Petition to WOTC for POL Map

[Remathilis]

Sure, put me down for a map. I love maps, and seeing all the PoL concepts on a map would be great. However, I'm thinking this is PRIME for a DDI thing rather than in the core books.

 

[HeinorNY]

There can not be an official labeled PoL map, though. That ruins the entire point of the PoL framework.

I have the same opinion. The point of the PoL philosophy is to let DMs build their own setting with the little pieces of information they get from PHB, modules, etc. If Wotc gives us a map, players will just feel compeled to use the "official", and also Wotc will be stuck to that information when they relase any future module.
The beauty of PoL is the freedom, for the DMs and for the designers.
If you really think you need a map for your PoL setting, I think the Grayhawk setting is what will suit you better. If you don't like all that, Forgotten Realms is your world. But I believe a "setting" like the PoL will be another good choise for DMs.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Here You Go

There's a map suitable for a PoL setting. Just stick some of the names from R&C in places, and go.

Enjoy?

 

[Ripzerai]

There's nothing wrong with Wizards of the Coast releasing generic "Maps of Mystery" or "Trail Maps," but I'm not sure what that has to do with the implied 4e world, which amounts to a "home town" in the DMG, the names of one or two no longer extant empires that could have been anywhere, a pantheon, and not much else.

Any map will do for this purpose. The Wilderlands of High Fantasy map, as Grimstaff pointed out, would work perfectly well. You could use a map of Earth or maps of the World of Greyhawk or Mystara or Kalamar or Faerun, or the Maps of Mystery that used to be published in Dungeon (with a continental map in the last print issue).

I once ran a campaign that used a map of North America during the Jurassic epoch, and another that used a topological map of Venus.

The real issue is that you want WotC (or someone) to print maps. This is a fine and worthy goal. You can't have a map of the "Points of Light setting," though, because beyond a few proper nouns and the "general philosophy" that Havard mentioned, the "Points of Light setting" doesn't exist, and WotC has no plans to make it exist. Insofar as it can be considered a setting, it is a setting designed to work with any map.

Because virtually any map (apart from extremely alien ones) will work to portray a nonexistent setting, you are in luck, because many suitable maps are already available. Lucky you! High five.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

If they make a map fine, if not I'll play in Faerun anyway, which will have it's one PoLs and a map (at least my guess if they publish a book for Faerun in 2008 already).

I find it quite amusing seeing that there is a thread against a PoL-Map, if you don't want one don't use it. But why not have the option for other people...

And please make us some polls about this "problem", it's that important!!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Just pick up the final issue of Dungeon. It has a World of Mystery map that will fill your needs nicely.

 

[BryonD]

Boo! Down in front! No official maps!

Wow, I completely agree with Irda Ranger. !!!!!!

 

[Asmor]

I would probably not use it, and I think releasing it would be very counter-productive to their stated goals.

That said, if they do release it, groovy. All I ask is that they don't stick it in the PHB.

Also, I think there's one assumption here that is very, very faulty; the assumption that you need a map in the first place!

Just make it up. "Tower of doom? Yeah, that's *rolls die* five days travel by horse to the west"

If you're worried about consistency, just keep notes. "Cityton -> Tower of Doom: 5 days"

 

[Panamon Creel]

There's a map suitable for a PoL setting. Just stick some of the names from R&C in places, and go.

Ok guys. I think we've had enough responses to this effect. I think I could have figured this one out on my own. Also, I've been playing rpgs for over twenty five years; so I'm probably somewhat creative and resourceful. And yeah even if I had zero creativity, I could certainly slap some names on any random map. But if I want to follow all the WOTC fluff and the official adventure path (and that is a big IF considering what I'm seeing from 4E these days), I'm willing to bet pretty soon my map would be unworkable.

Also, I don't think anyone has responded to my prime arguments:

* Isn't 4E supposed to be marketed towards newbies- give them a simple map then!

* WOTC made the decision to saddle 4E with all this new fluff (some of which I do not care for very much - tiefling backstory, kender-halflings, no gnomes, the name eladrin). I disagree with Rich Baker that the level of fluff is similar to the "Rod of Dwarven Lords" type fluff from 1E. Most of the 1E Gygaxian names were simply evocative or minor backstories for items or creatures. R&C is giving us creation stories for every race, detailed histories about kingdoms, many names of places, dictating where each race lives (still boggled over the halfling swamp bit), and making a very detailed implied setting (in my opinion). Therefore, since it certainly appears that WOTC has chosen to try to spell out everything in the "implied setting", then they should give us a simple map.

Of course, it is probably all part of their grand marketing scheme to judge the market for a POL official setting on the internet in such debates like this and then release some gazeteer and map for $49.99 in 2009 or 2010.

 

[Bishmon]

Also, I think there's one assumption here that is very, very faulty; the assumption that you need a map in the first place!

I think if WotC is trying to get people that have grown up on video games, giving them as many visual aids as possible is probably a good idea. Those people aren't quite used to depending on their imagination for so much of their entertainment experience, so it'd probably be helpful to find way to lower that initial 'imagination shock', if you will.