Settings with no world map - anybody tried?

[Ry]

In my next campaign, I'm thinking about trying NOT having a world map - just the local and regional maps with the occasional arrow "this way to Staunwark" but being fairly noncomittal on my geography. My games will start with the PCs already involved in things, so long-distance travel isn't a big issue.

Has anyone else tried this?

 

[Masquerade]

I have been doing this for over a year and have really enjoyed the freedom of it. I have a sheet of paper in my notes with names of locations on it so that I can keep relative locations and distances somewhat consistent, but I have never handed the players any kind of map.

 

[Henrix]

I did it for a fairly long time, and liked it. My players found it a bit confusing at times, though.

Next time I'll probably make a rough sketch showing some of the more important locations when they get to know about them.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I have, in fact, frequently done this (partly because I suck at, and hate making, maps).

My longest running homebrew had a continent map (the campaign rarely left that continent). But none of my others had a campaign map; I just kept track of where the major locations were in relation to each other via descriptive text.

(Well, that's not entirely true. I ran an urban campaign recently, which took place about 95% within one single city, and I had a city map. I suppose that qualifies as a campaign map. But in that case, the map wasn't original; I used the Liberty City map--from M&M, I believe--and changed the names/locations.)

 

[S'mon]

All my earlt RPG campaigns when I was 12-13 started that way. Bottom up, rather than top-down. I was using Fighting Fantasy, before I got into AD&D. In hindsight it made for much of the best gaming I've ever had.

 

[the Jester]

Yeah, I have no overall map of the world or anything in my low-magic game, just a local map. In fact, I've thought for a while that any maps might oughta be dm only, with pcs having access to early style maps only, which would be highly inaccurate as far as distance and direction, and full of "here there be dragons" and such.

 

[Erstwhile]

Threshold, man. Yeah, yeah, there's some Grand Duchy of Karawhatever and the Black Eagle something-or-other to the south, but for me Expert D&D was all about Threshold.

 

[William_2]

Yea, go with it, it works great. You don’t have to tell the players that you don’t have a map, as well. You can tell them that their characters don’t have a map. Most settings provide players with a map, despite lots of text that suggests that characters would not have them, and possibly that their culture would not have sufficient knowledge or skill to produce them. Campaigns work better, in my view, when there is a “wide world” out there. Particularly if a game follows the “first level characters don’t know about trolls” approach (which I am not really a big fan of, but whatever), why would those same characters have advanced modern cartographical knowledge of their world?

 

[Doug McCrae]

I can see why the PC's maps should be inaccurate by why should the GM do without? What's the downside to having a GM-only map?

 

[Mouseferatu]

I can see why the PC's maps should be inaccurate by why should the GM do without? What's the downside to having a GM-only map?

There are two that I can think of off the top of my head:

1) The DM has to make the durn thing. Some of us despise making maps, and/or suck at it.

2) Once you've filled in all the blank spaces, there's nowhere to stick that brand new idea you suddenly had while prepping for tomorrow's game. Even the DM's map should leave enough open to squeeze in new material that you didn't account for initially.

In fact, that's the one major problem I had with the one long-term homebrew I ran that did have a map. I found that there were some adventure ideas I had that I just couldn't run, because they didn't thematically/culturally/whateverally fit in anywhere on the continent as designed.