What makes a good map good?

[LordEntrails]

Compare that to this:

Those are clear, mostly. But they aren't very interesting. If I was playing a modern or sci-fi game they might be acceptable to me. If they were supposed to represent architectural prints.

Look, some folks here have already said they want black and white and blue-print style maps. And obviously others have said such is not acceptable, or necessary for clarity.

Everybody is right. Because despite what others say, mapping is an art. There is no scientific formula that can create or evaluate a map repeatably etc. I say this as an engineer that has done many engineering drawings. And as a fantasy cartographer that has done many maps.

Even when doing an engineering drawing of a bracket, their are choices made in the drafting. Call them preferences, standards, or artistic license; different people will prefer different decisions be made. If the information the creator intends to be conveyed is done so, they have succeeded.

Personally, when I see a fantasy map, I want to be drawn into the fantasy, not reminded of some engineering print.

 

[Lanefan]

Point 1 - I would prefer the design to have characters find something secret as an aspect of the game that isn't delivered via google maps. Investigation, rumors, clues, innate Dwarven suspicions.

'Investigation' involves, among other things, making a decent map of the place and looking for oddities.

Point 2 - You can design a dungeon to fit on a battlemap without it providing meta information that sullies players' experiences. Just like how they try to edit movies down to be under 120 minutes. Yes players can figure out that the dungeon won't go off the edge of the table, that doesn't mean you have to make that information important.

Furthermore, by your example, if exploration and starting the party in the middle of the map is what's important, there's still absolutely no reason why it can't be designed to not be 1 room larger than what can fit on the map.

Sorry, but whether something will fit on a particular map or surface simply isn't a consideration if-when I'm designing a dungeon.

Not everyone uses battlemats. Some use graph paper*, some (like us) use gridded chalkboards, some use dungeon tiles or some other constructed representation, and some don't use anything. All of those are different in what they will 'fit' or contain, and thus designing to fit any particular one (other than TotM which can handle anything) is never going to please everyone anyway.

* - which comes in different sizes. I once designed an adventure that barely fit on a gridded page; and when the players tried to map it the paper they used was 4 squares to the inch...and mine had been 5 to the inch. Their map went four squares off the page on each side, and much clear tape met its end.

 

[Lanefan]

Personally, when I see a fantasy map, I want to be drawn into the fantasy, not reminded of some engineering print.

For me it depends on why I'm looking at the map.

If I'm looking at it purely for its aesthetic appeal then sure, make it a work of art.

If I'm looking at it seeking accurate information quickly (the usual situation for a DM), I don't give a flip about anything other than whether it gives me that info in the most efficient manner possible.

Which, by the way, the @3catcircus map does not. What is where is clear enough but:

• - constantly having to refer to the little scale in the corner, rather than just have a grid underlying the whole thing, would be a nuisance.
• - it violates the general convention of having north be at the top
• - as with so many maps, what the stairs are doing is anything but clear. Do the little triangles point up or down? What's the vertical rise or elevation difference between floors?

Further to stairs, as a side note: I was checking out some free online modules last night and found an example of another mapping glitch: inconsistent elevation changes within a dungeon map.

This map's stairs were very clear as to which way was up. Part of the map consisted of more or less a loop; you'd enter at the bottom (A) and going either left or right would funnel you to a chokepoint hallway (B) later, after which it opened out again.

Problem was, if you went right you'd reach B by a series of level halls and rooms and then going down a series of short flights of stairs (maybe 20 linear feet worth of stairs in total) while if you went left the passages and rooms were all shown as level thus the corresponding elevation loss wasn't accounted for.

The distances involved were short enough that any sloping of the left path would have been rather obvious.

Things like this drive me nuts!

 

[LordEntrails]

For me it depends on why I'm looking at the map.

If I'm looking at it purely for its aesthetic appeal then sure, make it a work of art.

If I'm looking at it seeking accurate information quickly (the usual situation for a DM), I don't give a flip about anything other than whether it gives me that info in the most efficient manner possible.

Absolutely. I totally forgot the intended purpose of a map. That colors/informs everything about what is important in a map.

From your comments, I suspect you are looking at a map so you, as GM, can describe the area, draw out a map on a dry-erase mat, or use it for TotM. And in such case clarity is certainly predominant.

Me, I'm almost always using maps to present to players via VTT. Usually for battlemaps. So graphical accuracy as well as immersion is important.

And, the accuracy thing, whether it is stair going up when they should go down, things that done line up between levels, etc is important to me as well. It annoys me to no end when things can't be used to accurately reflect the physical world. I tend to find that often with maps done by a cartographer that emphasizes 'concept' or hand-drawn aesthetics.

 

[Shiroiken]

It really depends on what you're going for. IMO, functionality is the primary requirement: you should be able to glance at a section of map and easily match it up with the description on your map key. Any notable features should be easy to spot (ideally this includes furniture, but realistically this usually isn't feasible). Also, if designing a map for a product, provide a player map that lacks the hidden DM information in case the DM wants to put it up on a VTT.

The next thing I find important is ecology: why and how creatures exist in the area/dungeon. This means food and water sources need to exist somewhere, even if it's creatures preying on weaker creatures. If doors are a primary aspect, make sure there are ways that creatures can get around them, if they are physically unable to use them, otherwise there's no way they could survive.

The last important thing for me is for the game structure. Ideally you want multiple ways in/out, as well as meaningful choices the players can make. You might have a secret door that will cut off a dangerous section, but you should never require that the secret door is found to finish the adventure. Ideally you should have an idea of what the original function of the structure was, possibly giving clues in the description for the players.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Not everyone uses battlemats. Some use graph paper*, some (like us) use gridded chalkboards, some use dungeon tiles or some other constructed representation, and some don't use anything. All of those are different in what they will 'fit' or contain, and thus designing to fit any particular one (other than TotM which can handle anything) is never going to please everyone anyway.

This.
Ultimately, the presentation of a map seems to depend on

• personal taste/ aesthetic/ limitations (eg color, format, digital/print, decoration, grids, symbology, etc); and
• how it's being used (eg, for DM reference vs use by players at the tabletop); and

This all addresses how a map is presented. So what about what the map represents. Maybe a different useful question is:

"If you strip away the encounters, what makes a good map good?"
(Or perhaps a better term at this point is "dungeon layout" instead of "map"?)

If you look at a just a map, what types of things might make it compelling? And what sorts of things does your brain invent to contextualize it?

What I'm seeing in this thread (and others) are concerns like:

- has story meaning (eg, "why is this here?" has an answer.)

- shows architectural consistency (eg, elevations match up; water flows the right direction; pipes, walkways, door swing, etc are not totally nonsensical; weirdness has internal logic, etc.)

- offers player choices (eg, multiple ins/outs/connections; branching paths; judicious use of bottlenecks, mazes, etc)

- is explorable (eg, secret areas; distinct zones; loops, twists/curves, confusing paths; unusual features, different modes of movement)

- has interesting dimension/geometry (eg, split levels, exploration in unexpected directions, weird encounter space configuration/ behavior)

- can be completed (ie, it should be structured such that the adventure's purpose can be satisfactorily fulfilled, whether that means defeat the bbeg, grab the macguffin, simply explore, etc. Or die trying, of course.)


That's just a quick brainstorm, lots of overlap. Probably missed some.

 

[Lanefan]

This.
Ultimately, the presentation of a map seems to depend on

• personal taste/ aesthetic/ limitations (eg color, format, digital/print, decoration, grids, symbology, etc); and
• how it's being used (eg, for DM reference vs use by players at the tabletop); and

This all addresses how a map is presented. So what about what the map represents. Maybe a different useful question is:

"If you strip away the encounters, what makes a good map good?"
(Or perhaps a better term at this point is "dungeon layout" instead of "map"?)

Dungeon layout and map quality are different topics entirely, to the point where dungeon layout is (and in the past has been) worth its own thread.

You can have the best map ever but if the layout it depicts is crap then what's the point. Conversely, you can have an amazing dungeon layout ruined by a badly-done map.

What I'm seeing in this thread (and others) are concerns like:

- has story meaning (eg, "why is this here?" has an answer.)

- shows architectural consistency (eg, elevations match up; water flows the right direction; pipes, walkways, door swing, etc are not totally nonsensical; weirdness has internal logic, etc.)

The second of these is the only one actually related to mapping, as it asks the map to show the information it needs to.

- offers player choices (eg, multiple ins/outs/connections; branching paths; judicious use of bottlenecks, mazes, etc)

- is explorable (eg, secret areas; distinct zones; loops, twists/curves, confusing paths; unusual features, different modes of movement)

- has interesting dimension/geometry (eg, split levels, exploration in unexpected directions, weird encounter space configuration/ behavior)

- can be completed (ie, it should be structured such that the adventure's purpose can be satisfactorily fulfilled, whether that means defeat the bbeg, grab the macguffin, simply explore, etc. Or die trying, of course.)

These are all layout issues, and while I very much agree with all except the last of these, none are germaine to discussion of how they are mapped.

 

[3catcircus]

For me it depends on why I'm looking at the map.

If I'm looking at it purely for its aesthetic appeal then sure, make it a work of art.

If I'm looking at it seeking accurate information quickly (the usual situation for a DM), I don't give a flip about anything other than whether it gives me that info in the most efficient manner possible.

Which, by the way, the @3catcircus map does not. What is where is clear enough but:

• - constantly having to refer to the little scale in the corner, rather than just have a grid underlying the whole thing, would be a nuisance.
• - it violates the general convention of having north be at the top
• - as with so many maps, what the stairs are doing is anything but clear. Do the little triangles point up or down? What's the vertical rise or elevation difference between floors?

Further to stairs, as a side note: I was checking out some free online modules last night and found an example of another mapping glitch: inconsistent elevation changes within a dungeon map.

This map's stairs were very clear as to which way was up. Part of the map consisted of more or less a loop; you'd enter at the bottom (A) and going either left or right would funnel you to a chokepoint hallway (B) later, after which it opened out again.

Problem was, if you went right you'd reach B by a series of level halls and rooms and then going down a series of short flights of stairs (maybe 20 linear feet worth of stairs in total) while if you went left the passages and rooms were all shown as level thus the corresponding elevation loss wasn't accounted for.

The distances involved were short enough that any sloping of the left path would have been rather obvious.

Things like this drive me nuts!

1. The little scale in the corner? No big deal. When building maps in CC2 with Mappa Harnica, you can always throw a grid underlay on it.
2. North at the top? The typical interior map in Harnic style is usually a portrait instead of a landscape. That being said, it is entirely possible to change the size and orientation so the floorplans can fit and have the top of the page = north. Not a big deal.
3. Stairs? If you know the key you automatically know that the arrows on Harnic style maps always point in the downward direction.
4. Vertical rise? Look at the 8 with the line over it on the first floor. Eight foot high flat ceiling. The 7 with the line over it in the barn? 7 feet high flat ceiling. The 14 with an Up arrow above it in the barn? Vaulted ceiling 14 feet high. Lack of symbols on 2nd and 3rd floor imply same height (no need for additional markings since they are the same height as 1st floor). What isn't shown (but can be, the author chose not to) is to show elevation above ground level for each of the floors.

You happen to also be able to look at everything on the map I posted and identify exactly what it is.

1. The black walls on first floor of the building? Stone.
2. The stony looking walls in the courtyard and the outer wall of the barn? Rubble.
3. The stony floors on the first floor of the inn? Paved (stone) floor.
4. The diagnonal lines on the inner wall? Daub and wattle.
5. The straight lines on the inn and barn's walls on the 2nd level? Wooden walls.
6. It's pretty obvious the 2nd/3rd level floors are wooden planks.
7. The stars with numbers in them? A special feature (typically detailed in the text).
8. The half dark/half white circles? Indicates a storage area.
9. The doors? The entrance door includes an iron bar. The door to the innkeeper's area on the first floor? Includes a wooden bar. the door with the number 3 leading to the innkeeper's private bedroom? It has a lock with a rating of 3 (scale of 1-9).
10. All the windows are glazed with shutters on the innkeeper's private rooms. Two windows on the 1st floor are barred with shutters.
11. The chests in each room clearly show a lock with rating, if it has one.
12. The barn's 2nd floor clearly shows the opening in the floor with the hanging curtain next to it. It's missing a ladder, but that is implied by the ladder being shown on the first floor.
13. You can clearly see where the chimneys are along with their associated fireplaces.
14. The roof of the rectangular portion of the inn on the 3rd floor? Ashlar. And you know how the roof peak runs.
15. The roof on the top of the barn? Hay and Fodder (not that it makes any sense to store it on top of the building...

 

[Hussar]

To me, the difference between a good map and a great one is the small things. I'll admit, @3catcircus I didn't like that harn style map at first because it's black and white. And, because I run on VTT, I really do want maps that visually pop. But, going back and really look at it, you're right, that is a fantastic map.

Here's another example, of how a little change can make a HUGE difference in play:

Two battlemaps. Both very functional. The left one even has elevation markings, which is nice. But, what really makes the right one stand out for me is the trees. In the right one, you can clearly see the tree trunks, meaning that the players know where full cover is, and partial cover/concealment is. If you have a tree trunk between you and the target, well, that's full cover. OTOH, just being inside the tree area gives you partial cover.

Again, the exact mechanics will change depending on what rules system you are using, but, just that little change - showing where the tree trunks actually are, makes this map a LOT more fun to use at the table.

 

[3catcircus]

To me, the difference between a good map and a great one is the small things. I'll admit, @3catcircus I didn't like that harn style map at first because it's black and white. And, because I run on VTT, I really do want maps that visually pop. But, going back and really look at it, you're right, that is a fantastic map.

Here's another example, of how a little change can make a HUGE difference in play:
View attachment 120946

Two battlemaps. Both very functional. The left one even has elevation markings, which is nice. But, what really makes the right one stand out for me is the trees. In the right one, you can clearly see the tree trunks, meaning that the players know where full cover is, and partial cover/concealment is. If you have a tree trunk between you and the target, well, that's full cover. OTOH, just being inside the tree area gives you partial cover.

Again, the exact mechanics will change depending on what rules system you are using, but, just that little change - showing where the tree trunks actually are, makes this map a LOT more fun to use at the table.

Yep. For a VTT, having a wow factor definitely helps engage the players. I've no problem with "poetic" maps for the players. As a DM, it's more important to have info on the map instead of having to search the text for it. It also allows the DM have more "variety" when describing the architecture and material of construction if the map actually shows that differentiation right on it.

For in person play, a touch-feel factor goes a long way even more than color. I once printed out the entire fortress in Son's if Gruumsh at a 1"=5' scale and then goes it to cardstock. My players were totally engaged in more tactical thinking because I could layer the different elevations and they could lift them off and set them back on to get an idea of shooting angles, cover, etc.