Map & Level Design

Combat Map Design for Turn-Based TTRPGs

I have a lot of experience with tabletop roleplaying games, but unlike many almost all of my time spent with these kinds of games have almost all been online utilising virtual tabletops where I was able to utilise asset packs to create varied and in-depth combat scenarios. I usually designed maps specifically after I had already written out what the players were going to be facing and how deadly I wanted it to be, as I found that informed the organic creation of emergent experiences, where players interacted with the maps in ways I hadn’t predicted. Nonetheless, I still followed a design guideline that I wrote out on paper after a few years experience creating these sorts of maps – a guideline that I still follow to this day where applicable.

Rules of Combat

This guide shows an example 10×10 grid combat map that I believe follows the rules that I figured made combat interesting. For one, I made a point about ‘advantages’, meaning that players should be able to utilise the map and environment to generate some kind of advantage. Whether height, distance, or some kind of interactable object, it’s important the players can use the map as a tool. So within the diagram, there is an elevated section to the left, ladders/bridges for moving between higher spaces, two pillars in the corners, an interior space in the far corner, a pit in the centre, and spiked barricades to guide movement. 

A combat map like this avoids four ‘bad’ elements that I had extrapolated from a lot of time spent playing boring combats on bland maps:

1. ‘Bundle’ referred to how many scenarios, no matter how exciting the setup, just resulted in everyone standing adjacent in the middle of the room rolling numbers until the enemies fell over. Not very engaging.
2. Sandbox was a name I gave to the phenomenon where, if all the assets are stripped back, a map being played is essentially a giant empty space. Though not a very good label due to other connotations of the word in gaming, the point being made is that turn-based games aren’t very interesting when there’s nothing to play around with.
3. Claustrophobia was a very specific point about how turn-based combat in tight spaces usually means that a lot of characters/players are going to spend their turns just waiting around if they have no way of getting to the frontlines of action. 
4. Lastly, confusion was the simple design philosophy of ensuring that players always understand what is being represented on the map, where they and enemies are, and how they can move between spaces.

Building Snapshots of Worlds

When it came to building, I tried to make sure I avoided these problems wherever possible, alongside trying to make a map that looked pretty and would be fun to fight in. The actual process usually starts with a base background texture map, then a layering of assets that forms the general sizes and shapes of the fighting space, followed by detail elements that establish environment and allow for player interaction, and lastly I usually tried to layer on some more atmospheric details that set mood.

For the above map, the players needed to activate the central obelisk for plot reasons, so placing it in the pond centre meant there was risk getting to it. The trees and elevation slowed advance and provided cover, alongside allowing for height advantages to players that took it. The purple magic symbols in the trees were only visible to me as the gamemaster, and they signified the locations the pixie-like enemies of this encounter could teleport to with an active ability. 

In roleplaying games combat can easily end up as the majority of the time spent playing, and for a lot of people it’s the part they find interesting, and yet in my experience a lot of people overlook the importance of the map in these instances. Almost every time I make a map I try to stick to the principles I laid out above, and I always try to make the environment itself as interesting, layered, and interactive as the very game and story itself.