Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3691455" data-attributes="member: 22779">Sorry, but Gizmo you are defining Good as &quot;things I like&quot; and Bad as &quot;Things I don't like.&quot;&nbsp; Your personal preference does not define what a good map is.&nbsp; A good map should contain a number of elements:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Easily readable</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Properly labeled</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Works in play (ie.&nbsp; the map probably shouldn't be an MC Escher painting ((Unless, of course there is a reason why it is))</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Scaled properly</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fits with the encounters contained on the room (no Huge monsters in a 10x10 room for example)</li>
</ul>All of those are objective criteria with which we can judge a map.&nbsp; Is the use of color by WOTC making the map easier or harder to use?&nbsp; Are plain black and white maps better or worse in the sense of ease of readability and play?&nbsp; These are all objective standards.&quot;I like it&quot; or &quot;I don't like it&quot; is a perfectly valid reaction but it doesn't tell me anything.&nbsp; I'm not you.&nbsp; However, simply trying to state that any standardization of design is &quot;elitist&quot; ignores a rather large amount of work that is done out there that does exactly that.Just to go on for a second.&nbsp; Star Wars was mentioned a while back.&nbsp; I'm going to say it here that Star Wars is a terrible movie.&nbsp; It is.&nbsp; The acting is laughable, the story is cliche and blatantly ripped off from Kurosawa, and the plot has more holes than a volleyball net.&nbsp; OTOH, it is hugely popular.&nbsp; However, hugely popular (as someone likes to point out) is not the same as quality.&nbsp; I remember years back when the Stallone movie Cliffhanger was the top grossing movie of the year.&nbsp; I don't think anyone would try to claim quality in that movie.Just because something is popular doesn't make it good.&nbsp; RC, I'm surprised you haven't chimed in here with that yet.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; We have a huge body of modules now to look at.&nbsp; Some modules are good and some are bad.&nbsp; There's nothing wrong with liking a bad module, just as there is nothing wrong with hating a good one.&nbsp; I know for a fact that Mozart is better than Linkin Park, but, I know which one I'm listening to right now.&nbsp; &nbsp; What I'd like to see is some attempt to set out criteria by which we can judge modules other than &quot;Hey, I like it.&quot;&nbsp; We judge pretty much any artistic form with objective standards, why should modules be immune?&nbsp; There's a reason there's a technical component to figure skating.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3691455, member: 22779"] Sorry, but Gizmo you are defining Good as "things I like" and Bad as "Things I don't like." Your personal preference does not define what a good map is. A good map should contain a number of elements: [list][*]Easily readable[*]Properly labeled[*]Works in play (ie. the map probably shouldn't be an MC Escher painting ((Unless, of course there is a reason why it is))[*]Scaled properly[*]Fits with the encounters contained on the room (no Huge monsters in a 10x10 room for example)[/list] All of those are objective criteria with which we can judge a map. Is the use of color by WOTC making the map easier or harder to use? Are plain black and white maps better or worse in the sense of ease of readability and play? These are all objective standards. "I like it" or "I don't like it" is a perfectly valid reaction but it doesn't tell me anything. I'm not you. However, simply trying to state that any standardization of design is "elitist" ignores a rather large amount of work that is done out there that does exactly that. Just to go on for a second. Star Wars was mentioned a while back. I'm going to say it here that Star Wars is a terrible movie. It is. The acting is laughable, the story is cliche and blatantly ripped off from Kurosawa, and the plot has more holes than a volleyball net. OTOH, it is hugely popular. However, hugely popular (as someone likes to point out) is not the same as quality. I remember years back when the Stallone movie Cliffhanger was the top grossing movie of the year. I don't think anyone would try to claim quality in that movie. Just because something is popular doesn't make it good. RC, I'm surprised you haven't chimed in here with that yet. :) We have a huge body of modules now to look at. Some modules are good and some are bad. There's nothing wrong with liking a bad module, just as there is nothing wrong with hating a good one. I know for a fact that Mozart is better than Linkin Park, but, I know which one I'm listening to right now. What I'd like to see is some attempt to set out criteria by which we can judge modules other than "Hey, I like it." We judge pretty much any artistic form with objective standards, why should modules be immune? There's a reason there's a technical component to figure skating. [/QUOTE]

Verification