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?

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.

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.

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?

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).

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 ?

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.

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.  

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?

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.

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.

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.

I have another discovery for you: 2+2=4.

 Any more breaking news?

I still struggle with this... Tell me more...

ahem.

Jacquaying is an utterly stupid and uninformative term. For fucks sake stop using it people.