One of the interesting things about the reprinting of Maure Castle/Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure in Dungeon 112 is that I get to compare the maps with the original.
And, for all the pretty colours in the Dungeon maps, they suck compared to the originals.
The Dungeon maps continue the trend of showing no knowledge of what makes a map actually useful for a DM.
In my previous thread on this subject, I gave three things that would cause a map to have serious problems. All three are true for the maps in this issue, and none of those problems occured with the original maps.
What are those problems?
#1: Too small grid. The grid is reproduced at 2.5 mm squares. That's too small. 4 mm should be the minimum any grid should be at.
#2: Grid squares inappropriately representing 5 feet. This is linked to #1. The original map has squares representing 10 feet intervals. There is no known reason for the grid to be in 5 feet intervals. 5 feet intervals should be used for small maps. If these maps had been produced at 10', then the grid would have been 5 mm - perfect.
#1 and #2 combine to give the monstrosity that are areas 19-22 on the Great Hall level (level one). How big is that room? I don't know. I lose count. I could probably work it out quicker with a ruler than by counting the squares.
#3: Walls don't align to the grid. This one is completely unforgivable for this map. The original map did align to the grid. It was clear. It was possible for the PCs to map it and for the DM to accurately describe it. So why does the cartographer now feel the compulsion to arbitrarily place walls just anywhere?
#3 isn't universal. In the top left-hand corner of the maps, things align perfectly. No problem. As you make your way to the right-hand side and centre of the maps, things get out of hand.
See room #44 in Tomarast's Hold. That room is clearly aligned to 10' squares on the original map. Why isn't it aligned to the 5' squares on this map?
Look at the corridors immediately about room #44. What is going on there? Has the cartographer become bored and just started arbitrarily drawing walls in "about" the right places? It sure looks like it.
As a work of art, the Dungeon maps look pretty good. Unfortunately, we're playing D&D, not admiring pretty maps. Please, can we return to the days of functional maps that help the DM easily describe what the PCs are encountering?
And, for all the pretty colours in the Dungeon maps, they suck compared to the originals.
The Dungeon maps continue the trend of showing no knowledge of what makes a map actually useful for a DM.
In my previous thread on this subject, I gave three things that would cause a map to have serious problems. All three are true for the maps in this issue, and none of those problems occured with the original maps.
What are those problems?
#1: Too small grid. The grid is reproduced at 2.5 mm squares. That's too small. 4 mm should be the minimum any grid should be at.
#2: Grid squares inappropriately representing 5 feet. This is linked to #1. The original map has squares representing 10 feet intervals. There is no known reason for the grid to be in 5 feet intervals. 5 feet intervals should be used for small maps. If these maps had been produced at 10', then the grid would have been 5 mm - perfect.
#1 and #2 combine to give the monstrosity that are areas 19-22 on the Great Hall level (level one). How big is that room? I don't know. I lose count. I could probably work it out quicker with a ruler than by counting the squares.
#3: Walls don't align to the grid. This one is completely unforgivable for this map. The original map did align to the grid. It was clear. It was possible for the PCs to map it and for the DM to accurately describe it. So why does the cartographer now feel the compulsion to arbitrarily place walls just anywhere?
#3 isn't universal. In the top left-hand corner of the maps, things align perfectly. No problem. As you make your way to the right-hand side and centre of the maps, things get out of hand.
See room #44 in Tomarast's Hold. That room is clearly aligned to 10' squares on the original map. Why isn't it aligned to the 5' squares on this map?
Look at the corridors immediately about room #44. What is going on there? Has the cartographer become bored and just started arbitrarily drawing walls in "about" the right places? It sure looks like it.
As a work of art, the Dungeon maps look pretty good. Unfortunately, we're playing D&D, not admiring pretty maps. Please, can we return to the days of functional maps that help the DM easily describe what the PCs are encountering?
