I created the concept for using an online program with pre-made assets to help myself get an idea of how I wanted the map to flow. Unfortunately, when we play tested our maps, I did not take a picture of the players testing mine. Speaking of which, the players testing my map were Mikel Ramirez and Ragalla Seliby-Kaplan, who played a ranger and a mage respectively.
When we tested the maps, we used a paper map and small chips to indicate players and enemies, so I modified the original design a little bit to fit the materials we had. I have included a picture below of the design I attempted to recreate, albeit with a few changes I will discuss later in the post. I added a grid to the map to help myself scale correctly.
So, what went right?
The players expressed how much they enjoyed secret rooms I included in the map, and the organic ways they could find them. For example, when Ragalla played a mage and hit an enemy with an especially powerful attack, he pushed that enemy through the thin secret wall, leading to the players finding a magical ring. This also happened in my previous play test, which was quite funny since I did not originally design the map to do so.
The players said the encounters were a bit enclosed in the hallways during the second play test. However, we agreed that this was due to a lack of planning on my part, as I did not plan to use pen and paper originally. They enjoyed the enemy variety, and even gave me a dirty look once spiders were introduced. The spacing of the rooms with encounters was well done too, according to the players. Each area felt free and open, but also guided the action well.
So, what went wrong?
When we tested the maps, we used a paper map and small chips to indicate players and enemies, so I modified the original design a little bit to fit the materials we had. I have included a picture below of the design I attempted to recreate, albeit with a few changes I will discuss later in the post. I added a grid to the map to help myself scale correctly.
So, what went right?
The players expressed how much they enjoyed secret rooms I included in the map, and the organic ways they could find them. For example, when Ragalla played a mage and hit an enemy with an especially powerful attack, he pushed that enemy through the thin secret wall, leading to the players finding a magical ring. This also happened in my previous play test, which was quite funny since I did not originally design the map to do so.
The players said the encounters were a bit enclosed in the hallways during the second play test. However, we agreed that this was due to a lack of planning on my part, as I did not plan to use pen and paper originally. They enjoyed the enemy variety, and even gave me a dirty look once spiders were introduced. The spacing of the rooms with encounters was well done too, according to the players. Each area felt free and open, but also guided the action well.
So, what went wrong?
Because of the restriction of paper and pencil, and a small time restriction, the players did not notice the torches much during this play test. Likewise, they did not experience the changes I made to the beginning of the level to the extent I wanted. They did remark that the decision to take one of the two diverging paths below was quite interesting. However, since they completely ignored the chasm route, I missed the chance to receive feedback on a change I made from the previous play test. In the previous play test, the players said I should add some incentive to taking the path with a chasm. This time, not only did I move the chasm to replace the group of enemies and vice versa (as shown below), I also added a magic potion on a pedestal in the middle of the chasm. Since the players did not approach the chasm, i have no feedback on the effectiveness of this change.
I did not prepare properly for this play test, and because of this the players rushed through the dungeon. I did not have a chance to properly examine the effects of many of the changes I had made to the map's design, and was left with sub-par feedback.
Finally, the players and myself noticed that the Goblin King, the boss of the dungeon, was a total pushover, and was the easiest enemy of the dungeon in the first play test. This time, the Goblin King was a much better final boss, although some very lucky rolls made the fight seem a bit easier than it would have been normally.
The players said that, in conclusion, I should focus more on the "tutorial" aspect of the map. This is problematic, as in the previous play test the players said I accomplished this well. Unfortunately I believe this is due to not having the same visuals of the previous play test, which did a great job of guiding the players through, especially since they could not see the entire map from the beginning. This was due to me drawing the map as they went, revealing only the amount that they could see in game, helping their immersion and forcing them to make some interesting decisions without seeing the map shown below.
So, how will I improve the map?
First, I am going to ensure that next time I am properly prepared to give the players the correct experience during the play test so they don't accidentally rush through the map like they did in this play test.
Next, I am going to weaken one of the magic items. Specifically, I am going to weaken the health potion, as I noticed it became a crutch and a get out of jail free card during the Goblin King fight..
Next, I am going to add a moment to show the players that there may be a reason to approach the chasm. In the last play test, the players only saw an obstacle, and went around it. Next time, however, if I show the players that a glint of light is coming from that direction, or just reveal that a potion is a possible reward, they may be enticed to investigate. I may also add some event that shows the players the float mechanic, and encourages them to utilize it.
Comments
Post a Comment