| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm creating this thread so we can post our thoughts on the Round 2 maps and maps in general to help future contestants if Paizo decides to keep this component in further contests. My hope is to offer advice to help future contestants should this type of challenge appear again.
First, I have to say is that there were definitely more maps I liked than I had votes for, so excellent job 2015 contestants! Secondly, for me, maps aren't easy- I've done quite a few professionally to know this and I learned a lot from going through all the submissions.
As a voter, my criteria were
1. clearness and readability- could I understand the map.
2. story- was there a theme or hook that made the map interesting and made me want to use it.
3. usability- lastly, did you create a map that I could swipe for my home game? I own more gaming material than I can hope to run, but I've been known to take maps from published sources and tweak them for my own needs.
Breaking the maps into categories, here are some of my overall thoughts-
1. Mini-regional maps- the maps which detailed a small region were pretty difficult to get my vote this round (I had only one I voted for). However, I think a mini-regional map has great potential to get a story across. However, they need to be clear and list interesting locations that spark my imagination which I can flesh out later. Very "Old School Renaissance" which I appreciate but make sure that features are easy to read and offer interesting places for adventure.
2. Settlement maps- I've done a bunch of these myself and they aren't easy. When designing one, you need to make sure that the cartographer can easily determine what is he/she is looking at. A lot of the maps I've turned over professionally are often cleaned up and made nice looking by the cartographer and kept much of my detail. So it is important that they are well-detailed, defined, and look interesting. Also, the real important locations need to be labelled as these are the places players will be going to. Don't label half of them and leave us guessing as to the others. Out of my 8 votes, I only voted for two of these type.
3. Locations- I love the direction that Paizo has taken with many of their "Unleashed" Campaign Setting books- offering up mini-dungeons centered around a particular creature or NPC. If your doing a map like this, it is important to have enough details for the GM to use it. You are working on a smaller scale here and the details are important to help me, a GM without a lot of extra time, to run it. Also, it should not be something that I could come up with in 5 minutes with a piece of graph paper. Interesting structures and overall shape that fire the imagination help without making it too confusing to read or reproduce. Location maps received the rest of my votes (5) but the ones I voted for had a good story hook.
Noncontestants, please feel free to post your own thoughts.
It was good to see so much artistic talent! Good job!
My voting system was similar, though I broke it down by:
- Coolness: Do I look at this, and want to use it in a game? Does it provoke wonder or amazement? Does it hold potential for interesting encounters, adventures or roleplay? How much mileage does this map have in it?
- Usability: How usable is this for me as a GM (being that GMs are actually the primary audience of most maps)? Is the legend clear and in logical order for play? Does it give me enough information to easily visualize the parts and wax poetic about the varied locations? Does it have the necessary details for me to run with it on the fly, or will it involve a lot of improvisation? Does it have any glaring oddities that stop me mid-breath to go "what the hell is that?!"?
- Craftsmanship: Is it clear, legible and containing all the necessary bits and bobs? Does it make good use of the space? Is the scale appropriate for the detail (and visa versa)?
I would offer a comment for anyone making maps (not that I'm an expert, I've just fumbled with it a lot over 12 years of running largely custom campaigns): Software is slow to learn and you don't want to start when you're on a deadline to produce something. If you need to get your ideas down on paper, there is little that beats the pencil (okay, besides mastery of photoshop or its like from years of experience).
Ironically, this applies equally to engineering: Getting the idea down quickly, clearly and legibly in a sketch (usually in pencil) is how most of us work. Of course, most engineers I've met also have the artistic capabilities of a narcoleptic camel, but that's why we employ drafters. Parallels, eh?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There were a number of very cool concepts in the Top 32. I doubt many people were gearing up for the RPG Superstar with the expectation of having to draw anything, though, so the curveball was quite unforeseen and a lot of people probably may have felt uncomfortable about it (especially the time limit).
I've been doing fantasy art for about 10 years now. I also have a lot of experience designing maps. Fantasy geography is one of my favorite subjects... and also one of my biggest gripes ;)
If, after the contest, people would like some feedback on their maps, let me know. I'd be happy to provide some assistance to help people for any potential future years that involve map design as a round. I'd prefer to leave this until after Superstar 2015 has been chosen, however, as future rounds do involve more maps.
My recommendation: Pencil and paper are your friends. Nothing beats them in terms of creative control over the outcome of your work. If you feel you don't draw well enough and think that getting some map-making software will help... resist the urge. There are some fine (free and purchased) programs out there, but the limitations of the software becomes the limitation of your creativity and design scope - and such limitations are unlikely to make you a Superstar.
The other is some basic info regarding geography.
* Rivers flow from mountains, and more rarely from natural springs or artesian aquifers at higher elevation. Hills are generally not high enough to create rivers that flow year-round.
* Pick a direction to be the prevailing winds. The upwind side of mountains will be a rain catchment area, probably lush and with plenty of forests. The downwind side of mountains will be the rain shadow, which is normally drier and can in some climates become a desert.
* Mountain ranges are the spines of landforms. Especially islands. Islands that weren't formed by breaking away from a larger landmass are usually formed by volcanic action, and as such the mountains are generally in or near the middle of the island.
You don't have to pay that much attention to the things I've listed above - but the cartographer who interprets your map would probably thank you for it. Well, I would, anyway ;P
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka JoelF847
|
As a non-visual kind of guy, this round is pretty much what I expected. I can certainly see that there's some maps that didn't make the cut, and others that did, but beyond that binary decision, I really have no opinion on them.
I do have a few suggestions though if this round is repeated in future years. The biggest disparity in the maps was between those that were an adventure location mapped in 5' squares versus a city or region, and those that included a list of encounter names and those that didn't.
If there's going to be future map rounds in other years, I'd strongly suggest that the rules require that all maps be of the same basic scale - either all towns, all regions, or all adventure locales.
I'd also suggest that the rules either require or prohibit having a list of numbered rooms with names. When I read the rules for round 2, I thought this wouldn't be allowed, so was surprised that so many entries had it. In published work, I only normally see that for city maps.
Finally, I think the map round would be greatly enhanced by having a short, 50 - 100 words, summary of the location, which will give a better sense of what the map is of, and why it's a cool location.
As a non-expert on maps, I was nonetheless really impressed by this year's Top 32 maps when compared to previous years (especially given the twist of the earlier map, the short time, and the fact that previously the map was usually late enough in the contest that it was only the top 8 usually who were left). Bravo, you guys! We really have a crack team this year for Top 32; usually there are a reasonable percentage of entries in the round of 32 that I just absolutely don't like at all, making the decision easier for me than it is this time around.
As a non-expert on maps, I was nonetheless really impressed by this year's Top 32 maps when compared to previous years (especially given the twist of the earlier map, the short time, and the fact that previously the map was usually late enough in the contest that it was only the top 8 usually who were left). Bravo, you guys! We really have a crack team this year for Top 32; usually there are a reasonable percentage of entries in the round of 32 that I just absolutely don't like at all, making the decision easier for me than it is this time around.
Oh. My commentary wasn't intended to imply that the entries weren't good (some of them were literally jaw-dropping, and made me positively giddy), merely that in my experience, adding the learning curve of a program you're not familiar with into the map-making process is going consume a lot of time. If you draw like I do, the software will almost certainly make your map look better, but it's a time/aesthetic trade off, usually.
And seriously, a lot of the maps that have been put up are amazing and doubly so for the short timeframe involved. The 32 deserve a standing ovation, in my opinion.
As a non-expert on maps, I was nonetheless really impressed by this year's Top 32 maps when compared to previous years (especially given the twist of the earlier map, the short time, and the fact that previously the map was usually late enough in the contest that it was only the top 8 usually who were left). Bravo, you guys! We really have a crack team this year for Top 32; usually there are a reasonable percentage of entries in the round of 32 that I just absolutely don't like at all, making the decision easier for me than it is this time around.Oh. My commentary wasn't intended to imply that the entries weren't good (some of them were literally jaw-dropping, and made me positively giddy), merely that in my experience, adding the learning curve of a program you're not familiar with into the map-making process is going consume a lot of time. If you draw like I do, the software will almost certainly make your map look better, but it's a time/aesthetic trade off, usually.
And seriously, a lot of the maps that have been put up are amazing and doubly so for the short timeframe involved. The 32 deserve a standing ovation, in my opinion.
Agreed with you there, as someone who once tried to use software and met the same issues. My post wasn't actually in response to yours. Your post seemed to have a bunch of solid stuff though.
As a non-expert on maps, I was nonetheless really impressed by this year's Top 32 maps ...
I think that the Top 32 did extremely well, especially given the relatively short warning. Picking only 8 to vote for was actually somewhat tricky. If I came across as snobby, I apologize to all involved, and can only admit that I was trying to write something coherent at quarter-to-midnight with a lingering head-cold.
I critiqued some magic items this year, but my critiques were mostly based on personal opinions/responses as I'm not that strong with item creation myself. I hoped to offer people feedback on their maps, however, because that is a subject where I feel I can actually offer advice of value. I'm no industry professional, just someone who has done some professional work and illustration along the way. But I do have time to give to people (especially whenever my 1-y.o. is napping), and if I can offer them any advice that will make their entries even stronger in future years, then I would like to help.
As a non-expert on maps, I was nonetheless really impressed by this year's Top 32 maps ...I think that the Top 32 did extremely well, especially given the relatively short warning. Picking only 8 to vote for was actually somewhat tricky. If I came across as snobby, I apologize to all involved, and can only admit that I was trying to write something coherent at quarter-to-midnight with a lingering head-cold.
I critiqued some magic items this year, but my critiques were mostly based on personal opinions/responses as I'm not that strong with item creation myself. I hoped to offer people feedback on their maps, however, because that is a subject where I feel I can actually offer advice of value. I'm no industry professional, just someone who has done some professional work and illustration along the way. But I do have time to give to people (especially whenever my 1-y.o. is napping), and if I can offer them any advice that will make their entries even stronger in future years, then I would like to help.
Yep. Sometimes the Top 32 selection hasn't correlated that well to how well the second round looks, even when the two rounds were both mechanical (like the archetype round has always been hard). I would expect maps to be just as hard as archetypes, or more so, but the excellent quality for a round 2 makes me feel like we (the fans and the judges) really managed to pick out a superlative set of potential Superstars this year; rock on you guys!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the main thing I have noticed in the map round is you need to do one of two things to stand out. Either create a different but awesome location for a map or superstar a common thing people encounter in pathfinder. There are examples of both types this year. Personally I would say the second is both harder and more valuable as for example a superstar inn is fairly easy to fit into most campaigns whereas a dragon graveyard might only fit a few but be an equally awesome map.
I'm just disappointed no one mapped the Dread Dungeons. :'(
But seriously, I think everyone did a really superb job with the maps this year! Tough competition to be sure.
I think that everyone put a lot of effort into their maps and that the only real difference between advancing and not is experience. Which is great news for those that don't make it to the next round - experience can be learned through practice :)
I needed more votes for this round, that's for sure.
Narrowing it down to the top 50% wasn't difficult. Picking 8 to vote for out of those top 16 though, that took some time.
Very much agreed. I've got 8 maps vying for my last 2 votes! :(
Marathon Voter Season 8, Dedicated Voter Season 9
|
I agree that overall, the maps were quite impressive. Congrats to the top 32 and I am looking forward to continuing to see what people are able to come up with for the following rounds. I agree that picking 8 was difficult, I think I got 4-6 right away but debated the last few votes quite a bit.
My voting system was similar, though I broke it down by:
- Coolness: Do I look at this, and want to use it in a game? Does it provoke wonder or amazement? Does it hold potential for interesting encounters, adventures or roleplay? How much mileage does this map have in it?
- Usability: How usable is this for me as a GM (being that GMs are actually the primary audience of most maps)? Is the legend clear and in logical order for play? Does it give me enough information to easily visualize the parts and wax poetic about the varied locations? Does it have the necessary details for me to run with it on the fly, or will it involve a lot of improvisation? Does it have any glaring oddities that stop me mid-breath to go "what the hell is that?!"?
- Craftsmanship: Is it clear, legible and containing all the necessary bits and bobs? Does it make good use of the space? Is the scale appropriate for the detail (and visa versa)?
As a bit of an addendum to the above: I'm generally applying a grade to each of the above categories, and one overall to the map, ranging from A to F. As for what that means;
- A: This is great! Here, take my money! I'll MAKE a use for it.
- B: Good stuff, definitely makes me consider buying it, especially if I can see uses for it in the near future.
- C: Passable. If it came packaged with something else, or I have an immediate need for something like that, then I might purchase it.
- D: I won't get my money's worth, so won't buy it. I might use it if it was free and I was otherwise stuck.
- E: I likely wouldn't use it even if it was free.
- F: This is not the product advertised. File complaint with fair trade commission.
Noting that I'm not trying to be a jerk, just viewing this from the perspective of a potential customer, and how keen I would be to part with cash for the map after it has been rendered by a professional cartographer.
