostalgia, I run across passages that go something like, "Your players kill two ogres and expect 2,000 G.P. in neat little sacks.  Instead, give them 2,000 G.P. of highly encumbering loot like well-polished armor, fragile statues, and more copper than they can carry.  If they don't get it all in one trip, other monsters will come and grab it."

I'm sure Gygax could have made that a lot of fun in any module.  Some modules are set up so that the players have a very convenient base guarded by Lawful Good folks who can be trusted to guard whatever the players bring.  Cycling from dungeon to home base *can* be fun.  But I, and most folks I game with, have a lot of trouble making that fun.  We tend to de-emphasize looting, just as we de-emphasized traps until D&D 3.0 suggested awarding experience for traps located and disarmed.


----------



## riprock

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> You know what I’m talking about: strange magical effects that would only be produced if one were to correctly place the right number of mystical items in just the right combination at precisely the right moment. Put three rubies in that magical censor and you would be instantly disintegrated, no save. But put two EMERALDS in the censor, and you would open up a gate to the Elemental Plane of Water, where a powerful demigod would give you a permanent +2 to your Wisdom score!




I never got anything like that to work the way I had envisioned it.  I would often get grandiose schemes and backstories for my dungeons that got ignored.

I am happy to say, however, that as a player I was lucky enough to have DMs/GMs/referees who could usually make things much more accessible.  Usually they would let the party run wild 90% of the time and then they would railroad like mad to make such the neat stuff got triggered.

I have developed a highly simplified form of this which lacks their grace but keeps things moving.

It goes like this:

Riprock: [Gives all kinds of hints which get ignored.]

Players: [Totally fail to get it.]

Riprock: Everybody roll an Intelligence check. [Pause.] Okay, you [pointing at those who made a decent number] figure out, and tell the others, that the secret is [insert secret here].

It's not elegant.  It's railroading.  But it's better than I used to be.


----------



## riprock

Mark said:
			
		

> I don't view secret doors as a device to keep things hidden from PCs but rather to explain why other NPCs or creatures haven't discovered what is beyond them.




This could be a neat idea.  You could either use "secret" doors in D&D or "access controlled" doors in a sci-fi setting.

I have a vague adventure idea for either case.

[in-character voice]
D&D: The mad wizard Bellairs built a mansion whose main design feature is magically concealed and locked doors.  His numerous alchemical creations, summoned magical beasts, etc. cannot see or operate these doors. I am his son and lawful heir.  Now that he is dead, I am giving you this magical talisman which will allow you to see and open all these doors.  Clean out the monsters and I will richly reward you with platinum and gems.  As for treasure -- it's mostly family heirlooms of no interest to you, but I will use my crystal ball of ESP to watch your progress, so don't pocket things and expect me not to notice.  

sci-fi: There has been an infestation of semi-intelligent aliens in Space Station X.  Fortunately the aliens haven't yet figured out how to defeat our card-keyed security doors.  You need to kill, subdue, or frighten them off, and whatever you do, don't let them capture a keycard.  May I remind you that we have security cameras watching our valuable data and equipment, so no monkey business while you're in the restricted area.  Lock and load.
[/in-character voice]

In either case, it's just one twist to put on the idea.  There are many other better ideas that could be done with this.  It would be much better if it were more subtle, and I'm not very subtle under the best of circumstances.


----------



## Ourph

Hussar said:
			
		

> And, if the players actually get said Frostbrand, the DM should automatically go into adversity mode and actively try to strip that reward from the player.  So, how is the clever player being rewarded again?




I think you're misrepresenting the situation.  The DM IS an adversary in the game, in that he places challenges that may very well have negative consequences for the characters.  That doesn't have to mean that he's "out to get" anyone.  There's a philosophical difference between a world where the PCs find some extra treasure and then thieves come out of the woodwork specifically to take it away and a world where the thieves were always present but the PCs didn't notice them before finding the Frostbrand because they had nothing particularly worthwhile to steal.

The PCs may be facing metal-corroding oozes, rust monsters and disintegration rays already (and losing mundane weapons in the process).  If a PC gains a great prize like a Frostbrand, it's up to that player to take care of that weapon and keep it from suffering the same fate as those other weapons.

The point is, the player isn't being targeted because of the extra treasure, he's facing the same dangers that were there all along.  He's just got something more precious to lose now and it's up to him to keep it from disappearing (like so much other treasure does) through superior play.

This is one of the main differences between old and new school style in dungeon design I think.  It used to be that the assumption was that players were facing a lot of dangerous situations and would be losing equipment and treasure (magical and otherwise) all the time, so it was OK to include a lot in the game for them to find.  Since destroying the PCs equipment has become more off limits as a challenge to throw at them, it's become much more essential to control the amount they receive in the first place.

I think it's failing to see the whole picture if you accuse DMs who still think that equipment and treasure loss are just normal hazards of the game of playing "Gotcha!" or approaching the game with the idea that they are out to screw the players or DMs who provide way more than the usual amount of treasure of being Monty Haul DMs, because those two styles are often used together and compensate for the effects of one another.  As long as the equilibrium of loss to gain is fairly constant those games are no different than a game where equipment is found at the base level and very rarely lost.  Some players and DMs find that type of game where the attitude is "I lost my Frostbrand.  Oh well, I'll just search extra hard from now on until I find another cool weapon" enjoyable and more entertaining than one where equipment is sacrosanct and static.


----------



## arscott

The real question about the frostbrand is "Did that 3rd level party defeat the frost giant king to get it?  or did they just find it behind a secret door?"

With the 3e treasure model, players are rewarded with wealth and equipment based on the danger they faced.  Keep in mind that danger faced is not the same thing as challenges overcome--No matter how hard a secret door is to find, it's not dangerous unless it's trapped or has a monster behind it.  Beating a DC 30 search check is hard for a 3rd level party to do.  But because they don't risk anything by failing the check, they don't really deserve much of a reward for it.  If after finding the secret door, they fight a rakshasa on the other side, then they deserve a reward.

If a party of 3rd level adventurers ends up with a frost brand, then the adventure is badly designed.  A frost brand is a major magic item, and any creature that represents enough of a threat to award a major magic Item is going to wipe the floor with a 3rd level party.  In fact, except for the one percent chance of an EL 10 treasure granting a major magic item, 3rd level characters don't even get normal XP from creatures of high enough CR to grant major magical treasure.

And ultimately, even if the party was able to fairly defeat the CR 10 creature with a frost brand in it's hoarde, it's still a bad design choice--Only one person can end up with the powerful sword, but the entire party helped defeat the big baddie--It'd be far better to have a range of less powerful magic items so that the entire party can split the rewards.


----------



## Ourph

That critique makes sense if the Frostbrand is an anomoly in an otherwise completely new-school philosophy, 3e magic/wealth/level guideline-inspired campaign.  If, however, the campaign is operating under an entirely different paradigm, the critique doesn't apply at all.  There's nothing inherently wrong with finding a powerful magic weapon at low level if the campaign is set up so that it doesn't disrupt anything (and in most campaigns I remember playing in from the late 70's to early 80's it wouldn't have disrupted a thing).


----------



## arscott

But I don't necessarily buy into the idea that the earlier campaigns were really set up in that fashion.  After all, Stuff like Isle of the Ape and the rust monster essentially existed to strip out excess treasure.  Earlier editions had just as many problems with treasure, party imbalance, and gear expectations.  It's just that they were harder to see and quantify in earlier editions, because they didn't include easy guidelines.

If anything, Magical gear was more unbalanced in earlier editions that it is in 3rd ed--Consider how hard it was to get a bonus to attack or defense in 1e or 2e--There were fewer class abilities, no feats, and ability scores modifiers didn't kick in until you got a 16 or so.  a +5 enhancement on your sword or armor means a lot more in 2e than in 3e.


----------



## Ourph

arscott said:
			
		

> But I don't necessarily buy into the idea that the earlier campaigns were really set up in that fashion.  After all, Stuff like Isle of the Ape and the rust monster essentially existed to strip out excess treasure.




Which is my point exactly.  The game was operating on a different paradigm where gains were bigger and losses were more frequent.  An experienced DM can easily balance those two things to keep the campaign on an even keel.



> Earlier editions had just as many problems with treasure, party imbalance, and gear expectations.  It's just that they were harder to see and quantify in earlier editions, because they didn't include easy guidelines.




I would agree that earlier editions have just as many problems with balancing treasure and party power as the current one, but the problems in earlier editions (and the current one) don't arise from the game system, but from the inexperience of players in handling the issue of treasure.  Earlier editions handled this by making advice and techniques available for running a campaign with a certain paradigm (high reward + high attrition) whereas the current edition takes a different tack and regulates reward tightly.  The point being that, yeah, if you take a slice from one and plug it into the other it's going to cause problems, but that doesn't mean either paradigm is unworkable in its own right.

To tie this point at least nominally back into the original subject, let me just say that arscott's concerns are an excellent example of how non-linear dungeons can be a boon to play, especially in 3e D&D.  If you're worried about secret-doors that conceal treasure creating an imbalance of treasure in your game (either too much because the PCs find everything or too little because they don't find enough) a good answer is to simply change what the secret doors are hiding.  

In a non-linear dungeon a means of getting to your goal while circumventing potential hazards (which offer no monetary or goal-oriented benefit when overcome) is a reward in itself which doesn't add to the PC's monetary assets or equipment.  If your secret doors conceal, not treasure, but secret passages that allow safe travel around hazardous parts of the dungeon; you've created a reward for PCs who are diligent enough to search them out, but without the risk of imbalancing the PCs wealth-by-level if they miss it.


----------



## Treebore

The treasure balance problems in the earlier editions existed because people didn't use the rules. If they made all the items the character was wearing when they failed their save against the fireballs, lightning bolts, et al... There would be a lot fewer magic items running about, and a lot less stuff carried in bags of holding and portable holes. Use the rules, especially the ones the players hate, becaue they are the ones that are usually meant to keep things balanced.


----------



## grodog

BTW, Melan, I'm not familiar with Jaquays' *Realm of the Slime God*:  any details you can share would be appreciated.

edit - never mind, I found some DF posts from you mentioning that it's in the Dungeoneer Companion, which I'll go pull out for a look-see


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes

It's true, I think one of the wierdest things about 3E is the fact that magic items almost never get destroyed.

By the rules, I can be holding a scroll (made of paper!) in each hand, and get hit by a fireball, and take 45points of damage, and barely survive, and the scrolls are both unsinged nineteen times out of 20, and there is NEVER a time when both are destroyed.

Isn't that kind of bizarre?  To me, it really breaks suspension of disbelief.

OK, that's a sidetrack of a sidetrack of an excellent thread.  Sorry about that!

Ken


----------



## Melan

Right, in an attempt to return to our original subject, I will try to comment on grodog's points:


			
				grodog said:
			
		

> Melan, it seems that some folks find it difficult to separate the encounters from the maps, per your original intent:  whether because the maps influence the encounters, they hide encounters too effectively, etc.  Perhaps you need to provide some more suggestions on how the dungeon environment plays an _active role_ in the game, rather than a passive one:  <snip>  Some of those interesting design recommendations include:
> 
> use of the vertical dimension
> lots of interlevel movement; voluntarily via stairwells, trapdoors, sloping tunnels, etc., and involuntarily via pits, teleporters, chutes, sloping tunnels that are very hard to detect, etc.
> use of challenges that allow PCs to learn the dungeon environment from their successes and mistakes; some good examples of this occur in Scott Casper's Greyhawk Castle gaming fiction written @ http://kinazar.com/SouthProv/viewtopic.php?t=336&start=0 (down at the moment, but will likely be up again soon)




This is in many ways one of the initial assumptions of the thread (and elaborated upon in my second long post) - that the dungeon itself is an interesting and entertaining challenge, not merely a backdrop or "skin" to a series of encounters. Instead of considering a moderately challenging map as an inherently unfun thing keeping you away from the "good stuff" (encounters) as many people here seem to say, I consider it a part of the fun.

Moving on from philosophical points, on to *application* - after all, that makes theory meaningful. The three points you mention are perfect examples of spicing up dungeon design - they embody the more abstract principles I outlined in the OP. The first two are especially relevant, because using the vertical dimension is so rarely seen in most modern - and even most old - dungeons. In my experience, it is a very good *tool* to introduce complexity into a map without making it frustrating. A single staircase at the "end of the level" doesn't break up a linear pattern, but let us assume there are four connections - two stairs at different locations, a secret chute and a multi-level cavern room which provides access to the lower level and (if the players have their characters look up) a chimney to an upper one. This simple addition doesn't make the structure of the individual levels any more complex. However, it greatly improves the freedom of the party. They may go down one staircase, find the multi-level cavern later on and go up to a previously unexplored part of the first level. In my experience, players *love* this kind of thing. Maybe it is feeling smart, I don't know.

Now, let us enhance the complexity even further and introduce multiple levels, three down and two up. It could be possible that some connections will completely bypass a level and arrive at a lower one. Some levels may essentially be split up... you couldn't go from one end to the other (or you could only do so by finding a secret passage, maybe through a crawlway or a submerged passage between pools of water). There may be isolated sections also, and they may be secret - and thus provide a discovery - merely because they can only be reached from below. What we have just done is created a genuinely old school dungeon (at least in form): we did this without introducing unfun elements like unmappable mazes or endless corridors. Even if the total size of the dungeon is cca. 15-30 keyed areas to a level, the end result is a freeform environment where no two parties will have the same experience. Of course, these maps may still contain "nodes" of importance, where the DM may hide McGuffins, or which are simply visited by almost everyone for various reasons. On the other side, there may be places whose discovery will feel like an accomplishment - _without_ resorting to secret doors.


----------



## howandwhy99

Bump

This is a great thread and kudos to Melan for all the work on that 1st post.  

I was reading the Design and Development columns over at Wizards and saw an interesting article.  This one is from Gnoll Limits: Adventure Design, Part 2.  It discusses map linearity and some of its' benefits.  It also gives one idea on map design at the end.


> Map Linearity
> 
> We often say that there isn’t much difference between site-based adventures and event-based adventures. It doesn’t take great mental gymnastics to imagine that the dungeon map is actually an event flowchart, or that the flowchart is really a map. But there’s a key difference between event flowcharts and maps: The lines that connect the boxes on the flowchart are usually one-way arrows; cause leads to effect, but then you generally don’t go back to “cause.” But with a dungeon, the corridors that connect the boxes run both ways. The players perceive greater freedom of choice on a map, even if revisiting a room where you’ve already been won’t be exciting most of the time.
> 
> But whether you’re drawing a map or a flowchart, there’s a fine balancing act when it comes to junctions: How many to provide? The word “linear” is not one an adventure wants to hear, but I think it’s unfairly maligned. I know from bitter experience that a dungeon with too many choices (not linear enough) is just as unsatisfying as one that’s basically a chain of rooms (too linear).
> 
> One of the reasons that linearity is good is the rapid pace of level advancement in D&D. Let’s start with a pretty basic assumption: 12 encounters gets you a level.
> 
> Tangent Alert!: I think the real number might be more like 10 encounters nowadays, for reasons on both sides of the screen. DMs are increasingly likely to throw monsters one or two points of CR higher than the average level of the party. And players are often playing with ability scores that far outstrip the 25 point buy that is the game’s intended baseline. Which happened first is a chicken-and-egg question, I suppose.
> 
> If your dungeon has more than 12 rooms, your characters are going to level up. Make a 25-room dungeon, and they’ll level up twice. Particularly in a low-level dungeon, you need some linearity to ensure that players don’t hit the CR 3 or CR 4 monster in room 25 until they’ve got the experience from rooms 1 through 24.
> 
> There’s an “analysis paralysis” reason why linearity is a virtue, too. If every room has four undifferentiated doors leading out of it, you’re going to see the game grind to halt as the players argue every time about whether to go east or west. That’s no fun for anyone.
> 
> So clearly you want some linearity, but players will feel stifled if they don’t feel like they get to make meaningful choices. Here’s one approach to linearity that worked well for me. I’m going to use a dungeon as the example, but the approach works for any adventure site—or any event flowchart, for that matter.
> 
> Rather than start the PCs at one edge of your graph paper, put that first entry staircase in the middle of the map. Drop them into a room that gives three or four choices right off the bat, and your players will revel in the choice. Then, build your dungeon like a bullseye, with easier encounters near the middle of the map and the tough stuff tucked away at the edges and corners. Include periodic branches, especially ones that connect within the same “ring” of the bullseye. Now the players perceive meaningful choice, and you know the PCs won’t get to the corners without the prior experience they need.



Also, I had a few questions for Melan, if he's still reading.

1. What do you think about the old mapping techniques on 8 1/2" x 11" grid paper?  Many dungeons used to play a metagame of finding secret rooms or ensuring a level was fully mapped by filliing in all the spaces on a single sheet of paper.  The Prince in T1-4 is probably the most famous case.

2. What do you think of classical mazes in games?  The kind kids used to buy in paperbacks for long trips.   The ol' pencil tracing style.  My understanding is, these are no longer considered fun and instead tedious mapping chores more than anything else.

3. Lastly, do you think dungeons (meaning maps of any interior space; buildings, towers, sewers, etc.) should put more priority on non-linear style or on logical construction by the in-game designers?

I pretty much agree with everything you mentioned in your first post.  You were pretty clear that not all dungeons need by non-linear.  They certainly work in Gygax's tombs S1 and Necropolis.  Of course now these are considered bad design by many.  Whereas I've become pretty sick of reading newer modules, event and dungeon-based, that are essentially flowcharts.  Anyway, thanks for bringing this phenomenon to light.


----------



## T. Foster

While I disagree with most of the WotC article, this bit struck me as pretty sound conceptual advice:


> Rather than start the PCs at one edge of your graph paper, put that first entry staircase in the middle of the map. Drop them into a room that gives three or four choices right off the bat, and your players will revel in the choice. Then, build your dungeon like a bullseye, with easier encounters near the middle of the map and the tough stuff tucked away at the edges and corners. Include periodic branches, especially ones that connect within the same “ring” of the bullseye. Now the players perceive meaningful choice, and you know the PCs won’t get to the corners without the prior experience they need.



which, I would point out, pretty closely parallels some advice Gygax and Arneson gave way back in 1974 (D&D vol. 3: _The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures_, p. 6):


> In laying out your dungeons keep in mind that downward (and upward) mobility is desirable, for players will not find a game enjoyable which confines them too much. On the other hand unusual areas and rich treasures should be relatively difficult to locate, and access must be limited. The layout of a level will affect the route most often followed by players. Observation of the most frequently used passages and explored rooms will guide the referee in preparation of successive levels, which, of course, should be progressively more dangerous and difficult.




However, I'd add the caveat that while making level that is "bullseye" shaped on a conceptual/flowchart level (a la Melan's graphs in the OP) is a good idea, it's lame to make the _map_ literally bullseye-shaped. it's much more interesting, I think, to have broad/long "high traffic" corridors that connect various sections of the dungeon/level with few, if any, "decision points" in-between, and then complex mazes of winding corridors and rooms that "fill in" the intervening space -- so the most 'remote' section of the dungeon (in terms of decision points and intermediate encounters/'challenges required to reach it from the 'start' point) might actually be physically very close to the start point -- which can cause interesting situations to arise with "treasure finding" spells and/or magic items (the players will know a great treasure (or great magic, or great source of evil, or whatever they are "detecting") is located close by, but not how to get to it (which is also an ideal "organic" plot hook -- find a way to get to the treasure/magic/bad guy/whatever that we already know is there)), makes spells like _passwall_ more useful -- allowing the players to shortcut from point A to point Z (or vice versa) without necessarily having to pass through points B-Y (the author of the WotC article would presumably disagree with my assertion that this is a desirable possibility, but, well, I already said I disagreed with most of that article...), and also incentivizes players to make more careful and accurate maps so that they will, for instance, realize when they're approaching the area that their _locate object_ spell had told them the treasure/whatever was in, or that they're in an area where a _passwall_ or similar magic could allow them to make a quick retreat to the surface.


----------



## Melan

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Also, I had a few questions for Melan, if he's still reading.



Sure.



> 1. What do you think about the old mapping techniques on 8 1/2" x 11" grid paper?  Many dungeons used to play a metagame of finding secret rooms or ensuring a level was fully mapped by filliing in all the spaces on a single sheet of paper.  The Prince in T1-4 is probably the most famous case.



That's not a bad method of hiding some secret places. It is put to good use in *Palace of the Silver Princess*, for example, where you can see it in a completely elemental form - not a bad thing for a module aimed at beginners. That said, I don't map on gridded paper anymore, for entirely personal reasosn. First, I don't usually have grid paper on hand when designing adventures, whereas clean printer paper is always in a steady supply. Second, when I use grid paper, I start to get anal about corridor width, angles and similar things, so in the end the map lacks that special organic feel. Of course, some dungeon designers like Gary Gygax and Bob Bledsaw (in Tegel Manor, which is basically a "completely filled space" kind of module) didn't have a problem like that - they designed great maps with the features you describe.



> 2. What do you think of classical mazes in games?  The kind kids used to buy in paperbacks for long trips.   The ol' pencil tracing style.  My understanding is, these are no longer considered fun and instead tedious mapping chores more than anything else.



Most of them aren't very good for precisely the reason you bring up. This is just personal experience (and thus anecdotal evidence), but I could never make hedge maze style structures work properly. Now things like rooms closely resembling each other, corridors "leaving" one edge of the paper and "entering" from the other, the "M. C. Escher memorial stairs" (which go down forever, forming an endless loop), etc., are fun in a whimsical way when used sparingly (probably as features of a thematic "maze" dungeon level). Classical mazes, not really. Or I just don't know how to make fun out of them. Also note that things like the small room maze or the "whirlpool" in B1 don't belong to this category.



> 3. Lastly, do you think dungeons (meaning maps of any interior space; buildings, towers, sewers, etc.) should put more priority on non-linear style or on logical construction by the in-game designers?



There is no conclusive answer to this but I will take a shot anyway.    Generally, it is no big deal if the structure in question is small. If it is larger, it is fun to insert something like that, _especially_ to break up the monotony. Most real buildings aren't really that fun - they are built for utility, not adventuring. Severs, in particular, are rectangular grids. Nobody likes to explore such a place because it is no fun after a while. In a game, enjoyable play is the most important reason for a thing being the way it is. If we emulate reality, we should emulate its quirky manifestations like castles built by eccentrics and people who thought it would be a good idea to have a secret passage going from their drawing room to the garden.


----------



## The Shaman

Melan said:
			
		

> Moving on from philosophical points, on to *application* - after all, that makes theory meaningful.



Here's another suggestion that might work on *grodog*'s list: the dungeon design offers meaningful clues to the intent of the builders with a practical benefit to the adventurers if they figure out what's going on.

In one wizard's dungeon, the wizard installed a series of traps to waylay anyone who slipped past his orcish guards. This raises the classic conundrum: how do the guards avoid the traps? Rather than hidden toggles, I made the design of the corridors the means of avoiding the traps: doors used by the inhabitants to move around the dungeon were always located at the ends of straight hallways, whereas doors placed immediately around a bend in a hallway were traps designed to catch the unwary.

The wizard instructed the orcs not to use the doors around the corners and to keep the hallways swept to prevent dust on the floor from giving away the traps. With this in mind, I placed additional clues beyond the architectural detail of the corridor shape: wandering orcs with brooms, a dead orc with a broom in his hand who tripped one of the traps (and which the wizard's thief henchman had not yet reset), and a couple of trapped passages with thick dust build-up due to a fat, lazy orc who could often be found asleep on a pile of straw in a forgotten storeroom.

The adventurers could therefore avoid most of the traps in the dungeon by looking closely at their map.

Someone may have mentioned this already, but dungeons that are more than stone-walled corridors and rooms, that offer tactical advantages and challenges, are more interesting to players (and more fun for GMs to design). A series of descending caverns linked by an underground river and waterfalls instead of corridors, or water-worn passages inside a glacier come to mind - these environments create new challenges and provide the players an opportunity to use their characters' spells and abilities in novel ways.


----------



## T. Foster

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Also, I had a few questions for Melan, if he's still reading.




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:



> 1. What do you think about the old mapping techniques on 8 1/2" x 11" grid paper?  Many dungeons used to play a metagame of finding secret rooms or ensuring a level was fully mapped by filliing in all the spaces on a single sheet of paper.  The Prince in T1-4 is probably the most famous case.




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.



> 2. What do you think of classical mazes in games?  The kind kids used to buy in paperbacks for long trips.   The ol' pencil tracing style.  My understanding is, these are no longer considered fun and instead tedious mapping chores more than anything else.




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. 



> 3. Lastly, do you think dungeons (meaning maps of any interior space; buildings, towers, sewers, etc.) should put more priority on non-linear style or on logical construction by the in-game designers?




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).


----------



## grodog

grodog said:
			
		

> use of challenges that allow PCs to learn the dungeon environment from their successes and mistakes; some good examples of this occur in Scott Casper's Greyhawk Castle gaming fiction written @ http://kinazar.com/SouthProv/viewtopic.php?t=336&start=0 (down at the moment, but will likely be up again soon)




Scott's forum is back up, and I particularly recommend the 2nd chapter episode, beginning at the bottom of page 1 in the forum link above, continuing through page 3.  It's a good (fictional) illustration of PCs leveraging familiarity with the environment's challenges (the secret doors in the pit trap, the type of trap in the room beyond the secret door, etc.).


----------



## Victim

In my opinion, exploration is usually BS.  Only if order of operation is significant does non-linearity matter.  But if the PCs can go routes A, B, and C, then they will eventually go through all of them.  So if the order in which they proceed is unimportant then A->B->C = B->C->A = B->A->C, etc.  At that point, the dungeon may as well be linear.

Exploration also constrains player choices in another way.  Normally, splitting the party isn't viable, so the group should only be going one way at a time.  Then effectively only one decision matters, so the rest of the players sit around bored.

I think secret areas and hidden treasure as a reward quickly lead to stupid play.  If you can find a gem inside a monster's belly, why not cut open every monster?  Why not strip out the dungeon and hammer at every surface to find secret doors?  In my opinion, it was a stupid annoyance to run against every wall holding down the open doors button in Wolfenstein 3-D, and it's stupid in DnD.  

Using blank spots in a map to find secret doors only is extreme metagaming IMHO, since those blank areas probably need to be structural supports.  Plus the dungeon engineers weren't limited to a sheet graph paper, and could easily put the secret room off the edge of the map.

Logical dungeons are useful to players since the context can provide additional clues about which way to proceed, making exploration decisions more informed and thus more meaningful.


----------



## T. Foster

Victim said:
			
		

> I think secret areas and hidden treasure as a reward quickly lead to stupid play.  If you can find a gem inside a monster's belly, why not cut open every monster?



Because it would be bad tactical play -- if you're taking the time to fully dissect every monster then you're wasting time (on both a player level and character level), exposing yourself to many more wandering monster checks (thus, presumably, meaning more monsters you'll have to dissect, leading to more time wasted, and more wandering moster checks...), and using up your resources in a way that isn't likely to return significant rewards (better to use them accomplishing things that you _know_ are going to get you treasure). Sure, if you chose to you could spend an entire session in one room killing every monster that came in and dissecting it in hopes of finding a gem in its gullet, not exploring anything and not accomplishing any goals (whether DM or self-imposed), but that would be a very lame and unsatisfying sort of play (on both a player-level and character-level) and I can't imagine why anyone would actually choose it. 



> Why not strip out the dungeon and hammer at every surface to find secret doors?



Again, because doing so would be bad play -- a completely inefficient use of time (real- or game-) and resources. If given the choice to go down to level 3 to fight some level-appropriate monsters and gain some level-appropriate treasures and you choose instead to stay on level one and spend 2 game-weeks (and perhaps as much as a full game-session or two) strip-mining the entire place on the off-chance that you might find a hidden "easter egg" treasure of a few hundred SP (which you'll only get 1/3 XP value for anyway, since it's a dungeon level 1 treasure and you're 3rd level) that's certainly your prerogative, but's it's very bad play, both on the character-advancement level and on the players-having-an-interesting-time-at-the-table level, and it's not the DM's fault, it's yours. 



> In my opinion, it was a stupid annoyance to run against every wall holding down the open doors button in Wolfenstein 3-D, and it's stupid in DnD.



I agree that this would be stupid and annoying, which is why you shouldn't do it (at least in D&D -- can't speak for Wolfenstein 3-D). Time and resource management and an ability to set goals and stick to them without becoming distracted by red-herrings and minutiate (and an insatiable desire to accurately map every inch of the level, or to receover every copper piece of potential treasure, are both unquestionably minutiae) are among the key elements of skillful D&D play (see Gygax's essay on "Successful Adventuring" in the back of the 1E PH), and the way the DM tests these skills is by presenting opportunities for the players to make good and bad decisions in these areas -- presenting possible distractions, red herrings, and fool's tasks that offer little reward for much effort and waste time and resources, thus preventing them from being able to accomplish the more worthwhile tasks they originally set out to. The lure of potential treasures that can only be recovered with much time and effort, so much that it probably outweighs the value of the treasure and precludes the recovery of other treasure, is every bit as much a test of player skill as any monster, trap, or puzzle. And the appropriate response to such tests isn't to blame the DM for including them and condemn them as bad design but rather to recognize them for what they are and not be taken in by them.

On a slightly different subject from the same post:  


> Using blank spots in a map to find secret doors only is extreme metagaming IMHO, since those blank areas probably need to be structural supports.  Plus the dungeon engineers weren't limited to a sheet graph paper, and could easily put the secret room off the edge of the map.




Who says that _every_ blank spot is a secret room or that the dungeon doesn't have necessary structural supports even with a hidden room here and there? Or that there _aren't_ secret rooms off the edge of the map? (Perhaps the DM mapped the level on a 5 squares/inch grid and made it look like a "complete" level at 4 squares/inch but has secret rooms in the 'extra' squares off the 'edge' of the 4x4 sheet -- this is actually a clever trick which I think I might use!  ). And I still fail to see how this represents metagaming in any way if we assume that the characters, as well as the players, are making maps of the level.


----------



## RFisher

Regarding the "if the players don't find it, it was a waste of the DM's time" idea:

1. It may be found by other players--or just other PCs played by the same players--in the future. It's really cool when you find something that has been secreted in a dungeon for a long time that many other players/characters have missed.

2. If the dungeon isn't one that is going to see reuse, then the "missed" portions can be lifted & put into the next dungeon you design.

So, I don't find them a waste of time. Besides...

3. Lots of stuff in my dungeons that the PCs may never discover only cost me a minute or two. That's a small price to pay for the enjoyment both the player & I have should a PC discover it.

...and...

4. Sometimes I get an evil enjoyment from knowing how close the PCs came to something really juicy yet missed.

That's my experience.


----------



## Dr Simon

To return to the original post, it's an interesting way to analyse adventure flow, and I don't you think you need to restrict it specifically to dungeon style play, which is really where the geography defines many of the choices rather than slightly less tangible concerns like you might get in a city-based adventure.

I have a few ponderables:

It is possible to design a fairly branched map, yet include events or some other form of direction to influence the choice.  The module commonly hailed as the exemplar of rail-roading, DL1, for example, actually has a *fairly* open dungeon structure.  There are two branches to descending into Xak Tsaroth (the lift or the long way), and several unconnected encounter areas once there that would resemble a Caves of Chaos type diagram in Melan's scheme.

BUT:  The lift is pretty cool, and everyone I know has *always* taken that.  There is a 'cut scene' that efectively shows the players where the dragon that they are looking for is living, thus herding them towards that encounter area instead of others.  Even here, though, they can go in the front door or through a secret passage.  

Secondly,  how important is it for a dungeon-based adventure (as this is the specific topic) to have a climactic encounter?  The Caves of Chaos do not have such a thing.  Arguably it is the Temple of Chaos in area K, through virtue of probably being the most leaderlike of all the figures.  However, clearing that room does not end the adventure.  One could also argue that each cave area has its own mini-climax in the form of the chief of that particular tribe.

Does one need such an event?  It can be satisfying to achieve an end-point, but by its very nature it requires a bottleneck to be set up so that the final encounter *is* reached.  Is that, to merge with another thread, rail-roading?  To use the DL1 example again, all roads eventually lead to the dragon, if not physically then by virtue of clues, hints or plainly being dead-ends.  But one can still approach the dragon through different routes.  (I'll leave aside the narrative nature of the climax as a different discussion).

On the other hand, take S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.  It has a fairly branching structure, hidden areas, areas with coded access, various fun encounters, things to play with, but... absolutely no form of narrative structure whatsoever.  The opponents do not get noticeably tougher, there is no 'boss' monster, no sense of climactic achievement.  It is a fun adventure to play, for about 3/4 of its length, but the last part begins to feel flat becaus there is no point - the 'puzzle' of it being a science fiction setting is by this point solved but nothing new is added to the mix.


----------



## grodog

Melan---

I was flipping through Rob Kuntz's new Maure Castle dungeon levels in Dungeons 112 and 124 over the weekend, and thinking about your mapping schematics.  I think both The Statuary and Chambers of Antiquities levels would be useful discussion points, though the maps are substantially smaller and less complex than the levels from the era of Castle Greyhawk and El Raja Key:  Chambers of Antiquities in particular appears relatively simplistic in comparison to The Statuary, but it has pretty discrete areas that are only reachable from a few locations (probably more like B2 in flow).  

For reference, the Dungeon 124 Maure Castle maps are available on Paizo's site at 
http://paizo.com/dungeonissues/124/DA124_Supplement_LRes.pdf (I guess there wasn't an online supplement for issue 112?).

Anyway, I thought it might be interesting for you to analyze these new MC 3.x maps that are made in the old style, to see if they differ substiantially from the modules you've already discussed.  I think it would be interesting to see a visual representation of the dungeon from the Realm of the Slime God adventure, since of the three Jaquays modules you mentioned, it's the smallest (that said, I'm not trying to make more work for you than you've got time for, either  ).  I'm also going to give this a try too, and it would be interesting to compare how we assess the same maps


----------



## grodog

I posted my spoiler-laden renditions of the Rob Kuntz's Maure Castle levels "The Statuary" (Dungeon 112) and "The Chambers of Antiquities" (Dungeon 124) @ http://www.greyhawkonline.com/grodog/temp/maure_castle_mapping_analysis-grodog.pdf

Digging into the diagrams for the Maure Castle levels shows them to be very different levels, in terms of how their maps are organized.  

*The Statuary*

The Statuary appears to be, and is I think, pretty complex:  the encounters are grouped toward the lower- and the right halves of the map, while the use of many secret doors prevents the quick detection of the level's interesting challenges.  Compensating for this (and shown on the map as a blue path) are the footprints of Tomorast and his cronies, which may help to guide the PCs toward that foe (or serve as a deterrance tactic, if the PCs opt to explore areas that Tomorast hasn't frequented yet), as well as to one of the key nexus points on the map (where many secret doors and access points to other levels converge).  (FWIW, the adventure doesn't detail the exact path to 117 taken by Tomorast, that's my artistic license showing).  I don't think that The Statuary is quite as complex as B1 In Search of the Unknown, but that may be a matter of opinon; it's certainly in the same league, at the least.  It also resembles the right half of D1 as Melan mapped it, but with even more access points to the large chambers, which creates many looping paths to and from various encounter areas.  In addition, the secret doors really are gateways to discoveries (unlike in B1, where they mostly provide an alternate path to a location that can be reached through other means).  

*The Chambers of Antiquities*

While the Chamber of Antiquities is certainly simpler than The Statuary, I think that the map for this level appears to be much simpler than it is.  At first glance, it looks like a circular route, with side branches (like S2 White Plume Mountain), but Kuntz added many branches and side-tracks to the map, to the point that the PCs can in fact avoid the central area completely and access the west, north, and south branches (if they manage not to awaken the juggernaut).  They thus have complete freedom to choose the order in which to tackle the level's challenges.  Also interesting is the area within the large central chamber, which is almost like a mini B2 cave complex---PCs can choose to approach any of the encounter areas (I almost mapped it like a starburst, but thought that the fishbone skeleton better reflected the progression of the challenges as the room is crossed).  A good level, given the vast number of options it makes available to PCs; I also think that this map provides a relatively simple mapping expericence, which would be a nice change of pace from The Statuary (which is also the only level that connects to this one, via a secret area, which makes the discovery of The Chambers of Antiquities level a reward in and of itself).  

Melan mentioned that is may be possible for some maps to be too complex:  



			
				Melan said:
			
		

> Generally, branching, complex maps offer many possibilities for decision making, but overly complicated maps do not: they just cause frustration.




I debated about whether or not The Statuary crossed that line, and I think it skirts it closely, but manages to stay within the realm of "not too frustrating."  I'm curious to hear what other folks think, though (I haven't run any of the new MC levels yet, though I'm looking forward to doing so in the autumn).  

I probably won't have time to map The Whispering Cairn and A Gathering of Winds until after this weekend, but I'll post here when I make them available too.


----------



## grodog

Some excellent discussion on Melan's mapping methreads appear over in a Dragonsfoot thread at http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18710&start=60


----------



## grodog

bumping for the current dungeon discussion thread "How dungeons have changed in Dungeons and Dragons."

edit - I'll also work-up a flowchart for the newest Maure Castle level over the holiday....


----------



## Jack Colby

Anyone feel like mapping-out Keep on the Shadowfell using this method?


----------



## malacapricornis

Means to get information to make meaningful choices rather then blind/random choices are important in the non-linear dungeons. The old school methods of hirelings, consulting with sages or demons, interrogations, communing with rocks and nature are all good methods.

Ultimately, in a game as opposed to a reality simulator where time and effort in preparation and play are limited resources, having a fun, entertaining, and for me appropriately challenging encounters are more important then the illusion of grand strategic choice.

You have to have cooperative players and a cooperative DM to have a rewarding game session. In essence, the players need to be good sports to hit the proper dungeon that was prepared to begin with. A whole world can be created and populated, much like Morrowind but like Morrowind most of the encounters will not be tuned for your players. Unless of course encounters are always tuned for your players which again brings up the illusion of choice. If you choose dungeon A or dungeon B and the results are approximately the same did you really have much choice.

If dungeon A was 6 levels lower then your party and dungeon B was 6 levels higher then your party then either choice is not going to be satisfying for your game time.

This, imo, is also applicable to the dungeons themselves. If you are going to level and gain magical items that put you ahead of the challenge of areas you have bypassed, backtracking is going to be relatively trivial. Nonlinearity is useful if clumped in clusters of encounters that can be tackled with appropriately leveled and equipped characters.

Again this is all a matter of taste. Some groups may like very well the free form worlds where intrigue, figuring out puzzles, and gathering clues about the world to make strategic decisions based on scouting and communing etc are important. It's not my taste as I feel that as a game it's more rewarding to me to be adventuring.

Now that said, my fondest gaming memories online seem to be the freeform nature of Ultima Online...


----------



## Hussar

This is, IMNSHO, one of the all time best threads on EnWorld.

Love it to pieces.


----------



## Thunderfoot

Melan - Incredible analysis!
I would like to say though that non-linear maps are _sometimes_ more of a detriment than a asset.  Unfortunately you stated that encounters were not he focus of the essay and that they were not part of our equation, however when designing a dungeon crawl, the purpose of the encounters may well dictate a more or less linear layout.  

For instance, we have all seem the 'lair' layouts from the 70s & 80s that twist and turn and bob and weave, but think for a moment if your own house did that?  What if you had to walk 30' down a corridor to your living room and then up a secret passage to get to your attic?  Of in the case of a combined lair think if, for no reason you had to go through a circuitous route to go to the grocery store for no other reason than poor street design or city planning?  Sure it happens, but even in the Medieval time period city plans were based on geometric patterns, usually squares or pentagons.  It wasn't until these Medieval cities grew through the Dark Ages, the Renaissance and the Victorian eras did they begin to become entangled messes.

So, in some instances, overly complicated or even less than simple layout is a poor thing.  You mentioned Village of Hommlet, my question for you is, if the 'Keep" encounter had been a huge layout, would it have made sense?  The answer is no, the encounter was small by design and strictly a gateway for a larger adventure, the Keep was a building and therefore laid out as such to include the basement area.  One can agree that the resulting Temple was much more sprawling and needed the 'exploration' you described.  And though they were not originally released together, they were always meant to be part of the same plot-line.

I agree that poor design in a supposed 'free-form' dungeon is just inexcusable, but in an era where story-telling is as much a part of the game as the action, sometimes that small straight hallway is just what the doctor ordered.  

Happy gaming and keep these great thought provoking articles coming.


----------



## Melan

Jack Colby, I would be interested in that. I have not made up my mind yet how 4e's "encounter zone" style dungeon creation philosophy fits in there. I am not even sure it is a relevant issue to my points, though.

Thunderfoot: you are of course right. In some cases, there are definite advantages to avoiding too sprawling maps; I think "lair" type dungeons can work well as a sequential or mostly sequential series of encounters. Maybe the Moathouse should be interpreted that way... although I'm still saying it would have benefited from a bit more layout complexity. It is a question of emphasis and degrees.

The issue of verisimilitude is either relevant to you or not. To me, it is not very relevant beyond the superficial. While "mediaeval" architecture might often have been simplistic, it is not necessarily a good model to emulate for all games; instead, we dwell on the stranger things... or at least buildings which are, as someone put it when discussing architecture for a 3d computer game "a pleasing jumble of basic elements". A building with hidden nooks, crannies, a secret staircase to the tower and a walled off section is more mysterious and more intriguing than a simple rectangular affair, and this is what counts. I do agree, though, that too much "noise" may not be so interesting. See this map for a good example of a dungeon which is very complicated, but wastes very little room on superfluous and empty space.

Last but not least, you can see the theory in action here (scroll down a bit). The Khosura undercity was consciously designed with these ideas on my mind. I think it was mostly successful in play, although not _perfectly_ - of my players, some would have liked less mapping and wandering around and more concrete encounters. What I did realise is that the sparse key did not work so well for me and my group, and I improvised a lot in play to compensate.


----------



## grodog

Gabor---

Have you thought about analyzing the Mouths of Madness/The Store Rooms maps for Castle Zagyg: The Upper Works, by chance?


----------



## Melan

I do not have the product yet, but I am working on it. The shipping TLG is regularly using is a killer ($38.95!), and other outlets don't have the Upper Works in stock. Sigh.


----------



## the Jester

Bump for an awesome thread.

Melan, am I correct in remembering that you have a website with more of your analyses on it? If so, could you link it please?


----------



## Joshua Randall

This is a fascinating thread, one that I missed on its initial appearance.

As I was reading the last 100+ posts, a thought occurred to me which I was surprised no one had mentioned yet -- automapping in computer games. Automapping has been around for ages and ages; it's very prominent nowadays in most games involving "dungeon" exploration (whether the dungeon is literally that, or is a sci-fi location, or is a quasi-modern-day location as in a spy game or tactical shooter).

Most automaps do not show you secret or hidden areas (until you find them), but they can make the player suspect the location of a secret area in exactly the same way that an old-school D&D player would react to an incompletely filled in sheet of graph paper. This tickles my fancy in that the new technology is being used to replicate the old. And of course it's no accident that things turned out this way, since the histories of computer games and role-playing games are tightly entangled.

The game that I was thinking of when I had the automapping thought is Elder Scolls: Oblivion, and I want to point out one of its dungeons which I think is pretty well designed. Here is Vilverin, a large "beginner" dungeon that is literally the first thing the player sees upon emerging from the tutorial level.

Note: spoilers ahead.

[sblock]If you read the explanation of the area -- scroll down to "Zone 1: _Vilverin_", you will note that the dungeon starts off rather mundanely. Like most Oblivion dungeons, it is less a sequence of corridors leading to rooms than it is one huge interconnected area with room-like smaller parts. For that reason, if you go charging into Vilverin straight out of the tutorial, you are likely to get your butt handed to you by the mutiple bandits who are fully capable of swarming your position. (And interestingly, this somewhat presages the 4e D&D trope of interconnected encounter areas which can lead to masses of monsters engaging the PCs.) 

Another thing that's not apparent from the overhead view map on the wiki page is the use of verticality in the Zone 1 map. From the entrance (labeled "Out" on the left-hand side of map), you spiral around a short stairway and then down a much longer one to the big open area. The section to the top of the map is lower still, so you can potentially sneak up on the bandits lurking below and literally get the drop on them; or you can descend another set of stairs to attack them at their own level.

At any rate, if you do not pay attention to your surroundings and pick up on the clues present in Zone 1 (i.e., the _Dirty Scroll _from the bandit ringleader), you will make your way down to Zone 2, fight a single bandit, and depart Vilverin without ever plumbing its true depths.

Zone 2: _Vilverin Canosel _is where the clever map design starts to pay off. There's a secret door that leads to the rest of the complex (location N on the map). What's especially clever is that just looking at the automap won't necessarily tip you off to the secret: the pre-secret area is nice and symmetrical. Instead the player must observe, or stumble upon, the trigger that opens the door. The player could use use auditory clues that something (a shuffling zombie) is beyond the "wall", or could potentially use life-detection magic to make the same discovery.

Past the secret area, there's a choice of two ways forward: past a locked gate (which the PC can unlock if he's good at the lockpicking minigame) or through another secret passage. In either case, there is an entirely separate section of monsters'n'loot that you can only get to by going through a flooded area -- a reward for persistent or risk-taking PCs (and it is a risk this early in the game because you will lack the ability to breath underwater and, depending upon your magical ability, might lack the ability to see underwater!).

Zones 3 and 4 are straightforward in a map sense, but have a variety of things the player must do to proceed. Unfortunately, there is no reason not to press every single button and follow every single passage you find; I'd like these zones better if there were some sort of clever environmental observation you could make that would reveal the easiest/most lucrative path.[/sblock]

Some of the later dungeons in Oblivion are much more complex, with multiple uses of verticality, looping, secret areas, and so forth. All of them, though, are essentially linear. I think the linearity works in a game like Oblivion, because you are either in a dungeon for a specific quest or side-quest, or you're there just randomly looting, so the dungeon is not meant to be a tremendously lengthy endeavor.

There are some much older computer games -- Eye of the Beholder, for example, which is explicitly a D&D game -- with some highly clever layouts involving teleporters, one-way doors, and all the other Gygaxian tricks. So even though those things may have fallen out of favor in print adventures, they linger on in computer games.


----------



## Ydars

I have used the reveal technique in PnP gaming by having a flat screen TV as the tabletop and creating a map in photoshop with a layer of black that gets peeled back in stages.

It works very well if you have the time to set the map up properly.


----------



## Melan

the Jester said:


> Melan, am I correct in remembering that you have a website with more of your analyses on it? If so, could you link it please?



I do have a recently opened website, but at the moment, it is only a collection of support material for my Hungarian old school game system. I plan to upload English content in a few months, including a recap and perhaps expansion on pet topics such as dungeon mapping or The Tyranny of Fun.

You may be thinking of my maps from the Khosura undercity dungeons I posted on Dragonsfoot. They were drawn with this thread in mind, and include a semi-successful attempt to graph 'em.


----------



## Kwalish Kid

While I like the idea of this essay, I have a problem with the author's rather short dismissal of *The Lost Tomb of Martek*.


> In the end, a dungeon without any real branches would look like a straight line (A.), or a straight line that looks slightly hairy (B.). The Slaver modules or Lost Tomb of Martek would fall into this category.



In the Lost tomb of Martek, there are a number of sections that must be completed. Thus it could be argued that these are not true branches, but rather a line with an optional order.

However, if one actually takes the time to investigate these sections, one finds in many cases the chance for a significant amount of sidetracks, branching, and circular routes.

We begin with the Desert Wilderness map. This map has a definite end point, but clearly has a number of significant side branches. Important locations are those with cloudskates, those with the oracles, and the cursed city. None of these are necessary for success, but they do offer particular successes and challenges that can aid or detract from the adventure.

In the next section, the Garden, there are a number of absolutely optional locations. The PCs can wander for a limited amount of time (and the DM has a number of options to move the action along to the next section). This section has thus has a number of branches.

The Crystal Prism is clearly its own, specific challenge, as is the Black Abyss and the Al-Alisk Desert.

The Mobius Tower, however, has a number of possible branches. The PCs have a number of areas they need not explore and a number of treasures revealed only through careful search. (Certain scenarios can lead to a difficult situation for the DM, and she or he has to figure out the behaviour of a number of NPCs that would otherwise not have any role at all, other than furniture.)

Even the last section has some payoff for branching investigation, though it is obviously limited.


----------



## James Jacobs

This thread is incredible! One of the coolest examninations of D&D dungeons I've seen in a while! (runs back to continue reading posts...)


----------



## Wik

Yeah, I agree.  I read it through once a while ago, and meant to bookmark it, but forgot.  Now that it's grown a bit, I think I need to re-read it from the beginning.  It's been marked.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Melan said:


> This is in many ways one of the initial assumptions of the thread (and elaborated upon in my second long post) - that the dungeon itself is an interesting and entertaining challenge, not merely a backdrop or "skin" to a series of encounters. Instead of considering a moderately challenging map as an inherently unfun thing keeping you away from the "good stuff" (encounters) as many people here seem to say, I consider it a part of the fun.




People's mileage may vary, but I'll also argue that:

(a) Nothing thrills the players more than when they realize that a choice they made had a real and meaningful impact on the events of the game; and

(b) As a GM I _want_ to be surprised by my players. If I want to convey a linear series of events (i.e. a plot), I'll simply write a story. I play RPGs because I enjoy watching the players create a story. I'm never happier as a GM than when I'm completely taken aback by something the players have done.

It's interesting that you would have chosen _The Sunless Citadel_ as your original example in this thread, because I've recently been reflecting on why I've had so much success using that module as a DM. There are a couple of answers:

(1) From a non-physical stand-point, the module is refreshingly non-linear. Both the kobolds and the goblins are presented as challenges which can be overcome in a variety of ways. (I think there's some mention in the module about the goblins not being amenable to diplomacy, but if you ignore that you can get even more interesting dynamics out of the scenario.)

(2) From a physical stand-point, I knocked out a couple of walls and added a secret door in order to create more looping paths between the kobolds and the goblins.

PCs have made treaties with the kobolds; wiped out enough goblins that the kobolds were able to take control of the entire upper level; laid siege to the goblins only to discover that they've been duped into wasting their time while the goblins looped around and wiped out the kobolds; wiped out the entire complex without care; negotiated with the goblin leader to bring back the head of the kobold queen; and so forth. There was even the one memorable session where, faced with the problem of kobold raiders coming out of the complex, the PCs simply collapsed the entrance tunnel and called it a day.

As Justin Alexander says: Don't prep plots, prep situations.

Even on a smaller scale, non-linearity can be fun. In Monte Cook's _Night of Dissolution_ there is a small dungeon complex accessible from a sewer tunnel. Ignoring the single staircase down to the second level, there's nothing particularly spectacular about this small sewer complex. There are only 3 or 4 encounters.

But Monte Cook did something clever: He added a second entrance to the complex through a secret door. With this simple bit of looping, PC choices now make a huge difference in how the adventure plays out: Do they enter through the heavily guarded front entrance (where they're likely to be ambushed) or do they go through the secret door (where, if they can avoid the sentries, they can instead ambush the ambushers)?

This is also an example of how non-linearity doesn't necessarily mean wasted prep time: The PCs are still going to experience 90%+ of the content regardless of which entrance they use. Their choices, however, determine how they experience that content. 

In fact, in my experience, embracing situation-based design usually involves less prep-work than plot-based design.



howandwhy99 said:


> 3. Lastly, do you think dungeons (meaning maps of any interior space; buildings, towers, sewers, etc.) should put more priority on non-linear style or on logical construction by the in-game designers?




I think it's a false dichotomy.

For example, I'm currently sitting in my house. There's an interior loop of kitchen-dining room-parlor-entry hall-kitchen. There's also a front door and a back door (which also creates an effective loop). Sub-branches (upstairs, sun room, parlor, media room, basement) extend from the entry, parlor, dining room, and kitchen.

IMO, reality is far more likely to get sacrificed in effort to achieve linearity than it is in an attempt to achieve non-linearity.

How often, for example, do we see the manor house of the Evil Patriarch mapped up without any windows? Why aren't there any windows? Because then the PCs could theoretically smash through the windows at the back of the complex instead of going through the front door.

Design in the real world is almost always non-linear.

Which doesn't mean that everything needs to connect to everything else.


----------



## grodog

Hey Gabor---

Have you done any mapping analysis on some new levels recently?


----------



## howandwhy99

Beginning of the End said:


> I think it's a false dichotomy.
> 
> For example, I'm currently sitting in my house. There's an interior loop of kitchen-dining room-parlor-entry hall-kitchen. There's also a front door and a back door (which also creates an effective loop). Sub-branches (upstairs, sun room, parlor, media room, basement) extend from the entry, parlor, dining room, and kitchen.
> 
> IMO, reality is far more likely to get sacrificed in effort to achieve linearity than it is in an attempt to achieve non-linearity.
> 
> How often, for example, do we see the manor house of the Evil Patriarch mapped up without any windows? Why aren't there any windows? Because then the PCs could theoretically smash through the windows at the back of the complex instead of going through the front door.
> 
> Design in the real world is almost always non-linear.
> 
> Which doesn't mean that everything needs to connect to everything else.



That makes sense.  It's been some time, but I think my question was more about design intent.  Should designers aim for greater non-linearity, like that so often seen in Gygaxian dungeon design (e.g. B1) or should reality simulation / verisimilitude based upon the needs and desires of the in-game characters be paramount?  You're right that these things are not really at odds.  But I do believe they are different goals and will result in different designs.  I'm still digging Gygax's last design, his Upper Works, which does a heck of a job at doing both well.  Incredible non-linearity, while bringing in verisimilitude and in-game needs.  The insanity of the caves and corridors below mixed with the sensible defensive design of the castle and castleworks above.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Threads that go bump in the night.


----------



## jodyjohnson

I didn't realize this was a necromancy until I hit EricNoah's post.  Then I checked the date.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

This is one of the best, classic threads on EN World.  Good to see it again.

I much prefer this style of dungeon design, which makes exploration interesting and gives players real, meaningful choices.  When combined with a sandbox-style wilderness, it results in my favorite style of adventure.  It's what I intentionally chose to mirror when I wrote _Raiders of Oakhurst Reloaded_, though since that adventure is relatively short, the major dungeon only contains two intersecting loops.

I'll caveat that by saying good physical map design can't save uninspired encounters, ecology, and linkage -- you need both.  If you start with a good map, though, you're partway there.

That said, linear design isn't necessarily bad.  As I've said elsewhere, because the players normally don't peek behind the screen, there's no difference between real player choice and the illusion of player choice.  If the GM is effective at delivering the illusion of meaningful choice, the players will be highly satisfied even if the basic adventure is linear in design.  All things being equal I prefer real meaningful choices to the illusion, but worst of all are adventures that lack even illusion of choice.  We call them railroads.


----------



## Janx

This is indeed a good thread, and a ton of work went into setting it up by  [MENTION=1713]Melan[/MENTION]

I had actually been thinking of talking about dungeon design with regards to Diablo 3 (which I been playing on 360 lately), and here we are with this incredible opus to the topic.

having re-skimmed the first page, I'm thinking the dichotomy of linear vs. non-linear or extensive forking design really ties into what the group intends to do in the dungeon.

As I mentioned, I'm playing Diablo 3, and one of the annoying things is the enormous huge dungeons that I obey the Rule of Right in order to clear out the dungeon.  it takes FOREVER to complete on some levels, isn't perfect, so I have to go back to some sections that had circlular paths, etc.

As I hate rat-killing/level grinding, my completionist and security concious nature is making me thoroughly clear out this level.

Which in turn is making me look at the place in question and thinking "who the heck would build a Barracks like this!?" because these structures were generated as a place to run around and kill monsters, not as their actual labeled use.

I imagine, that a giant Gygaxian Dungeon of Forky Complexity is great if your party intends to wander in, kill some stuff and head back out.

Once your party has a specific "story" goal, then it's a lot of wrong paths, extra stuff to achieving the goal.

Or if the party truly wants to clear out the level, it's going to get grindy.


So understanding the nature of the design is useful, for deciding if that design is beneficial or detracting from the objective of the party for that session.


----------



## Janx

This is indeed a good thread, and a ton of work went into setting it up by  [MENTION=1713]Melan[/MENTION]

I had actually been thinking of talking about dungeon design with regards to Diablo 3 (which I been playing on 360 lately), and here we are with this incredible opus to the topic.

having re-skimmed the first page, I'm thinking the dichotomy of linear vs. non-linear or extensive forking design really ties into what the group intends to do in the dungeon.

As I mentioned, I'm playing Diablo 3, and one of the annoying things is the enormous huge dungeons that I obey the Rule of Right in order to clear out the dungeon.  it takes FOREVER to complete on some levels, isn't perfect, so I have to go back to some sections that had circlular paths, etc.

As I hate rat-killing/level grinding, my completionist and security concious nature is making me thoroughly clear out this level.

Which in turn is making me look at the place in question and thinking "who the heck would build a Barracks like this!?" because these structures were generated as a place to run around and kill monsters, not as their actual labeled use.

I imagine, that a giant Gygaxian Dungeon of Forky Complexity is great if your party intends to wander in, kill some stuff and head back out.

Once your party has a specific "story" goal, then it's a lot of wrong paths, extra stuff to achieving the goal.

Or if the party truly wants to clear out the level, it's going to get grindy.


So understanding the nature of the design is useful, for deciding if that design is beneficial or detracting from the objective of the party for that session.


----------



## rmcoen

Through the vast powers of Necromancy, I doth resurrect this thread....(I got here from an article by Alexandrian on "hexcrawling", from a google search on hexcrawl, from the "Runewild" Kickstarter going now.)I loved the original post. I also agree with many of the comments that have been added, including most "recently" in 2013, the post by Janx.  If the story involves a Barracks (to use Janx's example) filled with possessed soldiers, over an undead- and demon-infested dungeon... I would expect a completely logical Barracks building, like I'd find in Roman or European architecture: several bunkrooms, a cafeteria, a couple private rooms for an officer or two, an armory, and a storeroom.  A "linear with hair" map, with maybe two or three exits from the cafeteria, and at least 2 entry points (plus windows).  And a single stairway down to the dungeon.  The dungeon, on the other hand, would have straight designed hallways and cells, but could also be honeycombed by prisoners, restless (un)dead, combat damage from demons, etc -- *it* could be a branching map.But... do your PCs in a ftf RPG want to grind out every corridor in a sprawling map? or do they want to find the "source of the infestation" and obliterate it?  Let them decide, I suppose, with story impacts based on either decision.  Spend too long grinding out every demon and zombie, and the evil plans have advanced in the kingdom; break the soulstone, kill the cultists and leave, and hear stories about undead and demons terrorizing the countryside...In my current campaign - not a "dungeon" but a planeswalking "fetch quest" - each location of the fetch is a series of branching encounters.  the maps are relatively unimportant (excepting tactical combat).  Right now, they are in a demiplane Drow city, trying to destabilize a political situation with blackmail and assassination, while trying to fetch the artifact.  I haven't mapped the whole city, just a circle with districts.  They invaded one Wizard tower, so that got mapped - but not all 6 levels, just the entryway, a couple key decision points (brave the traps on the cabinet to get the teleporter Badges, or slog on through environmental traps the old fashioned way (stoneshaping through the floor/ceiling)), and the "battle-the-crazed druid-lich" level.   Where was I going with this... oh, right: this is a story-based campaign, where they can "fetch" the 5 items in any order - but I adjust the monster power based on teh order they do them in.  So the 4th item's guardians are still roughly as strong as the party; the decisionmaking-reward comes from the loot - going after Item #1 got them favors from an archfey; Item #3 got them a planewalking staff (saving them component costs) -- how they approach each successive item is affected by which items they already acquired.I (GM, my story) can't afford to have them "miss" one of the items because they didn't search for a secret door, or chose not to go back up from level 4 to sublevel 3B.  But, in the current circumstance, they have a decision in front of them - betray their current benefactor, get the Item they want, and leave... or stick with the original plan, get the item and an artifact, *and* the combination to a Vault they otherwise won't have access to...   So to that extent, this is a "hidden level / reward for dilligent players" that can be bypassed.


----------



## Lanefan

Though I've been in this forum since before this thread began I somehow managed to completely miss it - until now.

I haven't read through all of it and so this may have already been brought up, but one thing that seems to be missing from the OP's analysis is the presence or absence of multiple vertical connections between dungeon levels.  Vertical connections, including those that skip levels, can make an otherwise poorly-designed linear dungeon into an excellent one comtaining lots of choice points and interweaving, because loops don't always have to be horizontal.

The most basic example of this: consider a two-story building that consists of two long hallways, one above the other, with rooms leading off of each.  There's one entry, by which are some stairs to the upper deck.  Bland boring single-branch dendritic pattern on each level, right?  But put a second set of stairs at the far end of the halls and bingo - you have a vertical loop.  Put a third set of stairs or an elevator at the midpoint and you have a figure-8 design, again vertical.

I'll use as an example _Dark Tower_.  It's mostly on four levels, with a couple of linear bits on other levels that lead to bosses; and one of the best things about it is just how many ways there are to get from one level to another.  There's vertical loops, horizontal loops, vertical accesses that skip levels, choices everywhere - it's great!

A lesser - but still excellent - example of this is L1 _Secret of Bone Hill_.  At first glance each horizontal level looks rather linear...until you realize just how many vertical accesses there are, particularly from ground level to the level right below.  There's tons of possible loops and interconnections in there but to see them you kind of need a side-view map rather than the usual top-view.

If memory serves, Forge of Fury also has a few different vertical access options between some levels, which makes it not quite as linear as the OP suggests.

Lanefan


----------

