D&D General Maps in adventures: Top-down or Isometric

[Malmuria]

What kind of maps do you prefer? Note this about reference maps in modules, one page dungeons, and the like, not necessarily for VTT use.

Do you like something like this:

Inside the Temple of Kuvartma

All the maps this month on the Dodecahedron will be focused on the theme of ruins (and sometimes the dungeons within & under). Even the maps list for the Release the Kraken this month has been …

dysonlogos.blog

Or

Do it for the Beast

Then the strange man, still holding my wrist, drew his knife across the palm of my hand. Before the pain could set in, the most wondrous thi...

blog.trilemma.com

I find isometric maps useful for expressing verticality and they look cool, but they are harder to draw and you are limited in how much you can express in cardinal directions, if that make sense.

 

[Quickleaf]

It depends on the dungeon.

If you look at the "Do It For the Beast" layout, there's actually very little happening with verticality that's relevant or interesting. Yeah there are stairs and waterfalls – but none of it creates vertical adventuring opportunities. It's absolutely beautiful. I love Trilemma's maps. However, with that floorplan, 2D plan view is all you need. In that case, 2D plan view is equally as good as isometric view.

So it depends on the floor plan.

 

[Ath'kethin]

If a dungeon has multiple levels, I like to have an isometric or at least a diagrammatic reference to help associate them.

But honestly, the maps that appear in DCC modules are the best of the best and many combine aspects of both styles.

 

[Quickleaf]

If a dungeon has multiple levels, I like to have an isometric or at least a diagrammatic reference to help associate them.

But honestly, the maps that appear in DCC modules are the best of the best and many combine aspects of both styles.


View attachment 260332

It's a beautiful work, and I like the idea of integrating multiple perspectives on one map. However I have trouble reading what's happening in several parts of this map in particular.

For example, is 1-5 supposed to be higher or lower than 1-4 and 1-3? It's unclear to me.

Is 1-18 supposed to be underwater below 1-6 or a river flowing into 1-6? And if that's the case, how does the door in 1-19 relate to 1-18? Is that door underwater and thus the only way to access 1-19, 1-20, 1-21, etc?

Is 1-15 also underwater like 1-18 appears to be? or is it a dry cavern?

 

[aco175]

I cannot draw the iso maps so they have less use for me. I also use the old Dungeon Tiles when we play so a lot of my maps are drawn to make using them easy.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Is that the hypno-toad peaking over the bottom of that map? (post #3)

 

[Lanefan]

Top down, every time.

Isometric maps are a pain in the rear end, in that I can't just measure a distance and have it mean anything. I also find it very hard to eyeball distances on them, and their showing of verticality never works for me.

And if DCCRPG - an otherwise fine system - has one glaring flaw, it's those hideous and almost-unusable maps they provide. Any line or drawing that isn't part of the functional map should not be there, period; and DCC maps are all too often often full of this needless clutter. On the map shown in post 3 there is also no indication as to which way is north; and while there's an easy-to-miss indicator that 1 square = 5 feet there's no squares shown in some of the larger chambers e.g. 1-6, 1-15, and 1-18 (though in 1-18 there is something very faint there).

What that map also completely fails to tell me is the horizontal distance between the top of the bank/cliff at 1-2A and the bottom. Is the cliff vertical or does it have any sort of slope to it. Very relevant if, say, a caster is standing up there trying to target something at 1-4 that would be in range if the bank is vertical but out of range if it is not.

To @Quickleaf , all your questions would be easily answered if the map-makers had provided elevation markers in various places on the map (ideally just beneath each room's number, plus anywhere else there's a significant elevation change) using the floor of the entrance at 1-1 as the 0' point. Thus, just under where it shows '1-3' there'd be a -20' elevation marker; under 1-6 there might be a -25' marker (it appears there's a slope there), and so forth.

 

[delericho]

Top-down for me, almost every time.

 

[Staffan]

Generally top-down, but in some cases an isometric view in addition to top-down can be useful – particularly if there are in-level height differentials that are important. Isometric can also aid immersion by being closer to what the characters actually see.

 

[wedgeski]

I love an intricate isometric map (see original DL modules for many fine examples), but I'll take a top-down version for pure usability.