Judging from the previous Superstar-rounds, you won't need map making software.
Paper and colored pens are sufficient.
I would also hazard a guess that a clear, illustrative, easy to understand drawing on graph paper will be more desirable than a mess of icons and special filters from a map making program. (And this comes from someone who LOVES playing with Campaign Cartographer.)
Here is my good maps/bad maps blog from last year's RPG Superstar competition, if you want to get a head start on practicing your maps....
|
you could draw your map on excessively large scale; e.g. A2 instead of A4 (I guess that'd be 'newspaper' instead of 'letter' for you lot across the pond)
that way it's easy to add details on important areas - it's easier to draw large details than tiny details.
When you digitize (photograph) the map, the computer can scale it down for you.
you could draw your map on excessively large scale; e.g. A2 instead of A4 (I guess that'd be 'newspaper' instead of 'letter' for you lot across the pond)
that way it's easy to add details on important areas - it's easier to draw large details than tiny details.
When you digitize (photograph) the map, the computer can scale it down for you.
Be careful with this. Matt Stinson did this for his map entry in 2009, but he made it too big for any of our home scanners, and when we went to get it shrunk so that we could scan it, we were only able to get it done in black and white. Since his original map was in full color and was intended to be viewed in full color, the black and white reproduction lost a ton of detail and cost him quite a bit of credit among voters.
Trust me, the physical map was much better than the map he submitted, but the voters never got to see it. Make sure you know your options for digitizing if you're going to oversize a color map!
Chief Technical Officer
|
you could draw your map on excessively large scale; e.g. A2 instead of A4 (I guess that'd be 'newspaper' instead of 'letter' for you lot across the pond)
that way it's easy to add details on important areas - it's easier to draw large details than tiny details.
When you digitize (photograph) the map, the computer can scale it down for you.
That also runs the risk that small things you do on the large map will become illegibly tiny when scaled down...
That also runs the risk that small things you do on the large map will become illegibly tiny when scaled down...
I still run into this problem with my map turnovers today. You think my messageboard posts can run long? You should see the ultra detail that goes into my maps sometime. Sheesh.
And on a related note, I apologize in advance to Wes for my upcoming Carrion Crown turnover... ;-)
While I don't really believe that you need map designing software for the competition, I would really suggest that, no matter how you are creating the map, that Superstar hopefuls practice creating/scanning maps before the actual mapping round. That way you don't have to spend valuable time during that round learning how to work with the program or your scanner.
Good advice! :)
What are you doing up at 4AM?!
Do you get extra credit if you make a professional looking map or photo realistic, say like google earth type view? Or is it less looks and more design and information-centric?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
Do you get extra credit if you make a professional looking map or photo realistic, say like google earth type view? Or is it less looks and more design and information-centric?
Extra credit? It's a vote, not a class project. Look at last year's entries for different styles of maps. Look at mine for what *not* to do.
Edit: sorry that came out harsh. Look at past entries, look at modules. IMHO, a map needs to be:
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
Do you get extra credit if you make a professional looking map or photo realistic, say like google earth type view? Or is it less looks and more design and information-centric?
I think if you spend too much time making your map looking like it was done by a professional cartographer you're taking valuable time away from coming up with a cooler location or cooler actual map layout.
The voters are voting on a location that inspires them and that they would want to see fleshed out. I think as long as the location is interesting and the map is clear and understandable and really cool, it doesn't need to be very flashy or photo-realistic. That part is the cartographer's job.
In fact, I think that might take away from your entry since people could ask: if they had so much time to make this photo-realistic map why didn't they spend the time making the actual location better?
I think it's a balance between spending enough time to make the map clear, understandable, and professional, but still devote enough time to come up with an awesome concept and solid writing of the location. If you make an awesome realistic map of a boring location you don't get any bonus points.
A clear black & white line map is far better than a colored, indistinct poorly labeled photorealistic map.
IMHO.
(Also, when you turn your map over to your editor, your map is going to get remade professionally - your time is better spent on your manuscript!)
Last year I submitted a map drawn on graph paper with an ink pen. Many of my competitors submitted computer crafted color maps. They fared no better. Sometimes they were judged worse.
That round the judges weren't happy with my encounter design (and deservedly so), but the map that went along with it was generally received well. Wes specifically said, "I could hand this map to a professional cartographer and reasonably expect a cool map in return."
Graph paper, ruler, a compass for smooth round lines, and a decent ink pen. That's all it required.
You must remember to use ***INK***. Pencil will not scan properly.
I didn't own a scanner so I went to Staples and asked the young lady working there to make sure that the graph lines were visible.
(Also, when you turn your map over to your editor, your map is going to get remade professionally - your time is better spent on your manuscript!)
Absolutely true. I wish I had, but I did scrape through the round.
I think it's a balance between spending enough time to make the map clear, understandable, and professional, but still devote enough time to come up with an awesome concept and solid writing of the location. If you make an awesome realistic map of a boring location you don't get any bonus points.
To this I can testify.
Wes specifically said, "I could hand this map to a professional cartographer and reasonably expect a cool map in return."
Which really is the most important thing about a designer's map turnover. The fancier you make your map beyond what is necessary to get the cartographer the info he needs to produce the final map, the more the cartographer has to evaluate whether or not X is supposed to be on the map, or if X is just some cool thing the designer put on the map to show off his mapping skills.
As a designer, your job is to make a map a cartographer can turn into a professional map for publication; your job is not to make a professional map that we could drop into a book and publish.
The fancier you make your map beyond what is necessary to get the cartographer the info he needs to produce the final map, the more the cartographer has to evaluate whether or not X is supposed to be on the map, or if X is just some cool thing the designer put on the map to show off his mapping skills.
Good point. Thanks for the advice, especially if I ever make it to that round.