Are maps becoming less useful?

[Glyfair]

I like the clearer old-skool style maps. Actually I found the Dundjinni banner ad (with those maps in 1981, 1999, 2004) funny because I'd choose the 1981 version any day

I haven't seen that ad, but that does remind me when they announced licensed the Arcana(?) mapper for e-Tools. My immediate thought was that I don't want a computer game mapper making my Dungeon maps. What looks pretty on a computer game doesn't transfer to my gaming table (assuming I don't print out the map to tabletop size on a plotter).

 

[Imagicka]

Greetings...

First, I think that Phineas' maps are great. Now, on the other hand, I also have liked some of the WotC maps. That great temple/citadel was lovely. However, I think maps should be simple, and easy to read. They shouldn't be colourful pieces of art, unless the 'colour' conveys some sort of information. Also, for quick and easy mapping onto battlemaps or even graph paper for the players, it should be easy to read.

Now, some people will quip, "Isn't it nice that all the dungeons conform to graph paper, or all the dimensions are 5' or 10' increments." But it's just that. A quip, a joke. In the end players don't go around complaining about these things.

I like the idea of occationally making maps a little bigger than the confides of a battlemap, just to keep the players on their toes.

But, at the end of the day, if a map I find online, or somewhere else (I used to use old Doom maps and other video game maps) don't make things easy for me, then why bother? If parts of a map are usable, then I will use them, and disregard the other parts. Drop down a map in front of the players and say, "This part of the temple is in rubble."

Another trick I like to use...which keeps my battlemap in mint condition, is to draw all my maps on acetate sheets. So, when the players come to a new session in the map, just put the new acetate sheet down. Quick, easy, and you can still see the lines of the battlemap underneath. I also will sometimes just draw something freeform down on a large sheet of paper, or a chalkboard I have, and then throw an extra large sheet of acetate I have, that has grid lines drawn on it, in permanent marker. I also used to use a blackboard/chalkboard that I had drawn grid lines on in black marker, which turned out remarkably well.

 

[seankreynolds]

Phineas -

Please email me at

me // at // seankreynolds // dot // com

Thanks!

 

[Orius]

Dungeon maps have been mostly good, I've got nothing against graphics per se. Just make the damn corridors aligned with the grid if the corridors are 10 ft wide with 90 angle turns anyway! Dungeon is good in this regard, but WotC modules aren't. They're something like pseudo-gridded - with an off-aligned grid.

Yeah, I said about the same thing in the other thread linked above. Grids are artificial; they don't exist in the dungeon, the characters aren't walking down corridors and into rooms marked with 5- or 10-foot squares. The grid is there for the benefit of the DM, so he can quickly determine scale without having to grab a ruler. Because of that, there's no real reason not to "snap" the dungeon to the grid.

 

[WayneLigon]

I'm a tremendous map-geek and I've complained about the 'pretty' maps often enough The best interior maps I've seen are in the old UK modules, issues of White Dwarf back when it was a general gaming magazine, and the stuff done for the Warhammer RPG. No other products come close to making nice-looking yet functional and copyable maps.

There are exceptions of course. The interior maps in Dungeon are usually very good. The recent temples and strongholds map books are well-done.