Additional map help. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Additional map help. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
syrinth
10-23-05, 01:22 AM Hey, I know that I've asked a question along these lines before but I don't think I actually asked this last time. How much detail do you guys go into when drawing your maps?
Damren
10-23-05, 01:38 AM syrinth,

I guess it really comes down to what the map is for.

If it's a map I'm giving to the players - say a treasure map or area map, I'll put a reasonable level of detail into it based on the plot & source of the map in game. A quality map maker might know recent hazards and mark them, such as the locations of tribes & such or known hauntings.

If it's a floor plan map, I have a base map I go by & then add details as the players investigate the area. The more they look, the more I put in. If they rush through a room, the map is vague - if they check it out, it gets more detailed.

If it's an encounter map, along the lines of a grid map, I put in details that can help out the encounter flow. Debris, possible cover, foe locations etc.

Did you have something specific in mind?

Damren
syrinth
10-23-05, 01:41 AM yeah, okay Im totally retarded lol. Although in my defense it IS 1:40 AM over here and I got little sleep last night :)

I meant for world/continental maps.
Damren
10-23-05, 01:52 AM syrinth,

No problem.

In general World maps tend to be 'big picture'. I would show any major features such as mountain ranges, forests, rivers, kingdoms, etc. Just look in an atlas at a world or country map & it gives you some good rules to go by. Try 'Googleing' some historical maps & you might find some interesting material to guide you as well.

One thing. Your map, as the DM, should be more detailed than the party's map - if they even have access to one. Learned scholars, sages & well traveled adventurers might have or have access to them - but, low level characters or commoners usually will not. Maps, especially decent maps, would tend to be very expensive. In the medieval period, they were practically works of art and not always accurate.

A regional map of the party's homeland might be more detailed. But, I would still leave a few holes in it here and there - just so you can have some fun later. Smaller villages and rustic towns would probably not show unless they were near a trade route. Major hazards might be marked, but annoying goblin tribes might move or be missed. Ruins might be marked with no real details to explain their origins or dangers.

The age of a map is also important. A map from 20 years ago might look very different from one today. I remember driving through Southern California & one town on my older map - was no longer a town. It's not even on more recent maps.

I hope this helps. If you need something more specific - let us know.

Damren
StormCrow42
10-23-05, 11:58 AM The map could be even worse. It could predate a world-changing event. Large cities might be in the same location (or be ruined), but perhaps the geography has changed.
MinusInnocence
10-23-05, 12:50 PM Honestly, I use graph paper and shade in boxes using map colors for different geographical features. Mountains are brown, hills are light brown, forests are green, etc. Rivers are dark blue lines. Simple but it actually looks kind of nice when you're done. I mean, yes, just because a 20 mile square is filled in with dark green doesn't mean trees cover every last bit of it. But hey, they're squares, what do you want?

Use whichever method seems best to you; I know people who have spent hours detailing individual windows on buildings in maps of tiny hamlets. I also know people who slap together a quick map of a local region in 15 minutes. As long as the map expresses what it needs to and there is as little ambiguity as possible, you have succeeded.
Fixxxer
10-23-05, 05:02 PM I go into exquisite detail with many of my maps. If it's a basic map of an area I probably won't ever use again, I'll generally just a quick graph paper map. However, if it's something I plan to use again and again...well, to give you an example, the continental map for my homebrew world is 36 inches by 36 inches and resembles a Civilization3 map. It took me more than a year to design and build.
syrinth
10-23-05, 05:50 PM Currently my continental map is 4 by 3 papers all taped together lol.
yellowdingo
10-24-05, 10:21 AM Just draw any old rubish. Maps were never accurate. Wap down words past the assumed that say end of the world or here be dragons.

Anything that will confuse and disorient your players. Wap on the map that they can get to Rome from London via a road up through Scotland.

Anything to force them to make their own maps. And remember anyone caught making maps of kingdoms who were not offical cartograpers could be attacked on site by the local lord and his knights. even the official cartographer might be put to the sword if some evil lord was trying to keep his castle works secret.

In the Novel "Musashi" there is a Samuari caught making sketches of new castle works. Once discovered by the Local lord's guards, he was killed where he sat.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
syrinth 10-23-05, 01:22 AM	Hey, I know that I've asked a question along these lines before but I don't think I actually asked this last time. How much detail do you guys go into when drawing your maps?
Damren 10-23-05, 01:38 AM	syrinth, I guess it really comes down to what the map is for. If it's a map I'm giving to the players - say a treasure map or area map, I'll put a reasonable level of detail into it based on the plot & source of the map in game. A quality map maker might know recent hazards and mark them, such as the locations of tribes & such or known hauntings. If it's a floor plan map, I have a base map I go by & then add details as the players investigate the area. The more they look, the more I put in. If they rush through a room, the map is vague - if they check it out, it gets more detailed. If it's an encounter map, along the lines of a grid map, I put in details that can help out the encounter flow. Debris, possible cover, foe locations etc. Did you have something specific in mind? Damren
syrinth 10-23-05, 01:41 AM	yeah, okay Im totally retarded lol. Although in my defense it IS 1:40 AM over here and I got little sleep last night :) I meant for world/continental maps.
Damren 10-23-05, 01:52 AM	syrinth, No problem. In general World maps tend to be 'big picture'. I would show any major features such as mountain ranges, forests, rivers, kingdoms, etc. Just look in an atlas at a world or country map & it gives you some good rules to go by. Try 'Googleing' some historical maps & you might find some interesting material to guide you as well. One thing. Your map, as the DM, should be more detailed than the party's map - if they even have access to one. Learned scholars, sages & well traveled adventurers might have or have access to them - but, low level characters or commoners usually will not. Maps, especially decent maps, would tend to be very expensive. In the medieval period, they were practically works of art and not always accurate. A regional map of the party's homeland might be more detailed. But, I would still leave a few holes in it here and there - just so you can have some fun later. Smaller villages and rustic towns would probably not show unless they were near a trade route. Major hazards might be marked, but annoying goblin tribes might move or be missed. Ruins might be marked with no real details to explain their origins or dangers. The age of a map is also important. A map from 20 years ago might look very different from one today. I remember driving through Southern California & one town on my older map - was no longer a town. It's not even on more recent maps. I hope this helps. If you need something more specific - let us know. Damren
StormCrow42 10-23-05, 11:58 AM	The map could be even worse. It could predate a world-changing event. Large cities might be in the same location (or be ruined), but perhaps the geography has changed.
MinusInnocence 10-23-05, 12:50 PM	Honestly, I use graph paper and shade in boxes using map colors for different geographical features. Mountains are brown, hills are light brown, forests are green, etc. Rivers are dark blue lines. Simple but it actually looks kind of nice when you're done. I mean, yes, just because a 20 mile square is filled in with dark green doesn't mean trees cover every last bit of it. But hey, they're squares, what do you want? Use whichever method seems best to you; I know people who have spent hours detailing individual windows on buildings in maps of tiny hamlets. I also know people who slap together a quick map of a local region in 15 minutes. As long as the map expresses what it needs to and there is as little ambiguity as possible, you have succeeded.
Fixxxer 10-23-05, 05:02 PM	I go into exquisite detail with many of my maps. If it's a basic map of an area I probably won't ever use again, I'll generally just a quick graph paper map. However, if it's something I plan to use again and again...well, to give you an example, the continental map for my homebrew world is 36 inches by 36 inches and resembles a Civilization3 map. It took me more than a year to design and build.
syrinth 10-23-05, 05:50 PM	Currently my continental map is 4 by 3 papers all taped together lol.
yellowdingo 10-24-05, 10:21 AM	Just draw any old rubish. Maps were never accurate. Wap down words past the assumed that say end of the world or here be dragons. Anything that will confuse and disorient your players. Wap on the map that they can get to Rome from London via a road up through Scotland. Anything to force them to make their own maps. And remember anyone caught making maps of kingdoms who were not offical cartograpers could be attacked on site by the local lord and his knights. even the official cartographer might be put to the sword if some evil lord was trying to keep his castle works secret. In the Novel "Musashi" there is a Samuari caught making sketches of new castle works. Once discovered by the Local lord's guards, he was killed where he sat.