Which Dungeon Map Looks Best?

[Fargoth]

Greetings Everyone.

I need your opinion concerning some maps I have created. I’ll admit from the get-go that this is purely some light marketing research I’m conducting prior to working on a few freebies that will, in turn, lead to some for profit publications.

You see there are myriad ways to create maps with some methods being better suited to a certain criteria and end use then others. With that in mind I ask you to go to the polls located here: http://truenorthcartography.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=7&sid=4b3cd7f271008387fa314f6c67ef4a2d

Please give this your time and consideration for your input is highly valued and appreciated.

I’m by no means a marketing expert or an authority on creating polls. If you feel the need to point out some glaring omission or otherwise wish to help by offering your opinion on this matter please feel free to post your thoughts within the proper poll thread.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,
Paul

 

[pogre]

I vote for Image 4 for all publications.

 

[frankthedm]

#3 is the most usable. I and i believe a lot of other DMs, like in-hand photocopies / prints of the maps they use. The less black space there is in the original object, the more the DM can pencil in. The shadow hurts because it makes printing up mini scale dungeons to set figs down on harder {printing the map itself on several papers with 5' = one inch]. A plain hand drawn is good if you hardcover has a photocopyable hand-out section....hint...hint.

 

[Fargoth]

#3 is the most usable. I and i believe a lot of other DMs, like in-hand photocopies / prints of the maps they use. The less black space there is in the original object, the more the DM can pencil in. The shadow hurts because it makes printing up mini scale dungeons to set figs down on harder {printing the map itself on several papers with 5' = one inch]. A plain hand drawn is good if you hardcover has a photocopyable hand-out section....hint...hint.

It appears that most people like #3 and #4. So why do I feel as if most of the popular dungeons I see produced in PDF and hard print materials are the exact opposite ... that being very artsy with what seems like more time and emphasis spent on the eye candy aspects as opposed to the usefulness of the dungeon itself.

Are the thoughts that I just voiced a misperception on my part or are there others of you out there who feel the same?

Regards,
Paul

 

[D'karr]

It appears that most people like #3 and #4. So why do I feel as if most of the popular dungeons I see produced in PDF and hard print materials are the exact opposite ... that being very artsy with what seems like more time and emphasis spent on the eye candy aspects as opposed to the usefulness of the dungeon itself.

Are the thoughts that I just voiced a misperception on my part or are there others of you out there who feel the same?

Regards,
Paul

The eye candy is great for a player but a DM needs something useful. A player hardly ever sees the map. Pretty is nice but pretty and useful is better.

A map that leaves space on the margins for notes is more useful to me as a DM than one that has black space.

If you are producing maps to place on the table as battlemats then the pretty ones are better. If your PDF is aimed at the DM then give him something useful. Then again if the PDF is meant to be printed I appreciate a no-frills document that allows me to print without wasting lots of ink.


I vote for 4 too.

 

[XCorvis]

I'd like to vote, but I'm not willing to sign up in your forum just for that. I've got too many accounts already...

I like #3, because I can print it. It's a good reference map. I don't see the dropshadow as being too important, but with some multi-leveled terrain it might be useful.

However, I also like #9. Full color, with all the details really helps me to imagine what the dungeon is like. It makes me feel like I "got my money's worth". Plain maps are the most useful, but the least inspiring.

Your solution: Use both. If it's a PDF document, just include both. No problem! The download size is marginally increased, and that's about it. If it's a print product, use the fancy map, but provide the simple ones for download. That's a bit more of an undertaking, but it's the most useful to the largest number of people (IMO, anyway).

 

[frankthedm]

The best way to magage a pretty colour map is to have a plain version of the map in the photocopyable hand out section in the back of a hard cover.

 

[rathalos]

I am finally posting on this site after reading it and perusing for a while.
I would have to vote for #3 and #4 for there functionality and usefullness. I run games for years and find that Maps like Phineas Crow's (his map section is somewhere) provide a DM with a huge multitude of options. # 9 provides Eye candy, but I remember running and playing in 1st Ed. AD&D modules like "The Village of Hommlet" and "The Tomb of Horrors". Those maps were great.
In fact i just recently decided to by some PDFs finally and got the Oone map "Hill of Many Dungeons". I like the simplicity of it.

 

[Fargoth]

After a few days it appears that the majority of folk want options. I'll have to experiment with the software I own to see the best way to approach this as well as the resulting file size that I end up with.

I'll tell ya what ... I have Adobe Creative Suite 2. That sucker is powerful but is rather intimidating with the learning curve!

Thank you all for your input so far. I'll have to thank you properly with a freebie once I iron out all of the details for this little endeavor I've undertaken.

Regards,
Paul

 

[Bobitron]

I would vote for three or four as well. Nine is pretty, but not more useful or printable.