If someone from Paizo could answer this I would appreciate it.
How does Paizo feel about the coumminty creating combat maps of their published maps? For people who play online (like me) or for people who want to play directly on printed/projected versions these are a great adavantage but I think most people don't want to break any copyright rules.
However what happens is we still create them for our own games and just don't share them for fear of copyright and then several people are spending valuable gaming time doing the same thing.
If someone from Paizo could answer this I would appreciate it.
How does Paizo feel about the coumminty creating combat maps of their published maps? For people who play online (like me) or for people who want to play directly on printed/projected versions these are a great adavantage but I think most people don't want to break any copyright rules.
However what happens is we still create them for our own games and just don't share them for fear of copyright and then several people are spending valuable gaming time doing the same thing.
Obviously, I'm not with Paizo, but maybe I can help because I have asked the exact same question before and received a direct answer from them. I'm not trying to be an expert, but I've been down this road before.
Paizo doesn't mind provided:
1.) You don't sell it or make ANY profit from it.
2.) You site the source (i.e. Battle Map for Thistletop, Rise of the Runelords, Paizo Publishing). I went the extra step and said, "Based on an original map by Rob Lazzaretti")
I have even sent my maps to Lisa Stevens at her request (to use!), so they've seen what I've done.
Dundjinni has their own rules of course.
1.) Not for profit
1a.) Not for commercial publication even if it's original
2.) Site the source
3.) Dundjinni Compass Rose somewhere visible on the map
4.) "Made with Dundjinni" written statement
5.) Title and date it
If you go to Dundjinni's site there are threads where people try to explain what they think Dundjinni's license actually says, but I found them to be inaccurate (though they try to help!). Many volunteer moderators would have you think you couldn't do what I have done, and what you're proposing to do. They scared me at first until I decided to really look into it myself and not accept second hand information. If you get concerned about it, I'd recommend you really read Dundjinni's License agreement yourself before taking someone else's interpretation. A lot of people gave me some misleading answers regarding the License in an effort to be helpful.
Hope this helps!
And by all means, if it makes you feel more comfortable I won't be offended if you wait till they comment again.
If they reverse their decision, then I'll just know to have Lilith take my down.
Paizoians! Maybe something could be added to the Help/FAQ page so that we have a definitive answer on record in case some future poster has the same concern?
I've got a number of battle-grid scaled maps done for the first two modules. When time allows, I'll see about putting the appropriate logos and references with them and finding a suitable map host.
I have created a topic here of Community Created stuff so please look there.
Regarding C26 & C27 they refer to entrances to the Bunyip cave and these where missed off the map. There was a topic on this, maybe the GM's reference for Burnt Offerings I'll see if I can find it and post a link.
There is a reference to C25, C26 and C27 in the topic GM's Reference Burnt Offerings. It's on the first page and hopefully this will clarify what you need.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I'd just like to clarify that when we're talking about community-created maps being okay, *new cartography* is required. Scaling up our existing maps and slapping a 1" grid on them is *not* okay.
Also, when our Community Use guidelines are published (probably later this month), you'll need to make sure anything you've created is compliant with them.
|
Thank you for clarifying, Vic. My intentions are to re-envision maps of Paizo adventures to levels of detail that have not been done so far. I hope that my own vision of these maps and creative efforts will warrant these being classified as New Cartography. Just to clarify, here are a few examples:
Hambley Farm (no map available)
Cornfields & Misgivings (in progress)
Note that all maps have keys removed, so they do little good to anyone who doesn't own the modules. My intention is to pay homage to these works, promote them, and possibly earn a bit of acclaim or recognition for my work. :-)
I'd just like to clarify that when we're talking about community-created maps being okay, *new cartography* is required. Scaling up our existing maps and slapping a 1" grid on them is *not* okay.
Also, when our Community Use guidelines are published (probably later this month), you'll need to make sure anything you've created is compliant with them.
Just wanted to alert people and reaffirm this. I've done this technique and while I would love to share it, I can't due to the copyright restrictions.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Just wanted to alert people and reaffirm this. I've done this technique and while I would love to share it, I can't due to the copyright restrictions.I'd just like to clarify that when we're talking about community-created maps being okay, *new cartography* is required. Scaling up our existing maps and slapping a 1" grid on them is *not* okay.
Also, when our Community Use guidelines are published (probably later this month), you'll need to make sure anything you've created is compliant with them.
....aaaaand at this point, I'd like to clarify my clarification. Of course, it's ok to scale up our existing maps and slap a 1" grid on them *for personal use*. Just, like veector says, not for public distribution.
....aaaaand at this point, I'd like to clarify my clarification. Of course, it's ok to scale up our existing maps and slap a 1" grid on them *for personal use*. Just, like veector says, not for public distribution.
I understand wanting to protect your work, but there is a demand for 1" grid battle maps of adventure locations. If you won't allow people to distribute it, then pay one of these enterprising mapper types to do it for you and sell it to your customers. Please.
|
....aaaaand at this point, I'd like to clarify my clarification. Of course, it's ok to scale up our existing maps and slap a 1" grid on them *for personal use*. Just, like veector says, not for public distribution.I understand wanting to protect your work, but there is a demand for 1" grid battle maps of adventure locations. If you won't allow people to distribute it, then pay one of these enterprising mapper types to do it for you and sell it to your customers. Please.
I have been wanting them to do this a long time..
Last time I asked they said it was not cost effective or something like that..
They would have to start ordering all the maps from the artists to 1 inch scale and that would make the price go way up..
Though I would be curious how much that would be..
I think this is a very wanted product.. and many would jump on it..
|
Well, if Paizo doesn't want to create and sell upscaled battle map, how can it in any way cause a problem for them if the community does it for them and distribute it for free? It's not like I'm not gonna buy any more scenarios if can get the upscaled maps for free, on the contrary, I think it adds to the value of the product that the great community distributes this stuff, and Paizo won't lose any profit from it.
Of course, I respect the decission, and I'm not gonna distribute anything, nor am I gonna bug Paizo for it. I just don't understand it.
....aaaaand at this point, I'd like to clarify my clarification. Of course, it's ok to scale up our existing maps and slap a 1" grid on them *for personal use*. Just, like veector says, not for public distribution.Just wanted to alert people and reaffirm this. I've done this technique and while I would love to share it, I can't due to the copyright restrictions.I'd just like to clarify that when we're talking about community-created maps being okay, *new cartography* is required. Scaling up our existing maps and slapping a 1" grid on them is *not* okay.
Also, when our Community Use guidelines are published (probably later this month), you'll need to make sure anything you've created is compliant with them.
Is this a legal claim of copyright protection, or is it just something you'd rather us not do? It strikes me as counter to the purpose of a role-playing game publisher to stifle community efforts to increase that product's utility. I have a hard time imagining that your market would be significantly impacted in any way by the community taking this step for you. Even in terms of your map folios, the justification given by James for their purchase is that it's probably cheaper than printing them off yourself. Are you sure this isn't something you guys want to reconsider? Even if you do stick to this policy, IANAL but I can't imagine that altering the maps in this manner for noncommercial community use would preclude a fair use defense.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Is this a legal claim of copyright protection, or is it just something you'd rather not us do? It strikes me as counter to the purpose of a role-playing game publisher to stifle community efforts to increase that product's utility. I have a hard time imagining that your market would be significantly impacted in any way by the community taking this step for you. Even in terms of your map folios, the justification given by James for their purchase is that it's probably cheaper than printing them off yourself. Are you sure this isn't something you guys want to reconsider? Even if you do stick to this policy, IANAL but I can't imagine that altering the maps in this manner for noncommercial community use would preclude a fair use defense.
Copyright law does actually forbid you from publicly distributing our maps (and other copyrighted material) in any form, even for non-commercial use and non-monetary gain. The notion that copyright law doesn't apply to non-monetary use is a longstanding myth. It's often difficult to get a useful judgement in such a case, so such violations are rarely prosecuted, but that doesn't mean the law doesn't apply. (The notion of "Fair Use" is also assumed by many to encompass much more than it really does.)
Our maps are an important and valuable part of our world, and we want to ensure that they're presented in a high-quality fashion commensurate with the rest of our products. We don't want you blowing them up because they simply weren't designed to be blown up beyond a certain size. We don't want people seeing badly pixelated maps with poorly Photoshopped hidden doors overlaid with incorrectly scaled grids, and assuming that that's the kind of thing Paizo is producing these days.
Quality issues aside, we just don't want people redistributing our maps in *any* form. As I said, it's a valuable part of our IP, and we're not about to give it away. If a lot of people were swapping and modifying our maps for free, that would reduce the possibility of us—or a third party—succeeding with a commercial map-based product.
The cost of having all of our maps done in 1" scale by professional cartographers would indeed be quite high. We have discussed it, and we do not believe that we'd readily recoup those additional costs even by selling them at any reasonable price.
That said, we do have something in the works with a third party that may interest people looking for 1"-scale maps—stay tuned.
If the possibility does exist of providing a commercial way for us to acquire these map products in a format usable at the game table, then that's awesome. I'll be looking forward to seeing the solution you guys have come up with.
|
|
This is something that I have felt the industry REALLY needs to embrace. That is, optional, high-quality addons to existing product lines. A Platinum Pack, if you will. Look, our group pays about $20 for a typical Paizo module (printed) and that lasts us for about 3-4 sessions. Let's say 3, with 5 players and a GM, that's about $1 per person per session. Let's say Paizo decided to release a high-res battlemap set for the adventure. What would be a reasonable price for a digital version? $20? For another dollar per session, I would certainly pay.
For printed works, maybe $30 or so? The real thing to consider is this: if you have out of print works, like Rise of the Runelords, and you have already moved on, what's the harm in getting free art to breathe life into those works? Heck, have an open call for submissions or something so that you can run some Quality Control. Simple name recognition and a big fat Paizo seal of approval on a map of mine would make me a very happy gamer and customer indeed.
I understand that IP is precious and that you want to reserve the right to pursue these things in the future, but so far that future hasn't been embraced much by any company. Sure, WOTC produces an occasional poster map, and Paizo has flip-mats - but so far no one is embracing 5000x7000 pixel maps in digital form for Virtual Tabletops. No one is looking to add power cards, a Player's Artpack, Powerpoint presentations for rumors or backstory, MP3s of Goblin Songs, PDFs of journals, or Google Earth maps with a zoomable map of Sandpoint, to scale, with every building detailed in popups. (I did the Google Earth thing, by the way - and I'm willing to do it again)
If cost is an issue, do what has always worked with Dungeon magazine - accept low-cost submissions from your fans. Your very name and recognition is enough payment for most.
You've heard the customers say it: "we want battle maps." Paizo has always been one step ahead of the industry in listening to its customers. We look to you again for that leadership.
|
|
Tintagel:
If you don't do so regularly, check the *Paizo Blog* as they recently (28th January) put out an open call for cartographers....
Charles,
Thanks for the heads-up. I submitted a maps. Five in fact, but I'm guessing that they have been FLOODED with emails... I just hope that mine are up to snuff.To me, this is art and a chance to live my childhood dream - earn a modest living making content for the game I love. Cheesy, but true.
You've heard the customers say it: "we want battle maps." Paizo has always been one step ahead of the industry in listening to its customers. We look to you again...
Art is one of the areas where I think Wizards of the Coast is ahead of the game in terms of responding to what its customers would like. They already provide free online access to all maps and artwork created for their products, both digital and in print - despite the fact that much of the time full-color, to-scale maps are bundled with their published adventures. I know that the industry giant can get away with producing extras that smaller houses can't, but I'd like to see Paizo reach for that goal and I think this is one (albeit small) way of making it happen.
We don't want people seeing badly pixelated maps with poorly Photoshopped hidden doors overlaid with incorrectly scaled grids,
Whose doors are you calling "poorly Photoshopped hidden doors" sir?! Photoshop skills at ten paces if ye be a man! ;)
|
|
veector, your work is Awesome, and I'm copying you all the way. My jigsaw puzzle Foxglove Manor blew my players away. I'm working hard to come up with something to beat that session.
If the possibility of Paizo producing 1 inch maps exists, even if it's just a pdf that I have to print and cut and glue to cardboard, I can accept not being able to share with the community. To be honest, my Foxglove Manor was pretty badly pixelated, and I wouldn't be proud for that to be associated with official Paizo products.
But damn, a proper 1 inch map from Paizo would be neat. I would still use your flipout maps for certain occasions, but places like Foxglove Manor are still better as a badly pixelated jigsaw puzzle than as a drawing on a battle grid.
So, Vic, how about lending this to people we know? How does the lawyers feel about if, say, me and veector and Tentagel and a few others started emailing our upscaled, modified RotRL maps to each other, without making them publicly available? Would it be too much if we gathered such a group here on the messageboard for sharing stuff that we're not allowed to make publicly available?
Our maps are an important and valuable part of our world, and we want to ensure that they're presented in a high-quality fashion commensurate with the rest of our products. We don't want you blowing them up because they simply weren't designed to be blown up beyond a certain size. We don't want people seeing badly pixelated maps with poorly Photoshopped hidden doors overlaid with incorrectly scaled grids, and assuming that that's the kind of thing Paizo is producing these days.
Quality issues aside, we just don't want people redistributing our maps in *any* form. As I said, it's a valuable part of our IP, and we're not about to give it away. If a lot of people were swapping and modifying...
I am surprised that they are not done to scale or larger (except ones like Jorgenfist fortress). I have been illustrating for years and would charge the same for either scale since I wouldn't downgrade my work by working small.
veector, your work is Awesome, and I'm copying you all the way. My jigsaw puzzle Foxglove Manor blew my players away. I'm working hard to come up with something to beat that session.
...
But damn, a proper 1 inch map from Paizo would be neat. I would still use your flipout maps for certain occasions, but places like Foxglove Manor are still better as a badly pixelated jigsaw puzzle than as a drawing on a battle grid.
Thanks Entropi! When I first thought of the idea, I was thinking that it would be too much work, but when I actually sat down to do it and started getting good at it, it really didn't take that much time.
Any little bit of preparation that heightens the excitement of players and reduces the "game management" time during a play session is always worth it!
Now here's a thought about maps in 1" scale. I'm a big fan of Lazzaretti's maps, which Paizo seems to use in most of their products. Now few have raised the issue that they would do high resolution maps with same amount of work that it would take to make smaller resolution maps. With the quality that Lazzaretti produces, there is more to it than just resolution. For example, if I look at the map of Thistletop from Burnt offerings I think that it's awesome, it has just the right amount of details for a map of it's size. I just don't think it has enough details for a 1" scale map. So in my opinion making that map in higher resolution isn't enough to make it a high quality battlemap, it should be drawn again from the start. I know just higher resolution would be enough for many players, but printing that same map (if it were higher resolution) in 1" scale wouldn't be the same quality what Paizo is known for. Those maps just aren't meant to look good in battlemap scale. All I'm really saying is that I understand why it would cost a lot more to pay Lazzaretti to draw his maps with battlemap scale in mind.
I disagree, Salama. I think that a battlemap should be function over form and even at a larger scale, I would prefer not to have a lot of details added, they'd just get in the way.
I disagree, Salama. I think that a battlemap should be function over form and even at a larger scale, I would prefer not to have a lot of details added, they'd just get in the way.
Let me give you an example of what I mean.
Here is very detailed battlemap which Paizo produces (from Gamemastery Map pack):
Ancient ruins
I mean that if they want to maintain that kind of quality in battlemaps, I understand why it would cost a lot more to pay cartographers make them that way. And I'm not disagreeing that many people like their battlemaps simple. Just the cost and work issue =).
|
|
It costs more for a higher resolution map?
Could someone explain this to me?
If I am making an ad for a billboard or an ad for a newspaper the cost is the same for me in production time. I don't understand how a high resolution piece of art costs more?
(I would understand if these are hand painted maps...)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Now here's a thought about maps in 1" scale. I'm a big fan of Lazzaretti's maps, which Paizo seems to use in most of their products. Now few have raised the issue that they would do high resolution maps with same amount of work that it would take to make smaller resolution maps. With the quality that Lazzaretti produces, there is more to it than just resolution. For example, if I look at the map of Thistletop from Burnt offerings I think that it's awesome, it has just the right amount of details for a map of it's size. I just don't think it has enough details for a 1" scale map. So in my opinion making that map in higher resolution isn't enough to make it a high quality battlemap, it should be drawn again from the start. I know just higher resolution would be enough for many players, but printing that same map (if it were higher resolution) in 1" scale wouldn't be the same quality what Paizo is known for. Those maps just aren't meant to look good in battlemap scale. All I'm really saying is that I understand why it would cost a lot more to pay Lazzaretti to draw his maps with battlemap scale in mind.
You are correct, sir.
I disagree, Salama. I think that a battlemap should be function over form and even at a larger scale, I would prefer not to have a lot of details added, they'd just get in the way.So then you're talking about two *different* maps. That would cost more money, too.
No, he's talking about having artists submit their maps at higher resolution so they can easily be blown up to battlemap size and still look good just like Tintagel is proposing to do for you.
|
|
I would just like to add that there are many talented artists that would love to do good work for Paizo - I'm one. :-) I am sure that with the right marketing and targeting of customer needs, there can be a profitable compromise for all parties involved.
One thing that I think should be Very Doable and have a high return would be to consider multiple formats and variations for existing maps. Let me explain.
When I do a map, I work digitally, so that I have many options for my final product and can go back and revise things. Let's say that I produce a map of the Sandpoint Glassworks:
Sandpoint Glassworks 2900x3800
It's nothing for me to turn off the light layers and produce another, vanilla variant without lighting effects:
Sandpoint Glassworks - Vanilla
If the public wants a gridded version for printing, that's easily done in just a few minutes:
Sandpoint Glassworks - Grid
Let's say we had a map with a LOT of information on it, like the map of Sandpoint, and we wanted a quick and easy way for players to browse it, zoom in, and see it to scale. We could create a map of Sandpoint in Google Earth, in just an hour or so: Youtube: Sandpoint & Varisia in Google Earth. This would give players the ability to zoom in and see placemarks for buildings, locations, etc, and it would use current FREE software that could even be dynamically updated by Paizo and pushed out to anyone that has the placemark.
The map folio for Rise of the Runelords sold fairly well, if I'm not mistaken - but it didn't quite reach expectations - people wanted battle maps and Player versions of existing maps. Creating a player version of a map is easily done and meets a need. Night-time versions would be uber cool too (and done quickly in Photoshop). Of course, all of this content is expensive if produced in the traditional way (in the module). Instead, distribute it as a web enhancement - like your Player's Guides!
What I am talking about is Value Added features that can be sold for a nominal fee to those that want to spruce up their games. This is something that is not being fully tapped right now, and it's not that difficult with today's tools.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
James Jacobs has done some looking into potential costs for Paizo to create 1"-scale battlemaps of every map in a Pathfinder AP volume. Have a look here.
Given those costs, there is quite simply no price at which we I think could sell even close to enough copies of a PDF to recoup the costs of creating those maps.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I think I may see the reason for some of the disconnect here. We don't actually pay cartographers based on resolution; we pay based on size (half-page, full-page, 4-page, etc.). But really, that's just a convenient shorthand for paying based on the artist's time (which we have no ability or desire to measure or track specifically). Given that maps need differing levels of details at differing scales, it should take a cartographer more time to make a map that's intended for full-page presentation than it does to make one intended for half-page presentation—probably not *double*, but more. Thus we *pay* more—again, not double, but more. So when we say it would cost more to have Rob deliver a higher resolution map, we're not saying that he'd charge us more per pixel; what we're really saying is that if Rob would have to spend more time on it, we'd have to pay him more. (If we didn't, it wouldn't make sense for him to take the job!)
Which leads us to another point—the cartographer's time is also a limiting factor here. As James mentioned in that post I linked above, some Pathfinder AP volumes would have up to 30 square feet of maps if done at a 1"-scale, and since we try to keep a consistent look and feel to our cartography for an AP, that means that our cartographers would have to be able to produce that volume of maps—including editorial discussions and revisions—in a bit less than a month, and all for a fee that probably doesn't allow them to quit their day jobs.
Still, if you think you know (or are) a cartographer that's as good as Rob, and who can commit to providing a couple dozen square feet of finished 1"-scale maps from unfinished small-scale turnover documents each month, without expecting it to provide their sole source of income, by all means, let us know.
And when you factor in how beloved you will be to a throng of battle map starving fans, what does the $ really matter, anyway? ; )
|
|
Still, if you think you know (or are) a cartographer that's as good as Rob, and who can commit to providing a couple dozen square feet of finished 1"-scale maps from unfinished small-scale turnover documents each month, without expecting it to provide their sole source of income, by all means, let us know.
Well, I wouldn't mind giving it a shot. I'm mapping Misgivings regardless, and will probably continue to work on more maps for my campaign and general shout-outs or thumbs up from my fellow Pathfinder members. Getting a bit of cash, however meager, would be one step into the industry. Don't get me wrong, I need to eat - but I'm sure there is a solution here.
Virtual Tabletops like d20pro or Maptools are gaining in popularity, and in this economy, they are MUCH cheaper than minis and a physical battlemap. Maybe this could be an experiment in digital-only products? Sure, this would reduce the audience a bit, but it would save tons on production costs, and people could still print what they wanted. Resolution could be kept fairly low (about 100dpi) and still look decent.
At any rate, I sent my submission to the Open Call, but I haven't heard back. I just hope that my work is up to Paizo's standards. :-(
Virtual Tabletops like d20pro or Maptools are gaining in popularity, and in this economy, they are MUCH cheaper than minis and a physical battlemap. Maybe this could be an experiment in digital-only products? Sure, this would reduce the audience a bit, but it would save tons on production costs, and people could still print what they wanted. Resolution could be kept fairly low (about 100dpi) and still look decent.At any rate, I sent my submission to the Open Call, but I haven't heard back. I just hope that my work is up to Paizo's standards. :-(
I use Fantasy Grounds for my Virtual Tabletop. Also, I'd want the PDF battle maps so I could print them out for my home games. If the only way I can get battle maps is if I have to print them myself, then that's fine with me.
Either let Paizo fans create the PDF maps and distribute them, or make them yourselves and sell them to me.
James Jacobs has done some looking into potential costs for Paizo to create 1"-scale battlemaps of every map in a Pathfinder AP volume. Have a look here.
Given those costs, there is quite simply no price at which we I think could sell even close to enough copies of a PDF to recoup the costs of creating those maps.
James' post and the discussions in that thread and here are extremely encouraging.
And best of luck on the Open Call, tintagel.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Either let Paizo fans create the PDF maps and distribute them, or make them yourselves and sell them to me.
I think our responses in this thread make it pretty clear that we don't currently have a feasible way to do the latter right now, but that we're happy to allow the community to create new 1"-scale cartography for our existing map designs, like tintagel's maps linked a few posts above.
I think our responses in this thread make it pretty clear that we don't currently have a feasible way to do the latter right now, but that we're happy to allow the community to create new 1"-scale cartography for our existing map designs, like tintagel's maps linked a few posts above.
Yes, you have made it clear. But only the squeaky wheel gets oiled so I was just making some noise about what I'm interested in. Maybe someday Paizo can hire people like tintagel to make good PDF battle maps to sell to us...can't hurt to ask right?
Count me as someone who would love to see battlemap supplements for the APs.
As an aside, Eric, the idea I get is that finding an artist to do a quality battlemap is not the problem. Finding a cost effective way to produce it, is.
I think our responses in this thread make it pretty clear that we don't currently have a feasible way to do the latter right now, but that we're happy to allow the community to create new 1"-scale cartography for our existing map designs, like tintagel's maps linked a few posts above.Yes, you have made it clear. But only the squeaky wheel gets oiled so I was just making some noise about what I'm interested in. Maybe someday Paizo can hire people like tintagel to make good PDF battle maps to sell to us...can't hurt to ask right?
As an aside, Eric, the idea I get is that finding an artist to do a quality battlemap is not the problem. Finding a cost effective way to produce it, is.
It's cost effective if the battle maps aren't printed, but only sold as PDFs...and that's been my point all along.
As a customer who wants a product I'm in a no-win sitution. Paizo won't produce PDF battle maps for me to purchase and they won't allow fans to distribute battle maps. I was hoping one of those two options would become available and I'm more than willing to pay Paizo a reasonable going rate for the product.
As an aside, Eric, the idea I get is that finding an artist to do a quality battlemap is not the problem. Finding a cost effective way to produce it, is.It's cost effective if the battle maps aren't printed, but only sold as PDFs...and that's been my point all along.
If you'd read James' breakdown on this, you'd know that this isn't true. Paying artists to create full-color, 1-inch scale battle maps for only one module in an adventure path would cost more than their entire current art budget for three modules (IIRC). At the moment, even publishing them solely in PDF form isn't feasible.
If you'd read James' breakdown on this, you'd know that this isn't true. Paying artists to create full-color, 1-inch scale battle maps for only one module in an adventure path would cost more than their entire current art budget for three modules (IIRC). At the moment, even publishing them solely in PDF form isn't feasible.
James' breakdown assumes printing all of the battle maps and that makes a huge difference. Also, the detail required to do a regular map isn't increased just because it's bigger. All that has to increase is the resolution so when they're printed bigger they don't look pixelated.
Even if Paizo insisted on more detail on the battle maps, then artists like Tintagel can produce those maps in a form that looks great and that I think AT THE VERY LEAST deserves some cost/sale analysis to see if selling PDF battle maps could provide customers with a nice product that also makes Paizo some money.
|
|
If you'd read James' breakdown on this, you'd know that this isn't true. Paying artists to create full-color, 1-inch scale battle maps for only one module in an adventure path would cost more than their entire current art budget for three modules (IIRC). At the moment, even publishing them solely in PDF form isn't feasible.
See that's where I'm a bit confused... Surely the demand for basic battlemaps is higher than the 3-D cut-out-and-build-yourself that WorldWorksGames is publishing? Don't get me wrong, their product is pretty freakin sweet, but how can that be profitable when battlemaps for APs aren't? WOTC currently makes battlemaps for about 20% of their maps - why not start small, with only 1 battlemap per adventure?
Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't see why WorldWorksGames is viable but simple DJ style maps are impossible. What about some sort of licensing thing? What if Paizo licensed the rights to make Battlemaps for their APs, with the condition that there are no stats or keys printed with the maps? Think about it: Will a good battlemap serve as an advertisement or deterrent to buying a module? The map alone is limited in use without the module. Let me and other mappers make these for a percentage of sales, and sell them on your store! Paizo gets a cut and the fans are happy. If the product doesn't sell, no real loss, right? What am I missing?
See that's where I'm a bit confused... Surely the demand for basic battlemaps is higher than the 3-D cut-out-and-build-yourself that WorldWorksGames is publishing? Don't get me wrong, their product is pretty freakin sweet, but how can that be profitable when battlemaps for APs aren't? WOTC currently makes battlemaps for about 20% of their maps - why not start small, with only 1 battlemap per adventure?
Maybe it is in part because WorldWorksGames provides a service that others don't provide for free. As in, it is easier to find someone who has done a battlemap for an adventure for free, rather than find someone who has done the 3d map type stuff they have done.
They might be in a better position as their work can not be matched by similar free products.