D&D 5E Starter Set: Phandalin Map

[Wangalade]

Okay, what I mean by "sense of place" is "some idea of what the place is actually like".

I get that from this map.

ok, what specifically? Is it just that it is shown as a village more than a town, is it the place names, is it the shrine of luck, is it the ruined manor? The images of the buildings and artwork certainly can't help because the buildings can't all be of repeating colors and shapes. For that matter the buildings probably all have the same description- dirty and poorly constructed, and not the plethora of colors, seeing as it is a small semi-medieval village.

so how does the map convey an idea of what the place is actually like that can't be done with a list of notable places and descriptions(I'm assuming there will be descriptions for each place anyway)?

 

[MarkB]

ok, what specifically? Is it just that it is shown as a village more than a town, is it the place names, is it the shrine of luck, is it the ruined manor? The images of the buildings and artwork certainly can't help because the buildings can't all be of repeating colors and shapes. For that matter the buildings probably all have the same description- dirty and poorly constructed, and not the plethora of colors, seeing as it is a small semi-medieval village.

so how does the map convey an idea of what the place is actually like that can't be done with a list of notable places and descriptions(I'm assuming there will be descriptions for each place anyway)?

It's a small place, with most of the major places of interest found on its central hub town square. Its ruined wall speaks of defensive measures once required here that are no longer maintained, the ruined manor suggests a place once well-funded by a wealthy land-owner, maybe now facing hard times in their absence, it seems clear that the village's only major means of support are farming and mining, and the variety of colours in the buildings (which I'll choose not to ignore simply because they don't meet my preconceptions) suggest either several phases of construction, or a sense of economic status, with the buildings of wealthier residents being constructed of superior materials. Or the colours could be simply paint or multiple castings of Prestidigitation, and they were chosen by the villagers to give the place a more appealing look.

The presence of representatives of a trading coster suggests that this village has, or had, something worth exporting, and the lack of any religious buildings beyond a Shrine of Luck means that either this village hasn't felt the need for access to organised religion, or hasn't been able to attract any.

Looking toward the outskirts to the north-east and north-west, the sight of ruined buildings suggests that the village is having trouble growing beyond its current size - or that it was once larger, and has lost ground. Seemingly, there are some dangers nearby that would prey upon outlying farmsteads.

So, yeah, nothing that some descriptive text couldn't also convey, but I got most of that from my first half-minute looking at the map, and if I want to remind myself, I can look at it again. Descriptive text, unless the DM is a great orator, tends to wash over the group in a few minutes' info-dump, missed by half the players who assumed the others were paying attention, and forgotten by half the rest within a session or two.

 

[Hussar]

the point that buildings were labeled, but roads were not was to illustrate the inefficacy of the map. you are right in that it is easy to locate the buildings without a road map, which brings us to the question of what is the purpose of this map? is it to analyze a specific feature or how they interact? no, there are not thematic elements and no real geospatial information besides locations. so is it a general use map? general use maps are primarily used for navigation, whether they are city street maps or topographic maps or even ancient maps, their main purpose is navigation. the fact that no roads are named and only landmarks relevant to the storyline(this is an assumption) are marked leads me to the conclusion that this map would serve very poorly as a navigational tool. how would you direct someone to Harbin Wester's Home?

having each building and road with a sign was just an example of use. as you put it, it would be easy for the pcs to locate all the labeled buildings without a map, so then why have a map? isn't it simply a list of important places stamped onto some nice artwork? do we need a map for such a small village?

so with the conclusion that this map is not designed for analytic or navigational purposes, then we decide the map is really superfluous and realize it is only presented to satisfy the demands of the customers for pretty pictures. the map is simply an aesthetically pleasing image, nothing more, nothing less.

You realize street names are cultural and not everyone has them right? And, if you look at antique maps, they almost never have street names.

 

[Wangalade]

You realize street names are cultural and not everyone has them right? And, if you look at antique maps, they almost never have street names.

I wasn't trying to claim they did, only that they were used for navigation primarily(excluding weird pseudo religious world maps).

 

[Wangalade]

So, yeah, nothing that some descriptive text couldn't also convey, but I got most of that from my first half-minute looking at the map, and if I want to remind myself, I can look at it again. Descriptive text, unless the DM is a great orator, tends to wash over the group in a few minutes' info-dump, missed by half the players who assumed the others were paying attention, and forgotten by half the rest within a session or two.

This answers the question of: is the map useful?
For you it conveys information at a faster rate than descriptive text.

 

[Hussar]

I wasn't trying to claim they did, only that they were used for navigation primarily(excluding weird pseudo religious world maps).

Really? I'm a huge map geek. I love maps. I love looking at them and antique maps are something of a hobby of mine. You posted two modern maps of San Francisco. Allow me to rebut for a moment:

That's a map of San Francisco circa 1878. Now, of the three maps of SF we have here, which one gives the best "sense of place"? For me, it's the third one. I look at that map and I can tell all sorts of things about SF from it. The modern maps are just abstract representations of the geospacial locations of various points. The antique map tells me a lot more about what SF looks like and what I can expect to see if I travel there.

The D&D map of Phandalin works like the above SF map. I know that the houses look a certain way - I'd expect pretty anachronistic images of 15th to 17th century homes from that map. The houses have stone or shingle roofs, not thatch as you would expect from an earlier home. The roads are dirt tracks, not cobblestone. The homes are fairly widely spread out, granting an airy feel to the town.

Like was said, the maps give a great representation of the feel of the place. They aren't there solely for imparting geography. They are cultural maps.

 

[Wangalade]

The antique map tells me a lot more about what SF looks like and what I can expect to see if I travel there.

I agree, but then there is the debate of is that actually a map? which definition of map are you using? could that simply be a painting of san francisco from a viewpoint across the bay? I believe I mentioned earlier that a profile view of the village would be just as effective at seeing the layout and provide more of a sense of actually being there.

 

[MarkB]

That's a map of San Francisco circa 1878. Now, of the three maps of SF we have here, which one gives the best "sense of place"? For me, it's the third one. I look at that map and I can tell all sorts of things about SF from it. The modern maps are just abstract representations of the geospacial locations of various points. The antique map tells me a lot more about what SF looks like and what I can expect to see if I travel there.

That's a great map image, and certainly conveys the look of the place very well.

Even the modern map is informative in terms of more than just geography, though. You've got the contrast between the central zone's winding, haphazard street design and the grid layout of the surrounding areas, indicatiing that it's an old city, pre-dating the US's move toward more standardised street layouts, and that the historical area is important enough not to have been redeveloped. The profusion of straight lines defining the eastern coastline indicates reclaimed land and extensive dock constructions, showing that this city's docks and ports are lucrative enough to be worth sinking in a great deal of investment, and indicating that this is probably the most industrialised area of the city. The park / wilderness areas left undeveloped in the northwestern region suggest a city not entirely given over to expansion above aesthetics, though there's a sense that these areas too will be consumed in time.

Note that I'm English, and have very little knowledge of San Francisco beyond occasional American movies and TV shows, so I may be wrong on any or all of the above.

 

[Hussar]

I agree, but then there is the debate of is that actually a map? which definition of map are you using? could that simply be a painting of san francisco from a viewpoint across the bay? I believe I mentioned earlier that a profile view of the village would be just as effective at seeing the layout and provide more of a sense of actually being there.

Yes, that is actually a map. Again, the modern map is not the only kind of map there is. There are all sorts of maps. A profile view of the town actually wouldn't work because so many of the houses would be overlaid upon each other. And a "street view" level image only shows a few buildings, not the entire town, which is the point of any map.

That's a great map image, and certainly conveys the look of the place very well.

Even the modern map is informative in terms of more than just geography, though. You've got the contrast between the central zone's winding, haphazard street design and the grid layout of the surrounding areas, indicatiing that it's an old city, pre-dating the US's move toward more standardised street layouts, and that the historical area is important enough not to have been redeveloped. The profusion of straight lines defining the eastern coastline indicates reclaimed land and extensive dock constructions, showing that this city's docks and ports are lucrative enough to be worth sinking in a great deal of investment, and indicating that this is probably the most industrialised area of the city. The park / wilderness areas left undeveloped in the northwestern region suggest a city not entirely given over to expansion above aesthetics, though there's a sense that these areas too will be consumed in time.

Note that I'm English, and have very little knowledge of San Francisco beyond occasional American movies and TV shows, so I may be wrong on any or all of the above.

Oh, sure. I didn't mean to imply that that was the only things you could tell from a modern map. There's all sorts of information you can extrapolate. But, the purpose of the modern maps is to provide a scale representation of the geospacial relationships, not necessarily to convey all that extra information. You can certainly deduce that information from the map, but, the map itself isn't really telling you these things.

 

[Plaguescarred]

A recent (and quite exciting) exchange i got with Mike;

@schley The town of Phandalin! http://ow.ly/i/5YAQY One of my new maps in the upcoming #Dnd Starter Set.
@Plaguescarred Great map Mike! #BroFist
@schley Thanks! What till you see the others in the Starter Set. Then get ready to flip out when you see the DMG!