# Sneak Peek At Ghosts of Saltmarsh Maps



## jasper (Mar 11, 2019)

Jasper is sad. I think I got rid of my old U1 thru U3 modules. Paging Lt. Murr. Paging Lt. Murr to the docks. Your ship is about to leave. 
Those maps do bring back memories.


----------



## gideonpepys (Mar 11, 2019)

I used these adventures in my _Zeitgeist _campaign.  Love them.  And those maps bring back memories for me too.  I tried to write a fantasy novel when I was 12 - all about life on board a flying ship.  Not having any idea of what a ship would look like, I used the map from U1 as the basis for my flying ship which I called (ahem) the 'Sky Ghost'...


----------



## vpuigdoller (Mar 11, 2019)

I love the Saltmarsh map.  Very sad they going for the b/w ones again for the interior maps.  I know many ppl love them I prefer color.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 11, 2019)

I can't wait for this...

I hope I can talk somebody else in the group into DMing it.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 11, 2019)

I love how they used the Saltmarsh map that was in 3.5's DMG2 for the town but just aged it back several years.  So this way both maps are still valid-- the 5E version for the "Sinister Secret" age, and the 3.5 version for many years later as the city has grown.


----------



## Rhineglade (Mar 11, 2019)

There has always been a soft spot in my heart for this series for several reason.  1, because it was produced by the British version of TSR (and I am an anglophile), 2, it was a cool and simple storyline and 3, I loved the original art work.  I am so happy that WotC is releasing an updated 5e version of it.  Can't wait!


----------



## WaterRabbit (Mar 11, 2019)

These are the same maps from the original module and the DMG2 from v3.5.


----------



## ddaley (Mar 11, 2019)

I want this today!


----------



## guachi (Mar 11, 2019)

Someone posted on this very website these awesome maps. Free. In color.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?599323-U1-Sinister-Secret-of-Saltmarsh-MAPS

Took me a small bit of effort to resize them for 1" = 5' but they look great when printed!

I reduced the saturation and increased the brightness so the printed image was lighter as I think it works better when printed.

These are AWESOME maps.

$3 for the U1 PDF and $0 for the color maps
 It's a steal!


----------



## EthanSental (Mar 11, 2019)

I agree, those maps guachi mentions are spectacular!  Thanks for sharing the link again and thanks to MichaelArkAngel for creating and sharing them!


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 11, 2019)

vpuigdoller said:


> I love the Saltmarsh map.  Very sad they going for the b/w ones again for the interior maps.  I know many ppl love them I prefer color.




I'm very, very disappointed in the boring black and white interior maps.


----------



## Gradine (Mar 11, 2019)

I'm very excited. I'm planning on adapting this to Eberron (Q'Barra specifically) in the same vein as Keith Baker's _Deepwater_ concept.


----------



## ddaley (Mar 11, 2019)

I failed my will power save and pre-ordered this just now.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 11, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I love how they used the Saltmarsh map that was in 3.5's DMG2 for the town but just aged it back several years.  So this way both maps are still valid-- the 5E version for the "Sinister Secret" age, and the 3.5 version for many years later as the city has grown.




Oh, hey, that's cool: they have put a lot of thought and care into this.

I'm glad to see they are following the Waterdeep pattern of a pretty general map, bit clear and clean maps for floorplans.


----------



## Joseph Nardo (Mar 11, 2019)

I must have this book!


----------



## aco175 (Mar 11, 2019)

How come the ocean is on the wrong side to be Sword Coast.


----------



## Barantor (Mar 11, 2019)

aco175 said:


> How come the ocean is on the wrong side to be Sword Coast.




They announced this one was setting agnostic, not Forgotten Realms.


----------



## gweinel (Mar 11, 2019)

So, do we know if the adventures will be like yawning portal (just a quick conversion to 5e) or a larger revamp (like curse Strahd)?


----------



## Gradine (Mar 11, 2019)

gweinel said:


> So, do we know if the adventures will be like yawning portal (just a quick conversion to 5e) or a larger revamp (like curse Strahd)?




From what we've seen, it looks to be something in-between; not nearly the revamp of CoS, but more actual adaptation (rather than conversion) than Yawning Portal.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 11, 2019)

I love the hand-drawn maps. The fact that they don't look like they were done on a computer or for a video game is a huge plus.


----------



## robus (Mar 11, 2019)

I think the black & white maps are good as they’re something that we as DMs (and amateur map-makers) can aspire to emulate for our own creations.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 11, 2019)

I have to admit, I don't really like the Dyson Logos maps.  I'm sorry, I just don't.  Some of them look good, but, I'd much rather have full color maps.  I play online and having these black and white line maps just doesn't do it for me.  Compared to what you can do, a la those map links above, these line drawn maps are not to my taste.


----------



## MNblockhead (Mar 12, 2019)

I love/hate the Dyson maps. I love them as a DM reference when they are not being shown to players. Very easy to read and run the adventure in. But if you want to use them as a battlemap, they are disappointing. Luckily, within weeks of the book being released, I expect that there will be artists releasing full-color digital battlemap versions.


----------



## Bolongo (Mar 12, 2019)

I think you've made a mistake or misunderstood something here.

While the town map is new, the rest are not. They're just straight up scans out of a copy of U1.


----------



## robus (Mar 12, 2019)

Bolongo said:


> I think you've made a mistake or misunderstood something here.
> 
> While the town map is new, the rest are not. They're just straight up scans out of a copy of U1.




Ah, well Dyson has nailed the classic style then, because I certainly thought he’d contributed those!


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 12, 2019)

Bolongo said:


> I think you've made a mistake or misunderstood something here.
> 
> While the town map is new, the rest are not. They're just straight up scans out of a copy of U1.




No, they showed the black and white maps on Spoilers & Swag and credited Dyson Logos. The originals were blue scale, not black and white.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 12, 2019)

Bolongo said:


> I think you've made a mistake or misunderstood something here.
> 
> While the town map is new, the rest are not. They're just straight up scans out of a copy of U1.




Well Dyson Logos says he did them. I’m inclined to believe him.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Mar 12, 2019)

Bolongo said:


> I think you've made a mistake or misunderstood something here.
> 
> While the town map is new, the rest are not. They're just straight up scans out of a copy of U1.



I thought so, too. So I pulled out my original copies of the module to compare. The details are almost identical down to the contents, size, and number of each room. But there also enough subtle differences to realize that the Dyson maps are, in fact, not just scanned copies of the originals. 

Either way, I find this disappointing. The Saltmarsh series has always been one of my favorites from the beginning. Even though I don't play 5e, I had actually considered pre-ordering this one, which is something I rarely do. But seeing the original maps and a lot of the same text reprinted has changed my mind. I don't need a reprint of what I already own and can easily convert to whatever system I prefer to use. 

At least with previous products rehashing old modules, there seemed to be a little more creative effort and a new spin on things. I guess this is why I am not part of the target audience for this edition. But so close! I do hope the new players will enjoy this one.


----------



## Rhineglade (Mar 12, 2019)

aco175 said:


> How come the ocean is on the wrong side to be Sword Coast.




Probably because the original was set in the World of Greyhawk located in southern Keoland along the coast of the Azure Sea.


----------



## Bolongo (Mar 12, 2019)

Jacob Lewis said:


> I thought so, too. So I pulled out my original copies of the module to compare. The details are almost identical down to the contents, size, and number of each room. But there also enough subtle differences to realize that the Dyson maps are, in fact, not just scanned copies of the originals.




Huh. I mean, they even have the artifacts typical of scanning an old copy (some dirt, weak lines, and the like).

But if you say so.

That's really disappointing, I agree.


----------



## Bolongo (Mar 12, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Well Dyson Logos says he did them. I’m inclined to believe him.




I didn't mean that anybody was lying. I just thought you'd used the wrong pictures.

But another poster has made a close analysis and says they're very slightly different from the originals, so I'll believe it.

That just leaves me very, very disappointed. Dyson is a talented guy, I've paid for his maps in the past. Why would WotC set him to essentially tracing over old stuff?


----------



## WaterRabbit (Mar 12, 2019)

Rhineglade said:


> Probably because the original was set in the World of Greyhawk located in southern Keoland along the coast of the Azure Sea.




No that is incorrect.  The original U1 series wasn't set in any particular game setting.  It was later placed in Greyhawk.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 12, 2019)

Bolongo said:


> I didn't mean that anybody was lying. I just thought you'd used the wrong pictures.
> 
> But another poster has made a close analysis and says they're very slightly different from the originals, so I'll believe it.
> 
> That just leaves me very, very disappointed. Dyson is a talented guy, I've paid for his maps in the past. Why would WotC set him to essentially tracing over old stuff?




Most likely because a new photoshopped version of the maps can be blown up to higher resolution when necessary than just scanned copies usually can.


----------



## Rhineglade (Mar 12, 2019)

WaterRabbit said:


> No that is incorrect.  The original U1 series wasn't set in any particular game setting.  It was later placed in Greyhawk.




Text from the actual print: "On the WORLD OFGREYHAWKª map, Saltmarsh is placed in the southernmost part of Keoland, at the western edge of hex U4/123."


----------



## Gradine (Mar 12, 2019)

Rhineglade said:


> Text from the actual print: "On the WORLD OFGREYHAWKª map, Saltmarsh is placed in the southernmost part of Keoland, at the western edge of hex U4/123."




How many more threads must we dispense with this misconception? There is literally exponentially more guidance on how to set _Princes of the Apocalypse_ in _*Dark Sun*_ than that.

Saltmarsh, like many classic adventures, were designed to be setting agnostic. That many of those provided throw-away guidance on how to set the thing in Greyhawk does not change that.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Mar 13, 2019)

MNblockhead said:


> I love/hate the Dyson maps. I love them as a DM reference when they are not being shown to players. Very easy to read and run the adventure in. But if you want to use them as a battlemap, they are disappointing. Luckily, within weeks of the book being released, I expect that there will be artists releasing full-color digital battlemap versions.




I agree with you on this. I do love them while running tabletop adventures for their simplicity and ease of use. But, yes, they certainly aren't _pretty_, which is a drawback at other times, and which lessens their value for those who run online games...


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Mar 13, 2019)

aco175 said:


> How come the ocean is on the wrong side to be Sword Coast.




Outside the fact that, as others have mentioned, it's setting agnostic, it could be placed on the Sword Coast on a bay or estuary. After all, Baldur's Gate's shore is on the south side of the city as well, and it's on the Sword Coast, just on the north bank of a river estuary...


----------



## Hussar (Mar 13, 2019)

Huh.  That is an interesting question.  If you wanted to place this in the Sword Coast, where would you?


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 13, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Huh.  That is an interesting question.  If you wanted to place this in the Sword Coast, where would you?




"The Styes" from Dungeon actually looks to have suggested Coromyr's southeast coast as a FR suggestion: they can make a FR suggestion that is not the Sword Coast.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 13, 2019)

Huh, it wasn't as hard as I thought.  The Saltmarsh map puts north to the left (boo, you are BAD people who do this.  North is the top of the page!!!) which means there's a pretty little river right between Fireshear and Luskan near the Ten Towns that would fit perfectly.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 13, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Huh.  That is an interesting question.  If you wanted to place this in the Sword Coast, where would you?





North west of Luskan, or on the bay south of Candlekeep, or on one of the islands, such as Mintarn.

You could always cross out the "N" and change the orientation though.


----------



## WaterRabbit (Mar 13, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Huh.  That is an interesting question.  If you wanted to place this in the Sword Coast, where would you?




I renamed it and use it as Leilon.


----------



## Tom B1 (Mar 15, 2019)

As to FR placement: Keep in mind, most of the campaign map rivers are a fair size. There are undoubtedly others and the one in the Saltmarsh map doesn't look huge. 

As to colour maps: Sorry, not in favour. I like clean references. Even if I'm on a VTT, but doubly so if I'm laying the thing on the table. 

The real issue with many premade dungeon cardstock products (photopaper) is that artists need to put extra flourishes on every last little tile or photo map.... skeletons, broken swords or carts, little magical or lighting flourishes... all of which may be entirely out of place for where I want to use them. 

I have a lot of Paizo, WotC and other tilesets of various sorts and a good 20% of them are contaminated with extraneous junk. A lot of the time, my groups are off in the deep woods, mountains, or the like. Finding giant skeletons, strange moai statues or odd magical lighting is just something that guts engagement when that isn't part of the product. 

So, still in favour of information dense, black and white battle map presentation. If it is photo-real, there shouldn't be any little arty flourishes. 

And while I'm at it, some sort of loo is likely a requirement in castles and some inns. Some inns and many churches might have an outhouse, but castles likely require facilities as do some inns. Yet  you rarely see any facilities (sometimes not een a kitchen) as designers are too busy sticking in all manner of other things while ignoring baseline requirements.

That all said, U1 to U3 I've run and it formed a great part of a 20 year D&D campaign (20 real life years). One of the two brothers who help out the party (customs guys?) survived to become an adventurer in his own right (the other died). Great series for new or veteran players.


----------



## muppetmuppet (Mar 15, 2019)

Someone made u1 to 3 in neverwinter the online game using the foundry.  No idea if they are still there and playable.  I did play through some of it but it was a long time ago.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Mar 15, 2019)

I find the black and white location maps, nice and clean without art textures under and all that jazz, to be far more useful in play myself. Or blue maps.  For a dungeon map I don't need a lot of art on it that just clutters it, makes it harder to make notes, and add little to the game.  Honestly I don't like any of the maps in any of the AP for 5e that I've bought for that reason.  When you copy them they can get messier as well. For the larger maps like the town itself the artsy maps are OK, but even then it would be sweet if the modules had a nice clean b&w map as well.


----------



## Rob Twohy (Mar 15, 2019)

Dyson Logos is a fine artist, but is anyone else upset because we're paying $50 for BLACK and WHITE maps? WotC needs to tighten it up in my estimation.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Mar 15, 2019)

Rob Twohy said:


> Dyson Logos is a fine artist, but is anyone else upset because we're paying $50 for BLACK and WHITE maps? WotC needs to tighten it up in my estimation.




Not upset at all.

I'm paying $50 for a lot of other content, and the color/style of the maps is immaterial as long as they are usable.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 15, 2019)

I think the only way to make everyone happy is to include both black and white and colour versions of each map.


----------



## Rob Twohy (Mar 15, 2019)

Demetrios1453 said:


> Not upset at all.
> 
> I'm paying $50 for a lot of other content, and the color/style of the maps is immaterial as long as they are usable.




Ugh. The fact that people AREN'T upset by this is UPSETTING! I will say I'm kind of bias tho... I do all my playing on the Fantasy Grounds VTT and having black and white maps just seems wrong. But I buy the books ($50) and I also buy the FG modules ($25) and the DnD Beyond version, so I'm in for $100 each time they release a book. I only really need the Fantasy Grounds version but I'm a freak and have to have it all, I just wish the maps were color.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Mar 15, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> I think the only way to make everyone happy is to include both black and white and colour versions of each map.




One artsy and more purely functional would be great.


----------



## rredmond (Mar 15, 2019)

Interesting. Like the looks of those maps.


----------



## Tom B1 (Mar 15, 2019)

Rob Twohy said:


> Ugh. The fact that people AREN'T upset by this is UPSETTING! I will say I'm kind of bias tho... I do all my playing on the Fantasy Grounds VTT and having black and white maps just seems wrong. But I buy the books ($50) and I also buy the FG modules ($25) and the DnD Beyond version, so I'm in for $100 each time they release a book. I only really need the Fantasy Grounds version but I'm a freak and have to have it all, I just wish the maps were color.




I get some of your point - I looked at FG and DnDBeyond and both wanted me to pay an additional $30ish for PHB content (even though I had a hard copy PHB). I know there is work in conversions, but one hopes it isn't the same cost as all of the development and creativity in the original product. If they wanted $10, I would not have blinked. As it is, they got 0$ from me because I cannot afford to commit $100 every time a new book comes up (and that's $100 US, about $130 CAD). 

I've used MapTool and I had licenses for Grip iPC and another VTT I paid for (forget the name now - but I bought 4 licenses). One of the problems I've encountered is they (not sure if FG is the same) only support some games or some content of those games and the ability to add the full fledged support for new content is strictly something the original developers can provide and they are either way slow or just don't. So buying the paper books (or a PDF thereof) still means you've got content the VTTs don't support. 

I write code for a living. I know several ways one could make much more open data models and interfaces/APIs to let users add content to the software almost as easily as they could to the PnP game. But none of the developers for VTTs that want hefty fees tend to bother. And I am not able to afford FG monthly subscription any more than I can justify a monthly subscription to MS Office when an 8 year old version I own works for 100% of my needs. 

I have no issues with the game books including colour maps. I never use maps out of books directly because they aren't miniature sized. They should, by now, be releasing B&W and colour digital maps (and other game aids from products) when you buy the digital product. (And if you do it smart, with the right tools, you can probably easily reskin a floorplan from fancy to simple B&W)

Ideally:
- Print or POD version
- PDF version with digital versions of all reference materials (B&W or easily printable and colourful for VTTs)
- VTT packages with tokens and full VTT integration data

If WotC was smart, they'd partner with VTT vendors so that you could buy these parts individually but if you bought more than one of the three categories, a discount would be applied (the author's input has already been remunerated). 

I like VTTs for distance gaming and I like B&W or easily printable for tabletop gaming. The books to me could be broken into an easily printable reference booklet and the larger 'arty' hardcover or softcover. 

One driver is artists like to be arty. And module designers want to try out layout and module design experiments. Creative people want to be creative. That instinct often overwhelms the understanding that end users need to be able to use the product.


----------



## Rob Twohy (Mar 15, 2019)

Tom B1 said:


> I get some of your point - I looked at FG and DnDBeyond and both wanted me to pay an additional $30ish for PHB content (even though I had a hard copy PHB). I know there is work in conversions, but one hopes it isn't the same cost as all of the development and creativity in the original product. If they wanted $10, I would not have blinked. As it is, they got 0$ from me because I cannot afford to commit $100 every time a new book comes up (and that's $100 US, about $130 CAD).
> 
> I've used MapTool and I had licenses for Grip iPC and another VTT I paid for (forget the name now - but I bought 4 licenses). One of the problems I've encountered is they (not sure if FG is the same) only support some games or some content of those games and the ability to add the full fledged support for new content is strictly something the original developers can provide and they are either way slow or just don't. So buying the paper books (or a PDF thereof) still means you've got content the VTTs don't support.
> 
> ...




Most people don't realize that it takes about 400-600 hours of work to convert the average WotC book into Fantasy Grounds format. Also, there is usually EXTRA stuff, like automated table and encounter makers, etc. Like fo rexample the Dungeon Master's Guide has an Item forge where you can combine (magic) items to make new items.

Also, SmiteWorks (makers of FG) charges only about half the cover price of the book for the VTT version (which is a GREAT DEAL) and most of that money goes to WotC for the license anyway.


----------



## Tom B1 (Mar 15, 2019)

Rob Twohy said:


> Most people don't realize that it takes about 400-600 hours of work to convert the average WotC book into Fantasy Grounds format. Also, there is usually EXTRA stuff, like automated table and encounter makers, etc. Like fo rexample the Dungeon Master's Guide has an Item forge where you can combine (magic) items to make new items.
> 
> Also, SmiteWorks (makers of FG) charges only about half the cover price of the book for the VTT version (which is a GREAT DEAL) and most of that money goes to WotC for the license anyway.




There's part of the issue: If they went about things differently, the amount of labour to integrate new things (especially those primarily relying on existing rules albeit in different combinations or with different flavour) would not be so lengthy. I have no doubt it could take that long for a VTT upgrade to support significant changes now. There are, however, things WotC could do in their development process that would allow them to distribute electronic artifacts (like databases of character construction, gear, magic items, spells, etc) simply as a fairly easy export. That same approach would vastly speed up creation of reference books by scripting. (I've done this on a military project - reference documentation needed a template then it just pulled all the particular reference data out into tables and sections based on export rules). 

D&D Beyond likely also pays a good chunk of the $30 for the PHB for licensing - their integration work is probably less than FG though. 

At the end of the day, it does not matter to me as a consumer (and not because I don't care, simply because of available budget) why a platform or its content cost significant chunks of $$$, it only matters that they do cost significant amounts. If I had $130 CAD to throw at each new book ($60-70 for the book, the rest for digital stuff, maybe even $150 CAD if I wanted a PDF of the book), I would not be that averse to paying it, but I don't. By having the price point they do, they price me and I'm sure others out of the market. 

When I started playing this game, a hardcover was $15 CAD (DMG $18) and modules were $8-10 CAD. Now hardcovers are $60-70 and modules are released as adventure paths for at least $50 CAD. That's a five fold increase in about 40 years. Real wage growth hasn't matched that. 

Frankly, I settle for cheaper production values (no fancy glossy pages, no super nice art, simple B&W maps and simple layout) a) because it is cleaner and often more usable at the table than the stuff in the expensive hardcovers and b) because I can't justify spending so much on the hardcovers. The creative content can be just as useful to me (I've met duds in both formats and great work in both formats). 

Ultimately, the best value to me is having a lot of different module offerings as each new campaign has a new setting and only some modules work in it. $100+ per module path would leave me with thousands of dollars sitting on the shelf, vs. a few hundred in the cheaper production values. 

I mostly want to steal segments of a module, good ideas, or use a particular single module that fits my games' geography or themes... whole paths are rarely followed. 

What WotC produces now, other than reference books, is of limited use to me. The older D&D modules were more useful as are some 3rd party publishers' output. Also note that even with the reference books, I still depend on DTRPG and DMsGuild contributors to produce useful versions of the reference material due to the hardcovers being too arty and the data needs reformatting for utility at the table. 

YMMV, but I'm not alone in wanting good ideas and relocatable modules with more modest production values. I do respect that others want other things, but I think WotC is letting a pool of money it could be capturing now go to other companies.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 16, 2019)

Rob Twohy said:


> Ugh. The fact that people AREN'T upset by this is UPSETTING! I will say I'm kind of bias tho... I do all my playing on the Fantasy Grounds VTT and having black and white maps just seems wrong. But I buy the books ($50) and I also buy the FG modules ($25) and the DnD Beyond version, so I'm in for $100 each time they release a book. I only really need the Fantasy Grounds version but I'm a freak and have to have it all, I just wish the maps were color.




Are you [MENTION=6928534]Rob Twohy[/MENTION] of DM's Guild?  I've bought some of your stuff.  Just let me say that I, for one, appreciate the great map artwork.


----------



## oreofox (Mar 16, 2019)

Bolongo said:


> Huh. I mean, they even have the artifacts typical of scanning an old copy (some dirt, weak lines, and the like).
> 
> But if you say so.
> 
> That's really disappointing, I agree.




That's the way Dyson makes his maps.

Honestly, I really do not like his maps. They aren't any different than what my lame butt can draw on graph paper. I prefer the Schley maps from previous adventures. Though, being completely honest, I prefer even more how Paizo does their maps overall. Of course, I typically do my D&D playing online.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 16, 2019)

Funnily enough though, if you take the Dyson maps, and then colorize them, they look pretty darn good.  I know the colorized versions of the Dragon Heist maps actually pop in a VTT. 

It's mostly just the plain black and white.  It's a bit too minimalist on a virtual tabletop.  OTOH, if I was printing these to use at the table, they'd be fantastic and far better than something like the Schley maps which would destroy my poor printer cartridge.


----------



## oreofox (Mar 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Funnily enough though, if you take the Dyson maps, and then colorize them, they look pretty darn good.  I know the colorized versions of the Dragon Heist maps actually pop in a VTT.
> 
> It's mostly just the plain black and white.  It's a bit too minimalist on a virtual tabletop.  OTOH, if I was printing these to use at the table, they'd be fantastic and far better than something like the Schley maps which would destroy my poor printer cartridge.




I agree. For handouts, the Dyson maps are perfect. Especially if you don't want to take the time to copy them by hand. Much easier on the printer cartridges compared to the full color Schley maps. I am ignorant on what you mean by "colorized" Dyson map, though.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 17, 2019)

Printing is the thing. Coloured ink is expensive, and, unless you invest in expensive paper too, produces less than satisfactory results. Black and white maps can be printed/photocopied cheaply with bottom-of-the-range equipment (even better than the original blue and white maps).


----------



## Rob Twohy (Mar 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Are you [MENTION=6928534]Rob Twohy[/MENTION] of DM's Guild?  I've bought some of your stuff.  Just let me say that I, for one, appreciate the great map artwork.




I am THAT Rob Twohy yes, and THANX for your support. I appreciate that.


----------



## Rob Twohy (Mar 17, 2019)

Tom B1 said:


> I get some of your point - I looked at FG and DnDBeyond and both wanted me to pay an additional $30ish for PHB content (even though I had a hard copy PHB). I know there is work in conversions, but one hopes it isn't the same cost as all of the development and creativity in the original product. If they wanted $10, I would not have blinked. As it is, they got 0$ from me because I cannot afford to commit $100 every time a new book comes up (and that's $100 US, about $130 CAD).
> 
> I've used MapTool and I had licenses for Grip iPC and another VTT I paid for (forget the name now - but I bought 4 licenses). One of the problems I've encountered is they (not sure if FG is the same) only support some games or some content of those games and the ability to add the full fledged support for new content is strictly something the original developers can provide and they are either way slow or just don't. So buying the paper books (or a PDF thereof) still means you've got content the VTTs don't support.
> 
> ...




I'm a D&D person through and through, as a matter of fact, I have never played even 5 minutes of Pathfinder EVER. Having said that, I do know that if you buy a Paizo product PDF, you get that price directly off the Fantasy Grounds VTT price of the same module. It's like getting the PDF for FREE. WotC has no such deal with any of the VTTs. They don't even have (for public sale) any PDFs of their products for the current edition unless you count Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron which they have in PDF form (for now) at DMs Guild. As a side note, I was the one who converted that PDF to the Fantasy Grounds format for SmiteWorks. I also did The Laboratory of Kwalish for them. But yes, it would be AWESOME if WotC offered any kind of discount for buying the same material in more than one format. Not sure why they don't. I do know that D&D is more popular than ever BY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE now, and they don't NEED to offer any discounts. It would be nice, but I'm sure they're fine with their current level of sales?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 18, 2019)

oreofox said:


> I agree. For handouts, the Dyson maps are perfect. Especially if you don't want to take the time to copy them by hand. Much easier on the printer cartridges compared to the full color Schley maps. I am ignorant on what you mean by "colorized" Dyson map, though.




People have taken the Dyson maps and colorized them:

https://imgur.com/a/hPqW9JQ

For examples.


----------



## Tom B1 (Mar 18, 2019)

Rob Twohy said:


> I do know that D&D is more popular than ever BY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE now, and they don't NEED to offer any discounts. It would be nice, but I'm sure they're fine with their current level of sales?




My thinking goes like this: Assuming there are a fair number of folks like me with a budget, who are frustrated by paying multiple times for the same (or only slightly different) content (like paying the same for a PDF and a hardcover...) or who are priced out of the market because of the cost of integration on the useful platforms.... that's a pool of money they COULD be capturing if they had a different strategy. 

TSR eventually foundered and ended up on the rocks because they made some mistakes in assessing their market. I don't think WotC is immune. Mind you, I think their corporate policy may have some input from their ownership. 

I'd like to second the comment on the nice work you do at DMsGuild, Rob. I don't lack an appreciation for beauty. I just find it distracts from function many times and I'll take utility over aesthetics every time. (given my already stipulated parameters of use).


----------



## Tom B1 (Mar 18, 2019)

I kind of like Dyson's spartan style. Then again, my daughter loves bright neon colours, glitter, and lots of what to me feels like overwhelming visual clutter, so I tend almost uniformly to look for the more minimalist and spartan in terms of aesthetics of design. (Doubly so in my work on UIs). 

I wish some of the tech was used more effectively to make the digital platforms more easily user-extensible. That's still a lack in my books. But that's another discussion. ;0)


----------



## WaterRabbit (Mar 18, 2019)

Rob Twohy said:


> Most people don't realize that it takes about 400-600 hours of work to convert the average WotC book into Fantasy Grounds format. Also, there is usually EXTRA stuff, like automated table and encounter makers, etc. Like fo rexample the Dungeon Master's Guide has an Item forge where you can combine (magic) items to make new items.
> 
> Also, SmiteWorks (makers of FG) charges only about half the cover price of the book for the VTT version (which is a GREAT DEAL) and most of that money goes to WotC for the license anyway.




400-600 hours seems excessive to me.  I converted the original U1 into Roll20, including drawing my own outdoor contour map (which isn't included in the adventure).  By converted I mean created from scratch.  I drew all of the maps including added the dynamic lighting elements.

That also includes replacing all of the monsters with 5e versions (I substituted Hobgoblins because they fit an ongoing arc IMC).  That means creating tokens, NPC character sheets, etc.

I also created loot handouts to give to the party.  Finally, I had to integrate it into my ongoing campaign story.

Overall it took about 8 hours.  If it take 400 hours to convert instead of hand drawing everything than either someone is really inefficient or FG is way too work intensive.  This isn't a ringing endorsement for FG to me.


----------



## Rob Twohy (Mar 18, 2019)

WaterRabbit said:


> 400-600 hours seems excessive to me.  I converted the original U1 into Roll20, including drawing my own outdoor contour map (which isn't included in the adventure).  By converted I mean created from scratch.  I drew all of the maps including added the dynamic lighting elements.
> 
> That also includes replacing all of the monsters with 5e versions (I substituted Hobgoblins because they fit an ongoing arc IMC).  That means creating tokens, NPC character sheets, etc.
> 
> ...




Well let's see...

Considering the steps it takes to make a book from a WotC property into a Fantasy Grounds module...

1. Resize all images to fit nicely on the screen for users. Maps and artwork.
2. Make Tokens for NPCs.
3. Build all Pregenerated Characters.
4. Build all Rollable Tables.
5. Build all NPCs.
6. Build all (Magic) Items.
7. Build all Backgrounds.
8. Build all Classes.
9. Build all Feats.
10. Build all Races.
11. Build all Skills.
12. Build all Spells.
13. Enter the story entries text (add Encounter and Treasure Parcel markers).
14. Create Encounters and Treasure Parcels and link them into the story entries.
15. Pin appropriate story entries to the maps.
16. Pre-place Encounter tokens on maps.

...and do all that for a 256ish page book? That's what takes 400 hours. 

Then you have everything (and much more) than what's in the book at your fingertips. All fully automated and ready to play. The only preparation a DM really need do is familiarize themselves with elements of the story before each session, and you're ready to go. 

Someone who claims to make something in 8 hours for Roll20 and says this process isn't a "ringing endorsement for FG"... well... I should think that since ONE PERSON does all that work so that hundreds of thousands can enjoy it (and for HALF THE PRICE of what Roll20 charges for lesser material) it would seem to be very contrary to that belief. I should think one would have the OPPOSITE opinion. But I'm not you.


----------



## WaterRabbit (Mar 18, 2019)

Rob Twohy said:


> Well let's see...
> 
> Considering the steps it takes to make a book from a WotC property into a Fantasy Grounds module...
> 
> ...




Why are you building classes, feats, races, and spells?  They should already be built as the Saltmarsh series doesn't have anything unique in it.  I think you are way exaggerating how much effort it takes.  Entering the text is just a copy and paste from a scan (that's assuming you didn't do anything more than that).


----------



## bedir than (Mar 18, 2019)

WaterRabbit said:


> Why are you building classes, feats, races, and spells?  They should already be built as the Saltmarsh series doesn't have anything unique in it.  I think you are way exaggerating how much effort it takes.  Entering the text is just a copy and paste from a scan (that's assuming you didn't do anything more than that).




The assumption that the Ghosts of Saltmarsh book only has the three Saltmarsh series modules is your issue. It clearly has more than just that. It has rules about ship play, almost certainly has feats and certain subclasses. We know it has player facing info because it is a 5e book


----------



## Rob Twohy (Mar 18, 2019)

WaterRabbit said:


> Why are you building classes, feats, races, and spells?  They should already be built as the Saltmarsh series doesn't have anything unique in it.  I think you are way exaggerating how much effort it takes.  Entering the text is just a copy and paste from a scan (that's assuming you didn't do anything more than that).




I listed a full example of what might be needed, and those are all needed for an example of a book that probably every person using a VTT to play 5E might want, the Player's Handbook. I barely scratched the surface of the many backend processies that are required to make an electronic version of a WotC book that a company would be proud to sell to any user for HALF of what Roll20 does. There's just way more to it than what I laid out in a simple example that a person could read in a minute or two. Until you actually develop titles (which I have), you really wouldn't apprecaite the process. But to say what you did that just because making a licensed work conversion is a lot of work, that doesn't speak well to the VTT itself, well that just makes no sense (to me)!


----------



## WaterRabbit (Mar 18, 2019)

Rob Twohy said:


> I listed a full example of what might be needed, and those are all needed for an example of a book that probably every person using a VTT to play 5E might want, the Player's Handbook. I barely scratched the surface of the many backend processies that are required to make an electronic version of a WotC book that a company would be proud to sell to any user for HALF of what Roll20 does. There's just way more to it than what I laid out in a simple example that a person could read in a minute or two. Until you actually develop titles (which I have), you really wouldn't apprecaite the process. But to say what you did that just because making a licensed work conversion is a lot of work, that doesn't speak well to the VTT itself, well that just makes no sense (to me)!




You are expanding the process beyond the initial discussion is why you are going there.  The initial discussion was about adding modules to FG.  Most of what you are describing the work has already been done.

Also, try to be a bit less condescending. You have no idea my background and I assure you that putting together a title for production doesn't even rise to my list of difficult projects.  I am also quite familiar with the "Scotty" syndrome which is on full display here.


----------



## Rob Twohy (Mar 18, 2019)

WaterRabbit said:


> You are expanding the process beyond the initial discussion is why you are going there.  The initial discussion was about adding modules to FG.  Most of what you are describing the work has already been done.
> 
> Also, try to be a bit less condescending. You have no idea my background and I assure you that putting together a title for production doesn't even rise to my list of difficult projects.  I am also quite familiar with the "Scotty" syndrome which is on full display here.




Hey whoa whoa whoa... As I understand it, condesension implies "an attitude of patronizing superiority" and I never intedned that at all. I was simply stating that expressing a position of "not boding well for Fantasy Grounds" simply because there is a complicated process behind making a good product for the public is not very valid. It's only my opinion. I never meant to be anything other than observant.


----------



## Tom B1 (Mar 18, 2019)

Reading a full IP like a PHB or DMG seems like a big effort. Preparing a digital version of something that largely depends on other core rulebooks (such as the PHB) seems to me like it should be a lot less time-consuming. The context of the discussion was the amount of work required to enter a module vs. the cost of one. Now, I do recognize that the WotC 'modules' now seem to include splat-book content (rules for handling environments, etc) so that will bloat a full conversion. 

That said, for something where I'm likely to want to just run the module (and usually with customizations which won't be supported by the original conversion effort), $25-30 is steep on top of buying the WotC hardcover. 

I understand you get a lot of automation and press-and-magic-happens from the added integration. 

I just feel like that is largely wasted effort for DMs like me and players like I tend to DM - most of them can't be bothered to learn more than the rules directly impacting their build and even them somewhat half-heartedly, so if I make up a ruling to handle any situation at the table, my players aren't going to complain. 

The 8 hours of one person's effort to get the module in is more like what I'd be expecting and looking for (just like me prepping monster cards, studying up encounters, reading spell effects cards, etc. before I run an adventure). That sounds more like an appropriate investment of time. 

I get that a lot of people probably like all that automation (and likely testing for it too). But if it turns a module into $25-30 for an FG conversion plus buying the core rulebook material, plus buying the actual books and module in dead tree (which is where I usually start), that's a lot of $

I'd rather have 8-hour-effort module prep vs. 1 x 400-hour supplement integration. In theory, by the time you get one conversion in place, I can have 50 modules inserted. Yours has a bunch of automation and magic that's nice if you are just running the story as is and that's a matter of personal taste to say whether that's a good investment. 

The way in which I would look at it is that FG has chosen a way of integrating adventures that is more complete but also more expensive than I require or can afford. It's not exactly a disrespect to FG to say that their chosen approach is (for my purposes and budget) inferior to the cheaper and less labour intensive option and that other tools that are cheaper may be all I require where FG is the pink cadillac with chrome trim and booster rockets.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 18, 2019)

[MENTION=6879023]Tom B1[/MENTION], I'd go a different direction.

What's the point of using a VTT if you aren't actually going to use what it can do?  Having everything integrated makes the game run so much smoother.

Think about it this way.  Every time you want to make an attack on a virtual tabletop, you need to type something like /r 1d20+x.  Then you have to type the damage.  Every time.  Now multiply that by everyone sitting at the table.  It's mind numbingly slow.  Automated, and it saves massive amounts of time which you can then spend on role play and whatnot.  

Having had to suffer through one VTT Dm who refused to automate and then could barely type 30 words per minute is an experience I'd rather never repeat.

OTOH, I am finding the 600-800 man hours to be a touch inflated.  Looks like someone's protecting their job.  I mean, it's a 256 page book.  You're telling me it takse 3-4 HOURS to input one page?  What are you doing?  Typing by smoke signal?


----------



## Tom B1 (Mar 18, 2019)

I don't usually see a problem at the table, but then again the players often like to just roll a physical dice. We use voice for narrating, conversing, etc. The only typing needed is for private messages. 

I'm also not saying I'm against 'the magic' in some VTT designs. 

BUT, a) can't afford it (pretty much a deal breaker)
       b) Integration is almost always to RAW and I can't think of a campaign I've run in my last 32 years of GMing (maybe some in the 6 years before that in B/E/X) or that didn't include additional rules so often I can't use a fully integrated product as well as I can use a less integrated one in support of my games
       c) For some of the lesser supported games (Traveller for one, Spycraft/Stargate, others), there either isn't any support or there isn't complete support

Almost uniformly, as Rob Twohy explained, it takes a long time to add a new chunk of rules and associated information from a product. For homebrew, that can also be true. For me to duplicate the Player's Option version of 2E that we used to play with each cleric type or paladin type built as a separate class using Skills and Powers and then supporting the Channeling magic system... well, in most systems, that would be a crippling number of hours if the game could support it. 

So, there are my three reasons for generally not being interested in closely integrated automation. I step too far off the reservation almost every time I run a game to be effectively supported by close integration to be more than a hindrance.

I'll throw in one bonus reason: 
       d) Players inevitably want to step off the railroad in ways that break or avoid key parts of the adventure or that would require new encounters be created on the fly. That happens so often with my players, a set piece 3 Act structure or a Railroad (common in D&D modules) would never work. I always end up having to  ad hoc encounters (I can estimate and pre-prepare about 40% I think, but the other 60% are surprising in some respect). This is less true in a dungeon, but in outdoor adventures or city adventures or mysteries or chases or any number of other sorts of less railroad-ish structures, you get frequent non-standard. 

My D&D worlds tend to be more sandbox with modules giving bases of operations and some dungeons, but a lot of the stuff between base and dungeon are usually ad hoc. City stuff is heavily ad hoc. And anything not driven by me (rather than players reacting, they are taking initiative) is ad hoc. I can usually know who some of the enemies/NPCs will be, but not where or how the encounters will occur. 

So, VTT with tight integration isn't as great a benefit for me as it might be for a DM and players who just want to run dungeon delves or who want to follow railroads (however gentle) in module design. Sandbox style play is much less suited to integrated pre-made encounters.


----------



## MNblockhead (Mar 19, 2019)

I have no problem paying for content in different formats multiple times, as evidenced by the fact that I buy the non-adventure books in both dead-tree format and on D&D Beyond. 

But I would certainly appreciate a discount on the electronic format if I buy the more expensive dead-tree format. 

I realize that this is complicated by the fact that there are a number of companies selling licensed electronic versions of 5e books (D&D Beyond [i.e. Twitch/Amazon], Fantasy Grounds [SmiteWorks], and Roll20 [The Orr Group LLC]). 

Yet, Paizo faces the same challenge and they took it head on and mostly solved it. Basically, Paizo requires third-parties to integrate with the Paizo's sales system so that they can apply discounts to those who have already purchased Paizo material. It caused a lot of pain to some smaller developers like Lone Wolf Development (has held up the release of the RealmWorks Content Market), but the result will be that Paizo customers will be able to get discounts on Paizo content they already bought when they buy the content in another format from a third party. 

Maybe the WotC team looked at it and couldn't make the business case to justify the cost of developing a similar system for DnD to their Hasbro overlords.  Don't know, but rewarding customers who repurchase their content in multiple forms is possible if WotC had the will/permission to do it.


----------



## Rob Twohy (Mar 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=6879023]Tom B1[/MENTION], I'd go a different direction.
> 
> What's the point of using a VTT if you aren't actually going to use what it can do?  Having everything integrated makes the game run so much smoother.
> 
> ...




As happens on INTERNET, numbers are being hyperbolized. I said 400-600 not 600-800. And there's much more things than just copying and pasting, so yes, I've done these conversion, granted mine were much smaller, but Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron took me about 120 hours and it's pretty lore heavy, no combat encounters, only one NPC, etc.


----------



## Rob Twohy (Mar 19, 2019)

Tom B1 said:


> Reading a full IP like a PHB or DMG seems like a big effort. Preparing a digital version of something that largely depends on other core rulebooks (such as the PHB) seems to me like it should be a lot less time-consuming. The context of the discussion was the amount of work required to enter a module vs. the cost of one. Now, I do recognize that the WotC 'modules' now seem to include splat-book content (rules for handling environments, etc) so that will bloat a full conversion.
> 
> That said, for something where I'm likely to want to just run the module (and usually with customizations which won't be supported by the original conversion effort), $25-30 is steep on top of buying the WotC hardcover.
> 
> ...




Tom B1, fair enough. But one thing to consider is that most FG users don't bother with the hard cover. Rather than that $50, they spend only $25 on the electronic version which has everything the book does (and often more). As one example, the reason I started this thread in the first place was my dissatisfaction of WotC selling us B&W maps. Both Waterdeep modules (and the upcoming Saltmarsh will) have color maps. They are the same maps, just colorized and stylized a lttle so as not to be so bland. Another example would be the Dungeon Master's Guild "Item Forge" which allows you to mix items and create new items. It's pretty cool. BEcause it's all math and algorithms, FG can do some really great stuff.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 19, 2019)

Rob Twohy said:


> As happens on INTERNET, numbers are being hyperbolized. I said 400-600 not 600-800. And there's much more things than just copying and pasting, so yes, I've done these conversion, granted mine were much smaller, but Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron took me about 120 hours and it's pretty lore heavy, no combat encounters, only one NPC, etc.




Apologies.  Sorry, missed the numbers.  

OTOH, even at 400, you're still talking almost two hours per page.  That's a LOT of time to convert.  Particularly when you're going from electronic to electronic.  

That seems very, very excessive considering that most of the conversion really is just cut and paste.  Sure, there's some linking to do, and, yes, Fantasy Ground's UI is a dinosaur and utter garbage, but, still, it shouldn't be taking about 2 hours to input a single page.


----------



## WaterRabbit (Mar 19, 2019)

I will also point out that I did in fact only do U1.  U1 with the original maps is fairly easy to recreate in Roll20 since it is all straight lines.  I didn't do anything fancy other than putting down lines using the built-in tools.  My exterior map was a hand drawn contour map, again using only the built-in tools.  However, it all works well enough to run the game.  

I know a lot of people really like the color maps for VTT, however, I don't particular care from them since they present too much visual clutter.  I really like the maps in Waterdeep: Dragon Heist because I could easily reproduce them in Roll20.  There is no need to purchase the module at all if you have easy to work with maps.

I also didn't bother with U2 for two reasons: 1) I think it is a weak adventure, and 2) my players lost to the "Smugglers" since they decided to fight them all at once and used very poor tactics.  This resulted in them being enslaved, so I transitioned them to a shipwreck scenario based upon a very old adventure called "The Red Isle" featuring Alik the Red as an undead ghost.

Here again I just used the built-in tools to draw the island and then some cave and ship parts to fill in the rest. 

The only module I have purchased for Roll20 was Curse of Strahd.  To be honest I didn't find it all that helpful except it did include some maps that were not in the book -- 2d floor plans of the castle.  Did it save some prep time? A bit.  However, I still had to import/draw lots of maps and create monsters to run the adventure.  So, I am skeptical of modules that cost more than about $10 for VTTs.


----------



## MNblockhead (Mar 20, 2019)

WaterRabbit said:


> The only module I have purchased for Roll20 was Curse of Strahd.  To be honest I didn't find it all that helpful except it did include some maps that were not in the book -- 2d floor plans of the castle.  Did it save some prep time? A bit.  However, I still had to import/draw lots of maps and create monsters to run the adventure.  So, I am skeptical of modules that cost more than about $10 for VTTs.




Huh. I'd hope that they would have all the wall tracing done so that dynamic lighting and auto-reveal, etc., would be ready to use. I would also hope that all the encounter stats and tokens would be included.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 20, 2019)

MNblockhead said:


> Huh. I'd hope that they would have all the wall tracing done so that dynamic lighting and auto-reveal, etc., would be ready to use. I would also hope that all the encounter stats and tokens would be included.




Well, Fantasy Grounds doesn't have any of those features, so, it wouldn't appear there.  However, the maps are all preset, with tokens appearing where they should and it is entirely possible to run Fantasy Grounds modules pretty much straight out of the box without any prep.  That is worth quite a bit.


----------



## HapticGoupil (Mar 22, 2019)

Where is Saltmarch in faerun ?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 22, 2019)

Haptic Vulpix said:


> Where is Saltmarch in faerun ?




Wherever you want it to be.

Anaurach.


----------



## Tom B1 (Mar 22, 2019)

Haptic Vulpix said:


> Where is Saltmarch in faerun ?




In Greyhawk, Saltmarsh canonically lies in the south of Keoland, on the coast of the Azure sea, not far from the Hool Marshes. 

Guidance in the 3.5 DMG II relating to integrating SM into Faerun suggests two options:
1) Located on the Sword Coast a few days south of Baldur's Gate
2) On the Inner Sea on the coast of Corymr or Sembia

In Eberron, it could appear as a fishing village on the coast of Khovaire, used as a gateway for expeditions to Xen'drik. 

An Eberron retheme would be a bit of fun!


----------



## Gradine (Mar 22, 2019)

Tom B1 said:


> In Eberron, it could appear as a fishing village on the coast of Khovaire, used as a gateway for expeditions to Xen'drik.
> 
> An Eberron retheme would be a bit of fun!




I, at least, will be putting Saltmarsh in Q'Barra. At least that's the plan; I'll admit to have less familiarity with the modules myself, but I expect there will be plenty of room for expansion and re-flavoring. If nothing else, Q'Barra puts the action much closer to the actual pirates.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 24, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I, at least, will be putting Saltmarsh in Q'Barra. At least that's the plan; I'll admit to have less familiarity with the modules myself, but I expect there will be plenty of room for expansion and re-flavoring. If nothing else, Q'Barra puts the action much closer to the actual pirates.



When I was sketching out a Saltmarsh and Isle of Dread game for Eberron several years ago (which I didn't end up running), I also used one of the Q'barra towns as the Saltmarsh replacement.

At this point if I wait on Goodman, I could use both of those 5E conversions plus throw in Tomb of Annihilation locations into the Q'barran jungle and really make a campaign of it.


----------



## Pete Wilkins (Apr 3, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Huh, it wasn't as hard as I thought.  The Saltmarsh map puts north to the left (boo, you are BAD people who do this.  North is the top of the page!!!) which means there's a pretty little river right between Fireshear and Luskan near the Ten Towns that would fit perfectly.




Ever see a map of Australia? North is at the bottom, compass will point south thanks to magnetic field.    I have a cartography degree and have been a professional in the field for 20 yrs.  It never HAS TO be towards the top of page as long as it's clearly identified it's acceptable.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 4, 2019)

Really?  Maps of Australia are printed upside down?  So that Tasmania (for example) is at the top of the map?  

Google image appears to be lying to me.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 4, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Really?  Maps of Australia are printed upside down?  So that Tasmania (for example) is at the top of the map?



Occasionally as a lark.

But not really, no. I've never seen such a thing except as a joke. (I have a colleague who has an Arno Peters-projection map with south at the top stuck to his office door, which I take to be a political statement rather than a joke, but obviously it's got more than just Australia on it!)


----------



## Hussar (Apr 4, 2019)

Yeah, I figured that.  I've never once seen a professionally published map that didn't put north on the top of the page.  That's how you make maps.  For some bizarre reason though, fantasy cartographers figure that you can aim that compass rose in any direction and it's perfectly fine.  Annoys the crap out of me.


----------



## WaterRabbit (Apr 4, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, I figured that.  I've never once seen a professionally published map that didn't put north on the top of the page.  That's how you make maps.  For some bizarre reason though, fantasy cartographers figure that you can aim that compass rose in any direction and it's perfectly fine.  Annoys the crap out of me.




So this just isn't true at all.  Professionally published maps are used in all professions.  In general, the map is oriented on a page which makes most sense given the limitations of a sheet of paper.  In geology in particular (since that is where most of the professionally published maps I use are from) one alway looks for the rosette to determine direction if it is important.  Many times, the direction isn't that important compared to the relationship between objects.

If this bugs you, you might be a bit too pedantic...


----------



## Hussar (Apr 4, 2019)

Well, I dunno.  I've never seen an atlas, road map, military map, or, frankly any other real world map that didn't put north at the top of the map.  Granted it might not be exactly at the top, depending on the declination of the map, but, it's typically pretty darn close.

You're saying in geology that it's done differently?  Ok, I'll buy that.  I'm gullible.  But, for the vast majority of everyone else on the planet, north is at the top of a map.  Heck, even electronic maps, like Google Maps does it unless you're traveling in which case, they spin the map in direction of travel, just like you would doing orienteering.

Not so much pedantic as, well, adhering to the way maps have been made for the past thousand years or so in virtually every culture.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 5, 2019)

Not only have I seen published maps which don't have north at the top, I have made them.

Back in the 80s I worked as a cartographer with a small company which created street plans for estate agents. This was back when such things where still drawn by hand. The towns where aligned however fitted best into the space available.

The tendency to put north at the top is a relatively modern innovation. The whole point of drawing a compass rose on a map was to show the orientation. Some maps of Britain are still a couple of degrees off true north simply so the island fits more neatly into a rectangle.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 5, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Not only have I seen published maps which don't have north at the top, I have made them.
> 
> Back in the 80s I worked as a cartographer with a small company which created street plans for estate agents. This was back when such things where still drawn by hand. The towns where aligned however fitted best into the space available.
> 
> The tendency to put north at the top is a relatively modern innovation. The whole point of drawing a compass rose on a map was to show the orientation. Some maps of Britain are still a couple of degrees off true north simply so the island fits more neatly into a rectangle.




Most maps are always off true north really.  But, it's pretty rare to see any maps where north isn't at the top, even if it's not exactly north.  

Put it another way, it's really, really odd to see north on the left or right side of a map in the real world.  Unless the intention is that you're going to turn the map the right way up.


----------



## WaterRabbit (Apr 8, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Most maps are always off true north really.  But, it's pretty rare to see any maps where north isn't at the top, even if it's not exactly north.
> 
> Put it another way, it's really, really odd to see north on the left or right side of a map in the real world.  Unless the intention is that you're going to turn the map the right way up.




I guess that polar projections really give you fits.   Transverse Mercator projection might be nightmare inducing event if you ever saw one.  McArthur's Universal Corrective Map of the World would probably cause your brain to seize.  

I think you are too caught up in the orientation of the map. If we ever have a magnetic flip in our lifetime your whole world would be turned upside-down. 

A map is just a compact means of communicating spatial relationships.  Different orientations serve different purposes.

For example:

"The New York City Department of Transportation places pedestrian friendly maps around the city with the orientation rotated to be “heads-up” or forward-facing so that viewers are facing the map in the same direction they standing for readability. This helps pedestrians to better orient themselves in relationship to the landmarks on the map and to better navigate the city." from geolounge.com

For D&D, most maps have to fit on a standard sheet of paper and a North orientation toward the narrow edge doesn't work for many situations.

However, where orientation really matters is in computer games.  It does bug me when an interior cell has a different orientation than the exterior cell.  So if I enter a building from a west door, but in the interior the door is now on the "north", well that is irritating.  It just means the person that designed the space wasn't paying attention to the details.


----------



## Nebulous (Apr 8, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> I think the only way to make everyone happy is to include both black and white and colour versions of each map.




Yes I agree.  I'm not a fan of the black and white at all, although since many people are, I would love to see both parties helped.  If WotC sold digital color map packs I would pay extra.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 9, 2019)

WaterRabbit said:


> I guess that polar projections really give you fits.   Transverse Mercator projection might be nightmare inducing event if you ever saw one.  McArthur's Universal Corrective Map of the World would probably cause your brain to seize.
> 
> I think you are too caught up in the orientation of the map. If we ever have a magnetic flip in our lifetime your whole world would be turned upside-down.
> 
> ...




And, yet, even with a transverse mercator projection, north is STILL at the top and south is STILL at the bottom.  

And, while your maps are oriented for your pedestrians, the original map that these maps are based on are STILL north to the top.  Just because you turn the map doesn't really matter.

I cannot believe I'm actually arguing this.  It's ludicrous.  Just because there are occasional maps that might not be north to the top, it's pretty much standard to put north to the top.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 9, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Most maps are always off true north really.  But, it's pretty rare to see any maps where north isn't at the top, even if it's not exactly north.
> 
> Put it another way, it's really, really odd to see north on the left or right side of a map in the real world.  Unless the intention is that you're going to turn the map the right way up.




It was a consequence of the discovery of the magnetic compass*. Prior to that most maps put east at the top, as it was the direction of sunrise.

Given that most D&D settings haven't firmly established that they have a magnetic north that (to some extent) co-insides with geographic north (and our magnetic north is on the move) there is no reason to make that the preferred direction.

Whoever, it is something all map makers understand to be a convention, not a rule. If it was a rule they would long ago stopped drawing map roses to indicate the direction of north, since everyone would know it was at the top without needing to be shown.

*footnote: by people living in the northern hemisphere. If it had been discovered in the southern hemisphere, we would say that a compass points due south.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 9, 2019)

Sigh.

Really, really, really don't care why.  Nor do I care about hypothetical histories.  

What I do care about is when modules place their maps at 90 degrees off what it should be, it makes reading the map much more difficult and much easier to confuse.  Because, not only is the DM living in the 21st century and is used to nearly all maps being drawn one way, but, every player sitting at the table is accustomed to maps being drawn the same way.

You can talk about it being a custom or whatever, all you like.  It really doesn't matter.  RPG maps are meant to be used.  They are part of the game.  Anything that makes them harder to use is bad.  

And, funnily enough, if you look at sites like, say, cartographersguild, you'll see thousands and thousands of fantasy maps.  You know what virtually all of them have in common?  Nearly all of them put north at the top of the map.  

Spinning maps just to be "different" or "edgy" or "fantasy" is flat out pointless.  Particularly when, again, 99% of D&D maps put north at the top.  

Heck, there are many, many maps out there that don't have a compass rose on them.  Guess what?  They orient North to the top.  

Like I said, before this entire, frankly pointless sidebar started, I really wish module makers would follow convention and not try to be "artsy" or whatever the heck they're trying to accomplish.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 9, 2019)

The thing is, it doesn't _matter_ which way is north. You could just as easily call the compass directions Igle, Skwigle, Diggle and Miggle. All that matters is where things are in relation to the other things on the map.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 9, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> The thing is, it doesn't _matter_ which way is north. You could just as easily call the compass directions Igle, Skwigle, Diggle and Miggle. All that matters is where things are in relation to the other things on the map.




True for doing orientation.  Not so true when running a game.  The players are doing a dungeon crawl.  You are describing the room.  The standard way of doing that is through compass points-  there's a door in the west wall, there's a mural on the north wall, etc.  Now, with a map that is rotated 90 degrees, you have to remember, every single time you look at that map, unlike the 10000 other maps that you've seen, this one is different.  You have to remember that this one, unlike all the other ones, puts north to the left, so, now, all your room descriptions have to take that into account.

It makes using the map a lot more difficult, mostly because the other 99% of the maps you will use in D&D will orient north at the top.  

Are we talking about different things here?  Because, I'm talking about using maps in D&D during play.  That's all I'm talking about.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 9, 2019)

Why not simply rename your compass points Top, Left, Bottom and Right then, if you find it so difficult?


----------



## WaterRabbit (Apr 9, 2019)

Hussar said:


> True for doing orientation.  Not so true when running a game.  The players are doing a dungeon crawl.  You are describing the room.  The standard way of doing that is through compass points-  there's a door in the west wall, there's a mural on the north wall, etc.  Now, with a map that is rotated 90 degrees, you have to remember, every single time you look at that map, unlike the 10000 other maps that you've seen, this one is different.  You have to remember that this one, unlike all the other ones, puts north to the left, so, now, all your room descriptions have to take that into account.
> 
> It makes using the map a lot more difficult, mostly because the other 99% of the maps you will use in D&D will orient north at the top.
> 
> Are we talking about different things here?  Because, I'm talking about using maps in D&D during play.  That's all I'm talking about.




So to summarize your responses it is about pedantry  -- yours in particular.  "The standard way of doing..." this is pedantic. But not only pedantic, it is not correct.  In my 40 years of playing D&D no DM has used compass directions in any sort of standard.  Why? Because they aren't that useful in a dungeon.  The most common in my personal experience is "To your left you see" "To your right is a" "Across the room or opposite".  With VTTs the players generally have zero idea of compass direction because none of them are actually mapping the area.

Maps are generally drawn for practical reasons not artsy ones as you put it.  Sometimes it is inconvenient to have the north side of the map on the short edge of the paper.  The map maker generally assumes that the reader is smart enough that they can turn the map in whatever orientation the find most useful.

You are so caught up in this convention that it has become a straight-jacket to your thoughts.


----------



## Gradine (Apr 9, 2019)

Yeah, unless one of my PCs specifically had some kind of direction sense I would never use cardinal directions in describing locations/dungeons. I would always use positional.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Apr 9, 2019)

We always mark north on the maps.  Easier that way.


----------



## MNblockhead (Apr 9, 2019)

Have to say I'm with Hussar here. While I enjoy the discussion on the history and philosophy related to cartography, ultimately this is a game.  As a DM I appreciate designers who make their adventures easier for me to run. Changing orientations from one map to another, is annoying.  A small annoyance but one that is easily addressed. Artistic decisions regarding layout and in-game fluff should not come at the expense of playability. At least not with a mass-consumer game like D&D. 

I mean, we can argue about whether color or B&W is more useful for DM (will likely depend if they are using VTTs or not) but is putting North at the top of the map really that controversial?


----------



## MNblockhead (Apr 9, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Yeah, unless one of my PCs specifically had some kind of direction sense I would never use cardinal directions in describing locations/dungeons. I would always use positional.




Hmm... I always assume all characters, who are supposedly rugged adventurers, have basic direction sense and describe their surrounding accordingly. Now there may be some more complex underground location or other confusing location that will require special skills or feats or tools to determine direction, but otherwise I find it easier to use cardinal direction instead of assuming all characters enter and stand in an area in the same position. 

I find there is much more confusion if I use "left" and "right" than if I use cardinal directions.  If I'm specifically addressing a single character, I might use left/right but just as often use clock face. 

Then again, half of my players have military experience and some are still outdoorsmen. 

Perhaps it depends on the group, but in my experience, most players don't have any issue using cardinal directions, so long as everyone is clear on where "north" is.


----------



## Beleriphon (Apr 9, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Apologies.  Sorry, missed the numbers.
> 
> OTOH, even at 400, you're still talking almost two hours per page.  That's a LOT of time to convert.  Particularly when you're going from electronic to electronic.
> 
> That seems very, very excessive considering that most of the conversion really is just cut and paste.  Sure, there's some linking to do, and, yes, Fantasy Ground's UI is a dinosaur and utter garbage, but, still, it shouldn't be taking about 2 hours to input a single page.




Automation creates bugs. Links aren't always right the first time. So first pass through is at most half of the time quoted. Then there's the editing, and testing. That takes a long time to test everything.


----------



## Zardnaar (Apr 9, 2019)

Might have to by this. Naval themed/island adventures are a weak spot.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 9, 2019)

I wonder if this is related to groups that don't do a lot of mapping during play.  Left, right, ahead, (never minding, Top and Bottom) would be incredibly frustrating to the mapper.  

But, as [MENTION=6796661]MNblockhead[/MENTION] says, maybe it's just an experience thing.  My group also has a fair bit of military background, so it seems pretty natural to put north at the top of the map.

Heh.  Right as I type this, I'm looking at the weather map for today on TV.  Funnily enough, it's oriented north to the top.    Every time I use Google Maps, it's oriented north to the top.  Every single map of Canada I've ever seen, going back centuries, is oriented north to the top.

North to the top has been the standard for centuries now.  It's pretty ubiquitous.  

Heck, rolling this back around to Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, the town in the three modules was never mapped.  It's not like there's any sort of canon or tradition here.  You were instructed by the original module to make your own map.  So, why make a map that it automatically harder to use at the table?

Player:  Where is the general store?
DM:  It's in the west end of the town, next to the Color Animal Inn.
Player:  Huh?  The Color Animal Inn is in the North isn't it?  
DM:  Oh, right.  North end of the map.  

Wash, rinse, repeat.  Yuck.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 10, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I wonder if this is related to groups that don't do a lot of mapping during play.  Left, right, ahead, (never minding, Top and Bottom) would be incredibly frustrating to the mapper.
> 
> But, as [MENTION=6796661]MNblockhead[/MENTION] says, maybe it's just an experience thing.  My group also has a fair bit of military background, so it seems pretty natural to put north at the top of the map.
> 
> ...




Actually, it was mapped in the 3.5 DMG2, which this map is based off: dunno what the orientation there was.

Google Maps is oriented so that the top is the direction my car is moving by default, not by North. And I have seen many, many maps on atlases using alternate set-ups.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 10, 2019)

Some brief Googling suggests that 3.5 Saltmarsh was, in fact, mapped with East on top:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/d20worldofgreyhawk/campaign-maps-t6267.html#.VS5mhPnF98E


----------



## MNblockhead (Apr 10, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Actually, it was mapped in the 3.5 DMG2, which this map is based off: dunno what the orientation there was.
> 
> Google Maps is oriented so that the top is the direction my car is moving by default, not by North. And I have seen many, many maps on atlases using alternate set-ups.




That is only when you are in navigation mode. If you are simply searching for a location or directions from point A to B, the orientation of Google Maps is always the same in Satellite and Map modes. North is on the top of your screen, and south is on the bottom.

While North at top may be "new" when looking across history, it is safe to say the that for pretty much everyone living today, the vast majority of maps they have seen put north at top to point that this is expected. Will increasing use of mobile navigation devices and apps change this? Maybe. But if you are dealing with a static image on print or in a VTT, it behooves the creators to use N-at-top orientation to increase ease of use for most customers.


----------



## WaterRabbit (Apr 10, 2019)

MNblockhead said:


> But if you are dealing with a static image on print or in a VTT, it behooves the creators to use N-at-top orientation to increase ease of use for most customers.




Disagree. I behooves the creators to make the most effective presentation not necessarily bowing to blind convention.  Maybe those of us that grew up with print being the most common medium don't really see this as an issue since changing the orientation of a map is trivial (just rotate the page).  Maybe for those who grew up in the digital it seems a much bigger deal since it is more difficult to rotate an image (like two mouse clicks depending on the view software).


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2019)

WaterRabbit said:


> Disagree. I behooves the creators to make the most effective presentation not necessarily bowing to blind convention.  Maybe those of us that grew up with print being the most common medium don't really see this as an issue since changing the orientation of a map is trivial (just rotate the page).  Maybe for those who grew up in the digital it seems a much bigger deal since it is more difficult to rotate an image (like two mouse clicks depending on the view software).




So, you have to rotate your 200 page (ish) book every time you want to use a map properly and that's "bowing to blind convention"?  

Again, NEARLY EVERY print map you've ever used in your entire life has put north on the top of the map.  And, note, sure, I can just reorient the map, but, in the print product, that's a bit more difficult.

You must not use a lot of 45 degree bends if you only give directions like left and right.

DM:  The corridor T's ahead of you, left and right.

Player:  So, East and West?

DM:  No, remember, North is to the left of your map.

Player, Ok, so, North and South.

DM:  No, it's not quite a right turn.  It's a soft turn in each direction.

Player:  So, Northwest... or, sorry, right, north is to the left, so, northeast and southeast?

DM:  Yes, that's right.  

Player:  Ok, we head down the northwe... I mean northea... I mean left corridor.  

Again, no thanks.  Draw the map properly in the first place and there's no problem.  You can call it "blind convention" all you like, but, well, it's been that way for about five hundred years.  At that point, it's not just convention, it's how it's supposed to be done.  And, it's done that way so that everyone who looks at the map immediately knows how to orient it, even maps without a compass rose on them.  My paper provincial map of Ontario doesn't have a compass rose on it, yet, I automatically know how to orient the map.  My google map searches automatically orient north to the top, so, that I don't have to hunt down which way that map is oriented.  I can assume, because maps are drawn north to the top, that north is, in fact, on the top of the map.

There's a word for "blind convention" that I'm not sure you're aware of.  It's called standardization.  Heck, a meter is just a "blind convention" too, and so is a yard or a pound or a kilogram or virtually any other measurement.  Yet, funnily enough, a kilogram is the same everywhere in the world.  

I guess we should not follow standards and have to learn new ones every time.  

-------- Edit to add

Oh, yeah, let's not forget, when we rotate the map 90 degrees, all the text on the map rotates as well.  Meaning that the map now looks like crap because everything written on the map is oriented wrong.  So much for all that work making a beautiful map.  In actual use, your map looks bad and everyone reading your map is cocking their head to one side, looking like a confused Labrador. 

Draw it right the first time and all these problems go away.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 11, 2019)

If you want to be realistic in your descriptions, then you have to assume that the characters will generally have no idea which direction north is, so directions should be described relative to the current facing. This is what most sat nav aps do - they put the current direction of travel at the top of the map, not north. Even before smartphones, most people rotated road maps to put "ahead" at the top. If you ask for directions around a town, people will give directions in terms of street names, left and right and major landmarks (pubs, mostly). They make no mention of compass points.

If you are navigating in the wilderness or at sea, then you will need to use bearings. Compass points simply aren't precise enough.

Oh, and which direction would you consider "correct" for the galaxy map in a science fiction RPG?

"Second star to the right, and straight on till morning."
- Peter Pan/Star Trek


----------



## sim-h (Apr 11, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> If you want to be realistic in your descriptions, then you have to assume that the characters will generally have no idea which direction north is




I'd say the opposite is true. Sun rises in the east and sets in the west (or equivalent, in any homebrew world). Because of that, you have a general idea which way is north, even in unfamiliar locations.

If you've been somewhere for a day or even a few hours, you know for sure which way is north.

Maps are easier to use if north is at the top. I don't see it as a horrendous issue - but certainly an irritation.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 11, 2019)

Go up to someone in the street and ask them which way north is then! I bet they either won't be able to tell you or take several minutes to work it out.

"The direction the Sun rises" isn't very helpful to anyone who lives in a town (or a long way north or south of the equator).


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 11, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Go up to someone in the street and ask them which way north is then! I bet they either won't be able to tell you or take several minutes to work it out.
> 
> "The direction the Sun rises" isn't very helpful to anyone who lives in a town (or a long way north or south of the equator).




Someone in the street in 21st century America or Europe, maybe; somebody on the street in a Medieval world, they know where North is. Rangers, Barbarians, Druids, Wizards, Clerics, etc. will know the cardinal directions for sure, and really anybody in a society like that.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 11, 2019)

Is this thread seriously still debating the map orientation question?

Is it slightly more difficult to interpret?  Sure.  By about the same amount as, say, putting a parchment background behind text, or using flavorful typefaces.

Maybe RPGs should all be published exclusively in black Times on white backgrounds so that no extra neurons will be required to utilize them.

I like the sideways map.  Reminds me of the Erebor map in the Hobbit.  If every now and then I say, "Oh, right, that's East, not North" that ranks 3,478th on my list of problems.  

And a Lich ain't one.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 11, 2019)

Are we also forgetting that this map is in a book and most D&D manuals are printed with vertical orientation, so that printing a horizontally-aligned map would require either being a smaller 1/2 page map or a larger two page spread?

I'll take an East oriented map over losing a page to a double spread city map or a half-sized harder to read one.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 11, 2019)

I was reading an article on Aphantasia the other day https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47830256 and I have just realised I do something that I hadn't really been aware of. I create a mental image of a map and can rotate it in my minds eye to any orientation. Thus changing the direction of north doesn't even cause me to hesitate. However, if someone had Aphantasia (and it's apparently not all that uncommon, affecting about one in 50) they would be unable to have a mental image of the map, and so would be unable to mentally reorient it.


----------



## WaterRabbit (Apr 11, 2019)

Hussar said:


> So, you have to rotate your 200 page (ish) book every time you want to use a map properly and that's "bowing to blind convention"?
> 
> Again, NEARLY EVERY print map you've ever used in your entire life has put north on the top of the map.  And, note, sure, I can just reorient the map, but, in the print product, that's a bit more difficult.
> 
> ...




You must write copy for infomercials! Lol. Take something trivial to do make make it seem really really difficult.

If you have a paper map -- you know the most common form of map in the last 500 years, there is no "top".  Google maps has created this expectation more than anything.

Blind convention is doing something without thought because everyone else does it.  Again, you are being pedantic.  Your are trying to create absurd scenarios to try and proved your silly point.  A map's usefulness does not require it to be orientated in a particular fashion.  The information on the map is what is important.

Your argument about the map in Saltmarsh focuses on the trivial and the shallow.  You apparently aren't concerned if the map conveys the information necessary to run the module effectively -- just that it is in the wrong orientation.  It is the same trivial and shallow argument about whether the map is in color or not.

I want a map that conveys the information I need as a DM to run the game effectively.  The map helps me understand the spatial/temporal relationship between objects.  Literally the least important information to me is the arbitrary location of the compass directions.  For the Saltmarsh maps you could just pick any side of the map you like and label it north as it is totally irrelevant to running the module.  It is especially relevant if you home the city into your own campaign where its orientation may or may not coincide with its new location.

The point you are trying to make is absurd precisely because it is so irrelevant.  Apparently this is a religious matter for you or something.

For important maps, orientation is important.  As a geologist it is important to have maps provide precise orientation -- not just of the magnetic north but also magnetic declination so one can adjust their compass.   

However, for D&D, such precision is not needed.  In fact most of my D&D maps don't even bother with compass directions as they just aren't relevant -- especially if the campaign is set before Renaissance level technology.

As a side note: Your 500 year timescale is not correct.  It was the invention of the marine chronometer (1761) that brought about the beginning of map standardization.   The convention that you so ardently adhere was not so ingrained into people when I was growing up, so we are really only taking about a 50 year period where people started publishing maps consistently with north towards the top of the page.  However, you could also say the same for the mercator projection.  It is useful for a large number of applications, but if that is the only projection you are willing to work with it is inherently self-limiting.


----------



## MNblockhead (Apr 11, 2019)

I is weird for me to read folks actually arguing that most people in a pre-modern era wouldn't know which way north is. I would think that the opposite is true, especially for a time when roads were less uniform and where you would often have to travel off road. 

In any event, this goes into my "pet peeve" bucket. As long as there is a compass rose to indicate directions, I can live with north being down or wherever. 

But I have to push back at those saying that expecting and preferring adherence to some standards in a gaming product is somehow blind adherence to unnecessary rules that harm art. Yes, I like beautiful adventure books and beautiful maps, but not at the expense of usefulness at the table. 

In a large adventure book that I mostly like, I'll overlook the occasional difficult to use map.  But I might pass up on a map pack or individual map purchase that sacrifices usability in the name of novelty or the creators artistic vision. 

And, since someone mentioned fonts, yes, there are some beautiful fonts that I would not want used because they make the material more difficult to read.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> Is this thread seriously still debating the map orientation question?
> 
> Is it slightly more difficult to interpret?  Sure.  By about the same amount as, say, putting a parchment background behind text, or using flavorful typefaces.
> 
> ...




Heh, Times is an ugly font that would turn me off of any map.  

And, yeah, you want to use those fancy squirrely fonts?  Make it hard to read?  Next map please.  

The point of a map is to be used.  Particularly a map for D&D.  It's not an art piece only.  It has to be functional.  Which means anything that makes it harder to use is bad.  Thus, randomly choosing a compass rose to point to the left, using hard to read fonts, using odd parchment colors that bleed into the map itself, are all examples of poor map design.

  [MENTION=2445]WaterRabbit[/MENTION], I'm frankly rather surprised that you are arguing so vehemently on this to be honest.  Yes, there is a top of a map.  Because maps often have writing on them and the writing is oriented to the top of the paper.  Which, virtually always, is north (or close enough to north anyway).  Which has been done for virtually all maps for the past 500 years.  Heck a quick Google search of 16th century maps proves that.  Maps are a pet thing for me.  I love maps.  I spend far too much time perusing old map collections because it's a bit of a hobby.  

You know what I don't see in all those collections?  Maps with north to the left of the page.    In all the years I was in the army, never saw that either.  We used grid coordinate maps, down to a 100 meter square, and yet, the maps were always oriented north to the top (or close enough).  When using a paper map when orienteering, you orient your map so that the map follows the compass, not the direction of travel, which means the top of your map will almost always point north.  When using a chart on a ship, you don't rotate your map in the direction of travel.

True, car navigation does do that, mostly because you're limited to a very small screen and partially for convenience.  And, yup, my navi says, Turn left or Turn Right, and, guess what?  When you live in a country which has spaghetti for roads, it's incredibly confusing.  When you have five or six roads coming into the same intersection, and the navi says, "turn right", it's pretty hard to know what to do without looking at the map.  Sure, Americans and Canadians have it easy.  Your cities are square.  Virtually all intersections are at 90 degrees.  No problems.  In countries without gridded cities, navies get a whole lot more difficult to use.

-----

HOLY CRAP!.  I have read the Hobbit I don't know how many times.  Lots.  I never, ever realized that the map was screwed up.  It never occurred to me that north wasn't to the top of the page.  Yeah, I know it says, "West blah blah blah" and so on, but, it never actually registered in my head.  Yikes.  Welp.  Learn something new every day.


----------



## SkidAce (Apr 12, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> Are we also forgetting that this map is in a book and most D&D manuals are printed with vertical orientation, so that printing a horizontally-aligned map would require either being a smaller 1/2 page map or a larger two page spread?
> 
> I'll take an East oriented map over losing a page to a double spread city map or a half-sized harder to read one.




Quoted for truth.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2019)

We'll have to see.  Likely, since the adventure isn't in the town, and the town never actually really mattered in the adventure, it's a half page map.  That would be my bet.

However, look at the image.  The image is sized to be on a single page.  It's tall and skinny, not wide.  There's no way that's a two page spread.  That's a single page spread map with a wonky compass rose.

Just to remind folks, here's the image:






There's no way that's a 2 page spread map.  It simply can't be.  Unless they then turn the map 90 degrees to put north at the top and make all the text the wrong way.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 12, 2019)

It's absolutely fine for me like that (although I would also want a player map without numbers). If you find it difficult relocate it to an east coast and ignore the rose.

If you wanted to locate it on a west coast (e.g. Sword Coast) you could rote it 180 degrees or reflect it (easy enough to do on a computer).

I can read sideways, backwards or upside down - probably because I'm dyslexic, but assuming there is an unlabelled player map you can always write on the key in the orientation of your choice.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> It's absolutely fine for me like that (although I would also want a player map without numbers). If you find it difficult relocate it to an east coast and ignore the rose.
> 
> If you wanted to locate it on a west coast (e.g. Sword Coast) you could rote it 180 degrees or reflect it (easy enough to do on a computer).
> 
> I can read sideways, backwards or upside down - probably because I'm dyslexic, but assuming there is an unlabelled player map you can always write on the key in the orientation of your choice.




Heh.  Missing the point.  Every single boxed text description in the town will be oriented with that map.  Presuming there is.  Which means that I'll have to rewrite all of that as well.  

Look, sure, it's not the end of the world.  It really isn't.  But, it's such a pointless thing to do.  That map is oriented north to the top.  There is no reason for that map to to be that shape and not be oriented that way.  The only reason the artist did this was to be "artsy".  It's not.  It's a pointlessly annoying thing to do that makes the product harder to use.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 12, 2019)

I very much doubt their will be any boxed text descriptions in town referring to compass points. Both for the reason I mention - normal people don't talk in terms of compass directions - and the reason you mention - the adventure doesn't happen in the town in any case.


----------



## smbakeresq (Apr 12, 2019)

I played this when it first came out 35 years ago, all three modules.  A few notes:

1.  It was extremely popular due to being very “believable” if you know what a mean.

2.  If you played well you get a ship, a pseudo-dragon, and a aquatic elf friend, what more could you want.

3.  The locations all fit perfectly with the theme, as opposed to a standard location shoehorned in.

4.  Water - it’s hard to have a boring adventure when water is involved.  DMs take your players under water, over water or even into frozen water (extreme cold areas,) environments make great adventures.

5.  Plot “twists.”  Everyone knows that the sleepy village is crooked, it’s a standard idea and the adventure is titles “The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh.”  That’s ok because the series delivered the twists in the right way.


I can’t emphasize how big the ship was when we got it in the original adventure, all we did was sail that thing all over Greyhawk or get it out of trouble when we sent it out on trading missions while we were adventuring inland.  Must have had 50+ crew members die, but somehow the Captain and First Mate always survived 

By the time we got through with Lolth the boat was all patches but we still had it.  A group member built a wooden ship model to use with lead minis, (yes that’s toxic lead minis we used back then.)


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 12, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Heh.  Missing the point.  Every single boxed text description in the town will be oriented with that map.  Presuming there is.  Which means that I'll have to rewrite all of that as well.
> 
> Look, sure, it's not the end of the world.  It really isn't.  But, it's such a pointless thing to do.  That map is oriented north to the top.  There is no reason for that map to to be that shape and not be oriented that way.  The only reason the artist did this was to be "artsy".  It's not.  It's a pointlessly annoying thing to do that makes the product harder to use.




Looking at the map, the issue seems to be the size of the town, which is on a Southern coast, and the desire to have a single page map. I've seen similar deviations from North on top in Rand McNally atlas books to use page space efficiently.


----------



## Istbor (Apr 12, 2019)

Looks good. Like most Published Adventures, I have never heard nor played them. So this should be all new, fresh, and exciting. 

(Played 100% homebrew since the early Aughts)


----------



## oreofox (Apr 12, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> It's absolutely fine for me like that (although I would also want a player map without numbers). If you find it difficult relocate it to an east coast and ignore the rose.
> 
> If you wanted to locate it on a west coast (e.g. Sword Coast) you could rote it 180 degrees or reflect it (easy enough to do on a computer).
> 
> I can read sideways, backwards or upside down - probably because I'm dyslexic, but assuming there is an unlabelled player map you can always write on the key in the orientation of your choice.




I am sure Mr Schley (I am pretty sure he did the map, as it looks like his map style) will have a non-numbered version for sale for a few US dollars on his website. Like the other adventures he has made maps for. However, rotating the map 90 degrees clockwise to make North at the top, will make the "Saltmarsh" and "Kingfisher River" have screwed up orientation. Unless neither are included on that particular map


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 12, 2019)

oreofox said:


> I am sure Mr Schley (I am pretty sure he did the map, as it looks like his map style) will have a non-numbered version for sale for a few US dollars on his website. Like the other adventures he has made maps for. However, rotating the map 90 degrees clockwise to make North at the top, will make the "Saltmarsh" and "Kingfisher River" have screwed up orientation. Unless neither are included on that particular map





This version is "setting agnostic", so it could be any river.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 13, 2019)

I think that [MENTION=6776240]oreofox[/MENTION] is presuming that there will be a larger area map beyond the immediate environs of Saltmarsh.  Not a terribly unreasonable assumption.

And, as far as exceptions go, such as in an atlas, I'd point out that those are real places where you kinda have to have the map a certain way, because it reflects reality.

We're talking about a fictional place that has NO canon related to it to force any particularly orientation whatsoever.  Even the 3e map is buried in a late era 3e book that very few 5e gamers would have ever seen.  It's not like they had to contradict anything to orient the map properly.

And whoever did the 3e version in the DMG 2 was wrong when they did that map as well.  Again, there was NO REASON to orient the map that way.  None.  No practical concerns, no reality, no canon to contradict.  It was done 100% to be "artsy" and different just for the sake of being different.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 13, 2019)

Then rotate the large scale map too. I think what you are failing to grasp is for most people rotating/reorentating a map is a trivial task. I'm quite happy to accept that there are some people who may find it difficult. Everyone has different abilities.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 13, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Then rotate the large scale map too. I think what you are failing to grasp is for most people rotating/reorentating a map is a trivial task. I'm quite happy to accept that there are some people who may find it difficult. Everyone has different abilities.




Yup, you're right.  Having to turn the book isn't that difficult.

What you are failing to grasp is that descriptions in the module will, very often, be oriented around cardinal points.  Read a module.  You can see many examples of it.  So, simply rotating the compass rose isn't quite as simple as you say, since, it has issues that also affect other parts of the module.

But, again, the point you are failing to grasp here, and I'm beginning to feel like I'm simply being trolled, is that there is no reason, none whatsoever, to do this in the first place.  None.  In the face of overwhelming standards, the artist, for whatever reason, decided to ignore convention.  And for what?  There's no difference.  There's no reality that needs to be described.  it's a completely fictional place that has never, not once, ever been mapped or described before.

All these justifications like trying to fit a map into a space fall apart when you realize that none of them apply.  This was a never described, fictional place.  It doesn't matter if it's on the south shore or an east shore.  Nothing changes by following convention, other than making the map easier to use. And since this is a game product, ease of use should be one of the most important criteria.

IOW, what is the justification for this?  Why have north to the left?  Give me a reason why THIS MAP, not other maps, not maps in an atlas of a real place, not geological maps, THIS MAP, ignores centuries of standards understood by people all over the world.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 13, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Yup, you're right.  Having to turn the book isn't that difficult.




I don't need to physically turn the book. I can read sideways/turn it in my head. I don't think I'm unusual in that.



> What you are failing to grasp is that descriptions in the module will, very often, be oriented around cardinal points.  Read a module.




Just had a quick flip through ToA and TFTYP. Found exactly one mention of north in a text box.





> But, again, the point you are failing to grasp here, and I'm beginning to feel like I'm simply being trolled, is that there is no reason, none whatsoever, to do this in the first place.  None.  In the face of overwhelming standards, the artist, for whatever reason, decided to ignore convention.  And for what?  There's no difference.  There's no reality that needs to be described.  it's a completely fictional place that has never, not once, ever been mapped or described before.




Sure there is - to fit it on the page. You might not consider that a very strong reason, but to the artist, who I assume like me can easily rotate it in their mind, and is perhaps unaware that some people might find it difficult, there is no strong reason _not_ to. 



> IOW, what is the justification for this?  Why have north to the left?  Give me a reason why THIS MAP, not other maps, not maps in an atlas of a real place, not geological maps, THIS MAP, ignores centuries of standards understood by people all over the world.




A reason? Perhaps, as you suggest, compass points are mentioned in the description boxes for the house in U1* (I don't remember, it is a long time since I read it). The space allocated for the town map in the design of the book was one A4 page. Such things are not easy or cheep to change. Perhaps it originally was intended to be a half page map, but the design of the book was changed later. Perhaps it was done to align it better with the Greyhawk map where it was originally located. The thing is, it doesn't need to be a _good_, _strong_ reason if the book designers aren't aware that some people might find it difficult.



*Number 4 on the map.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 13, 2019)

That’s my point. There is nothing in the original module about the layout of the town. It is literally left to the dm to design the town. As in the module TELLS you to make your own map. 

So yup has to fit in an A4 page. Great. It certainly does that. It’s perfectly scaled for that. 

Still no reason to put north in the wrong place.


----------



## SkidAce (Apr 13, 2019)

So how would you draw a town/city on a southernly facing coastline that has spread along the shore?

It would likely be wider east to west, and thus would be hard to fit on one standard page.

Rotate it so the north is to the left, and voila, lost of space to draw in the up/down length of the paper.

JMO.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 13, 2019)

Hussar said:


> That’s my point. There is nothing in the original module about the layout of the town. It is literally left to the dm to design the town. As in the module TELLS you to make your own map.
> 
> So yup has to fit in an A4 page. Great. It certainly does that. It’s perfectly scaled for that.
> 
> Still no reason to put north in the wrong place.




I believe it's from the 3.5 version. It may well have inherited the orientation from there too. I didn't even bother to map the town when I ran U1 in the 80s, but now they are hooking in a bunch of other adventures, open word style. And it's not "wrong". Conflating "unconventional" with "wrong" is a very dangerous road to start down.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 13, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> I believe it's from the 3.5 version. It may well have inherited the orientation from there too. I didn't even bother to map the town when I ran U1 in the 80s, but now they are hooking in a bunch of other adventures, open word style. And it's not "wrong". Conflating "unconventional" with "wrong" is a very dangerous road to start down.




I found that, yes, the 3.5 Saltmarsh map has this East on top orientation, and can confirm that this is following that example. And the use of space is probably the main reason. Maybe Hussar doesn't like the irreverence of North not being on top, but they would probably get way more complaints about "wasted space" on a map page.


----------



## oreofox (Apr 13, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> This version is "setting agnostic", so it could be any river.



    I am referring to this image that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] posted a few replies above mine:  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




    This map looks to be made by Mike Schley, or someone very good at replicating his map style. On this map, there are numbers within circles, and 2 names: "Saltmarsh" at the top, and "Kingfisher River" on the left side. This is typically called a "DM Map", and those circled numbers will coincide with some text within the book detailing what is in the locations the numbers are. Mr Schley normally sells high res version of both the DM Map, and a "Player Map" which doesn't have the numbers. However, they do have the names still on them. So, the "player map" version of this Saltmarsh map will still have "Saltmarsh" and "Kingfisher River" on them (if he is consistent with his previous maps). Orienting the map to have North at the top, will make it look like this:  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Turning the map screws with the name of the town, name of the river, and the distance ruler, which is also typically at the bottom of the image. It just looks stupid. Yes, this adventure is "setting agnostic", but Mr Schley still put a name to the river on the map. So it wouldn't really matter if you called it something else in your game. If you use this map, you will have to call it the Kingfisher River, edit out the name, and possibly making the map even worse, or tell your players to ignore the name. But that still leaves the lettering being messed up. A 4th option is to just ignore this map and use one of your own, which could possibly produce problems on its own.  Would it have been so hard to make the map oriented with North at the top, and then when adding it to the book, rotate it counter-clockwise to give it the "portrait" layout?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 14, 2019)

SkidAce said:


> So how would you draw a town/city on a southernly facing coastline that has spread along the shore?
> 
> It would likely be wider east to west, and thus would be hard to fit on one standard page.
> 
> ...




I wouldn't because of the physical constraints of my product.

Now, do you mean a real location in the real world?  Or a location that has been previously described in some sort of other product for a fantasy world?  In a book?   Then, sure, you have to fiddle with the scale a bit so that it fits into a portrait A4 paper.  

Easy peasy no?  

What I wouldn't do is confuse my customers by creating a map that ignores centuries of standardization in map practices.  

Maybe we should have maps where mountains are drawn as round blobs with a line pointing out of the bottom?  But, Hussar, you say, that's a tree. So what?  You can just imagine a mountain as easily as a tree.  You shouldn't be constrained by blind convention.  After all, you can just as easily imagine that this is a mountain.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 14, 2019)

oreofox said:


> Turning the map screws with the name of the town, name of the river, and the distance ruler, which is also typically at the bottom of the image. It just looks stupid.




That's the thing - I can read the writing as easily sidewise on as I can the normal way around. Turn it upside down and I can still read it. Pretty much a required skill for any school teacher!

As for "looking stupid", it doesn't matter since it's the DM's map.

Addendum: Back when I was making street plans we would stick the street names along the roads, so they could have any orientation, and we would even bend them to follow the curve of a windy road.


----------



## oreofox (Apr 14, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> That's the thing - I can read the writing as easily sidewise on as I can the normal way around. Turn it upside down and I can still read it. Pretty much a required skill for any school teacher!  As for "looking stupid", it doesn't matter since it's the DM's map.  Addendum: Back when I was making street plans we would stick the street names along the roads, so they could have any orientation, and we would even bend them to follow the curve of a windy road.



  I, too, can read it just fine sideways. But that's not the point. And you apparently didn't read the entire post. Mike Schley leaves the writing of names on both versions of his maps. DM and Player versions. Like I said in my post. Whether this particular image is the DM version or not, BOTH versions will have the names. And since this was made with East being at the top, turning the image will still have the names being sideways.  It's an aesthetic thing. Especially when it comes to using a map for VTT use. Home use wouldn't really matter, since people typically sit around a table, and the orientation will be off for many of the people at the table. But more and more games are being played over VTT, where orientation matters more. Personally, if I had my way, there would be no writing at all on any of the maps for D&D. At least, the player versions. No numbers, no names, no compass rose. Nothing. That way would be easiest to use a map. What if I want my Saltmarsh to be on a northern coast? I'd have to either rotate it 180 degrees, or flip it horizontally. Both making for bad aesthetic thanks to the writing. Maybe I like the look of the town, and would like to use it for a coastal town in a homebrew setting, but I don't have a "Saltmarsh" or a "Kingfisher River". Having a wordless map would be the best solution.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 14, 2019)

Hussar said:


> But, again, the point you are failing to grasp here, and I'm beginning to feel like I'm simply being trolled, is that there is no reason, none whatsoever, to do this in the first place.




Now that’s irony. In the same sentence that you claim no reason exists, you identify one.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 14, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> Now that’s irony. In the same sentence that you claim no reason exists, you identify one.




Mike Schley, cartography troll?


----------



## Satyrn (Apr 14, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Mike Schley, cartography troll?



Does this mean his maps are especially vulnerable to fire?


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 14, 2019)

oreofox said:


> Personally, if I had my way, there would be no writing at all on any of the maps for D&D. At least, the player versions. No numbers, no names, no compass rose. Nothing. That way would be easiest to use a map. What if I want my Saltmarsh to be on a northern coast? I'd have to either rotate it 180 degrees, or flip it horizontally. Both making for bad aesthetic thanks to the writing. Maybe I like the look of the town, and would like to use it for a coastal town in a homebrew setting, but I don't have a "Saltmarsh" or a "Kingfisher River". Having a wordless map would be the best solution.




YMMV and all, but that is the worst possible use of a map I can think of. Maps are there to provide names, scale, orientation, and (in the case of D&D maps) locations to key encounters. A textless map doesn't do any of that. 

Imagine you are reading the text of an encounter in Saltmarsh and it tells you "Old Durig can be found hiding at the Dancing Dryad (Area 47)". You want to know a few things first about this locale. Where is it? How far is it from the Wicker Goat (where the PCs are now)? What street is it on? Is it near the water or deeper inland? What direction does the PCs need to go to get there? That's all stuff the text on a map tells you easily. Without it, you'd be forced to make all that stuff up yourself (its 1.5 miles across town at the edge of the pier to the east) and the point of including said map is wasted; you could put any pretty picture there and it would have as much info.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 14, 2019)

Here, for all of you upset that the map is wrong/labelled whatever, a clean version with no names, numbers or markings of any type.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 14, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> Does this mean his maps are especially vulnerable to fire?




If you want to be a filthy metagamer, sure.


----------



## oreofox (Apr 14, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> YMMV and all, but that is the worst possible use of a map I can think of. Maps are there to provide names, scale, orientation, and (in the case of D&D maps) locations to key encounters. A textless map doesn't do any of that.   Imagine you are reading the text of an encounter in Saltmarsh and it tells you "Old Durig can be found hiding at the Dancing Dryad (Area 47)". You want to know a few things first about this locale. Where is it? How far is it from the Wicker Goat (where the PCs are now)? What street is it on? Is it near the water or deeper inland? What direction does the PCs need to go to get there? That's all stuff the text on a map tells you easily. Without it, you'd be forced to make all that stuff up yourself (its 1.5 miles across town at the edge of the pier to the east) and the point of including said map is wasted; you could put any pretty picture there and it would have as much info.



  I should have been a bit clearer about the textless map. My bad and I apologize. In an adventure book, maps with the numbers and names and all that other stuff is more than fine. And that should definitely be included. My reasoning behind wanting a textless map is there being that option available. Not everyone plays in a published world, and not every homebrew world might have room for a "Saltmarsh" or such. Maybe I like the look of a particular map (say, Phandalin), but the name of the town doesn't fit in the world, or maybe I find the name doesn't agree with me. In this example, there are many fan-made Phandalin maps with no text, but that's not always an option. So having the availability of a textless map would be great.


----------



## ddaley (Apr 14, 2019)

I love maps of any orientation... especially Mike Schley maps!


----------



## Hussar (Apr 15, 2019)

The trolling comment was for those who are so ardently defending this.  As far as Mr. Schley goes, well, I presume he wasn't given a choice in the matter since he had to follow whatever idiot decided to do that in the DMG 2.  Considering he's got dozens of maps on his website, and, oh look, every other map orients north to the top.  :wow:  :shock:  :amazement:

Basically someone made a mistake ten or so years ago when they were adding a map to the DMG2 and no one has since corrected the mistake.


----------



## ddaley (Apr 15, 2019)

Thankfully, there is a way to unsubscribe from a thread!


----------



## Azzy (Apr 15, 2019)

*headdesk*


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Apr 15, 2019)

Man what a pointless complaint. I have see maps that have directions other than North facing up. And it has never bothered me, or provided any inconvenience. 

Like I don't even get why people even want to rotate the map so that north faces up, that will just make the map uglier and provides no benefit other then making the map fit the normal standard which is not needed to read a map.



oreofox said:


> If you use this map, you will have to call it the Kingfisher River, edit out the name, and possibly making the map even worse, or tell your players to ignore the name. But that still leaves the lettering being messed up. A 4th option is to just ignore this map and use one of your own, which could possibly produce problems on its own.  Would it have been so hard to make the map oriented with North at the top, and then when adding it to the book, rotate it counter-clockwise to give it the "portrait" layout?





Or you could just leave it as is. North does not need to be up.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 15, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> Here, for all of you upset that the map is wrong/labelled whatever, a clean version with no names, numbers or markings of any type.




Ah, but the 3D effect shadows on the trees and cliffs are now wrong.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 15, 2019)

SIgh, that I could see it.  Unfortunately, Remathalis has me on ignore.  Ah well.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 15, 2019)

The shading they do on maps is actually quite odd. It's usually done as if the Sun is top-right, which is conventionally NW. This would only approximate reality on a summer evening (at least at the latitude I live). The "average" direction of the Sun in the northern hemisphere is south. You sometimes see this on Google maps, with shadows on the north side.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 15, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Ah, but the 3D effect shadows on the trees and cliffs are now wrong.



Deal with it.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 15, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Ah, but the 3D effect shadows on the trees and cliffs are now wrong.




A good argument for plain, black & white maps right there.


----------



## Satyrn (Apr 15, 2019)

Hussar said:


> SIgh, that I could see it.  Unfortunately, Remathalis has me on ignore.  Ah well.




Don't sweat it. North's now up, sure, but the enemy's gate is no longer down.


----------



## MNblockhead (Apr 15, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> A good argument for plain, black & white maps right there.




BLUE & white.  BLUE.   


Gheesh. 

;-)


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 15, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> Don't sweat it. North's now up, sure, but the enemy's gate is no longer down.



Someone can always tell him that he can open this link in an incognito/in-private window on his browser.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 16, 2019)

MNblockhead said:


> BLUE & white.  BLUE.
> 
> 
> Gheesh.
> ...




Bluescale is beautiful.


----------



## Azzy (Apr 16, 2019)

I'm sure glad that this is the _only_ time in D&D's 44-year history that they've made a map where north isn't facing up.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 16, 2019)

Azzy said:


> I'm sure glad that this is the _only_ time in D&D's 44-year history that they've made a map where north isn't facing up.




Wow, you guys sure want to beat this poor horse to death.  This all started because of a fairly innocuous nonsequitor of mine that I didn't like it when fantasy map artists don't put north to the top of the maps.  For some bizarre reason, that turned into this monstrocity of a thread.  Now, I haven't posted in here in days to disagree with anyone, and you folks are STILL going on about it.

I'll tell you what.  Go through your modules, sourcebooks, anything D&D that has a map in it.  Guess what you'll find.  About 99% of the maps are oriented north to the top and about 1% are not.  So, you can waffle on about how it doesn't matter all you like.  The fact that it's almost universal says something about having a standard which helps to prevent confusion.  

BUt, hey, what does virtually all of the artists who've ever drawn a map for D&D know?  Apparently nothing.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> BUt, hey, what does virtually all of the artists who've ever drawn a map for D&D know?  Apparently nothing.




And this is why you fail.

"Artists should take on board that some people find maps difficult if north isn't at the top" is a valid point, people might listen to it.

But as soon as you stat hurling hyperbolic insults people, including those you want to persuade, turn hostile.

"You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."


----------



## Hussar (Apr 16, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> And this is why you fail.
> 
> "Artists should take on board that some people find maps difficult if north isn't at the top" is a valid point, people might listen to it.
> 
> ...




Frankly, I honestly, and I truly mean this, had absolutely no idea that there were people out there in the world who thought that it was normal for maps not to be north to the top.  Again, 99% of the maps you will ever see in your lifetime will be done this way.  Very, very few maps are ever not drawn north to the top of the page.  And, if we limit ourselves to fantasy maps, again, virtually none of the D&D maps ever made, and there are LOTS of D&D maps, are ever drawn other than north to the top.  

But, again, this is "hyperbolic insults"?  It's hyperbolic insults to point out facts?  Seriously?  I can understand the "I don't really care" folks.  Heck, I truly understand the "I never thought about it crowd" because, well, most people don't really think about it.  It's just taken for granted.  But, we've got folks here who apparently have spent a fair bit of time perusing maps, who are arguing that this isn't a standard practice in map making.  

Again, when virtually all maps are done this way, how is it hyperbolic insults to point that out?

Look, you want me to see  the light here?  Show me an entire atlas, published in the last 2-300 years that has nearly all of its maps not oriented north to the top.  Sticking to fantasy genre, show me a single D&D product that doesn't orient its maps north to the top for either all or nearly all of its maps.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.  I shouldn't have to convince anyone of verifiable facts.  That's what facts are.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Sticking to fantasy genre, show me a single D&D product that doesn't orient its maps north to the top for either all or nearly all of its maps.
> 
> I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.  I shouldn't have to convince anyone of verifiable facts.  That's what facts are.




Sure, here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?604938-I-draw-the-occasional-D-amp-D-map

As for verifiable facts, lets examine that, shall we: Your original hypothesis: "all maps apart from this one have north at the top.": Easily shown to be false. You new hypothesis: "99% of maps have north at the top." This is clearly a case of "99% of statistics are made up on the spot". Unless you can show statistical evidence for your 99% claim, it remains hyperbole (Definition: exaggeration for dramatic effect - it's nicer than calling something a lie).

Potentially valid hypothesise would be: "most maps have north at the top" and "some people have difficulty reading maps that don't have north at the top".

As for not trying to "persuade anyone", why not? We know people associated with WotC visit these forums. If you really think it matters wouldn't it be a good idea to convince them to put north at the top in future products? Otherwise what's the point, apart from trolling?


On the whole, do you not think it might be a bad idea to try and argue maps with someone who used to have "Cartographer" in their job title, or "verifiable facts*" with someone who spent most of the rest of their career as a professional scientist?


*Footnote: There is no such thing as a "verifiable fact". It is possible to show something is false, but the closest you can get to showing something is true is to try really really hard to show it to be false and fail every time.


----------



## Azzy (Apr 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Wow, you guys sure want to beat this poor horse to death.  This all started because of a fairly innocuous nonsequitor of mine that I didn't like it when fantasy map artists don't put north to the top of the maps.  For some bizarre reason, that turned into this monstrocity of a thread.  Now, I haven't posted in here in days to disagree with anyone, and you folks are STILL going on about it.




Because hillarity ensued.



> I'll tell you what.  Go through your modules, sourcebooks, anything D&D that has a map in it.  Guess what you'll find.  About 99% of the maps are oriented north to the top and about 1% are not.  So, you can waffle on about how it doesn't matter all you like.  The fact that it's almost universal says something about having a standard which helps to prevent confusion.




And I'll bet you that they are formatted to best fit the page layout instead.



> BUt, hey, what does virtually all of the artists who've ever drawn a map for D&D know?  Apparently nothing.




Must be true for the catographers for a couple atlases that I've had, too. Who knew atlas-makers could get things sooo wrong!


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 16, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> *Footnote: There is no such thing as a "verifiable fact". It is possible to show something is false, but the closest you can get to showing something is true is to try really really hard to show it to be false and fail every time.




Epistemologically questionable position. How can you verify this to be the case...?


----------



## ddaley (Apr 16, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> *Footnote: There is no such thing as a "verifiable fact". It is possible to show something is false, but the closest you can get to showing something is true is to try really really hard to show it to be false and fail every time.




Hummm... is this a verifiable fact?


----------



## Satyrn (Apr 16, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> Someone can always tell him that he can open this link in an incognito/in-private window on his browser.




That would have to be somone not looking to make an Ender's Game reference.


Or at least someone willing to make more than the minimum effort to make such a reference.


----------



## Prakriti (Apr 16, 2019)

If this thread has convinced me of anything, it's that we need MORE maps where north=/=up, just so people will find them less scary/foreign/unusual.


----------



## smbakeresq (Apr 16, 2019)

You can also order the maps from Schley himself in some cases, they are worth it to increase size and have them separate from text.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 16, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Sure, here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?604938-I-draw-the-occasional-D-amp-D-map
> 
> /snip




LOL

Look at that thread you posted.  Virtually every single map in that thread, nearly all of them, are oriented north to the top.  Granted there's no compass rose on most of them, but, then again, lacking a compass rose, the presumption is always north to the top because that's the standard way maps are drawn.

Anyway, like I said, this has got to be the absolute weirdest conversation I've ever had on En World.  

  [MENTION=6563]Azzy[/MENTION] - you have not one, but actually multiple atlases where most of the maps in the atlas are not north to the top?  Link please?  Because, well, buddy, you found the unicorn.  I'm not saying no map is ever done that way.  I'm saying it's very, very much an outlier to not do them that way.

  [MENTION=6855149]Prakriti[/MENTION] - WTF?  Scary/foreign/unusual?  Ooookay.  

I'll note that not a single person here who is so adamant to prove me wrong has taken up my challenge.  C'mon, let's see these examples of RPG books where the majority of maps are not north to the top.  Should be easy peasy for smart folks like you.  You seem to be so sure that north to the top isn't typical or usual, so, let's get those examples rolling in.  It's easy to make unsubstantiated claims and whatnot.  Time to pee or get off the pot.  Give me a SINGLE example of an RPG product where the majority of the maps is not oriented north to the top.


----------



## WaterRabbit (Apr 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> LOL
> 
> Look at that thread you posted.  Virtually every single map in that thread, nearly all of them, are oriented north to the top.  Granted there's no compass rose on most of them, but, then again, lacking a compass rose, the presumption is always north to the top because that's the standard way maps are drawn.
> 
> ...




It's not about proving anyone right or wrong (since clearly you are prone to exaggeration).  It is that you are so adamant in your pendantry that it is redictulous.

Yes, lots of maps are oriented with North at "the top".  However, lots of maps aren't.  This "norm" you are so pedantic about is weird to anyone that studies history.  Basically it shows how pervasive Google maps are and how some people are so easily manipulated into believing "THE TRUTH" instead of accepting that not ever convention works for every application.  I would much prefer that map makers make best use of the medium and the space they have than conform to some arbitrary convention that is your personal hobgoblin.

A rosette is enough of an indicator.

Here are some ideas to chew on:

The biggest factors that contribute to north being commonly placed at the top of a map include the invention of the compass and the understanding of magnetic north and the egocentricity of society, mainly in Europe.

In the history of mapmaking, the general rule of thumb is whoever made the map is probably at the center or the top of it. 

Many cartographers show what they want to be the focus at the top of the map, and, therefore, influence the orientation of the map.

Basically your north at the top bias is just that -- a personal bias.


----------



## Azzy (Apr 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=6563]Azzy[/MENTION] - you have not one, but actually multiple atlases where most of the maps in the atlas are not north to the top?  Link please?  Because, well, buddy, you found the unicorn.  I'm not saying no map is ever done that way.  I'm saying it's very, very much an outlier to not do them that way.




Link? I'd have to scan the bloody things! If I even still had them—they're from the 80s. But, yeah, if you're so incredulous that they'd have maps of the U.S., Canada, Eutope, etc. fit the page rather than have North oriented to the top than go to a library where they may have some older atlases lying around and look at them.


----------



## Azzy (Apr 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=6563]Azzy[/MENTION] - you have not one, but actually multiple atlases where most of the maps in the atlas are not north to the top?  Link please?  Because, well, buddy, you found the unicorn.  I'm not saying no map is ever done that way.  I'm saying it's very, very much an outlier to not do them that way.




Link? I'd have to scan the bloody things! If I even still had them—they're from the 80s. But, yeah, if you're so incredulous that they'd have maps of the U.S., Canada, Eutope, etc. fit the page rather than have North oriented to the top than go to a library where they may have some older atlases lying around and look at them.


----------



## smbakeresq (Apr 16, 2019)

Try this book fellows, The World Through Maps, A History of Cartography:

https://www.google.com/search?q=the...=0ahUKEwj16f2f1tXhAhUJIKwKHcLCAkkQyNoBCJoBKAA


----------



## Hussar (Apr 16, 2019)

So you folks read books printed on a Gutenberg press huh?  The last three or four hundred years of map making apparently isn’t good enough to set the standard. 

Did it used to be different?  Sure. No argument. But, again, I’ll be waiting for your Rpg book examples. Still. 

I mean if it’s so easy to find examples then show me. I’ll gladly eat crow. Heck the one link to maps so far was 100% wrong. Look at Dyson Logos’ patreon page and you’ll see that his maps are almost always oriented the standard way. 

Are there exceptions?  Sure. I never said there weren’t. But, there’s no denying that this is the standard.


----------



## smbakeresq (Apr 17, 2019)

I love reading print books, I own several over 100+ years old.   I don’t have a Gutenberg books, I can’t afford them.  

As as standards, the vast majority have the rose oriented towards the top of the page with that being north.  If a map covers 2 pages and the book is meant to be turned to view the map then it is oriented that way.  

The creator of the map and his belief system control this however.  It doesn’t really matter unless the orientation of the map itself is trying to tell you something about the beliefs of the creator.


----------



## smbakeresq (Apr 17, 2019)

Look up Mike Schley to buy his maps from the website, I am glad I did for PoTA.


----------



## lkj (Apr 17, 2019)

I am largely uninterested in the discussion of whether the orientation of a D&D needs to be north or not . I don't mind one way or the other. Other people do mind. Sort of sums the discussion for me.

But it did get me interested in the topic of why maps through history tended to be oriented as they were. I was fascinated to discover that many maps used to have east at the top. And how compasses led to the frequent modern north orientation (as others mentioned in this thread) 

So I thought I'd share this interesting web page on the topic

https://geog.ucsb.edu/why-is-north-up-on-maps/

AD


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> LOL
> 
> Look at that thread you posted.  Virtually every single map in that thread, nearly all of them, are oriented north to the top.  Granted there's no compass rose on most of them, but, then again, lacking a compass rose, the presumption is always north to the top because that's the standard way maps are drawn.




No, they are shown without a compass rose so they can be used in whatever orientation the DM chooses - if it even matters.

The only person "presuming north is at the top" is you.


> most



You keep changing your own argument. First you say "all", then you said "99%", and now you are saying "most". "Most" I agree with. Loose the hyperbole and your argument becomes much stronger.




> Give me a SINGLE example of an RPG product where the majority of the maps is not oriented north to the top.



Challenge accepted: https://www.paizo.com/starfinder
​


----------



## Hussar (Apr 17, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> No, they are shown without a compass rose so they can be used in whatever orientation the DM chooses - if it even matters.
> 
> The only person "presuming north is at the top" is you.
> 
> ...




No, I never said all.  That would be easy to disprove since we have a map that isn't oriented north to the top right here.  That would be pretty easy to disprove no? 

But, again, look at Dyson Logos' patreon, and you'll see that all those maps are linked together as a larger map, oriented north to the top.

What I cannot for the life of me understand is what you're trying to prove.  That most maps aren't oriented north to the top?  That there isn't a standard in cartography?  What?  

Look, my only point at the beginning of all this is that it's annoying when artists decide to get cute and orient maps other than standard for no reason.  You still have not provided any reason why this specific map needs to be oriented north to the left.  You still have not shown that north to the top isn't the standard for cartography.  While the Starfinder Flip maps might not be oriented north to the top, since they're meant to be used that way, I'll bet dollars to donuts that Starfinder adventure maps ARE oriented north to the top.  That planetary maps, city maps, overland maps, all of them, will be oriented north to the top.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> No, I never said all.  That would be easy to disprove since we have a map that isn't oriented north to the top right here.  That would be pretty easy to disprove no?
> 
> But, again, look at Dyson Logos' patreon, and you'll see that all those maps are linked together as a larger map, oriented north to the top.
> 
> ...




I'm trying to prove that you are wrecking what could be a perfectly good point with ranting, hyperbole, lack of empathy and ridiculous assertions, like this one: "I'll bet dollars to donuts that Starfinder adventure maps ARE oriented north to the top." Which way is "north" in space???? (and if you want something D&D, try Planescape. Sigil is shaped something like a donut, and few of the planes it connects to have anything that could be described as "north" either.)


Now I have been known to teach Mathematics, and I have noticed that some students find the topic of "Transformations" (translation, reflection, enlargement etc) very easy, whilst others find it extremely difficult, even with aids like cut out shapes and tracing paper. There are few who fall in the middle, and the trend is the same regardless of if it is a top set or a bottom set. So I am perfectly happy to accept that you find reorienting maps difficult. But the converse is also true: there are some (many) for whom it is trivially easy, and it may not occur to them that for some people it isn't.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 17, 2019)

Whoosh. The sound of a point being missed. Meh. 

My point is and always has been, why add a confusing element to a product when there is no reason to.  

That you can turn the book is really beside the point.

And, just to add, what ranting or hyperbole?  What, that the overwhelming majority of maps, and certainly nearly all RPG maps are drawn north to the top?  How is that hyperbole?  That's just true.  Take a look at a site like cartographersguild.org if you want to see tons of gorgeous (and I do mean gorgeous) fantasy maps.  And, again, nearly all of them are oriented north to the top.  You want me to say "mostly"?  Ok, They are mostly oriented north to the top.  Really don't care since the point is, north to the top is pretty much the standard for maps and has been for a couple of hundred years at least.

Plunking down a map in an RPG product that bucks standards for absolutely no reason, is bad design.  It's different solely just to be different.  It adds nothing to the map and actually does make it (slightly) harder to use.  So, again, what is the point of having the map rose orient to the left?  What is being gained here?  

Is this a major issue?  Absolutely not.  Is it worth the amount of ink we've gone back and forth here about it?  Again, absolutely not.  

But, if you're going to accuse me of being unreasonable (ranting and hyperbole) at least have the decency to show any evidence of that.  I've been pretty even tempered here.  I've presented a mountain of proof - and I can present more if you like.  The counter evidence, apparently, is a 40 year old atlas that someone maybe remembers from childhood.    This is just so pointless.  

Well played folks.  Well played.  I bow to your superior abilities here.  A round of applause for everyone.  Well done you.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> My point is and always has been, why add a confusing element to a product when there is no reason to.




And the answer has always been: because they where not aware that it was a confusing element, since they did not themselves find it confusing, and no one had _told _them it was confusing.

But it appears you would just rather lay into someone, rather than informing them there is a problem so it can be avoided in the future.



> But, if you're going to accuse me of being unreasonable (ranting and hyperbole) at least have the decency to show any evidence of that. I've been pretty even tempered here. I've presented a mountain of proof - and I can present more if you like. The counter evidence, apparently, is a 40 year old atlas that someone maybe remembers from childhood.  This is just so pointless.




????

I think you have that backwards.

Note: a map without a compass rose is NOT evidence that north is at the top.

You so called evidence seems to be this:

1) North is defined as "the top of the map".

2) 100% of maps have the top at the top.

3) Ergo a map with a compass rose showing north on the right is wrong.


Which is valid logic stemming form a false a priori assumption.

Correct definitions of north:

1) A cardinal point of the compass, lying in the plane of the meridian and _to the left of a person facing the rising sun_.

2) the direction in which a compass needle normally points.

I can't find any definitions of "north" that mention "the top of a map". (Or definitions of "map" that mention north being at the top for that matter).


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 17, 2019)

Some gamers are just intolerant of non-traditional orientations.


----------



## MNblockhead (Apr 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Time to pee or get off the pot.




I pee from above the pot. 

I mean, I agree with you about map orientation, but I'm not about to pee sitting on a pot. 

Which does cause me to wonder about medieval chamber-pot etiquette. Medieval wives would have had much more to complain about than their husbands leaving the seat up in the days before potty seats. 

This thread on Saltmarsh maps has giving me much more food for thought than I expected.


----------



## MNblockhead (Apr 17, 2019)

Agreed. I found it interesting that many cultures would have them oriented to the East because that is where the sun rises and were superstitious about not orienting them West, where the sun sets, because that is symbolic of death. 

The Chinese apparently always oriented them to North, partly because the Emperor and China needed to be situated on top of vassal Kingdoms, which tend to be more to the south. 

Islamic countries often had maps oriented based on the qiblah (towards Mecca). 

As far as I know, however, orienting maps North is the current international standard. 



lkj said:


> I am largely uninterested in the discussion of whether the orientation of a D&D needs to be north or not . I don't mind one way or the other. Other people do mind. Sort of sums the discussion for me.
> 
> But it did get me interested in the topic of why maps through history tended to be oriented as they were. I was fascinated to discover that many maps used to have east at the top. And how compasses led to the frequent modern north orientation (as others mentioned in this thread)
> 
> ...


----------



## Umbran (Apr 17, 2019)

*Hey, Farquhar and Hussar, chill the heck out.  You are discussing maps in a game about pretending to be elves.  There is nothing important enough here to get personal about it all.*


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 17, 2019)

Oy, I have never pretended to be an elf!

Dwarf maybe, but never an elf...


----------



## MNblockhead (Apr 17, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Oy, I have never pretended to be an elf!
> 
> Dwarf maybe, but never an elf...




Ah, a Dwarf. Explains the lack of chill. 

Hussar is a Half Orc. 

I'm the gnome who turns invisible when the argument gets too heated.


----------



## Gradine (Apr 17, 2019)

I don't know anyone will actually "win" here, but I've read every post in this thread, and I'm pretty sure that means I lost.


----------



## Satyrn (Apr 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I don't know anyone will actually "win" here, but I've read every post in this thread, and I'm pretty sure that means I lost.




It's like a game of Global Thermonuclear War.


----------



## Gradine (Apr 17, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> It's like a game of Global Thermonuclear War.




Or Diplomacy.


----------



## MNblockhead (Apr 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Or Diplomacy.




Makes me sad that you have to hyperlink "Diplomacy" so folks get the reference...


----------



## Gradine (Apr 17, 2019)

MNblockhead said:


> Makes me sad that you have to hyperlink "Diplomacy" so folks get the reference...




View attachment 105949


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 18, 2019)

I have one friend still mad from his first and only Diplomacy game from 2006. And other friends who still describe the apoplectic expression on my own face from a game in ‘90. 

I don’t understand the reference about nobody winning, though. I ALWAYS win.


----------



## SkidAce (Apr 18, 2019)

This breaks friendships also.

Supremacy


----------



## Satyrn (Apr 19, 2019)

SkidAce said:


> This breaks friendships also.
> 
> Supremacy




And of course D&D, back when we were young and would kill off a pal's PC "for fun."


----------



## WaterRabbit (Apr 29, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I'll note that not a single person here who is so adamant to prove me wrong has taken up my challenge.  C'mon, let's see these examples of RPG books where the majority of maps are not north to the top.  Should be easy peasy for smart folks like you.  You seem to be so sure that north to the top isn't typical or usual, so, let's get those examples rolling in.  It's easy to make unsubstantiated claims and whatnot.  Time to pee or get off the pot.  Give me a SINGLE example of an RPG product where the majority of the maps is not oriented north to the top.




Curse of Strahd has a significant number of maps where North is not oriented to the top of the map: Abby of St. Markovia, Castle Ravenloft all but one, Vistani Camp, Tsolenka Pass, Death House Maps.  So about 1/4 to a 1/3.  Especially for the Abby, it just would not fit on a single page without losing a lot of detail were it oriented to the top of the page.

Your majority distinction is a bit silly though as a product with a single map while the majority would not be that determinative.


----------



## ddaley (Apr 29, 2019)

This thread descended into the absurd long ago... and has nothing to do with the original purpose of the thread.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 29, 2019)

ddaley said:


> This thread descended into the absurd long ago... and has nothing to do with the original purpose of the thread.




Not just absurd, but callous.  If somebody with colorblindness was complaining about the color choices we would be sympathetic.  If somebody with poor eyesight complained about the font size we would be sympathetic.  We wouldn't argue with such people about precedent.

Hussar perhaps has not shared his particular disability, but if he has trouble with maps where north isn't at the top then we should have more sympathy.


----------



## alienux (Apr 29, 2019)

Not to derail any arguments or hostility, but I somehow missed this thread when it was first posted, and I'm pretty happy to see the use of the maps from the original modules. I still have all 3, and love this series, and I'm excited to be getting a 5E version soon.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 29, 2019)

alienux said:


> Not to derail any arguments or hostility, but I somehow missed this thread when it was first posted, and I'm pretty happy to see the use of the maps from the original modules. I still have all 3, and love this series, and I'm excited to be getting a 5E version soon.




Me, too!


----------



## Hussar (Apr 29, 2019)

WaterRabbit said:


> Curse of Strahd has a significant number of maps where North is not oriented to the top of the map: Abby of St. Markovia, Castle Ravenloft all but one, Vistani Camp, Tsolenka Pass, Death House Maps.  So about 1/4 to a 1/3.  Especially for the Abby, it just would not fit on a single page without losing a lot of detail were it oriented to the top of the page.
> 
> Your majority distinction is a bit silly though as a product with a single map while the majority would not be that determinative.




ROTFLMAO.

So, 3/4 of the maps are oriented north to the top, but, that's apparently not a majority?  

This has been, without a doubt, the most bizarre argument I've ever had on En World. 

You folks are arguing that despite the fact that most (as in nearly all) maps you will see for the past few hundred years, are oriented north to the top, there is no actual standard for doing this and it's not unusual to do maps that aren't north to the top.

Wow.

Hey, whatever floats your boat.  This all started from a rather off hand comment from me that I didn't like it when fantasy cartographers orient maps other than north to the top.  Particularly when they are doing it for no justifiable reason.  But, again, whatever you want boys and girls.  

I'm just sitting here, rather aghast, that this is such an important issue to folks that they'd actually defend it.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 30, 2019)

Hussar said:


> ROTFLMAO.
> 
> So, 3/4 of the maps are oriented north to the top, but, that's apparently not a majority?
> 
> ...




Is it the majority report? Sure, but it is not absolute. Hence why the maps indicate which direction is North, because without the legend it could be anywhere.


----------



## Scott Graves (May 1, 2019)

Not to add another lash to this dead horse but does it really matter which way is north on every single map? I can't think of the last time a PC said "which way is north". Mostly they ask about how evil and powerful do the monsters look. The shadows don't generally matter.


----------



## MNblockhead (May 1, 2019)

Scott Graves said:


> Not to add another lash to this dead horse but does it really matter which way is north on every single map? I can't think of the last time a PC said "which way is north". Mostly they ask about how evil and powerful do the monsters look. The shadows don't generally matter.




YTMV (your table may vary), but I use cardinal directions all-of-the-time. 

Sure, I'll often start with "you open the door and across the room you see a large tapestry covering the wall. To your left is a closed door. To the right are the splintered remains of a dining table and chairs."

But as the players enter the room and start moving around, esp if there is combat, we'll often have to go resort to cardinal directions. I'm not interested in tracking facing for each character and customizing directions based on that character's facing unless there is an especially dramatic reason to do so.


----------



## Hussar (May 1, 2019)

At the risk of opening this can of worms again, my point always was, if there is no particular reason for north to be in a particular direction, then, on maps, by and large, north is the top of the page.

Further, I complained that I found it annoying when fantasy cartographers do things like this town map and slap a north to the left compass rose on it, for no reason other than just to be different.  It's not like this particular town was already mapped or that it was located in such a location that it needed to be oriented on the south shore.  The town was never mapped in the original modules and the 3e map in on of the later books (DMG II?) was a good example of a cartographer doing this just to be different.

It's not like it's a cardinal sin or it makes the supplement unusable or anything like that.  It's simply a proud nail sort of pet peeve that apparently I'm a horrible person for having.   

Shame on me I guess...


----------



## LordEntrails (May 1, 2019)

Let it go folks,please just let it die. You know that yogurt has been sitting out in the sun for 3 weeks. You know it's still sealed, but you know you don't want to open it. Please, just don't. I'm begging you!


----------



## Prakriti (May 1, 2019)

Hussar said:


> At the risk of opening this can of worms again, my point always was, if there is no particular reason for north to be in a particular direction, then, on maps, by and large, north is the top of the page.
> 
> Further, I complained that I found it annoying when fantasy cartographers do things like this town map and slap a north to the left compass rose on it, for no reason other than just to be different.



Yeah, it's a fair complaint. Sorry I hassled you over it. 

If it's any consolation, I'm also one of those people who like THAC0 and descending AC. Counterintuitive systems are just my thing, I guess.


----------



## Scott Graves (May 1, 2019)

Hussar said:


> At the risk of opening this can of worms again, my point always was, if there is no particular reason for north to be in a particular direction, then, on maps, by and large, north is the top of the page.
> 
> Further, I complained that I found it annoying when fantasy cartographers do things like this town map and slap a north to the left compass rose on it, for no reason other than just to be different.  It's not like this particular town was already mapped or that it was located in such a location that it needed to be oriented on the south shore.  The town was never mapped in the original modules and the 3e map in on of the later books (DMG II?) was a good example of a cartographer doing this just to be different.
> 
> ...




I found a map for an adventure that had north pointing at a 30 degree angle across the map... I have to admit it was annoying.


----------



## ddaley (May 1, 2019)

Prakriti said:


> Yeah, it's a fair complaint. Sorry I hassled you over it.
> 
> If it's any consolation, I'm also one of those people who like THAC0 and descending AC. Counterintuitive systems are just my thing, I guess.




I miss THAC0 and the descending AC.  I also miss unbalanced classes.  I miss how fighters and clerics started out strong.  Magic Users struggled at low levels, but eventually became the most powerful class.  Each class had more purpose as well.  "Ok, we need 2 fighter types, 2 clerics, a thief and a MU..."


----------



## Dyson Logos (Apr 2, 2021)

I know I'm WAY late to this party, but if given the job to draw a large map that is much wider (East-West) than it is tall (North-South) AND that it must fit on a single page of a portrait-format book AND that it must fill the page, how would you do so while ALSO maintaining a North-is-Top orientation?

(for reference, the space we are assigned is 7" wide by 9.5" tall)


----------



## GlassJaw (Apr 2, 2021)

Dyson Logos said:


> I know I'm WAY late to this party, but if given the job to draw a large map that is much wider (East-West) than it is tall (North-South) AND that it must fit on a single page of a portrait-format book AND that it must fill the page, how would you do so while ALSO maintaining a North-is-Top orientation?



Poster map? Pull-out map? Map across 2 pages?

Maps in WotC products are already way too small. I can't image doing what you are suggesting in portrait on a single page. Only other thing I can think of is split the map in half and arrange the halves top-bottom. I don't like solution at all though.

Map across 2 pages is probably the best solution, although the binding will disrupt the map depending on print layout.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 2, 2021)

GlassJaw said:


> Poster map? Pull-out map? Map across 2 pages?



None of those are within the artist's control.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 2, 2021)

Dyson Logos said:


> I know I'm WAY late to this party, but if given the job to draw a large map that is much wider (East-West) than it is tall (North-South) AND that it must fit on a single page of a portrait-format book AND that it must fill the page, how would you do so while ALSO maintaining a North-is-Top orientation?



Man, this revival brings back memories...


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 2, 2021)

Dyson Logos said:


> I know I'm WAY late to this party, but if given the job to draw a large map that is much wider (East-West) than it is tall (North-South) AND that it must fit on a single page of a portrait-format book AND that it must fill the page, how would you do so while ALSO maintaining a North-is-Top orientation?



Split it in 2, (East and West) and stack them unless I have the option of doing a pull out so that I can have the oversized (folded) page fold out to create a double wide page with the map.


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 2, 2021)

I love the maps in Ghosts of Saltmarsh and was psyched to see decent clear maps with limited colors in this product - given how terrible many maps in the contemporary era tend to be - regardless of its cardinal directions.  Give me clean and clear grayscale or blue-tone maps over clustered colored maps any day - but the town maps themselves for Saltmarsh and the Styes are good despite using color. The old alchemist's house maps in Sinister Secret are the perfect map for an adventure and would love for them all to be that style.


----------



## Dyson Logos (Apr 2, 2021)

GlassJaw said:


> Poster map? Pull-out map? Map across 2 pages?
> 
> Map across 2 pages is probably the best solution, although the binding will disrupt the map depending on print layout.



None of these match the criteria provided - specifically the part : _AND that it must fit on a single page of a portrait-format book_

The artist/cartographer has to fill a specific size of page (9.5" tall by 7" wide), and has a specific quantity of map to fit in that space. I can't just turn in a map that doesn't fit the space I've been hired to fill.


----------



## Dyson Logos (Apr 2, 2021)

jgsugden said:


> Split it in 2, (East and West) and stack them unless I have the option of doing a pull out so that I can have the oversized (folded) page fold out to create a double wide page with the map.




Let's try the first idea (since we do not have the option to change the actual fomat of the book - we are assigned a specific page size and map).

Here's the original map (have I mentioned how excited I got when I got to add the "Tower of Zenopus" tag to this map?)





Now, if we turn it sideways, and then shrink it down so it is only 4.75 inches tall (half of the 9.5 inches we have to work with)... we get this:





Not much point in splitting it now... the whole thing fits on half the page. But we haven't filled the page we've been alloted in the layout of the book, leaving a half-page of blank space, AND reducing our pay by half, and not fulfilling the brief assigned and probably getting us fired in the process.


----------



## jasper (Apr 3, 2021)

I never understood the problem with the north not being the top of the map. But we never let the LT keep control of the map either.


----------

