D&D 5E Wondering Monsters 12/12/13: Mapping the World

[Bluenose]

I would rather see a scale of 1 hex to 5 miles at the kingdom level. That allows one village to each hex for an area that's densely populated (by medieval standards), and will make it obvious where areas are less heavily populated. It's not a bad size for geographic features too. And while it'll mean large kingdoms take up more than one sheet, that's also true at the 1h:10m scale too.

There should probably also be mention of "World" scale mapping. I like to play around with continent locations on a world map, so that I'll have an idea of the latitude something is at and some idea of wind patterns, ocean currents, and mountainous regions. That way I can judge the type of environment an area is likely to have, instead of placing things as randomly as some map-makers/world-builders seem to.

 

[Balesir]

Instead of measuring by feet, I'd like to see the "square"-based rates of 4e remain, but renamed "paces" (for a useable in-world term). Even better if 1 square = 1 pace = 1 yard = 1 meter (and human speede would be 10 paces, wood elf would be 12 paces, dwarf would be 8 paces, etc). But I don't think that'd happen.

Funnily enough a gaming group I was in tried a homebrew system way back (pre-1990) that used "paces" of 2.5 feet and combat turns called "breaths" (~5 seconds per breath). Further subdivisions of a "heartbeat" were considered, at one point.

I think the main thing missing in the article, actually, was a discussion of time increments/turns. Distance and time really need to be considered together, I think, for any RPG - even if they are to be handled in an abstracted or "dramatic" fashion. Having one handled strictly objectively and the other abstractly, for instance, can be a problem.

 

[Kinak]

I think it's interesting how much less skewed the poll results are on this one. There, in my opinion, wasn't as strong an agenda being pushed in the text or the poll answers and that showed through with more interesting results.

I hope they keep that up.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[ccooke]

Funnily enough a gaming group I was in tried a homebrew system way back (pre-1990) that used "paces" of 2.5 feet and combat turns called "breaths" (~5 seconds per breath). Further subdivisions of a "heartbeat" were considered, at one point.

I think the main thing missing in the article, actually, was a discussion of time increments/turns. Distance and time really need to be considered together, I think, for any RPG - even if they are to be handled in an abstracted or "dramatic" fashion. Having one handled strictly objectively and the other abstractly, for instance, can be a problem.

Rules for those exist in the playtest, though.

I tried them out for the first time last Sunday, and they work really well. Check the DM Guidelines, page 9 for the start of it.

 

[Greenfield]

My first thought, upon reading the thread title, was "What are the Monsters wondering about?" I mean, I didn't know they were that curious.

Leaving that odd tangent behind, I'd favor a "standard" scale for maps. Having them change from adventure to adventure or (worse yet) from page to page within a publication would be a headache.

I can see outdoor maps using 10 mile hexes. 6 miles is convenient based on the movement rates, but only if movement is optimal. That is, a hex that represents, let's just say, 2 hours of travel on foot or one hour on horseback is fine. If everyone is on a road. The convenience disappears as soon as you consider overland travel, or travel through hills or mountains.

On the tactical scale, I like the "one pace" idea. Yeah, it's only a pace if the person doing the pacing is human sized, but it equates nicely to yards and/or meters. If we call a Pace a Meter, or 3.333 feet, three of them per 10 feet also works out nicely.

Consider, though, does it work quite so nicely when counting off spell ranges or areas? That's not a challenge, or even a rhetorical question, by the way. I'm signed up for the play test, but haven't kept up for a while now, so I honestly don't know if that conversion throws a monkey wrench into the works.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think it's interesting how much less skewed the poll results are on this one. There, in my opinion, wasn't as strong an agenda being pushed in the text or the poll answers and that showed through with more interesting results.

I hope they keep that up.

Cheers!
Kinak

I'm with you on this one! Glad to see this slight change of pace, even if it doesn't signify a broader change in direction.

This is interesting, too, because I've been leafing through the old 2e World Builder's Guidebook recently. I think this hits at the fact that maps in D&D could be a lot more useful and interesting than simply showing relative layout. What stood out to me was when he laid the FR map over the Seattle and compared it to the old "kingdom" scale. And how "compact" the cities of D&D are in comparison to our real-world sprawls!

I like that he's thinking about this in the context of monsters, too. One virtue of the thousands of monsters that D&D has, and their attendant lore, is that you can pretty much answer the question of "What's over that next ridge?" with a random monster roll and suddenly have at least a night of fun. The wilderness (and the dungeon) are key elements of the challenge to overcome in D&D.

 

[KidSnide]

What stood out to me was when he laid the FR map over the Seattle and compared it to the old "kingdom" scale. And how "compact" the cities of D&D are in comparison to our real-world sprawls!

Our modern real world has a much higher population density than a typical D&D world and most people in a typical D&D world don't have cars, trains or other modern forms of transportation.

It's a good article, but the lack of any sort of comparison between D&D maps and historical cities was an unfortunate omission. It's interesting to see how Waterdeep compares to Seattle, but I'd also like to see how it compares to Venice or Byzantium. 50 miles seems like a much larger area when you're walking around on foot than it does when you're driving around on a major highway.

-KS

 

[Balesir]

Our modern real world has a much higher population density than a typical D&D world and most people in a typical D&D world don't have cars, trains or other modern forms of transportation.

Well, the ones that matter (the PCs) often have magic carpets, phantom steeds and so on...

If we are going to pretend that the economy of a D&D world actually works, that would require an actual working economy model - and that is something hard to configure (I'm trying, though not for D&D per se).

If you want medieval europe/mediterranean then it requires not towns but a much more crowded countryside; but, then, that's no good for "wilderness" adventures.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's a good article, but the lack of any sort of comparison between D&D maps and historical cities was an unfortunate omission. It's interesting to see how Waterdeep compares to Seattle, but I'd also like to see how it compares to Venice or Byzantium. 50 miles seems like a much larger area when you're walking around on foot than it does when you're driving around on a major highway.

I'm with you there. Clopping around on a horse has got to lead to smaller cities than anything involving highways, even if D&D magic makes them quite dense in comparison to Real World cities of the time period roughly between the collapse of Rome and the Renaissance.

Of course, that's kind of getting into the "science" that Wyatt and Mearls have decried the presence of in D&D, so perhaps the omission wasn't so much an oversight as it was a reflection of the fact that it's not something they care to pay that much attention to in their work.

 

[Klaus]

I'm with you there. Clopping around on a horse has got to lead to smaller cities than anything involving highways, even if D&D magic makes them quite dense in comparison to Real World cities of the time period roughly between the collapse of Rome and the Renaissance.

Of course, that's kind of getting into the "science" that Wyatt and Mearls have decried the presence of in D&D, so perhaps the omission wasn't so much an oversight as it was a reflection of the fact that it's not something they care to pay that much attention to in their work.

I think it's more of a sense of "let's compare D&D maps with stuff that we can *relate* to, from our everyday lives".

And the ancient world could be very crowded, as Rome (for instance) had apartment buildings and walk-thru fast food joints where you could pick a proto-hamburger.

All that being said, I still think some D&D "towns" (like the aforementioned Daggerford) are far too small.