simpleDnDMapv2_feedback_Washington_Christophe

 Bennie Ksiazek and Pablo Flores Moran played my map, once again. Bennie played Mage while Pablo played as a Ranger. I think that the playthrough of this map progressed much smoother than the previous playthrough. I was able to rectify all of the issues which I had noticed upon their first playthrough.

One of the things that went well was that the progression of the map was much more simplified. The previous map contained one route which branched out into two more routes, one of those two routes containing yet another branch. In the first playtest, I realized that there were simply too many options for the player to explore. The level was meant to be a tutorial level to explain how the game’s mechanics worked, not a level about trying to find hidden collectibles or whatnot. Put simply, there was not a real reason as to having that many paths when exploration was not the main focus of the level.

In addition, the multiple paths created a gameplay experience in which the players did not need to interact with all of the elements of the environment in order to progress. As previously mentioned, the level was meant to be an introductory level that taught players how to use skills and fight opponents. But, because of the multitudes of paths presented to the player, the gameplay experience was not uniform–the player would learn different things based on what path they took. By limiting the number of paths and then increasing the number of obstacles per path, the players were able to learn about ranged opponents and melee opponents, as well as using the skills Escape and Jump.

From my current knowledge of level design, there was not anything notable that went wrong. However, something that I wished went better was the removal of the fog of war. I simply do not know that much about DnD and being a Game Master, so I was uncertain as to how far forward I should’ve been lifting the fog of war as well as how it changed the players’ decision making.

Something I will do to improve the map is add more monster variation. I was able to add variation through the attack styles of the opponents. Some opponents were ranged magic users and others were melee fighters. I think that the game could’ve benefited from a slight rule modification, which is that monsters can have a special ability of sorts to make fighting against each of them an unique experience.

I feel that the challenges presented to the players were appropriate to it being a tutorial level. Something that I did not anticipate when I was creating the map was that the players would diverge from each other and take separate paths. In the prior playtest, the players went the same route and stuck together. However, this time, they split off. This was not an inherently bad thing. I was able to make each path somewhat uniform, with a few differences, so it is not as if the players were learning different things. The catch was that I had strengthened the monsters in comparison to the prior playtest because they posed very, very little threat to the players. Fortunately, the strength of the monsters ended up working out in my favor. Knowing that confronting the monsters head on could kill them, the players adapted and played around the range of the melee fighters, picking them off first before engaging with the ranged fighters.

The overall flow of the game was smooth. Whether it was because the players were already familiar with the rule sheet, or that I chose to take a more hands-on approach to GM-ing this time around, the playtest went well with very little bumps in the road.