I really enjoyed reading through Skeletons of Scarwall and enjoyed the layout of the keep. I enthusiastically applaud the entrance design, with the long, straight approach through the gatehouse that exposes invaders to a grueling defense. I thought the layout was very well-designed, with an interesting juxtaposition of the Star Tower and the Donjon.
That said, I have a few tiny quibbles about the presentation. While the map quality itself is excellent, one aspect was very confusing. Levels one and two are presented with East being toward the top of the page, while level three has North at the top (much like the first map, with the ruined gatehouse and the orcs). The switch was very confusing until I noticed it, and even then it was difficult to align the levels in my head. I would recommend for any future three-dimensional structure that you pick a direction for NOrht and stick with it through all the maps.
What made the alignment all the more difficult was the reference to room 22 that doesn't appear on the maps (or I haven't located it yet). I know it should be a simple empty room, but the fact that it should have a trap door in the ceiling suggests it should open onto the roof level somewhere. Couple that with two 24s (the right-most one should be 23) and it made the alignment of the different levels none too easy to visualize.
However, I must applaud you on the idea of numbering the stairwells on each level, showing how they line up. That it ultimately what helped me visualize the 3-D structure. I do hope to see that practice continued.
Finally, I would have liked to see an art piece depicting a ground-level view of the keep, something I could show players as they approach. One can see the keep on the cover, but it's not a clear picture of the keep itself.
Thanks again for a superior product.
Levels one and two are presented with East being toward the top of the page, while level three has North at the top (much like the first map, with the ruined gatehouse and the orcs). The switch was very confusing until I noticed it, and even then it was difficult to align the levels in my head. I would recommend for any future three-dimensional structure that you pick a direction for NOrht and stick with it through all the maps.
I agree with everything that the Stick said (whole post, not just the quoted part) however I'd like to go a step forward and argue for keeping maps oriented with north at the top in general. It's the standard, it's easy, it just makes sense. When I look at a map and am describing directions to my players, I expect to be able to call the right side east, the left side west, etc. And judging by the frequent mismatches between text and maps when the orientation is otherwise, I am not alone in this.
If it's a matter of layout (page fit), I'd say this is an issue where usability should trump "reality". In other words, I'd rather have the vast majority of buildings in Golarion oriented with the long side running north-south than have to deal with maps that don't have north at the top.
Creative Director
|
As a general rule, we DO try to make maps with the orientation of north toward the top of the page... but the way the maps of Scarwall were designed, that would have forced us to run the maps as a half-page map since we can't do two-page maps (no budget for them). The maps of Scarwall were complex enough as full page maps; reducing them down to half pagers would have driven a lot of customers blind, I fear.
As for the mismatches between text and maps, that's an unfortunate result of us rushing to get Pathfinder out and back on schedule. As of #13, it IS back on schedule, and as a result we have more time to double check the map/text interplay to make sure things are right.
Going forward, though, I AM going to try to require our authors to design maps that have nort pointing "up" and that means that the maps have to constrain their shapes to half pagers or full pagers. Which means we'll probably see something of a resurgence of complaints at too many regions that are "rectangular," of course...
Thanks for the reply James, I'm glad to hear that you share my opinion.
Another idea if the map really needs to run sideways is to print it landscape. Admittedly it will be a bit awkward when you're reading the bound version, but for PDF users or folks who photocopy the maps for use during play, they can just hold it landscape and not have to think about which way is which.
That said, I agree that encouraging the writers to orient their maps with north up on a portrait layout is the best solution.
|
Creative Director
|
Thanks for the reply James, I'm glad to hear that you share my opinion.
Another idea if the map really needs to run sideways is to print it landscape. Admittedly it will be a bit awkward when you're reading the bound version, but for PDF users or folks who photocopy the maps for use during play, they can just hold it landscape and not have to think about which way is which.
That said, I agree that encouraging the writers to orient their maps with north up on a portrait layout is the best solution.
Maps, and making sure they match the text, are actually the hardest part of the whole process to make right. This goes all the way back to the original author. For some authors, I'm just glad to get a map at all in the first place!
For some authors, I'm just glad to get a map at all in the first place!
Yikes! How can that even be acceptable?
|
Creative Director
|
For some authors, I'm just glad to get a map at all in the first place!Yikes! How can that even be acceptable?
It's not. But if a turnover comes in a day before the maps are due to Lazzaretti and there's no sign of the maps (or almost as bad, the maps come in but are illegible), I just redraw them myself and send them on and become STERN with the author.