Do you prefer digital maps, paradigmatically exemplified by Christopher West's Maps of Mystery, or hand-rendered maps that look like they could have been created in medieval times?
Expedition to Castle Ravenloft uses both styles, alternating from page to page. Kyle Hunter, who created the beautiful maps with a old-world feel in that book, says in another thread that there's something of a preference at WotC for the hand-drawn look and against the obviously digital look (my words, not his). I've also noticed that WotC's published maps are dominated by browns, grays, and de-saturated colors that enhance a gritty feel for ruins and such, rather than more vibrant, color-saturated works.
As a cartographer, I'd love to know: what to DUNGEON readers want, digital or hand-drawn? A mixture? Colorful ones or neutral ones with only occasional splashes of color for emphasis? Put aside that the most important criteria is a clear, ledgible, practically useful product (that can and must be achieved with any style) and please tell me what styles appeal the most.
I like 'em all myself, but it really depends on the subject matter, I think, and the tone of the project overall. Brightly colored battlemaps are a good thing, but for handouts and "ye mysterious lands," I prefer something a little more old school.
I don't think its policy, or anything, but I recall on some project being asked to tone-down the digital feel of some maps I'd produced. Perhaps I overstated it. I think Jason England's lovely maps blur that line. Painterly, but pretty hi-tech. My best hand drawn stuff was the recent Challenge of Champs. Honestly, the way I'm doing it is a little too work intensive. I basically generate digital maps in Illustrator, and hand draw over blue-lined prints. Ow, my aching arm! In fact, I have a big WotC project I should be working on this weekend, and I'm really trying to streamline the process somehow.
well, my handwriting and artistic ability are horrible, so my hand drawn maps are usually only marginally legible to anyone but me.
I am, as is known here, a major advocate of Campaign Cartographer in its many forms. If i need a 'handdrawn' map, i find myself using these programs to create a hand drawn looking map that still looks better than anything i could have drawn.
just my opinion, though. i have nothing against hand drawn maps. i just want them legible. which means i can't draw them myself
i like the artistic digitally rendered maps best, but hand drawn if the dungeon is good looking. you can have the best looking digital map ever made but if it is an illogical dungeon that doesn't make sense, i'll pass it right by. take the maps for the Worlds Largest Dungeon. oh my god, hideous. even though they were digitally done, they were illogical and made no sense at all. most of Christopher West's maps are logical and make sense from an architect's POV. as do Ashenvale's maps.
about hand drawn, it depends on the style. craig zipse does some of the best hand drawn maps i have ever seen. Legible, logical, and perfect. about the latest dungeon though, is it just me or do the maps for all the adventures seem a little bright and vibrant?
Hand-drawn maps is my preference. If there are illegible scribbles, mysterious symbols, coffee stains, fold crinkles, blood spots, "Here Be Monstres" monsters, compass roses and other paraphenalia, that's a bonus.
|
Any map that's meant to be shown to players as a hand-out should look reasonably authentic and medieval, to enhance its use in the game. Anything that's meant to be an informative reference to the GM should be as legible and clearly-detailed as possible...again, to enhance its use in the game.
It all comes down to what you're trying to communicate, and to whom. If you're trying to communicate authenticity and medieval flavor to the players, crisp colors, digitally-made textures, and photoshopped line work are not your friends. If you're trying to communicate spacial relationships and details like terrain conditions, placement of furnishings or objects, luminous effects, water depth, or other encounter information needed by the GM, however, those same things can serve you very well, and can make the page come alive in a very eye-pleasing way that still tells you everything you need to know.
Incidentally, maps made with the help of a computer can still look hand-drawn and fantastic, and maps done completely by hand can still be clear, concise, and even vibrantly colorful. There are as many different techniques as there are artists, and none is definitively better than another.
Both digital and hand-drawn maps can be works of art and still serve your game well. The trick, as with all art, is balancing the form with the function to get the most value out of each.
I would just like to add that whatever method is used, please place the grid so that it is useful to me for planning and descriptive purposes. If a room is 30ft x 30ft, make it three rows of 10ft squares x 3 rows of 10ft squares. I don't care how "realistic" it is to have the rooms straddle grid marks, the grid measurements are for my convenience. It is difficult to count up how many half-squares or 3/4 squares as room is.
There, I've said it. I feel better.