So I've been trying to get the art of jacquaying the dungeon (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/13085/roleplaying-games/jaquaying-the-dungeon) right for a while now (ie: making it nonlinear). I've made about a million of these things and finally had the balls to share a few to decidedly mixed reviews. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35304-You-can-have-this-BECMI-dungeon-I-made-if-you-tell-me-if-it-sucks)
Sharing was really informative, especially simplifying the initial blueprint to a ball-and-stick model. Since then, I've adopted the strategy of beginning all dungeon blueprints with that model to ensure that they're properly jacquayed before fleshing them out with a more complete blueprint.
I've been doing this for a few months, and I noted a really stupid-simple hack that, maybe it's obvious to you guys but it shocked me: just make sure the majority of points have a minimum of three lines leading to them
This basically makes linearity impossible. One entrance per room makes it a dead end. Two makes it linear. With three, you have an option for how to proceed in every single room (or a least the majority of them: some choke points are desirable)
Check it out on this shitty thing I made: [ATTACH=CONFIG]860[/ATTACH]
I literally sketched that out in 15 minutes. It's just the ball-and-stick model, and it CAN be solved in a basically linear fashion, but importantly: it doesn't have to be.
So with the understanding that I may be revealing my own ignorance of a super well-known hack, I share it with all of you. Enjoy!
:) Thanks for the revelation! Yes, it seems painfully obvious once you see it, but it's part of the fun process of discovery.
Reminds me of an Azande occultic saying, "one birthed the two, two birthed the three, from the three birthed all other things." Meaning pretty much what you noted here about choice, continuation, and their dynamic tensions.
Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack, that's considered radical and drastic?
Fuck.
* sets hobby on fire *
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955806Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack, that's considered radical and drastic?
Fuck.
* sets hobby on fire *
Hey, not all of us are a million, buddy ;-)
What are you gaining from every room having 3 doors?
Won't that lead to players just assuming there are 3 always 3 doors? AKA, if they enter a room with no doors, they know there are 2 secret doors. Not 3, not 1, but 2.
I can see this being weirdly awesome for the "Dungeon of 3 Doors", but I don't know how its useful beyond that.
BTW, I would totally play and run Three Door Doom Fortress, but not as a regular always happening thingie across the campaign.
Quote from: Spinachcat;955831What are you gaining from every room having 3 doors?
Won't that lead to players just assuming there are 3 always 3 doors? AKA, if they enter a room with no doors, they know there are 2 secret doors. Not 3, not 1, but 2.
I can see this being weirdly awesome for the "Dungeon of 3 Doors", but I don't know how its useful beyond that.
BTW, I would totally play and run Three Door Doom Fortress, but not as a regular always happening thingie across the campaign.
Yeah, I think you need to make sure you're using connections which aren't
only doors. Like, maybe some are secret passageways. Maybe some are staircases. Maybe some are teleporting mirrors (working on this dungeon, just you wait...). Just make sure those boxes have 3+ sticks, dammit.
Definitely want to get creative with the sticks, but outside of the Dungeon of Trios, what's the gain?
Quote from: Spinachcat;955835Definitely want to get creative with the sticks, but outside of the Dungeon of Trios, what's the gain?
The gain is to break up the linearity of the dungeon and present players with multiple options for tackling it (while of course being as lazy as humanly possible).
Quote from: Spinachcat;955831What are you gaining from every room having 3 doors?
OP mentions specifically that not every room has three doors, just a majority of them. Choke points are still desirable (bordering on necessary for tactical play).
And of course we're speaking of three ways to move into or out of the room, not "three doors."
Maybe I am dense. I absolutely support breaking up linearity. However, the concept here is just make sure the majority of points have a minimum of three lines leading to them and I don't know what we are gaining from THE MAJORITY having THREE OR MORE lines.
It doesn't feel like architecture.
It feels weird - and I love weird fantasy - and I FEEL there is an issue of monotony / lack of verisimilitude if the majority of spaces have so many in/outs.
I am really good with 25%, but when we hit 50% I gotta start wondering if its overkill that promotes player paralysis instead of player creativity.
But again, I would totally buy Triple Door Dungeon, but not Triple Door Campaign.
Oh dear, this might get ugly. I think there's a hang up on the idea of 'majority' building blocks needing to be a 'three'. Let me try to head it off by expounding in an esoteric way.
One is of conclusion, of statement, of inertia. Two is of tension, of direction, of movement. Three is of choice, of complexity, of layering. Once you get to the three, you now have the basic tools of stability to create manifold expressions of complex systems. To create overlayed and interlaced loops, enough 'threes' need to be present for a critical mass of complexity.
What is that exact ratio of 'threes' necessary for "Jacquaying?" Honestly I don't know, and would probably be saddened to see it reduced to something so formulaic. 'Majority' is as functional an answer as 'enough' -- yet we get to your point about how much is too much for another.
And then it becomes an issue of how much salt one needs in their soup. :p
Quote from: Spinachcat;955831Won't that lead to players just assuming there are 3 always 3 doors? AKA, if they enter a room with no doors, they know there are 2 secret doors. Not 3, not 1, but 2.
What is it with theRPGsite wanting to take every useful rule of thumb and analyzing it on the assumption that it must be used 100% of the time?
"Make sure you drink lots of fluids."
"MY GOD MAN! IF YOU STICK A GARDEN HOSE IN YOUR MOUTH AND TURN IT ON FULL BLAST FOR 24 HOURS YOU WILL DIE!"
Quote from: Spinachcat;955857Maybe I am dense. I absolutely support breaking up linearity. However, the concept here is just make sure the majority of points have a minimum of three lines leading to them and I don't know what we are gaining from THE MAJORITY having THREE OR MORE lines.
It doesn't feel like architecture.
I'd say the biggest oversight in this particular rule of thumb is that it ignores the common hub-and-spoke design.
When you're talking about jaquaying, though, what you generally want to do when analyzing the navigational routes in your dungeon is to simply ignore dead ends. (You can still have them, but when you're doing structural maps like these (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/13085/roleplaying-games/jaquaying-the-dungeon), you simply ignore them.) Once you've done that, the rule of thumb becomes more useful.
Or, alternatively, you can flip that around: Any room which has less than three exits is
navigationally irrelevant insofar as non-linear/jaquayed design is concerned. Build a ball-and-stick diagram accordingly to see what the fundamental structure of the dungeon is.
For example, consider this dungeon map:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/94/32/62/943262a4aeb16f2214a4a903a7d8ea8f.jpg)
There is only one point in that dungeon which is jaquayed: The initial crossroads just inside the entrance where you can head in three directions. If you draw that as a ball-and-stick diagram it would like this:
(http://www.thealexandrian.net/temp/random-dungeon-diagram1.jpg)
And nothing more.
By contrast, look at this dungeon map:
(http://paratime.ca/images/fantasy/dungeon-057.jpg)
If you map this dungeon out while eliminating any room that doesn't have at least three exits you get:
(http://www.thealexandrian.net/temp/random-dungeon-diagram2.jpg)
Which makes the structurally significant rooms obvious.
Jaquaying is an essential part of good design, and I think Justin was brilliant to describe it as he did. The point he makes with the above post also reinforces the idea that when diagramming an adventure site with node&line ("stick &ball") diagrams, that a node is not simply "one room", but a space that may have linear or nonlinear internal connections.
I'm with OP and JA here, you need to know how to read/use a conceptual diagram.
While I'm not a million - I'm going to go out on a limb here and also point out that is is largely germane only if one assumes a "dungeon" *is* the "adventure".
I definitely use dungeons, but I design them not as byproduct of having a piece of graph-paper and wanting to fill it up with a labyrinthine set of rooms designed to confuse and foil would-be adventurers (unless the construct was designed expressly for that purpose) - but rather I design it for utility. That it happens to *be* an actual dungeon, it will be constructed with those conceits.
I guess if all you do is "dungeon-diving" and call it a campaign... I suppose this might be a novelty. (I'm 500k not a million). I think this is a better way of doing very high-altitude way of mapping out sandbox set-pieces and their connections more than a dungeon... again, unless all you do is run dungeons.
Making an interesting dungeon layout, or a fun wandering monster table, or a engaging motivations table are part of the art.
Given the choice, I'd prefer my players to have well designed dungeons, and room flow is part of that.
I reflexively give a -1 reaction for every use of the blog-cabulary term "Jacquaying".
How about instead designing locations so that they make sense. If someone built them or adapted an existing natural feature, they probably did it in a way that had some history of reasons for why they built what, no? And if the current inhabitants are different, they probably chose places to live and do things for some reason, too. And they have patterns of behavior that make use of what is there in ways that make sense. And there are ways they will respond to play situations such as gangs of murdering looting adventurers in ways that make sense, especially if any of them has any tactical and leadership skills.
And that would be why a large complex where things live probably won't be all laid out in one line. In a line of locations, nothing can get in or out without moving through someone else, which sucks even if they are friends. Ever been in a house like that? There aren't many of them, but there are some (one house in rural France comes to mind) - not great for privacy.
A linear layout also means random encounter tables are liable to produce illogical results, if any of the results should interact with each other, especially violently. If you run a location like a dungeon by tracking where the inhabitants are and what they're doing (and hopefully thinking about what they usually do when adventurers are not there), it may become evident what layouts and placements make sense or not, as well as how denizens might move around and behave.
Quote from: Skarg;955945I reflexively give a -1 reaction for every use of the blog-cabulary term "Jacquaying".
How about instead designing locations so that they make sense. If someone built them or adapted an existing natural feature, they probably did it in a way that had some history of reasons for why they built what, no? And if the current inhabitants are different, they probably chose places to live and do things for some reason, too. And they have patterns of behavior that make use of what is there in ways that make sense. And there are ways they will respond to play situations such as gangs of murdering looting adventurers in ways that make sense, especially if any of them has any tactical and leadership skills.
And that would be why a large complex where things live probably won't be all laid out in one line. In a line of locations, nothing can get in or out without moving through someone else, which sucks even if they are friends. Ever been in a house like that? There aren't many of them, but there are some (one house in rural France comes to mind) - not great for privacy.
A linear layout also means random encounter tables are liable to produce illogical results, if any of the results should interact with each other, especially violently. If you run a location like a dungeon by tracking where the inhabitants are and what they're doing (and hopefully thinking about what they usually do when adventurers are not there), it may become evident what layouts and placements make sense or not, as well as how denizens might move around and behave.
Unless I'm misinformed, I don't believe Jaqcuaying precludes dungeon history. Jaqcuaying is a really fast analysis to see what choices (edit: choices regarding where to move) you're giving the players. Nothing else.
It's like music theory. I can analyze the harmony and that will tell me.something. But I should also do a quick and dirty schenkerian analysis too. And while I'm at it, maybe a quick rhythmic composite analysis as well. Each takes two minutes. But then I can see if there's some relationship I've failed to address.
Quote from: gronan of simmerya;955806sweet crom's hairy nutsack, that's considered radical and drastic?
Fuck.
* sets hobby on fire *
someone isn't as experienced as gronan! Get him!!!
Quote from: Justin Alexander;955883What is it with theRPGsite wanting to take every useful of thumb and analyzing it on the assumption that it must be used 100% of the time?
I think it's nerds in general. (Yes, childrens, I'm counting myself)
Quote from: Ashakyre;955948Unless I'm misinformed, I don't believe Jaqcuaying precludes dungeon history. Jaqcuaying is a really fast analysis to see what choices (edit: choices regarding where to move) you're giving the players. Nothing else.
It's like music theory. I can analyze the harmony and that will tell me.something. But I should also do a quick and dirty schenkerian analysis too. And while I'm at it, maybe a quick rhythmic composite analysis as well. Each takes two minutes. But then I can see if there's some relationship I've failed to address.
According to the blog article the OP linked (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/13085/roleplaying-games/jaquaying-the-dungeon), Jaqcuaying is a term made up for that blog article, and then I was responding to how the OP here was using it, focusing on the idea of having a guideline of three doors per rule.
Of course you're quite right that multiple approaches can be used.
I was just joking about the term, but I think it's confusing and mildly inappropriate to adopt that term from a blog as if it's some pillar of design that should be turned into gerunds and adjectives.
Quote from: Skarg;955955According to the blog article the OP linked (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/13085/roleplaying-games/jaquaying-the-dungeon), Jaqcuaying is a term made up for that blog article, and then I was responding to how the OP here was using it, focusing on the idea of having a guideline of three doors per rule.
Of course you're quite right that multiple approaches can be used.
I was just joking about the term, but I think it's confusing and mildly inappropriate to adopt that term from a blog as if it's some pillar of design that should be turned into gerunds and adjectives.
Yeah, it's a hella awkward term, but the Alexandrian was one of the first RPG blogs I binge read, so I just kind of roll with it.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;955883What is it with theRPGsite wanting to take every useful of thumb and analyzing it on the assumption that it must be used 100% of the time?
It's not just theRPGSite, it's godsdamn Western culture. Every fucking thing in the world must be overthought to death and beyond.
Quote from: tenbones;955936While I'm not a million - I'm going to go out on a limb here and also point out that is is largely germane only if one assumes a "dungeon" *is* the "adventure".
Not in my experience. Jaquaying techniques are useful any time you're dealing with a location-based scenario structure, regardless of scale. Here (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/34950/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-jaquaying-on-the-small-scale), for example, I describe how the techniques can be applied to a location with only two rooms in order to make that location substantially more interesting in actual play. Jaquaying techniques are about creating environments with complex topography that allow for interesting tactical and strategic considerations.
Quote from: Ashakyre;955948Unless I'm misinformed, I don't believe Jaqcuaying precludes dungeon history. Jaqcuaying is a really fast analysis to see what choices (edit: choices regarding where to move) you're giving the players. Nothing else.
It's like music theory. I can analyze the harmony and that will tell me.something. But I should also do a quick and dirty schenkerian analysis too. And while I'm at it, maybe a quick rhythmic composite analysis as well. Each takes two minutes. But then I can see if there's some relationship I've failed to address.
That's the most basic element of the
Jaquaying the Dungeon: A diagnostic tool paired to a discussion about the benefits of non-linearity in location design.
But those aren't the only lessons learned from Jennell Jaquays' work: Part 2 looks at different types of advanced, complex topographical relationships. Part 3 talks about how non-linear design relates to real world architecture; the importance of not losing all structure and "flattening" your dungeon while pursuing non-linearity; and the use of landmarks to orient and lock-in the topographical relationships for the players. Part 5 looks at how Jaquays uses topographical themes within a dungeon to give it a unique "calling card". And the Dungeon Level Connections addendum lays out a whole bunch of different unusual ways for dungeon levels to be connected to each other (including ones designed to trick the players).
"But that's all obvious stuff! Why can't you just design locations so that they make sense? I've been playing for 30 years and when I just think about how a dungeon
should be I get good results!" That's nice. You might want to give some thought to how your 30 years of experience might be impacting how "obvious" things are to you. And you might want to reflect on the general efficacy of, say, an English teacher telling their students, "Why can't you just write better words? It's easy for me!"
Quote from: Justin Alexander;955980"But that's all obvious stuff! Why can't you just design locations so that they make sense? I've been playing for 30 years and when I just think about how a dungeon should be I get good results!" That's nice. You might want to give some thought to how your 30 years of experience might be impacting how "obvious" things are to you. And you might want to reflect on the general efficacy of, say, an English teacher telling their students, "Why can't you just write better words? It's easy for me!"
Not just the experienced, but some people have internalized certain knowledge without analyzing it. Like, (Completely made up example.) if you live in New York and have lived there all your life, you might have this kind of "sixth sense" about the public transit system, and how to hail a cab. You can get from A to B without even thinking about it.
Someone new to New York would have to look up the bus schedules, cab fare rates, etc... Our hypothetical visitior
might not even realize that there might be a task involved, if they live in a small town where everything is within walking distance.
Now, if you're going to explain commuting to visitor person, you're going to have to go into the kind of detail that our native New Yorker doesn't even think about.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;955980"But that's all obvious stuff! Why can't you just design locations so that they make sense? I've been playing for 30 years and when I just think about how a dungeon should be I get good results!" That's nice. You might want to give some thought to how your 30 years of experience might be impacting how "obvious" things are to you. And you might want to reflect on the general efficacy of, say, an English teacher telling their students, "Why can't you just write better words? It's easy for me!"
Exactly. This is the reason why I
posted something about it rather than just assuming everybody knows all this stuff already. Maybe you guys do, but if I had like, just got to this site and I was asking myself "what do these boards have to offer me?", I'd walk away from this post and these article links having learned something valuable.
Also, it's super awesome you're posting in this thread Justin. Your articles are extremely informative and useful in practical application.
You can (and should) apply the same design logic to the campaign as a whole, not just a dungeon/adventure area. I.e. multiple directions (both literal and conceptual) the PCs can take things.
While it's "obvious" to some of us, for players (and DMs) used to "the adventure" or "story" telling them where to go and what to do, having more than one clear path to choose from is challenging and novel. People talk about railroading for a reason - it's pretty much how most people play their games.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;955883What is it with theRPGsite wanting to take every useful rule of thumb and analyzing it on the assumption that it must be used 100% of the time?
"Make sure you drink lots of fluids."
"MY GOD MAN! IF YOU STICK A GARDEN HOSE IN YOUR MOUTH AND TURN IT ON FULL BLAST FOR 24 HOURS YOU WILL DIE!"
Hahahah still laughing at this. :)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]873[/ATTACH]
Here it as after being fleshed out a bit. It's comin' along nice.
Player choice is a very important feature in adventure design, but architects in the game world don't design structures for this meta-purpose. Places are constructed for a purpose and X number of exits included purely for for player choice are sometimes at odds for that purpose.
When designing an actual dungeon that was used for locking away persons who displeased a king,
why on earth would the place be designed as a maze with many interconnected rooms and shitloads of exits? A functional dungeon for keeping prisoners might be better served as a dead end cell block with the only exit being through a guard chamber. That makes more sense if the dungeon is being built for actual use rather than as an amusement park for a bunch of murderhobos to wander through.
Sometimes a labyrinth with dozens of exits & passages designed by a deranged wizard with too much time on his hands is just what is called for but the majority of structures are or were probably built to serve an original purpose even if it has been forgotten over the centuries. Player choice is about more that just which direction to go. It also involves what to do exactly if there is but one way forward. Do you continue knowing that the further you go, the more cornered/trapped you might become, or do you fall back and explore other opportunities?
Why would a tomb designed as a death trap for grave robbers be designed with multiple exits & escape routes? The whole purpose of building the tomb was to entrap & funnel invaders toward deadly guardians & traps. How would providing a multitude of avoidance avenues serve the tomb's purpose?
You should really watch Prison Break sometime... New season just started, but in each season "the prison" featured (real places) had interconnected internal areas at at least 2 ways in/out. Now, getting around without the guards jumping on you was always a problem, but those locations show the same design elements we are talking about (layered old construction, places not on the current blueprints, guard blind spots, weak points between 'unrelated' rooms, etc).
Quote from: Justin Alexander;955980Not in my experience. Jaquaying techniques are useful any time you're dealing with a location-based scenario structure, regardless of scale. Here (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/34950/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-jaquaying-on-the-small-scale), for example, I describe how the techniques can be applied to a location with only two rooms in order to make that location substantially more interesting in actual play. Jaquaying techniques are about creating environments with complex topography that allow for interesting tactical and strategic considerations.
That's the most basic element of the Jaquaying the Dungeon: A diagnostic tool paired to a discussion about the benefits of non-linearity in location design.
But those aren't the only lessons learned from Jennell Jaquays' work: Part 2 looks at different types of advanced, complex topographical relationships. Part 3 talks about how non-linear design relates to real world architecture; the importance of not losing all structure and "flattening" your dungeon while pursuing non-linearity; and the use of landmarks to orient and lock-in the topographical relationships for the players. Part 5 looks at how Jaquays uses topographical themes within a dungeon to give it a unique "calling card". And the Dungeon Level Connections addendum lays out a whole bunch of different unusual ways for dungeon levels to be connected to each other (including ones designed to trick the players).
"But that's all obvious stuff! Why can't you just design locations so that they make sense? I've been playing for 30 years and when I just think about how a dungeon should be I get good results!" That's nice. You might want to give some thought to how your 30 years of experience might be impacting how "obvious" things are to you. And you might want to reflect on the general efficacy of, say, an English teacher telling their students, "Why can't you just write better words? It's easy for me!"
I, for one, was not saying logical design was easy or obvious.
My main point was that thoughtful logical location design is not the personal invention/discovery of Jennell Jaquays, and that inventing a term based on his name and using that in my view pollutes an interesting topic. Just say Jaquays wrote some neat articles that talk about architecture, allowing more than linear movement, and A, B and C, and talk about those things, please, without calling any aspect of that Jaquay(ing/ism/itis).
Quote from: Exploderwizard;956090Player choice is a very important feature in adventure design, but architects in the game world don't design structures for this meta-purpose. Places are constructed for a purpose and X number of exits included purely for for player choice are sometimes at odds for that purpose.
When designing an actual dungeon that was used for locking away persons who displeased a king,
Most dungeons aren't that. In RPGs a dungeon is any underground lair where the adventure takes place. And not even underground, if you stretch the idea even further.
Some dungeons started life as prisons, but were then taken over by whatever critters. Others never were dungeons, but the name stuck for describing adventure settings for some reason...
(http://dragonsdengames.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Dungeons_and_Dragons_4th_Edition_Logo.jpg)
Anywho. "Realism" can add to a location's interest. Different locations will have different features and hazards.
But the purpose of a dungeon is also to give the characters a place to explore and "beat".
Quotewhy on earth would the place be designed as a maze with many interconnected rooms and shitloads of exits? A functional dungeon for keeping prisoners might be better served as a dead end cell block with the only exit being through a guard chamber. That makes more sense if the dungeon is being built for actual use rather than as an amusement park for a bunch of murderhobos to wander through.
Sometimes a labyrinth with dozens of exits & passages designed by a deranged wizard with too much time on his hands is just what is called for but the majority of structures are or were probably built to serve an original purpose even if it has been forgotten over the centuries. Player choice is about more that just which direction to go. It also involves what to do exactly if there is but one way forward. Do you continue knowing that the further you go, the more cornered/trapped you might become, or do you fall back and explore other opportunities?
Why would a tomb designed as a death trap for grave robbers be designed with multiple exits & escape routes? The whole purpose of building the tomb was to entrap & funnel invaders toward deadly guardians & traps. How would providing a multitude of avoidance avenues serve the tomb's purpose?
Why is the Nostromo a dank, cramped, space dungeon instead of a well-lit, easy to navigate space mining rig? Because Alien was about being trapped in a space dungeon with a scary monster.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;956090Sometimes a labyrinth with dozens of exits & passages designed by a deranged wizard with too much time on his hands is just what is called for but the majority of structures are or were probably built to serve an original purpose even if it has been forgotten over the centuries.
I frequently see this opinion expressed: Jaquaying requires mad house dungeons! Real buildings are linear!
... in what universe, exactly?
Quote from: Telarus;956108You should really watch Prison Break sometime...
This isn't even limited to fictional prisons. Do a Google Image search for prison blueprints. None (http://theappendix.net/images/issues/2/1/large-21_filled-in_plan.jpg) of (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/f0/b1/ca/f0b1ca4fd15c534b054653114ecd35c2.jpg) them (http://www.brazilbrazil.com/m/powcamp2.jpg) are linear designs.
What about real world oubliettes beneath castles? Generally speaking, no. The oubliette itself, sure. The general complex of imprisonment / interrogation / etc.? Not so much. Generally speaking you just don't get these long, linear chains of rooms in real world architecture.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;955883What is it with theRPGsite wanting to take every useful rule of thumb and analyzing it on the assumption that it must be used 100% of the time?
Did you read the OP? Or just the imaginary one in your head?
Multiple entrance/exits is a GREAT design idea, but the OP was about every room having 3 or more. It's even in the thread title "three lines per box"
Quote from: Exploderwizard;956090Why would a tomb designed as a death trap for grave robbers be designed with multiple exits & escape routes? The whole purpose of building the tomb was to entrap & funnel invaders toward deadly guardians & traps. How would providing a multitude of avoidance avenues serve the tomb's purpose?
Agreed.
It's almost as if this Jacquaying thing was a disassociated mechanic! :)
First and foremost, the "dungeon" design must make sense to WTF the dungeon was created to be originally. If it was a living space, the multiple "lines per box" makes sense for flow of people. You see it plenty in real world architecture. I run lots of Gamma World / post-apoc games where previous inhabited spaces are now...inhabited again, so atriums, community rooms, branching corridors and the like all work fine. But if its a lich's crypt designed to protect the lich, it isn't going to be escape friendly...except for the lich.
Also, if its a lair or fortress, different areas will be designed differently based on their function.
As I am a fan of wandering monsters, I love the many doors approach. It gives me many angles of attack and makes it hell on PCs to defend a zone. Because while the PCs get to make many choices, the denizens already know how to get from A to B along multiple paths. Even my death traps have extra doors...they are just secret and locked.
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
Quote from: Spinachat;956231Azraele, please stick around and contribute more. Your attitude is refreshing. I am more than happy to help when I know the poster is open to ideas.
Spina, that's you the first time I got discouraged posting something here. It's the reason I chose to post this thread, actually.
Well, I'm contributing, I'm open to ideas.... Do you consider your contributions in this thread to meet your criteria for helping?
Quote from: Skarg;956113I, for one, was not saying logical design was easy or obvious.
My main point was that thoughtful logical location design is not the personal invention/discovery of Jennell Jaquays, and that inventing a term based on his name and using that in my view pollutes an interesting topic. Just say Jaquays wrote some neat articles that talk about architecture, allowing more than linear movement, and A, B and C, and talk about those things, please, without calling any aspect of that Jaquay(ing/ism/itis).
If Jaquays strangled your grandma in her sleep maybe I'd see how the name might "pollute" something for you, but in the context of adventure design the term seems to fit the bill. It seems the burden is on you to come up with something more compact and apropos if you don't like Justin's term.
My condolences on the loss of your grandma, though.
I consider it an appropriate piece of gamer "design jargon", especially considering how much influence Jaquays had on "early" real-time computer game map design via Halo Wars, Quake 3 Arena, etc. The influence goes beyond the Judges Guild, etc, products that Justin examined. Not many people are aware of that influence on computer game level design, and those maps have other "balance" based design pressures that tend towards symmetrical terrain with multiple complex paths through it an "firefight arenas" where they cross. Damn, on my phone.... Let me dig up a link to some of the articles Jaquays wrote about those designs.
I think others have said this already, but allow any given "ball" to be more than just a single room. Similarly (and you're obviously already thinking this way) let the "sticks" be more than just doors.
Ok the Halo wars design notes are still up ( http://www.halowars.com/GameInfo/maps/crevice.aspx ), but the other essays are not on Jenny's current website, so I had to use the Wayback Machine.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110918215954/http://www.jaquays.com/paul/gamedesign.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20120308090754/http://www.jaquays.com/paul/index.html
The second link has a blog post from 10/01/2009 that had links to the design notes for each of the Halo Wars Maps.
(Also, I owe a thanks to Jenny and Justin for that A in my Level Design class. ;) )
Considering Jaquays is a renowned level designer in tabletop RPGs as well as video games, and we know that there was a design philosophy behind the designs, I think coming up with a term for applying Jaquays' design philosophy is appropriate.
As far as design itself goes, verisimilitude to the setting should come first. If, for example, temples of Sigmar are always laid out in a T formation, to represent The Warhammer, then they should be. However, verisimilitude also includes real limitations of the builders and the site's history. A temple repurposed from some other building will be designed differently then one custom-built for that purpose. Older buildings may be more catacombed simply because there wasn't the wealth/knowledge to create large open enclosed spaces. Different races/cultures may have different building technologies, philosophies, or preferences.
So, the idea is to provide for a Jaquaysian Design (which makes for a more interesting and tactical environment) as much as possible given the constraints of the setting.
FOR ME, the most interesting aspect of "Jaquaysian" design is how many of the "doors" are concealed, or somehow not instantly accessible to the PCs (like finding the keys in Doom, or code words for the magic door)
It is also a tension / atmosphere tool because the players (and PCs) can assume the denizens know all the "secret" ways, but they may not have found all of them, leaving concerns about what could approach from the side or the rear or ambush them entirely.
One thing I notice missing from much dungeon design is vertical movement options. You see it in Gygax's DMG 1e random dungeon design charts. A level generated will often have multiple stairs up and down, often 2 levels, along with pits, chutes, teleporters and elevators. These features could lead the PCs into dungeon areas "beyond their level" or allow quick access back upwards. I am surprised we didn't see more of this in TSR's modules.
And its not just missing in fantasy games. Odder, its often missing in modern and sci-fi adventures. Don't forget elevators, emergency exits, fire escapes, freight chutes, and other vertical options are all standard architectural elements. And in space games, there is the question of movement via airlocks.
Quote from: Azraele;956293Do you consider your contributions in this thread to meet your criteria for helping?
Absolutely! And if you PM your address, I'll contribute some of my shit to choke on.
It's got organic corn!
You posted a perfectly good discussion topic. Kudos.
I disagree on the certain aspects of the concept, but I agree with many.
And if you're not gonna publish the Three Door Dungeon, I just might. It's a terrific fantasy premise. I am certainly going to do a small version and run it to see if the players are amused or frustrated by the sheer number of pathways and see if they experience choice paralysis.
Movement in video games is much faster than in RPGs which adds some concerns for me about the "three lines to a box" ideas. The amount of video game map that you can cover in 2 hours is notable compared to the amount of space you will see RPG players tackle in that same time period.
The "exploration mode" gygaxian maze makes a bit more sense when you enforce the Party Caller position, doors can be "stuck" (x in 6) and close again when out of sight, and players have to roll to open stuck doors but native monsters do not. Parties carve their own unique path into many possible 'jaquaysian' routes to the major landmarks of the dungeon. Really good call with what are called "gated routes/areas" in crpg level design jargon. Once you have cleared your way to one of the gated/hidden exits or level connections this gives the players a tactical choice, shortcut, route around previous hazards, etc. Each of the multiple parties raiding the dungeon would get their own set of paths through it by the above mechanics, until an area had been "cleared" and mapped out. This clicks nicely with the old "we don't know who will be here week to week" campaign play.
Quote from: Spinachcat;956362FOR ME, the most interesting aspect of "Jaquaysian" design is how many of the "doors" are concealed, or somehow not instantly accessible to the PCs (like finding the keys in Doom, or code words for the magic door)
I thought the reason for having many doors/connections was to actively counter linearity/railroads.
If you block off the third door in a three door room, don't you just reintroduce linearity?
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;956373I thought the reason for having many doors/connections was to actively counter linearity/railroads.
If you block off the third door in a three door room, don't you just reintroduce linearity?
Note he said they aren't immediatley accessible. Like how you can see stuff in Super Metroid, but not access it until you get a certain upgrade.
(http://www.emulegion.info/screenshots/SNES_Super_Metroid_04.jpg)
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;956373I thought the reason for having many doors/connections was to actively counter linearity/railroads.
If you block off the third door in a three door room, don't you just reintroduce linearity?
For one room? Yes, but hiding is not the same as blocking. Even if you are temporarily blocking with locks/wards, etc. having every room be a multi-decision would be just as fake seeming as every room a straight in/out or every room a dead end. Some rooms and caves are just a dead end. Period.
The point is mixing it up enough so the players don't have a one-size-fits-all room clearing drill. At least make them come up with a few, and that includes the secret door shuffle.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;955952someone isn't as experienced as gronan! Get him!!!
I don't think it takes a lot of experience. Some, but not a lot. Lots of people have noted how computer games of the 90s often had many ways you could go, and then ten years later were very linear. It's no coincidence that many of the more popular games now are not so linear (GTA, Skyrim, Fallout, etc), or at least hide their linearity pretty well. So then you extrapolate it to rpgs...
I still think things like the OP's stuff can be useful, anything that helps you think about the structure of things, a skeleton to flesh out.
Quote from: Telarus;956368The "exploration mode" gygaxian maze makes a bit more sense when you enforce the Party Caller position, doors can be "stuck" (x in 6) and close again when out of sight, and players have to roll to open stuck doors but native monsters do not. Parties carve their own unique path into many possible 'jaquaysian' routes to the major landmarks of the dungeon. Really good call with what are called "gated routes/areas" in crpg level design jargon. Once you have cleared your way to one of the gated/hidden exits or level connections this gives the players a tactical choice, shortcut, route around previous hazards, etc. Each of the multiple parties raiding the dungeon would get their own set of paths through it by the above mechanics, until an area had been "cleared" and mapped out. This clicks nicely with the old "we don't know who will be here week to week" campaign play.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;956373I thought the reason for having many doors/connections was to actively counter linearity/railroads.
If you block off the third door in a three door room, don't you just reintroduce linearity?
I kind of like how these two posts ended up next to each other. If you block off exits non-deterministically (e.g., the stuck doors Telarus was talking about), you may end up with a linear route (as Dirk said)... but nobody will know
which of the possible linear routes will be available at any given time, which still effectively prevents a railroad (assuming a non-illusionist GM).
Holy shit, nerds "discovered" that three options is more than two.
I have another discovery for you: 2+2=4.
Any more breaking news?
I don't understand the hoopla here at all. Determine your dungeon's history and features. Before you get bogged down in the details of map drawing - all those beautiful alcoves and triangular archetecture or whatever, look at the big picture. Takes about two minutes. How would you like those features to connect to each other?
Jaqcuaying is just a diagnostic tool to make sure you don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. Is it essentially linear, branching, or circular, or.something else? How does that reinforce the mood of the location?
What features might you add or subtract to enhance that mood now that you've considered the overall layout? Are there places that would be interesting if they were connected or not connected?
You simply your thinking so you can overcome habits of mind. Creative people do this all the time. Am I doing this out of force of habit, or am I doing this out of intention?
When I draw maps I have all sorts of habits that spring up from years of playing games. I might draw a shape because it's a shape I'm used to drawing. And now I'm stuck with it, because erasing is discouraging. Yeah, it sounds stupid. But creativity is delicate. You need to keep moving. If you start with a skeleton, a simple dumb, outline, you can dive into the details with more confidence and verve. Now your details mean something and it's easier to make them.
Yes, 2 + 2 equals 4. And how often do we forget that when we're concerned with logx(1/8) = -3 / 2 ?
Quote from: Natty Bodak;956296If Jaquays strangled your grandma in her sleep maybe I'd see how the name might "pollute" something for you, but in the context of adventure design the term seems to fit the bill. It seems the burden is on you to come up with something more compact and apropos if you don't like Justin's term.
My condolences on the loss of your grandma, though.
Just because I point out something doesn't mean I'm avenging-grandmas-upset. I'm just pointing out the term is muddying the discussion.
By pollution I mean information loss. Turning one designer's name into a weird word root, and also mainly talking about a 3-exit-per-room rule of thumb but also supposedly realistic design makes the discussion needlessly muddy.
How useful do you suppose it would it be if I referenced Steve Jackson as an influence on my thoughtful logical location design, and also hex-map use, and then just called that Jacksonism and started advocating Jacksonism versus Jaquayism?
Quote from: Skarg;956436Just because I point out something doesn't mean I'm avenging-grandmas-upset. I'm just pointing out the term is muddying the discussion.
By pollution I mean information loss. Turning one designer's name into a weird word root, and also mainly talking about a 3-exit-per-room rule of thumb but also supposedly realistic design makes the discussion needlessly muddy.
I took "pollute" to mean something different than what you intended, so that's on me, I suppose.
However, it's not as if Justin's neologism happened right here in this thread. Whether the OP "gets it" or happens to be talking about some distillation of process does not seem terribly relevant, because the OP was clearly referencing Justin's work, which references and builds on the work of others.
QuoteHow useful do you suppose it would it be if I referenced Steve Jackson as an influence on my thoughtful logical location design, and also hex-map use, and then just called that Jacksonism and started advocating Jacksonism versus Jaquayism?
If you put some thought into it, found a lack in existing terminology, wrote some articles, and thought you had the better mousetrap, I'd say go for it. Put it into the crucible and turn up the heat.
As it stands, I'm in the group of folks who find the term useful.
Quote from: Skarg;956436Just because I point out something doesn't mean I'm avenging-grandmas-upset. I'm just pointing out the term is muddying the discussion.
By pollution I mean information loss. Turning one designer's name into a weird word root, and also mainly talking about a 3-exit-per-room rule of thumb but also supposedly realistic design makes the discussion needlessly muddy.
How useful do you suppose it would it be if I referenced Steve Jackson as an influence on my thoughtful logical location design, and also hex-map use, and then just called that Jacksonism and started advocating Jacksonism versus Jaquayism?
Is Steve Jackson recognized for his hex-map design in multiple industries and has written articles on hex-map use and given seminars on hex-map use at colleges that give degrees in game design? If so, then sure.
To be blunt, but fair, I think your objection is based on a certain level of ignorance concerning Jaquays' influence in game design circles.
Quote from: CRKrueger;956447Is Steve Jackson recognized for his hex-map design in multiple industries and has written articles on hex-map use and given seminars on hex-map use at colleges that give degrees in game design? If so, then sure.
To be blunt, but fair, I think your objection is based on a certain level of ignorance concerning Jaquays' influence in game design circles.
I wouldn't know, since I've barely heard about him before. What I've read about his points seem intelligent and thoughtful but also like common sense and counterpoints to weird habits that I also haven't really encountered except in computer games. Kind of like talking about sandboxes and dynamic open worlds and hexcrawls as if they are great new ideas that also came form D&D, when again I've been mostly ignoring D&D and playing all of the above because all of the above just seemed logical and the baseline assumptions for them seem there in 1980's In The Labyrinth.
I mean, yeah it seems like a lot of corporate computer game designs could improve if those people graduated from Rock Paper Scissors as a design principle and read some essays by that J guy (though then they'd probably be using the J-label too), but I didn't realize there was also and issue with D&D published levels and/or D&D DMs making silly linear locations and that J was their guiding light out of the darkness.
Quote from: Skarg;956657I wouldn't know, since I've barely heard about him before. What I've read about his points seem intelligent and thoughtful but also like common sense and counterpoints to weird habits that I also haven't really encountered except in computer games. Kind of like talking about sandboxes and dynamic open worlds and hexcrawls as if they are great new ideas that also came form D&D, when again I've been mostly ignoring D&D and playing all of the above because all of the above just seemed logical and the baseline assumptions for them seem there in 1980's In The Labyrinth.
I mean, yeah it seems like a lot of corporate computer game designs could improve if those people graduated from Rock Paper Scissors as a design principle and read some essays by that J guy (though then they'd probably be using the J-label too), but I didn't realize there was also and issue with D&D published levels and/or D&D DMs making silly linear locations and that J was their guiding light out of the darkness.
Umm, you're sounding like the guy who watches Shakespeare and says "Too many cliches". You realize Jaquays goes back to Judges Guild, right, like the 70's? Many Old Fucks to whom this stuff makes perfect sense have that sense because of the modules designed by Jaquays.
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;956669Wait... you're also under the impression that The Fantasy Trip predates D&D?
No. I just started playing it before D&D, and never got into D&D.
I do realize J is a ye olde D&D level designer.
Sorry I guess I'm the only guy here who doesn't know much about him and so finds the term weird. Never mind.
Quote from: Matt;956422I have another discovery for you: 2+2=4.
Any more breaking news?
I still struggle with this... Tell me more... :o
ahem.
Jacquaying is an utterly stupid and uninformative term. For fucks sake stop using it people.