Vote For Or Against POL Map Here

[Klaus]

The entire stated purpose of the "Points of Light" setting was sporadic areas of civilization with unknown wilderness filling in all the spaces between them.

A world map completely contradicts that entire notion. Nobody knows what the world looks like. The vast majority of people don't even know what the area 6 miles beyond their village looks like. That's the whole objective.

Put me down as someone who'd love to see an area mapped--a single Point of Light, as someone else put it--but nothing more.

That's all well and good for the players. But IMNHO, the DM needs to think a couple of levels ahead (2 weeks' ride instead of 1 day's ride).

 

[TerraDave]

If this is the core books,

Then yes.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

That's all well and good for the players. But IMNHO, the DM needs to think a couple of levels ahead (2 weeks' ride instead of 1 day's ride).

And while some DMs may be able to create a reasonably good world as they go along, my feeling is that I would enjoy a PoL setting more as a player when there is a good world behind the scenes being revealed to me a little at a time rather than a world being created randomly as I move through it.

Also, while many may want a PoL setting where they know nothing beyond their village fields at the beginning, I look forward more to a caravan or traveling entertainer themed campaign. The fact that the "darkness" is unknown and even shifting doesn't mean that a map doesn't exist of the points. (though a PoL campaign could make both cartography and knowledge geography more valuable, which would be fun for certain character models)

 

[Lurks-no-More]

I like the idea of having an implied PoL setting in the core books, up to and including a sample town; however, for reasons which I can't quite explain even to myself, I feel that including a map (at least, a map of more than the surroundings of the sample town) is too much.

 

[Mercule]

There's no option in the poll for me:

I'd like to see a few of the R&D bigwigs (Mearls, Andy, Rich) come up with different versions of the core setting, made available as web-enhancements for the Core books. Not only maps, but different timelines, power groups, etc.

That would be very, very cool. They wouldn't have to (and probably shouldn't) be particularly detailed, either. Just a few brain droppings to get things going and to provide a bit of reference for harried DMs.

 

[Scribble]

That's all well and good for the players. But IMNHO, the DM needs to think a couple of levels ahead (2 weeks' ride instead of 1 day's ride).

In my opinion, however, the point of no map would be that whats a week ahead is whatever you need to be there. Once you draw a map it leads to the idea that what ever is a week ahead is whats on the map.

Map says there's a swamp ahead, but what if you'd rather have the characters adventure in a forest?

I know the easy answer is to say that you can just change it for your campaign, but how many times have we heard (well read really) people complaining because they can't figure out how to use something (an adventure, a source book, an article) because x campaign guide or map says nothing about it... Or where best to place x adventure because the campaign map doesn't show anything like that...

Maps have an unfortunate habit of making things official. They make what is there (in the eyes of many) the only thing that can be there. The whole point of POL is that it is whatever it needs to be.

It leaves the world unexplored, so that not on your characters get to explore it, but you get to explore it as players as well.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

In my opinion, however, the point of no map would be that whats a week ahead is whatever you need to be there.

personally, I really dislike playing under this philosophy because it leads to incoherent, nonsensical worlds where nothing really fits together. Geography, in a physical, biological and political sense, looks better to me when it is planned as a whole. If I'm exploring the great unknown, I want the picture that is revealed little by little to make sense when I can see the whole thing.

I want my DM to have a map whether the PCs do or not.

 

[Scribble]

personally, I really dislike playing under this philosophy because it leads to incoherent, nonsensical worlds where nothing really fits together. Geography, in a physical, biological and political sense, looks better to me when it is planned as a whole. If I'm exploring the great unknown, I want the picture that is revealed little by little to make sense when I can see the whole thing.

I want my DM to have a map whether the PCs do or not.

Shrug. Two different styles of play.

There are a number of campaign worlds out there already fully detailed.

Look at how many grumbled they got whenever they included an adventure in Dungeon designed for a specific campaign world. The generic ones were by far the most popular. Why not let the source books be generic as well.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

No world/continent/coutry map in the core book. Maps of a couple of towns and their immediate surrounding area is fine, but I don't even want the core books to say that Town X is 5 days ride from Town Y. Leave it all open ended.

 

[davethegame]

Though I could go either way, if there is no map included, I'm hoping the DMG comes right out and says "There's no map included because we recommend you start with a town, and then start making up areas to go with adventures, and make the map as you go along, and here are some good ways to do it..."