Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Odhanan" data-source="post: 3069043" data-attributes="member: 12324">Thanks! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Not necessarilly. As a matter of fact, I think maps drawn in perspective to be just as usable as 2D maps, if not for exactly the same things. They have some drawbacks the artist should be aware of (some locations that would be directly north to a mountain range could end up &quot;hidden&quot; by the perspective, for instance. Calculating distances, particularly on a north-south axis, could become tricky. That kind of thing.), but they can be extremely useful in giving a sort of &quot;feel&quot; of the panoramas the PCs are looking at when they stand in this or that location. These maps then acts as both illustrations and actual maps, and they can be very atmospheric in so doing. The map you just showed us fits perfectly this bill, in my opinion. Of course, the top of the top would be to have both versions of a map. Perspective for the feel and great visual inspiration it provides, and 2D for easier calculation of distances.If you think your campaign will involve a lot of land movement where actual distances precise beyond &quot;a day's journey&quot; or &quot;a week's hike&quot; will be important, then go for the 2D. If however the feel of the map and the immersion of the PCs in the game is more important, go with the perspective maps first. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Odhanan, post: 3069043, member: 12324"] Thanks! :) Not necessarilly. As a matter of fact, I think maps drawn in perspective to be just as usable as 2D maps, if not for exactly the same things. They have some drawbacks the artist should be aware of (some locations that would be directly north to a mountain range could end up "hidden" by the perspective, for instance. Calculating distances, particularly on a north-south axis, could become tricky. That kind of thing.), but they can be extremely useful in giving a sort of "feel" of the panoramas the PCs are looking at when they stand in this or that location. These maps then acts as both illustrations and actual maps, and they can be very atmospheric in so doing. The map you just showed us fits perfectly this bill, in my opinion. Of course, the top of the top would be to have both versions of a map. Perspective for the feel and great visual inspiration it provides, and 2D for easier calculation of distances. If you think your campaign will involve a lot of land movement where actual distances precise beyond "a day's journey" or "a week's hike" will be important, then go for the 2D. If however the feel of the map and the immersion of the PCs in the game is more important, go with the perspective maps first. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification