World of Greyhawk Folio - 30 years on

[billd91]

BOTE - your "facts" are pretty questionable. For example, in your "re-readings" of the thread, did you miss the part where I repeatedly stated that this is a good map? Just because I can nit-pick a map doesn't make it a bad map.

And, I totally agree that these are nit-picks. I certainly don't care and certainly would never expect any player to care about this. It's minor crap that would never come up in game.

If it was minor nit picking and you don't care, then why did you dig in rather than let it slide?
I guess if your nits have been sufficiently explained that your perception of them has changed to not really being problems, then I guess this mini-debate will have served a purpose...

 

[Jacob Marley]

What's wrong with thinking a map can be better?

Nothing. There are aspects of the "Darlene Map" I think could have been done better; namely, the font is difficult to read and determining which hex you are in can be a chore. But, I do think it is important to view the map for what it was, when it was released. In that light, compared to other maps from that era, I do think this map represents the gold standard.

I think it somewhat unfair to compare to compare the "Darlene Map" to what is currently produced over at Cartographer's Guild. Technology allows us to do more.

Can we agree that, for its time, the "Darlene Map" was the gold standard of maps?

 

[Hussar]

Fair enough Jacob Marley. If we're going to say this was the gold standard, then I got no beefs.

Billd91 - my nits were never big problems. I didn't let it slide because this thread turned into a discussion on what represents the best of fantasy mapping that all other maps should be judged by. That's why nit-picking becomes an issue. If it is to be considered the best map that all other maps should be judged by, then someone shouldn't be able to come along and criticise it on fairly basic science issues.

I guess tone gets lost in the medium. BOTE claimed that I hate the maps. I repeatedly stated that I LIKE this map. I gave it an A, just not an A+ - my exact words. How is giving something an A not loving the map? I just have some issues with the map that prevent me from considering it an A+.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Ahh, sorry. I'm afraid I don't think I've seen yours though, but, now I'm interested.

I just got done uploading poster-sized jpegs onto a gallery page of all my completed Greyhawk drawings. They are big big big, the style I tried for didn't go for busy details, try for a fantasy drawing aesthetic and still feel like it had some photo realism.

FWIW, that gallery also has a recent side project of mine that was rearranging Mystara's Known World region to "fix" some of the Disney Land placement of cultures.

Are my quibbles completely off base and easily explained by the facts? Are there issues that I'm missing? Or, is BOTE correct and this should be the gold standard by which all fantasy maps should be judged?

Not completely off base, IMO there really is some basis behind your points. But while facts are sparse it does mean that things aren't "easily" explained on the face of it. With a bit of some digging into Greyhawkiana and where there are few facts we can easily fill in the gaps with what we know of how our world works.

I mean, we don't need to know if there was an age of glaciation, it doesn't impact the game campaign in the slightest. Having there be one makes seeming oddities in the cartography more believable, never having one occur requires further explanation either by the DM or by the written source material to be believable.

I'm pretty sure the Tiger and Wolf Nomads weren't explicitly described as a region of a high elevation plains until the Living Greyhawk era, in which case it could be said that later authors saw what you saw and felt a need to clarify the cartographic oddity of the Fler-Velverdyva route through the mountains.

What's wrong with thinking a map can be better?

As far as my opinion goes, a map is like a piece of art. To most artists the work of art can always be made better, one just has to know when to say enough is enough and let it go.

For many, a particular aesthetic for a good fantasy map often means the map should have a hand drawn look. Should have portions that evoke a terra incognita feeling in many regions, should look like someone who lives in the world being represented was the one who drew it and not have too many modern conventions in its presentation. Darlene has a lot of that in her Flanaess map.

 

[Hussar]

ooooh, Eric, those are pretty.

And thanks for the input. Obviously you've put WAY more work into this than I have.

 

[David Howery]

ah, the old WoG Folio set... I bought that back in 1981, and used it until it literally disintigrated. I hung the gorgeous Darlene maps on my dorm room walls, made tons of notes in the source book, and drew on the maps as well. By the time the boxed set came out, my folio was completely trashed... the folio itself was torn and split up, the sourcebook was covered with cola stains, and the maps had numerous tears. I disposed of the Folio set and started abusing the boxed set; when the post-Wars boxed set came out, the first boxed set was also thoroughly trashed and well-used. I certainly got my money's worth out of them. Sadly, over the years, I've managed to lose every single map from every GH boxed set, but I got a huge amount of gaming fun out of them before I did.

Oh, and concerning the 'split rivers' argument... there is actually one river in the real world that does split, and drain into two different systems: the Cassiaquiare in Brazil. One branch goes into the Amazon and the other goes into the Orinoco. But apparently, it's the only river in the whole world that does do that...

 

[Saracenus]

You should also check out Anna's Greyhawk maps:
Greyhawk Maps - Atlas of the Flanaess

She has been working on these for a couple of years...

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Her maps were already linked to up thread in a prior post. But it doesn't hurt to link to good stuff yet again.

 

[Hussar]

Just a point about the rivers. Again, I admit freely that I'm nothing more than an interested viewer. I stand in awe of those artists like Anna above, who actually do this. But, from reading various sites and whatnot, I have picked up a few things about how you can tell a good map from a great one. And the difference is generally adherence to science.

One of the easiest things to pick up is rivers, because many, many fantasy cartographers draw rivers where they "look good" rather than where they should be. Another point is the rain shadows of mountains. The Darlene maps are consistent here - you can tell that the prevailing winds are from the east simply because the heavy forests all line the right side of the mountains.

There are other elements to pick up on as well. As was mentioned, fonts are a big one.

"Looks Pretty" is fine if you're just looking for a map. But, if you're actually trying to critique a map, you need more.

 

[grodog]

Wonderful to see your work again, Eric. I've been helping to get some of the old file downloads restored, but you should definitely email Brian (Cebrion) to let him know about the new link!