D&D 5E Wondering Monsters 12/12/13: Mapping the World

[Blackwarder]

This week James talk about maps and the scale of D&D worlds:

http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20131211

I like this article, I think that good maps are one of the most essential parts of the game, a good map will help the DM and players know where they are and what's around them. My only nitpick is about having 10 mile hex rather than having 6 mile hexes.

Warder

 

[delericho]

Yep, good article.

Of course, there's a clear challenge for WotC there: learn the lessons contained therein! Make sure DMs are provided with maps at the three scales, and especially at the most detailed of those scales; and make sure that those maps actually make sense at the scales provided.

 

[MortalPlague]

I really want to see squares in dungeons remain 5' rather than 10'... It's been the standard sizing for a few editions now, and it'll just make things more confused if things are changed now.

 

[steeldragons]

I really want to see squares in dungeons remain 5' rather than 10'... It's been the standard sizing for a few editions now, and it'll just make things more confused if things are changed now.

Curious. Since that exact same argument could have been used, and didn't seem to matter, when 5' squares were introduced. Yes. Curious. hmmm...

 

[Blackwarder]

I really want to see squares in dungeons remain 5' rather than 10'... It's been the standard sizing for a few editions now, and it'll just make things more confused if things are changed now.

Nah, movment rates are higher so having 10' will help with that.

Warder

 

[Plaguescarred]

That was really cool! Personally, while i almost always used published settings, i'd use Kingdom scale of 1 hex = 10 miles and would put 2-4 settlements and dungeons or other notable sites in a starting area about 50 miles across for one of mine.

 

[Klaus]

I really want to see squares in dungeons remain 5' rather than 10'... It's been the standard sizing for a few editions now, and it'll just make things more confused if things are changed now.

Instead of measuring by feet, I'd like to see the "square"-based rates of 4e remain, but renamed "paces" (for a useable in-world term). Even better if 1 square = 1 pace = 1 yard = 1 meter (and human speede would be 10 paces, wood elf would be 12 paces, dwarf would be 8 paces, etc). But I don't think that'd happen.

As for the poll, I'm with Plaguescarred: 50 mile area, 2-4 settlements, 2-4 dungeon/sites, kingdom scale.

 

[delericho]

I really want to see squares in dungeons remain 5' rather than 10'... It's been the standard sizing for a few editions now, and it'll just make things more confused if things are changed now.

The 5-foot square makes sense when the game assumes the use of miniatures, but it does lead to a proliferation of unrealistically-wide corridors. If 5e really is going to assume mini-free play, I would argue they should adopt whatever scale feels best. Indeed, it might be best not to have a fixed scale at all, and let each adventure adopt the scale that works best for its own maps.

However, if they must have a single fixed scale, and lacking any good reason to do otherwise, they should default to the same 5-foot square they've been using for the past decade.

Instead of measuring by feet, I'd like to see the "square"-based rates of 4e remain, but renamed "paces" (for a useable in-world term). Even better if 1 square = 1 pace = 1 yard

Yep, I could get behind that. Though they do need to be careful: they'd probably need to reduce the size of the square on the printed page (so the maps still fit on the page), but need to make sure that the grid doesn't become so cluttered that it is harder to read.

(Obviously, I just had to drop your "1 yard = 1 metre" suggestion. That's just the nitpicky mathematician in me. )

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Instead of measuring by feet, I'd like to see the "square"-based rates of 4e remain, but renamed "paces" (for a useable in-world term). Even better if 1 square = 1 pace = 1 yard = 1 meter (and human speede would be 10 paces, wood elf would be 12 paces, dwarf would be 8 paces, etc). But I don't think that'd happen.

As for the poll, I'm with Plaguescarred: 50 mile area, 2-4 settlements, 2-4 dungeon/sites, kingdom scale.

I have far too many maps using the 5' scale to want to see squares become yards. I think 1 inch = 2 yards is a closer translation, and would fully support that.

 

[Li Shenron]

Very nice article today.

I don't fully understand why I would need a grid on the entire world map, but in regional maps it's more understandable, and I think hex-maps feel much better.

Nah, movment rates are higher so having 10' will help with that.

If rates are always multiples of 5ft, then obviously 5ft should be the grid step. There are races with 25ft or 35ft speed.

The 5-foot square makes sense when the game assumes the use of miniatures, but it does lead to a proliferation of unrealistically-wide corridors. If 5e really is going to assume mini-free play, I would argue they should adopt whatever scale feels best. Indeed, it might be best not to have a fixed scale at all, and let each adventure adopt the scale that works best for its own maps.

However, if they must have a single fixed scale, and lacking any good reason to do otherwise, they should default to the same 5-foot square they've been using for the past decade.

This is a very reasonable comment. I don't think they really "must" have the same one scale always, but the benefit of that consistency is in ease of reading any map from any adventure without getting confused.