| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
They use general-purpose professional grade image editting software, not specialized map making programs. The maps look good because they're skilled professionals. They know how to create a unified art style and aesthetic.
Try this website to make your own maps. It's browser-based, so you don't even need to download any software. Also look at this thread for more info.
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our cartographers generally use Photoshop, I believe, and years of artistic skill and practice.
For maps I do for my home games or as turnovers for adventures I write (or redraw for other authors we publish), I generally draw them by hand and use Pixelmator (a Photoshop clone) to finish the map off and add color and the like. I sometimes use Campaign Cartographer, especially if the map has lots of curves or the like—my original turnover for the map of the Cathedral of Asmodeus in "A Song of Silver" used this program.
And as for being one of said "nut jobs..." I actually think that the look of a map, which represents an in-game location, should sometimes look more interesting than something that just snaps to a grid. Circles are a common architectural feature, and they can help to make a location look distinctive.
In fact, the more you practice drawing maps, either for publication, your home game, or copying them from print onto a battlemat, the better you'll get at it, and the more interesting your maps will look for your players.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, circles exist, but are actually relatively uncommon because they are architecturally more difficult to produce.
As far as rectangular structures on an angular grid, "interest" is WAY below usability. They're a pain in the rear end to transfer onto a grid mat, for the first place. Secondly, you could have a room that is the same dimension as 4 squares by 4 squares (which should have 16 easily identified usable squares for movement) that instead is put on an odd angle on the grid, resulting on maybe a 10-12 easily identified usable squares and a bunch of partial squares that result in ambiguity for where players and opponents can move. Why have two half squares on either side of the room; if it's 20' wide, it's 20' wide. There should be four squares of usable space, not three and two partials.
Seriously, right now I'm running two different groups (one in my second time running RotRL and one in IG), and both groups raise issues with the maps at every session. It's not me complaining; it's the players.
Then change things to suit your players better if it's that huge of a deal. That's kind of the GM's job if his/her group has an issue with an adventure.
You can redraw the map (change circles to squares, or diagonals to ziz-zags that follow squares). A better solution might be to allow characters to occupy those partial squares as if they were full squares without worrying about whether or not the shape of the miniature's base matches the "available room" of the square itself. It won't hurt the game at all to let a PC or NPC occupy such a spot, and frankly, in the real world, since a person can fit in a much smaller space than a 5 foot square, it doesn't really shatter verisimilitude either.
Then change things to suit your players better if it's that huge of a deal. That's kind of the GM's job if his/her group has an issue with an adventure.
You can redraw the map (change circles to squares, or diagonals to ziz-zags that follow squares). A better solution might be to allow characters to occupy those partial squares as if they were full squares without worrying about whether or not the shape of the miniature's base matches the "available room" of the square itself. It won't hurt the game at all to let a PC or NPC occupy such a spot, and frankly, in the real world, since a person can fit in a much smaller space than a 5 foot square, it doesn't really shatter verisimilitude either.
I'm running my players through THE SKELETONS OF SCARWALL and I'm redrawing MANY rooms on Tact-tiles by hand and when a room is odd shaped or would prove difficult to replicate? Whatever part of the room would be problematic to draw I change. And I let the player know this and they really dont care.
I dont know if this is a generational thing or not but I'm just used to changing things to make them easier for myself and my groups to use. One size doesnt fit all and that's not a slam against pre-drawn maps/adventures what have you. It's just the nature of the beast. I could go on and on about the need to modify pre-written adventures and sourcebooks but that's not what this thread is about...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just wish there was an easier way to print out the maps full size. Mostly cause of how beautiful they are, and the fact that some details on the map are important to see for my players.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, circles exist, but are actually relatively uncommon because they are architecturally more difficult to produce.
As far as rectangular structures on an angular grid, "interest" is WAY below usability. They're a pain in the rear end to transfer onto a grid mat, for the first place. Secondly, you could have a room that is the same dimension as 4 squares by 4 squares (which should have 16 easily identified usable squares for movement) that instead is put on an odd angle on the grid, resulting on maybe a 10-12 easily identified usable squares and a bunch of partial squares that result in ambiguity for where players and opponents can move. Why have two half squares on either side of the room; if it's 20' wide, it's 20' wide. There should be four squares of usable space, not three and two partials.
Seriously, right now I'm running two different groups (one in my second time running RotRL and one in IG), and both groups raise issues with the maps at every session. It's not me complaining; it's the players.
Then change things to suit your players better if it's that huge of a deal. That's kind of the GM's job if his/her group has an issue with an adventure.
You can redraw the map (change circles to squares, or diagonals to ziz-zags that follow squares). A better solution might be to allow characters to occupy those partial squares as if they were full squares without worrying about whether or not the shape of the miniature's base matches the "available room" of the square itself. It won't hurt the game at all to let a PC or NPC occupy such a spot, and frankly, in the real world, since a person can fit in a much smaller space than a 5 foot square, it doesn't really shatter verisimilitude either.
At the danger of poking the dinosaur in a tender spot, my biggest beef with Second Darkness was the cartography, sure it was elegant, and sure it was all open and airy, but it was a pain in the arse to duplicate on to the grid. In the end I switched to a hex grid and fudged the rules otherwise 1/8-1/4 of every room required players to be squeezing. It fills me with a visceral dread to this day.
/me goes into fetal ball and beseeches the Aboleth to throw another rock or two at the elves.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing folks should keep in mind if they're struggling with translating a map to a battlemat—your players don't know what the shape of the room is, and if you draw a room that's off a bit, they won't notice. Agonizing about perfectly duplicating a map on a battlemat during play can detract from the actual game play. If exact translations from print to battlemat are super important to you as a GM, your best bet is to prepare the maps before play. Gaming paper is an EXCELLENT solution to this—it's inexpensive and you get a lot of it and you can even do something like draw out individual rooms as needed and cut them out so you can put them down on the table, perhaps taping them together, as the PCs explore.
|
Since this thread seems to have turned into a "complain about Paizo's maps" thread:
My biggest peeve with Paizo maps is that, for absolutely no apparent reason, North is often NOT up on the map. This is exacerbated by the fact that the room descriptions may or may not notice.
The maps are often very, very beautiful mind. I really like most of them. Just put North at the top of the map and I'll be happy with circles, misfitting rooms, etc.
Since this thread seems to have turned into a "complain about Paizo's maps" thread:
My biggest peeve with Paizo maps is that, for absolutely no apparent reason, North is often NOT up on the map. This is exacerbated by the fact that the room descriptions may or may not notice.
The maps are often very, very beautiful mind. I really like most of them. Just put North at the top of the map and I'll be happy with circles, misfitting rooms, etc.
The city of London thought it was a good idea to have all of its maps with Up being the way you are facing instead of North. What a mess, there is no standard there. I know how to read maps..part of my profession, and those give me nightmares. Is it supposed to be easier to the non map trained?
What I use is a transparent laminate with squares...and put it over the map I want. I can move the laminate to better orientate the lines (if the aforementioned glasswork building is diagonal...move the laminate and now it aligns.). And then I can draw on that too.
Since this thread seems to have turned into a "complain about Paizo's maps" thread:
My biggest peeve with Paizo maps is that, for absolutely no apparent reason, North is often NOT up on the map. This is exacerbated by the fact that the room descriptions may or may not notice.
The maps are often very, very beautiful mind. I really like most of them. Just put North at the top of the map and I'll be happy with circles, misfitting rooms, etc.
Eh, I don't know. Always orienting ("orienting") maps with north at the perceived top is itself a problematic choice, for a whole range of reasons ranging from the practical to the political. I find it rarely makes a difference at the table--at least on local or tactical level maps, though your point about matching description to cartography is taken.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We orient maps North as often as possible, but in some cases it isn't possible... usually because the building or location being mapped already appears in another map where it's not aligned north. This happens a LOT when we map out buildings from city maps, in which case I"ll almost always opt to adjust the direction of the compass so that the grid CAN line up with the walls nicely. At other times, the shape of the area to be mapped simply won't fit in the space we have available for the map with it aligned top = north.
More reasons to unchain from the grid . . . .
|
I just wish there was an easier way to print out the maps full size. Mostly cause of how beautiful they are, and the fact that some details on the map are important to see for my players.
I've never had a problem with an actual Paizo map with my process:
Nitro 9 PDF reader (using the trial, which is mostly functional)
Select -> Click the map I want, Copy
Paste into GIMP
Image -> Scale -> However many inches I count across. It auto scales the height.
Check the ruler (set to inches). Make some finer Image Scale adjustments.
(Next two steps optional, since I use a B&W Laser)
Desaturate based on Luminosity
Adjust Levels - pull in the darkest and lightest to highlight features.
Export as .pdf
Open in Adobe Reader
Print using Poster mode, so it splits to my 8.5x11 cleanly.
I process many, many, Pathfinder Society scenario maps this way. Whole thing takes two minutes or less.
|
I've never had a problem with an actual Paizo map with my process:Nitro 9 PDF reader (using the trial, which is mostly functional)
Select -> Click the map I want, Copy
Paste into GIMP
Image -> Scale -> However many inches I count across. It auto scales the height.
Check the ruler (set to inches). Make some finer Image Scale adjustments.(Next two steps optional, since I use a B&W Laser)
Desaturate based on Luminosity
Adjust Levels - pull in the darkest and lightest to highlight features.Export as .pdf
Open in Adobe Reader
Print using Poster mode, so it splits to my 8.5x11 cleanly.I process many, many, Pathfinder Society scenario maps this way. Whole thing takes two minutes or less.
Some people don't know how or have the programs to use to do this and Some of us would prefer to have a Large Single piece Glossy map instead of Glued or Taped Multi paged self printed Maps...
|
|
Another thing folks should keep in mind if they're struggling with translating a map to a battlemat—your players don't know what the shape of the room is, and if you draw a room that's off a bit, they won't notice. Agonizing about perfectly duplicating a map on a battlemat during play can detract from the actual game play. If exact translations from print to battlemat are super important to you as a GM, your best bet is to prepare the maps before play. Gaming paper is an EXCELLENT solution to this—it's inexpensive and you get a lot of it and you can even do something like draw out individual rooms as needed and cut them out so you can put them down on the table, perhaps taping them together, as the PCs explore.
On this thought, many office supply stores sell pads of square gridded chart paper, it's cheap and convenient to map out a few layers in advance.
^Sort of related to this, one could print a grid onto a transparency (or maybe somebody even offers pre-made grid transparencies), and overlay this onto a map -- use that grid if the existing grid is at the wrong orientation.
It's a thread worth to be raised. When you prepare online sessions, good maps are still a scarce resource - I often enough end up with Paizo maps. Which, luckily, can be easily cut, rotated or get their colors changed, at least for online sessions.
Hence I am often tempted to create them myself - especially lately, when I tried to find a proper wizard tower.