A question about map scale

[Thomas Shey]

Well, yeah. That why I said just that in the post you quoted. Another probably fair point is that massive maps and questions of scale and travel time in general are all only really important to games that put some sort of emphasis on exploration.

Man, I don't want to be surly, but you didn't say a thing about exploration in the post I responded to; you said "where travel is important". All kinds of games can have a lot of travel without a lot of exploration. And sometimes distances and travel times are, if anything even more important in those because things are going on in multiple places and you have to decide which one(s) you can get to in time.

 

[Fenris-77]

Man, I don't want to be surly, but you didn't say a thing about exploration in the post I responded to; you said "where travel is important". All kinds of games can have a lot of travel without a lot of exploration. And sometimes distances and travel times are, if anything even more important in those because things are going on in multiple places and you have to decide which one(s) you can get to in time.

I thought that it was pretty obvious that in the context of talking about huge maps and long distances that I wasn’t referring to casual point a to b travel of the short variety. You are correct of course, I did say travel, but I think you reading there is a we bit uncharitable. I’d agree that you can certainly have instances of games where travel that isn’t exploration is still very important.

 

[aramis erak]

Well, yeah. That why I said just that in the post you quoted. Another probably fair point is that massive maps and questions of scale and travel time in general are all only really important to games that put some sort of emphasis on exploration.

counterpoint: many types of play have little exploration but lots of travel none-the-less... Merchantile campaigns, Pendragon campaigns, even many L5R campaigns - all cases where travel times matter but exploration doesn't.

 

[Fenris-77]

counterpoint: many types of play have little exploration but lots of travel none-the-less... Merchantile campaigns, Pendragon campaigns, even many L5R campaigns - all cases where travel times matter but exploration doesn't.

So where's the bottom of my post where I agree that this is entirely possible? The last line of my post right above yours.

 

[Meech17]

Just for fun..

Hexes in 6 mile/hex and 24 m/hex

Appalachian
Length 2000-2,050 miles 333.3-341.6 hexes 83.3-85.4 hexes
Width 100-300 miles 16.66-50 hexes 4.1-12.5 hexes

Just doing some Googling, The Appalachian trail is about 2200 miles longs, and apparently takes just under 6 months to complete on average.

I'll note that human travel on foot is typically 10-15 miles per day, with marching units 15 to 25 miles per day...
I found the BECMI/D&D 8 mile hexes problematic, because it was too slow for daily hike or too fast for a quick hike, but it was ok for march/force-march. 6 miles wasn't standard.



6 miles means hiking about 2 hexes a day, marching 3, forcemarching 4 hexes a day.
24 miles is 2 days hike or one day's forcemarch...
72 miles (triple 24) is the logical next step up - 3-4 days forcemarch, 5 days march, 6-7 days hike.

6 miles is also about as big as a village's fields - an hour to the outer edge from the center.

We'll say 367, 6 mile hexes. If you're averaging 2 hexes, a day, it'll take about 183 days, or right around 6 months.

Kind of fun that it works.


Crows uses 5 mile hexes. There's essentially a whole sub-game baked into it for overland travel. Normal travel is 2 hexes a day. Roads are +1, and you can choose to travel fast or slow for +1 or -1 Hex/day respectively, with modifiers to encounter chances and other things that can happen during travel.

I've been trying to map out my own local area and I'm both struggling with, but also enjoying trying to place things. For instance I made the first trip the party takes be 6 hexes by road, or 3 through the woods. I think I should have made the road route longer, or the wilderness route shorter.. Or maybe a bit of both, because it ended up being negligible to the players. Normal pace on the road got them there early on day 3, or a fast pace through the woods would put them there early on day 2. The one day discount wasn't worth the risk for them.

I'm wondering what the sweet spot for distance should be. Is 2 days to get to the dungeon too short? Is 4 days too much? It's going to take some trial and error

 

[Thomas Shey]

I thought that it was pretty obvious that in the context of talking about huge maps and long distances that I wasn’t referring to casual point a to b travel of the short variety. You are correct of course, I did say travel, but I think you reading there is a we bit uncharitable. I’d agree that you can certainly have instances of games where travel that isn’t exploration is still very important.

Only reason I said that is you reponded like I'd ignored you already referencing exploration--which you hadn't. As I said, I don't see important travel as necessarily implying exploration. Heck, I'm not sure I'd normally expect an exploration game to involve long distance travel (depending on what you mean when you say that).

 

[Fenris-77]

Only reason I said that is you reponded like I'd ignored you already referencing exploration--which you hadn't. As I said, I don't see important travel as necessarily implying exploration. Heck, I'm not sure I'd normally expect an exploration game to involve long distance travel (depending on what you mean when you say that).

Well, I don't think it's a stretch to say that many long-distance travel games are also games about exploration. Especially if we're not talking about star maps, which this thread isn't. In a lot of games, especially ones in the OSR design sphere, the idea of travel and the idea of exploration overlap to a really significant extent. I completely agree that there are exceptions, but I do think they are exceptions rather than the rule. So, when I said travel I was actually at least indexing exploration, but I can see that I should have been more specific. I don't actually think we're disagreeing about anything though.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, I don't think it's a stretch to say that many long-distance travel games are also games about exploration.

I'm sure it is. Its just that assuming someone will see "long distance travel" and automatically equate it to "exploration focused" is a stretch. And therefor assuming a third party will read it that way is, too.

Especially if we're not talking about star maps, which this thread isn't. In a lot of games, especially ones in the OSR design sphere, the idea of travel and the idea of exploration overlap to a really significant extent. I completely agree that there are exceptions, but I do think they are exceptions rather than the rule. So, when I said travel I was actually at least indexing exploration, but I can see that I should have been more specific. I don't actually think we're disagreeing about anything though.

You do understand that's a personal assumption though, rather than a given, right? Especially since this isn't in an OSR specific contex (look at the place this discussion is)?

 

[tbl1976]

First of all, I'd just like to say, there has been quite a lot of great responses. I was impressed with the debate this topic has started. I am a bit of a nitpick for some semblance of realism in my games. At least for travel and buildings, castles, tower, etc.

I've been working on setting up a campaign, and I like hex maps for travel, especially when it comes to terrain and player movement speed. The question of size popped up when I was looking at the Forgotten Realms 3e map, when I thought that the Spine of the world seemed rather narrow for a mountain chain that approxamately 1,000 miles long but in spot less than 50 miles wide, and I started googling sizes or mountain ranges and noticed most the mountain on this map are rather small considering Faerun is roughly the size of earth and thats even with the map squish that happened converting to 3e from 2e. On my old 2e maps the same mountains are 1,890 miles long and 90 miles wide at the narrowest part. That map used 1 inch = 90 mile scale, so, a 96 miles hex would seem appropriate. Now, Time per hex is a valid point as a quick google search said that walking through rugged mountain you can travel 2-6 miles per day, so 1 hex per day on regional or 4 days per hex on kingdom scale would not be unreasonable.

I thank you all for your great responses, this has been a big help.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm sure it is. Its just that assuming someone will see "long distance travel" and automatically equate it to "exploration focused" is a stretch. And therefor assuming a third party will read it that way is, too.



You do understand that's a personal assumption though, rather than a given, right? Especially since this isn't in an OSR specific contex (look at the place this discussion is)?

Okiedoke. Moving on now.