Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GuardianLurker" data-source="post: 9497848" data-attributes="member: 786">Also have it. And Campaign Cartographer, and a few others.I don't generally create a full random map. I certainly don't for anything the player characters will directly interact with. IMO, it leads to completely nonsense maps - like the one in B1.I find that randomization is great however, for adding DETAILS to the world. For example in Worldographer, when you expand to the more detailed hexes, it sprinkles terrains within the larger one. I find that very useful.Ultimately, not really. If I can take the time to make it pretty, I will. But it is very much not a priority of mine. I've run whole modules with scans of hand-drawn maps on graph paper. If it keeps the party oriented, that's generally enough.Physically? I have. I find a large blank battlemat (e.g. the Chessex ones,&nbsp; or the modular dry/wet erase tiles, or...) works best in conjunction with the pre-printed ones (like Paizo's). My players will, given the option, run right off the edge of the map.Nope. And I'm solely using Fantasy Grounds. As long as the tool can produce high-res JPGs, PNGs, or BMPs, I can deal.Regions, small scale, yes. Dungeons, these days I have enough module backlog that I can generally reuse one of their maps. But I've certainly drawn enough as well, though given the grief my players have given me, I don't bother with more than the basics anymore when I do. Which is why I hunt for pre-built maps. I actually find that a lot of the map-maker SW's &quot;Map Notes&quot; doesn't work well for me. I'm explicitly thinking of WG's &quot;notes&quot; tool, but CC has much of the same functionality. I tend to work Story-to-Map, not Map-to-Story. Or put another way, maps (and map maker software) are visualization, not organization, tools for me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GuardianLurker, post: 9497848, member: 786"] Also have it. And Campaign Cartographer, and a few others. I don't generally create a full random map. I certainly don't for anything the player characters will directly interact with. IMO, it leads to completely nonsense maps - like the one in B1. I find that randomization is great however, for adding DETAILS to the world. For example in Worldographer, when you expand to the more detailed hexes, it sprinkles terrains within the larger one. I find that very useful. Ultimately, not really. If I can take the time to make it pretty, I will. But it is very much not a priority of mine. I've run whole modules with scans of hand-drawn maps on graph paper. If it keeps the party oriented, that's generally enough. Physically? I have. I find a large blank battlemat (e.g. the Chessex ones, or the modular dry/wet erase tiles, or...) works best in conjunction with the pre-printed ones (like Paizo's). My players will, given the option, run right off the edge of the map. Nope. And I'm solely using Fantasy Grounds. As long as the tool can produce high-res JPGs, PNGs, or BMPs, I can deal. Regions, small scale, yes. Dungeons, these days I have enough module backlog that I can generally reuse one of their maps. But I've certainly drawn enough as well, though given the grief my players have given me, I don't bother with more than the basics anymore when I do. Which is why I hunt for pre-built maps. I actually find that a lot of the map-maker SW's "Map Notes" doesn't work well for me. I'm explicitly thinking of WG's "notes" tool, but CC has much of the same functionality. I tend to work Story-to-Map, not Map-to-Story. Or put another way, maps (and map maker software) are visualization, not organization, tools for me. [/QUOTE]

Verification