|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Jan 21, 2015 5:10:06 GMT -5
I have been looking over my old map of my campaign world, Toldara, and started thinking redoing it. I think all of us have been caught between being realistic and using what is cool so I thought I would take this question to the boards.
On a related note, do you think it matters one way or the other to the players?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Jan 21, 2015 5:13:25 GMT -5
I picked the rule of cool because trying to simulate reality or follow geological patterns, erosion, etc. is not something I am really equipped to do. It has been my experience that the players are cool with either presentation as long as it makes sense in the overall scheme of things.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 21, 2015 14:19:30 GMT -5
I chose "combination," because my campaign world is both imaginary and in the real world:
It is a vast wilderness in a distended space between real-world Western and Eastern Europe.
So the Europe part would be "realistic" (if the Risk board map counts as realistic!).
The vast wilderness is built to be randomly generated each time you start up the campaign (keeping it "fay" and fantastical).
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jan 21, 2015 20:06:20 GMT -5
I wish I could use the combination option or at least the cool option; however, I do not have a shred of artistic talent. Were I ever to get a player who could and would draw, I would be hard pressed to not give him or her special treatment. I wouldn't but I would sure be tempted.  I just make rough sketches (very rough) and do a lot of describing what is there. |
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Feb 9, 2015 14:35:06 GMT -5
I voted "other". I find cool maps other people have posted and nick them. For example, in Fight On! #1, there is a wilderness map I used for Mazes and Minotaurs. In Fight On! #2 there is a wilderness map I used for my Swords & Wizardry campaign.
I think the players want a combination - some cool stuff, but an overall rational world
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Feb 10, 2015 12:35:54 GMT -5
I picked the rule of cool because trying to simulate reality or follow geological patterns, erosion, etc. is not something I am really equipped to do. It has been my experience that the players are cool with either presentation as long as it makes sense in the overall scheme of things. While I agree that "geological patterns, erosion, etc." are overkill, keeping things realistic is important in all aspects of your game. If nothing is mundane, the weird loses its pop. |
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Feb 10, 2015 21:17:39 GMT -5
I picked the rule of cool because trying to simulate reality or follow geological patterns, erosion, etc. is not something I am really equipped to do. It has been my experience that the players are cool with either presentation as long as it makes sense in the overall scheme of things. While I agree that "geological patterns, erosion, etc." are overkill, keeping things realistic is important in all aspects of your game. If nothing is mundane, the weird loses its pop. Exactly what I was aiming for! |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 10, 2015 22:12:15 GMT -5
I voted "other". I find cool maps other people have posted and nick them. For example, in Fight On! #1, there is a wilderness map I used for Mazes and Minotaurs. In Fight On! #2 there is a wilderness map I used for my Swords & Wizardry campaign. I think the players want a combination - some cool stuff, but an overall rational world I would agree with that, I love to see a good map. I think they are a real enhancement if you can do them! |
|
|
|
Post by Von on Feb 11, 2015 2:13:22 GMT -5
My maps tend to be those of actual places or planets, taken gloriously out of context whether by treatment in the drawing/redrawing process or in interpretation. Rather than stress myself worrying about geology I prefer to use things which are derived from reality, and then focus my attention on individual places and people - which is where my creative potential lies, and where the actual adventuring will take place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Darke on Feb 12, 2015 16:53:15 GMT -5
Mine is a mixture. Like Tetramorph my setting is based on Earth but, I will throw in something strange because this is fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Necromancer on Feb 12, 2015 17:23:02 GMT -5
I voted "combination", simply because I like designing my worlds that way. A fairly realistic foundation to create a mark of recognition compared to the real world, and then some added strangeness to enhance the sense of the fantastic.  |
|
|
|
Post by merctime on May 2, 2015 18:44:40 GMT -5
I chose both... but want to come clean!!! I WANT to draw in cool shapes and stuff... but haven't yet  ...But there is always time!! By the way, all of you are awesome! |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on May 2, 2015 20:06:40 GMT -5
I research a lot of real-world material to get a realistic-feeling map. I do try to take account of fantasy issues, so I don't reproduce medieval England for BLUEHOLME™, for example, because on the whole the former was a much more tame and settled world than the latter (no aerial warfare, for example). But that only shows on the detailed, large-scale maps. For the big small-scale world and regional maps I like to try to emulate realistic geographical features. Skull Mountain only becomes obvious in section.
I go for an old-fashioned graphic, but not medieval - I need the map to actually provide useful information, not just a visual prop. I like semi-isometric styles because not everyone has a bckground in reading maps, and I love the old survey maps of the 18th and 19th centuries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Feb 4, 2018 0:12:33 GMT -5
A combo of both, I try to create fairly "realistic" maps in that terrain creates the proper climates but add sky islands, "the Great Blood Desert" & such, plus I want to add more core details to give a cool illustrated feel to my future maps.
|
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 13, 2018 23:01:08 GMT -5
I don't use a method, I just draw up something that I like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert the Black on Jun 21, 2018 11:32:42 GMT -5
I use the rule of cool and don't worry about realism. I just put together whatever grabs me at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yaleric on Jun 29, 2018 20:11:42 GMT -5
I just make rough sketches and then describe things to the players and let them draw their own.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warrior Twin One on Aug 21, 2018 0:50:46 GMT -5
Just rough something out and run with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warrior Twin Two on Aug 22, 2018 9:56:43 GMT -5
Just rough something out and run with it. Yeah, we couldn't make it pretty if we had to. |
|
|
|
Post by clooney on May 2, 2022 12:08:33 GMT -5
I try to make continents that look like they could exist and I do put in a lot of islands, I like to encourage seagoing campaigns since they are pretty rare.
|
|
|
|
Post by Q. F o s t e r on May 2, 2022 12:47:34 GMT -5
I do both and like it that way. You have to have some islands that look like they they were built by some crazy wizard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Snuffy Smith on May 3, 2022 12:49:20 GMT -5
Option three, make it look realistic, but not at the price of having cool things too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ibizan Zamway on May 3, 2022 21:52:27 GMT -5
I like the third option.
|
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Jun 16, 2022 18:53:24 GMT -5
I go with what looks good to me and is closest to what I imagine.
|
|
Kujik
Traveler
Posts: 208
|
Post by Kujik on Aug 15, 2022 19:08:45 GMT -5
I go for realistic, but add anything cool that I think of.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Man From Coventry on Aug 17, 2022 13:36:07 GMT -5
I just do whatever feels good a the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morose on Sept 5, 2022 18:37:34 GMT -5
I just rough it out enough to play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartholmew Quarrels on Sept 5, 2022 21:43:00 GMT -5
A little of both.
|
|
I just make rough sketches (very rough) and do a lot of describing what is there.
