Troll Lord Games

I can't find any reference/guidance in regards to players doing their own mapping in my 4th printing C&C PHB, so I figure I would ask you guys.

I am very "Old School" in my thoughts about this: I believe that players (or at least a designated player, who gets an XP bonus for doing it) should do their own mapping and the CK shouldn't lay out a map for the players (caveat: some complex combats may require CK-provided maps for situational awareness and monster/character placement).

What say ye?

I am getting ready to start a campaign with A0 and...
*SPOILER* (Highlight next line to read)
since the dungeon has magical abilities to change the walls, I think it is a must!
*ENDSPOILER*

I believe that at least one player will not appreciate this. Any suggestions on breaking the news? I feel it might be harder because Moldvay Basic (and others) actually suggest that a player do this, so it feels like something you can point at in a book and say "See, it's in the rules." (putting aside that the CK is the be-all-end-all of how a game should be ran, it doesn't hurt to have the "law" in black and white.)

I just went over this topic with my players, not to long ago. At the end of my 3.5 campaign, I stopped drawing out every bit of the map. Yes, I drew out the whole map, on a 1" square grid. I did it for years on my very large Chessex vinyl mat. But after years of doing this, I decided that I had enough of getting up and down every so often to draw the next leg of the dungeon, the next room of the house, etc. So, I told them that we were going back to an older method, of sorts - I'm going to describe it out to them and if they want to draw it, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine, too. I'll draw out combat encounters (in 3.5, this isn't necessary but easier for both sides) when they arise.

Now when my C&C game starts up, I'll probably follow the same method. I've got more than enough minis and counters, and everyone likes using them, so I'll probably keep to the tabletop for combat. Then only thing I loathe about that is I don't want my players to start thinking (or keep thinking) in terms of 3.5 D&D when they see a grid mat in front of them. C&C is much less of the chess game that 3.5 D&D is. I think the mat will be a good transition for my players, specifically, to ween them further away from 3.5.

On you particular dilemma, I think you should offer an extra goodie to the person who volunteers to map the place, as I don't believe there is any "official" suggestion to have someone map (I couldn't find on in my 5th printing). If anyone else complains about the bribery, make sure you remind them everyone had a chance to volunteer. But if no one elects themselves, be "vaguely specific" by advising them that it would be in their best interest to do so. If you still get no takers, then I say they get what's coming to them. If you're old school, then you know that giving them the courtesy of a warning was far more generous than you had to be.

I will show players a map only for something complex that is too difficult to describe. On other areas I just describe it. I only use rough distance/size estimation unless someone in the party is actually measuring off the distances. This makes it interesting with ranged spells. Are the targets actually in range? If it's borderline (only for longer ranges mind you) I'll secretly roll a Wis check for the spell caster...

Arduin wrote:This makes it interesting with ranged spells. Are the targets actually in range? If it's borderline (only for longer ranges mind you) I'll secretly roll a Wis check for the spell caster...

I like this. I can picture the look on a player's face when the spell fizzles right in front of its intended target.

Thanks everyone for the input!

Even in my early days I never encouraged or discouraged players from mapping. The one thing I did stipulate was the group needed some kind of way to do the mapping. If they didn't have it then it relied upon someone with a high Wisdom score (Aided by the dwarf if he isn't the one with the high Wisdom.), to try and remember, or other creative ways like putting arrows, at each junction telling the group, "This way is out." To me, getting lost is just as fun.

I've never needed it for combat as at the beginning of each round of combat, I do a quick update of were everyone is.

The only experience I've ever had with mapping, on the table, was I was in a Paranoia game were the GM had to start and stop between GMing and cartography. I found jumping in and out like that was very jarring and took away the smoothness of telling the story.

I might be in the minority, because everyone else seemed to like it good enough. It is something I just don't want to experience again.

I actually did an experiment with this mapping issue a couple of months back. I used my WOTC tiles to lay out the dungeon and had one of my players "map out" the whole of the dungeon, because I only kept up only 1 to 3 of the rooms at any given time. I then compared their map to my master map. They never made a mistake.

The lesson? When they actually see what they are mapping, just like they would in real life, they do not make any mistakes. They noted all angles of descent and ascent, got all the turns correct, etc...

So just describing what they see, instead of letting them see what they actually see, is what made for all the mistakes I used to see when I did it "old school".

So now I don't worry about it. I either draw it or lay it out, or if I don't I tell one of my players how to do it, then just assume the combined intelligence of their characters makes sure their maps are correct, and the mapping just stays in the "back ground" of play, rather than be an up and front part of it.

I've always let players map out the dungeon; however, I do not allow graph paper, they have to do them free hand on blank paper. This come from a campaign where I was a player, I didn't have graph paper so did basic rough line/box/circle type mapping. I found it to be quite fun, and something much more likely of a group of adventurers than an exacting map of every detail and shape. guesstimating at something like 1/4"=10' worked well and there were plenty of quickly scribbled notes on those maps...

Treebore wrote: So just describing what they see, instead of letting them see what they actually see, is what made for all the mistakes I used to see when I did it "old school".

One flaw there. The characters don't see "tiles of exact dimensions". Unless they carry a large tape measure, level, etc., they estimate only...

I have a large raised platform that is about 6 inches off the table. I have 2 8-ft. tables facing each other/side by side. On that is a 1 inch grid that is 3 feet by 3 1/2 feet, that has a plexiglass cover over it. I draw the rooms using water color markers, as the party enters and has line of sight. We use lots of minis! I use black for walls, brown for wood doors, blue for iron doors, I have statues, columns and furniture I throw out to dress it up. They were given paper and pencils. If they map, they do; if they dont, well things happen.

I erase as they leave one room and draw the next. If they get lost, it is their affair. I draw the rooms in very good detail. Now when it comes time to retreat and they want to move quickly, they show me the map they made and show me how they go. If there is no map, we redraw as they go. If there is an encounter along the way, we redraw and do combat.

They start mapping about the 3rd room in. if it is small affair, they just wing it.

Arduin wrote:

Treebore wrote: So just describing what they see, instead of letting them see what they actually see, is what made for all the mistakes I used to see when I did it "old school".

One flaw there. The characters don't see "tiles of exact dimensions". Unless they carry a large tape measure, level, etc., they estimate only...

99.98% of the time their estimates are going to be good enough. Plus everyone "carries" a large tape measure, its called their feet. All they have to know is how long their foot is.

As for a level, a liquid works just fine, pour it on the surface in question, and observe what direction it flows and how fast. Combined with what your eyes tell you, you get a relatively close estimate of angles.

So the exceptions are rarely, if ever, worth adding the extra time to the game sessions to handle it with any detail, so I don't bother anymore.

Treebore wrote:Plus everyone "carries" a large tape measure, its called their feet. All they have to know is how long their foot is. .

Yes, I allowed for that. The player has to state they are performing such an act. It takes time, etc.

If players want to map, they map. I don't care.