Maps and Characters

[TRP]

You know, forget it, I guess since I have this reputation now, I might as well start showing up at cons, going from table to table destroying lovingly-crafted maps while peoples' backs are turned. Might as well throw my hat into the Internet Tough Guy contest while I'm at it. Muwahahahahaha....

I double-dog dare ya!

[grodog]

Session 1:- "We follow the left hand wall."

Session 2:- "We follow the left hand wall until we reach the place we were at last time."

... etc. Only a teleporter that they don't know about, or an illusion of some kind, will prevent them using this tactic.

While true, this kind of map will produce a record of where they've been only, and won't help with identifying areas likely to house secret doors or otherwise potentially hidden areas. That may not be much of an issue, perhaps, in dungeons/lairs where secret doors allow access into or between otherwise normally- accessible rooms or clusters of rooms.

I think there's a bit of a disconnect here about the purpose, and complexity, of the players' map.

I agree, and I think that Falconer is being a little unjustly vilified for a one-time action that his players found amusing: he clearly knows his players, and isn't advocating the wanton shredding of player maps (or PC sheets either---which Gary has done in the past at conventions!).

At its simplest it's not necessary for the players to map, if they're not interested in the organisation of the dungeon and the location of rooms relative to one another. Unless they're unusually stupid, or unless the dungeon is for some reason changing after they've left each room, they'll be able to find their way out again by retracing their steps. They'll have left a trail of dead monsters and looted treasure piles behind them, after all.

You just got me thinking about designing a dungeon level that's much more flexible and variable in the physical environment that is presented to the players, Stuart My "Diamonds in the Rough" level has some sections with several moving walls and such, but I haven't really thought about a level that filled with moving walls, shifting room, etc. Thanks for the inspiration

It doesn't seem controversial to me that such a map could be lost as a result of an in-game event.

I still agree that the in-game maps (whether trailing or detailed) can certainly be destroyed in play, and therefore be unavailable to the players afterward.

[Wheggi]

You just got me thinking about designing a dungeon level that's much more flexible and variable in the physical environment that is presented to the players, Stuart My "Diamonds in the Rough" level has some sections with several moving walls and such, but I haven't really thought about a level that filled with moving walls, shifting room, etc.

I may have to share some of my 'moving dungeon' ideas with you someday. Unfortuantely to implement some of the designs properly you have to make maps with multiple moving parts, and such things just don't translate well to an electronic format.

- Wheggi

[TRP]

I agree, and I think that Falconer is being a little unjustly vilified ...

I think "vilified" is a little strong.

[Ragnorakk]

Tangential question - player is taking notes during an adventure and character is struck with amnesia. DM confiscates the player's notes? I'd say so - can't remember the name of the innkeep from town anymore, nor how to get back to the inn. What would happen to a character's "soft map" (i.e. memorized one), and how difficult would that be to separate from the player (player knows character followed left wall, character doesn't)... I like the players to map personally.

[AxeMental]

Mapping is one of the first things to go with some groups, usually due to laziness. Its just faster and you know if you describe it all, the experienced player can map it, so why take the time when you can be covering more ground (with the DM just doing it for the players). That said, its really one of the key things that define the "feel" of early 1E. Sometimes you have to drag yourself back to basics to appreciate what you left. I think I'm going to go back to having the players map everything out, if they screw up oh well. Thats a huge part of the fun. Screwing up on maps is part of the realism and the point of a reality simulator like 1E.

[Wheggi]

Axe, gotta ask you a question: where do you keep coming up with the "AD&D is a reality simulater" concept? I've never seen it as any kind of simulator, simply because simulator implies doing everything possible to emulate an actual experience. AD&D is a game - a complex one - that focuses on a particular genre (fantasy). I would say that LARPs are closer to being simulators than RPGs, since they are trying to 'create' an entirely escapist environment.

I myself (since I'm the only person I can speak for) never try to BE the character I'm running in an AD&D game. I may speak in 1st person while playing but that's more reflex than anything, much like how I speak in 1st person while referring to a chess piece when playing that game ("Ha, I move here! Checkmate!" ). In my head however I always think of my character as "my guy", not "me".

- Wheggi

[AxeMental]

Axe, gotta ask you a question: where do you keep coming up with the "AD&D is a reality simulater" concept? I've never seen it as any kind of simulator, simply because simulator implies doing everything possible to emulate an actual experience. AD&D is a game - a complex one - that focuses on a particular genre (fantasy). I would say that LARPs are closer to being simulators than RPGs, since they are trying to 'create' an entirely escapist environment.

I myself (since I'm the only person I can speak for) never try to BE the character I'm running in an AD&D game. I may speak in 1st person while playing but that's more reflex than anything, much like how I speak in 1st person while referring to a chess piece when playing that game ("Ha, I move here! Checkmate!" ). In my head however I always think of my character as "my guy", not "me".

- Wheggi

On some level you are the character, and you are moving about in some reality described to you (hence the reality simulator).

Example: "Wheggie, your character enters a room, in front of you is the damnedest huge black spider you've ever seen, and just behind it, is the stairway leading out to the surface, you can even see dim light coming from that direction and smell the cool fresh air as it penetrates the warm dank acrid stench of the spiders lair."

Sure, you don't see Tony the electrician (the way you really appear) dressed in high soft boots and purple cape holding a short sword, but in some sort of way (perhaps not specifically at all), you see your guy, and you are forced to be him (in that you control him from his perspective based on what he senses) those are the rules (you must act) you say: "I do this or I do that" or "my guy does this or that", its really almost the same as playing make believe as a kid, except your ass is in a seat (and the DM is calling the shots, having you role to see if you make it).

The reality simulator part I speak of goes beyond that though, its the way you picture the setting in detail (smell it, taste it, hear it) often with the help of the descriptive DM, its a pretend reality with laws (if I run I can make such and such speed, but I have to be careful I could trip and fall).

In this case the DM askes Wheggie what he wants to do: Wheggie: "my PC" pulls out a flask of oil and lights it with his torch, throwing it to the right of the creature I will attempt to run around it to the right and run for the stairs". The DM says (after some dice rolling), "by the time you get your flask out and light it the giant spider has closed in and its fangs towering over you bite down sinking into your shoulder with stunning force. Burning poison is pushed into your veins, as multiple grey spider eyes glisten at you from atop its furry body, evilly eying you in some horrible hunger...it is the last thing you ever see".

See, compare that to playing Monopoly. In this case, you have all your senses engaged (you can feel the suffercating dungeon, the cool crisp air hitting your face, the exasperation of the possibility of escape (the soul survivor with all the loot), and feel the pain of death when your last effort fails. Hence, a reality simulator. D&D is more then moving a piece about...you are the piece if you want to admit it or not (on some level, and it differs between players and at different parts of the game). I also disagree with you about the rules being complex. They are only complex to the DM, the players should be ideally unaware of any rules. It should be completely fluid (as much like real life as possible). Think back W to the very first time you played D&D, and remember how it felt. That is what I'm talking about.

You said: "simply because simulator implies doing everything possible to emulate an actual experience". This is true, but the experiance is a combination of what your own imagination comes up with and what the DM describes (very similar to what you see in your minds eye reading a book).

[geneweigel]

I agree with both points as immersion can be too far for some people.

Several years ago, I had a player off the street who seemed reasonable but muttered things and had some very visual physical injury that they would not mention. I was forced to address everything with him as "COLD" as I was a little cautious about "WARMING" up with even a little bit. So I can definitely see both perspectives here.

[Flambeaux]

Based on Axe's description, I'm not in the "D&D as reality simultor" camp. I'm also opposed to Method Acting for the same reasons.

[Juju EyeBall]

I like funny voices. I don't play D&D with the goal of simulating reality.

[geneweigel]

If you're going to stop the game because someone is too in-character over table policy that kind of sucks. I think it should be gauged reasonably if the person is a dominating asshole who won't shut up or just a freak show who may harm somebody then yeah but small doses are beyond fine with me.

And Scottish dwarves should just get told to shut up on principle!

[Vlospiress]

If you're going to stop the game because someone is too in-character over table policy that kind of sucks. I think it should be gauged reasonably if the person is a dominating asshole who won't shut up or just a freak show who may harm somebody then yeah but small doses are beyond fine with me.

And Scottish dwarves should just get told to shut up on principle!

I agree totally, phoney accents should be banned!

[geneweigel]

I was saying because thats a big hangup of mine, people who play dwarves and act like a Scotsman are all over the place and it drives me nuts. WARCRAFT II the video game with the dwarves who blow up and say amongst other things "Ahck, dwarvsRRaddy". That just annoys the living shit out of me especially when they lose it and start direct quoting WARCRAFT II.

I wouldn't agree with me too much because I'm seeming a little more on the willowy side today as the rest of the time I'm more like "Old Man Willowy"...

"Gene, we sent the new player down to talk to you, he's a little on the short side..."
BUUURRRRPPP!!!!

[Juju EyeBall]

And my axe!


/ducks out of thread