In the process of learning to use Melan diagrams to examine Castle Xyntillan, I’ve gotten some practice by analyzing Skerples’ Tomb of the Serpent Kings https://espharel.blogspot.com/2020/05/how-jaquayed-is-tomb-of-serpent-kings.html
2 Likes
If by “Jaquayed” you mean “made non-linear”, then Level 1 is not Jaquayed (there is only one way to get to Level 2 from Level 1).
Level 2 has two paths to reach Level 3, so some minor delineation there.
Level 3 has quite a bit of delineation; to get from room 23 to room 48, there are basically 4 paths that can be taken. (or more, if you start to zig zag around the map).
1 Like
Yeah, I chalk up that progression to the desire to have a learning dungeon. So the intro is very linear, then it adds some branching paths and a chance to sequence break, and then it gets into a more complex space.
I realize after writing this post that I don’t have a better descriptor for looping, multi-pathed spaces than ‘complex’ and it frustrates me.
1 Like
Yep, I think you’re spot on. It’s a “Teaching Dungeon” so I imagine the complexity was purposefully increased as you go deeper.
You’re right; there is not a good word. I think “Jaquaying” is acceptable and the most common phrase to describe what you mean. I just don’t see it used often enough that I felt I could assume your definition.
Well, this is definitely my word of the day.
My 0.02$: I ran shorter version of TotSK using thematic areas. So the dungeon was divided into 4 thematic areas: the false tomb, the true tomb, Xixi’s lair, the goblin warrens. The players could move in those areas freely, but travel between areas was more dangerous. It was theatre of mind, so no minis or maps. Using thematic areas helped the players a lot to understand where they are in the dungeon without using extra tools.
2 Likes
If you haven’t read the Alexandrian’s series on Jaquaying, you’ve done yourself a great disservice.
How did the thematic areas work? I use theater of the mind for combat and wilderness/town travel, but it’s never occurred to me to do it for movement in a dungeon. Did you feel that it maintained the wonder of exploration within the areas?
1 Like
Do you always use some sort of visual representation for being in a dungeon? The only time I’ve ever not run dungeons theater of the mind was during my year of playing 4E. I would assume that theater of the mind produces the most sense of wonder.
Each thematic area had props, traps, encounters and treasure. Props could be rooms or some objects in the area. The players can then interact with the props freely in the area. The idea is to imagine the areas as sets of props, and not as top down views on a map.
I also used an “exploration roll” every time the players searched a room or interacted with the objects in the area. 1-5 on a d6 (sometimes with advantage) means an encounter or a trap activates. If it’s a 4+ the player also receives treasure. On a 1 they loose some treasure. Fun little system that spices up the gameplay.
I think it definitely maintained the wonder. In part because TotSK is such a cool dungeon to explore. There are many doors and coffins to open. Everything is very strange and unusual too.
Edit: the blog post is super interesting
1 Like
Maybe I misunderstood. I’ve never used dungeon tiles or anything like that, but I’ve encouraged players to sketch their own maps. I’ve always had hard, room and corridor maps when I’m running though, and I was under the impression that Max didn’t use that.
Wait, so did you have a hard room-and-corridor map for your own use? How did you describe navigation within the thematic areas?
Okay, gotcha! I think we do the same thing then, although I don’t correct player’s map. The more complex the dungeon, the more I have to let go of hard mapping and lean into Max’s style of just describing it (which I think is what you mean by theater of the mind, as in “true” theater of mind with no maps at all, just description; which I think definitely does not hinder sense of wonder, but increase it; the more the players feel like they “know” the territory, the less it becomes that mysterious, dreamlike location in your head.
Edit: we are hijacking the thread, sorry OP! Should maybe make a new thread?
Edit 2: Oh i’m high you are the op lol
No need to make a new thread, these are the kinds of conversations I’d hope for out of a blog post.
1 Like
I used a flow chart
/------>Xixi------->\
false tomb -> true tomb ------- -> goblins
And within one area the characters start in one room. I tell them what they can see (props, doors to other rooms), and then they tell me if they want to go to a new room or not. If they already know all the props/rooms in one area, they can move freely between them.
3 Likes
Not sure it’s relevant to this, but I also like the way Old School Hack (based on Red Box Hack i think?) does “arenas” for combat. I think this could be coupled with what you describe Max, but for the dungeon as a whole.
I see. Gives it a more cinematic feel, I would assume. So I gather you know which doors in which rooms lead to which other rooms, but you’re not as focused on describing the room dimensions and such for the players to map.
In one area there would about 3-4 props/rooms to explore (a lot is cut out for simplicity), and I would describe the dimensions for visuals. It wouldn’t matter for movement or combat.
Edit: i also think that the experience was a lot denser than a normal playthrough would be.
This thread is making me realize “what I actively do”, and “what I imagine would be the best way to create that sense of wonder” are two different things. I need to think more about this. Because creating the sense of wonder is paramount to describing room dimensions and floorplans. Max, I really like the idea of cutting out the floorplan complexity so that way descriptions can be more dreamlike and fluid, and less rigidly exacting. However, this detracts from the OSR angle of “the players realize there is a secret door here because there must be one because of the map they’re making.”
1 Like
I’ve run OD&D back to back with Dungeon World and now I’m thinking what is lost and gained on both sides… Makes me consider if it’s possible to find a happy medium.
I agree with the secret door comment, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make (and my players are not fond of cartography). If they are actively looking for secret doors and traps in the right rooms, I let them have it.
2 Likes
I agree. I’ve run into one player, out of 30’ish or so in recent memory, who willingly chose to map. And I think a more consistent sense of wonder is what we’re mostly after, over the occasional “aha!” moment of mapping.