Best practices for easy-to-run modules [+]

[Lanefan]

Nothing overlaps, this much is true, but the argument was that they were evocatice/mood setting so overlapping sections might not be the reason for the map. As for cardinal directions they are of course placed in a way that makes sense to where you placed the map into your world.

The map needs cardinal directions so as to agree with the (ideal) write-up and boxed text, which has exits and features noted by direction rather than by left-right (left-right is very bad practice) in order to allow for characters coming into the areas from unexpected directions.

As the map has drawn furnishing I would assume the squares are the standard 5 ft. unless it's a giants abode at which point I would adjust accordingly. The shaft with the ladder is 15 ft. The wide stairs are 15 ft. horizontal and 10 ft. vertical. The underground stairs are 10 ft. both vertical and horizontal. The spiked pit is 10 ft.

You're guessing all these values, are you? There's no vertical squares on any of these features to confirm, nor any other indication of vertical scale.

And lest you say this is irrelevant, two points:

1 - I've both played in and DMed parties who had the means to dig through rock from one area to another
2 - spells that don't care about obstructions e.g. Locate Object, I need to know how far they extend.

Can I guarantee this is what the person drawing this map thought? No. But it is a good looking map and it can easily be used as is by a skilled GM.

I'll grant it's a good looking map. However, that might be part of the problem: the mapmaker has gone for style over substance, and with maps substance is the only thing that matters.

 

[Kromanjon]

The map needs cardinal directions so as to agree with the (ideal) write-up and boxed text, which has exits and features noted by direction rather than by left-right (left-right is very bad practice) in order to allow for characters coming into the areas from unexpected directions.

Unless I want to place the map at a different place, facing a different direction, at which point it becomes a nuisance. I feel writing adaptable adventures is a good thing so that I can use them as needed for my homebrew.

You're guessing all these values, are you? There's no vertical squares on any of these features to confirm, nor any other indication of vertical scale.

I wouldn't use the word guessing and I disagree that there are no indication of vertical scale. I'm assuming the 5 ft. square, I'll give you that, based on the size of the furniture on the map. After that I can use the POV angle to estimate the three dimensional space, that's what's so good about isometric maps.

I'll grant it's a good looking map. However, that might be part of the problem: the mapmaker has gone for style over substance, and with maps substance is the only thing that matters.

This is of course your opinion stated as fact. I disagree. Style in maps can serve many purposes like player hand outs, making them easier to adapt, setting the tone or mood or adding visual cues that saves on the amount of text an adventure needs. But that's just my opinion stated as an opinion.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No, it's merely one more criticism in a list of them, as shown in the post you quoted.

Then perhaps not the best example to pull out?

I guess if I had anticipated that somebody who would look for things to complain about that had nothing to do with the topic being discussed of isometric vs. 2D....then, yeah, not the best example. And of course this is the Internet, so my bad for not thinking through all the possible avenues of disagreement.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Personal peeve: the number of golems should be locked in without regard for how many or what composition of PCs arrives there.

As an old school guy, I used to agree. Living world and all that. However, I've received a lot of feedback that in modern gaming, people appreciate scalable encounter guidelines.