Because it's 3am and I'm working on a dungeon map instead of sleeping (just finished a new floor style! /preen) I have to wonder whether this is worth the effort. It strikes me as disadvantage of mapping that, much like turning books into movies, whatever detail I put into the map displaces the mental image my players would come up with from description alone. Worse yet I don't think it's a strictly linear effect; a sparse map I make will probably displace the entirety of the mental image my players would have otherwise come up with even if I haven't drawn in everything in the dungeon and used description to fill what artistic skill couldn't render.
I guess my question is whether anyone prefers a very sparse map, like pen on graph paper just to represent the available room to manoeuvre versus something fleshed out like this. I have one friend who does (actually he might prefer no map at all, I think, not being a fan of miniatures), and I'm wondering how prevalent his opinion is because he's also the only person I know who has it. I'm sympathetic to it, but most everyone I know enjoys having the drawn maps at the table.
Bonus question: If you as a GM get both preferences at a table, whose do you accomodate? (lets avoid the easy answer: "the preference that doesn't involve me spending eight hours in photoshop")
Because it's 3am and I'm working on a dungeon map instead of sleeping (just finished a new floor style! /preen) I have to wonder whether this is worth the effort. It strikes me as disadvantage of mapping that, much like turning books into movies, whatever detail I put into the map displaces the mental image my players would come up with from description alone. Worse yet I don't think it's a strictly linear effect; a sparse map I make will probably displace the entirety of the mental image my players would have otherwise come up with even if I haven't drawn in everything in the dungeon and used description to fill what artistic skill couldn't render.
I guess my question is whether anyone prefers a very sparse map, like pen on graph paper just to represent the available room to manoeuvre versus something fleshed out like this. I have one friend who does (actually he might prefer no map at all, I think, not being a fan of miniatures), and I'm wondering how prevalent his opinion is because he's also the only person I know who has it. I'm sympathetic to it, but most everyone I know enjoys having the drawn maps at the table.
Bonus question: If you as a GM get both preferences at a table, whose do you accomodate? (lets avoid the easy answer: "the preference that doesn't involve me spending eight hours in photoshop")
I'm more favorable towards fleshed out maps, not necessarily with details galore, but it's nice to see well done maps as opposed to the
old school graph paper maps. To me it helps "enhance" the game as far as my imagination, just like using props or images in a session. Sometimes the imagination can be better, but sometimes a really sweet painting/map/whatever can really make a difference. I've always found that when I buy a rpg book/suppliment/etc the quality/style of the art can really inspire me (Changling for example) to visualize the world I'm playing in or running much better, and in turn helps me when I write or addlib descriptions.Bonus question: Hmmm I'd say a mix between the two, if the player who likes less detailed maps is bothered by detailed ones, throw em a bone every now and then and do a less detailed map, or maybe minimize the details to kind of find a balance between the two. Extremes are never good it seems...but I've never tried that myself.
For me it depends on what you mean when you say map.
If you are referring to a general visual representation of an area, then I am definitely a fan of them. Everything from quick utility sketches to outright works of art.
If you are referring to the game grid, not so much. In fact I despise using the grid for actual gaming, despite some of the rules reliance on it. I don't consider a game using the grid a deal breaker, but I do my best to ignore it as much as possible.
That's not to say I dislike miniatures, I find they are fun and useful to help visualization.
I'm somewhat old school. I learned to play prior to 3.x and it's reliance on the grid. Oddly enough, even though the rules back then dealt with which way your character was facing, not having a grid was still not an issue.
As a DM, I may give maps as handouts, but for combat I will not lay one out to move miniatures on. I will use whatever is on hand to clarify positioning in a battle and have in the past used a whiteboard to draw out rough illustrations of where participants in a battle are relative to each other and significant terrain features. I make it very clear up front that I don't use the grid and the players can choose if they are OK with it or would rather have someone else DM.
I never really ran 3.0 using a grid either (even though I do put them into the map in case other people want to use them with the grid), so I can understand where you're coming from. They are primarily about representation to me, and fun secondarily (I like making them).