How do you like your maps?

[Cor Azer]

As a player or a DM, do you prefer "accurate" maps as play accessories, or do you like maps done up as if "in character" to someone/thing in the world, possibly complete with "Here There Be Dragons" unmarked lands?

Do you like details picked out (ie, every ruin gets a name), or just hinted at (perhaps observant players notice a tower sticking out of a forest's canopy and wonder what it is)?

Do you prefer maps with minimal text (numbered locations/symbols with a legend off to the side) or fanciful text denoting each mountain range, river, and fortress?

As a player, do you ever look at the DM's maps and have your PC wonder... what's over there?

Traditionally, I've always done the "accurate", overhead maps, measuring rough distances between communities for realism and more or less explicitly stated using a corner situated scale, with few surprises if any (mostly just a theme behind community names that no players have ever mentioned to me about catching).

However, I've been experimenting with various "perspective" based maps that I'm getting a kick out of. Well, I guess they're less maps and more pictures, as if drawn by someone flying low over the country side, close enough to the action that I don't use symbols to mark communities, but far enough away that a good field of view is possible. Of course, I have yet to use them in game proper (I'm actually getting a break from DMing for a while and being a player, but taking advantage of the time to prep for my next game).

Still, it's my hope that these maps might spark a bit more exploration in my players, wondering why there's a clearing over here, or what that ruined tower on the far side of the rice field was, etc.

If I ever get my scanner working, I'd love to post some of them in the Cartography/Art Gallery forum.

 

[weem]

As a player, I prefer any map really.

As a DM, I tend to use the overhead/hexed-out maps (I play on Mystara and use those old school maps). With that said, I would love to see perspective maps (here's another) used in rpg's (more than they are now) - they give you that sense of distance - I think those, and abstract/less detailed/accurate maps do encourage more exploration which is nice.

But, I still have much love for overhead/hexed maps

 

[Gilladian]

For overland maps, I like realistic, mostly. But I'd also love to have a players map of the same terrain that was fanciful; something they could have and make them wonder. But as a DM, I like accurate and detailed.

For dungeon/town/small scale maps, I like accurate and detailed, both for me and the players. I prefer being able to give them a town map, fpr example, that has all the major locations clearly labeled, and the minor locations numbered.

 

[Cor Azer]

For overland maps, I like realistic, mostly. But I'd also love to have a players map of the same terrain that was fanciful; something they could have and make them wonder. But as a DM, I like accurate and detailed.

For dungeon/town/small scale maps, I like accurate and detailed, both for me and the players. I prefer being able to give them a town map, fpr example, that has all the major locations clearly labeled, and the minor locations numbered.

Why? I'm not trying to invalidate your opinion or anything, but I'm curious... what does having an exact layout bring you? Sure, player's need a way of knowing what's in town, but do they need to be able to map out their path from inn to temple to keep to gate to the (some order of magnitude) foot?

I can see the need in the event of planning a town's defense or similar, and certainly for combat (if you're of the battlegrid playing variety).

I guess I should have pointed out one of the things I'm trying to get across with my perspective maps (that I'm subtly also looking for tips on) is to show off a bit of the area's culture. A dot and town name does very little to show off the differences between two towns, and aside from size - one thatched roof looks the same as another, and spending a lot of time describing architecture tends to lead to violating Chekov's Gun and/or bored players. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Of course, I also like to sketch, so I may be just looking for more reasons to do so towards a meaningful use.

 

[justanobody]

As A DM I like fully detailed maps for my use, and prefer maps with little to no words for players either drawn to scale for something they really need to know, or as if drawn by a PC for things that were done in a rush.

As a player I prefer the PC drawn style maps where measurements may or may not be correct and whenre it says to go left there may not be a left to go but the same numebr of choices are there.

If given a fully detailed map as a player I would hope to be in some archive looking for things like that, but in the field i would not expect to find something like that unless if was being delivered somewhere or had been stolen.

This is partially ude to the wya I play and not all people even that can read or write in the game will be able to read maps and topography.

So all the types of maps are prefered for games I play in depending on which side of the DM screen I am.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Maps are what you make of them! If they are a way to get where you are going, that's what the players will use them as. I am playing in a Kalamar game right now, and the Atlas and the maps are gorgeous. However, we don't pore over them in game. We look at them, figure out where we are going, and head there. If I owned the Atlas, I suspect that I'd read through that out of game a lot. Their maps are very modern, so they tend to get treated that way. A different game I'm in (Ptolus) has lots of maps and images and I love just looking at all of those. They really give me a fantastic flavor for the setting.

Now as a DM, I think that there are multiple uses for maps:

*representation of the physical world
*flavor, atmosphere and props
*misdirection
*clues
*amazing art

I can't draw well, so the last one is out. It sounds like the OP can draw well, and that's cool. I have run games where there were hand-drawn crude maps that the players had. They were explicitly inaccurate in certain details, but they also had drawings of things (I used some medieval maps for inspiration). It was a very cool moment when one of the players who always obsessed about details compared the hand-drawn map to the much better quality map that they found in an adventure, and noticed a clue. (On the hand-drawn one!)

 

[Mercule]

As a player, I like the sort of may that someone in-game might have drawn. Preferrably a cartographer, rather than a peasant, just because I still like attractive game aids.

As a DM, my favorite maps are the ones included with the red and gold Greyhawk box from the early 1980s. I tend to judge overland maps by that standard.

If you're talking about dungeon maps, then I still prefer the 1e style of directly over-head on graph paper, with symbols to represent most things. The perspective view introduced in Dungeoneer's Survival Guide have always bugged me. I've gotten used to them, but I still prefer old-school dungeon maps.

In either case, if I can tell the map was generated on a computer, it's a huge turn-off. I think that's one of my biggest issues with many of the Dungeon Tiles I've seen -- which is basically the starter tiles included with DDM Starter sets. Computer art clashes horribly with the fantasy genre.

 

[Arnwyn]

As a DM, I prefer (nay, demand!) my maps to be accurate (for use as play accessories) and detailed (i.e. as many things named as is reasonable) but with minimal text on the map itself (though fanciful text on the map itself is also fine if it isn't intrusive).

Actually, what Gilladian said, almost word for word.

As a player, fanciful (as if drawn by someone living in the world) is great. But not as a DM.

And what Mercule said regarding computer-generated. If they look like they were, then that is, indeed, a huge turn-off.

 

[Grymar]

You're going to love this answer....it depends!

If the players are spending a lot of time in a city, I need a map for all of us to share; one at least with neighborhoods and major landmarks on it. It helps us all keep our bearings and avoid major misunderstandings. A good overhead map is fine.

For the players to use in game, it really depends. If they are going to explore a tomb and do the time to try and discover an old map of it, a hand-drawn, not-to-scale rough drawing is great. It can be old, inaccurate and inexact, but it gives them something to work with.

Perspective maps are great for far-flung or mysterious exploration. Pirate treasure map types are good for this too.

The right map can set the mood for an adventure, so I like to mix at match to get the right one for the night.

 

[Kris]

As a DM I will generally go a bit overboard with maps of most kinds (i.e. a campaign map, settlement maps, location maps, building maps, dungeon maps) as I like to know what/who is where, and where 'x' is situated in relation to 'y', and how long it would take to get there etc. ...even if such things never arise during the game (it's a sickness really )

And although I have all these maps at my disposal (usually for my own reference, and also because I sometimes just like to just draw maps), I'll probably just give the players a detailed map of their current location to begin with, and leave everything else a little more vague until/if it becomes important.


As a player, I generally like having a map of some kind available - though I'm not too particular about the quality/style/detail ...so long as I have a rough idea of the lay of the land. However I will usually offer to help the DM out with any non-secret stuff if I can (as DM'ing can be a lot of work at times - so it's nice to at least make the offer), which sometimes means drawing a few maps and stuff