Dyson's maps suck

[Melan]

I am not a fan of those maps either. There are a few which are quite good, like this one (add a few chutes and trap doors for extra connections, and it is good to go):

On the other hand, most of them are closer to "Instagram porn" - the kind of thing that gets a lot of likes on social media because it does the "RPG chic" thing so well, but would not hold up in old-school play. An illustration depicting a dungeon map instead of the thing itself, if you will. But that's mostly what the market wants, because there are a lot more passive geeks than active gamers. Even when it comes to actual play, the contemporary adventure style has an emphasis on the set pieces, not the exploration - and smaller, more linear maps based on punchy ideas serve that purpose better.

I will say, though: his geomorphs for Dave's Mapper are solid.

 

[The1True]

Or this one from this week:


This thing is Jaquay all over the place! Multiple entrances, loops, sublevels... Sure, I'll agree, he pads his Patreon out with some linear duds (although, maybe those are perfect for standard 5e play?), and I'll also agree with Melan that this is mostly DM porn. But damn, drawing an attractive and clever map is HARD and this guy does it several times a week! This doesn't invalidate the criticism. I'm just saying maybe he doesn't deserve the hate?

 

[squeen]

The two previous ones posted kinda make me drool. Melan's correct, "map porn".

 

[save.vs.stozilla]

I think Bryce's other comment was "most come off as two-hour-ry" which, if Dyson is doing them once a day (plus working a regular gig) that may be all time available. The previous two look to have taken more than 2 hours...his style is what comes out fairly strong...

I think it is also a function of the 5E, 2-3 hour, social media play time, combined with the 5 Room dungeon craze. It equals a tidy module one can complete in an evening or afternoon and then post on social media for all to watch. Sorta like the Acquisitions Incorporated / Chris Perkins play at PAX's.

 

[Two orcs]

That last one does look very good with respect to all my complaints.

 

[squeen]

I should check out his site for explanation...but what's going on there? Flooded crypts? Also what's the stuff on the bottom? More water or rock?

Don't get me wrong, it's beautiful and interesting---I'm not being facetious.

 

[Two orcs]

I read it as:
Bottom - forest
Dark area - lower level
Water filled - as the outline, follow the lake up to the north west

 

[Ice]

I read it as:
Bottom - forest
Dark area - lower level
Water filled - as the outline, follow the lake up to the north west

It took me a minute to register but it also looks like the three sets of rectangles along the main western hallway are holes that lead to the lower levels. This is a very cool map.

 

[Slick]

One measure of a good map is whether or not I can easily visualize how it would actually look in 3D (as that's typically how you're going to describe its dimensions to players both when they're approaching the structure itself and when navigating the rooms). I've seen some maps that look neat on paper but don't make any sense spatially or would just be confusing to explore in play (especially so if your players do their own mapping-- they have to be able to draw the damn thing).

Concerning the last one posted above: Not bad, you can see that it's a fortress built into the earth, with a main hallway leading east to a second large structure (I would probably have extended part of this one upward to reach the ground above, adding a third entrance to the dungeon), with crypts built into the walls on both levels. My only real issue with it is who in their right mind would build those triangular-ass rooms on the left? I know it's a fantasy game and all but some things just don't have any practical purpose even in elfland.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I've seen some maps that look neat on paper but don't make any sense spatially or would just be confusing to explore in play (especially so if your players do their own mapping-- they have to be able to draw the damn thing).

This is the same justification I give for the existence of Read-Aloud: rooms can be super fucking janky shaped, and it gets real slow when you're trying to come up with the right way to explain what your characters are seeing. I find that having text written out beforehand to convey the situation is supremely helpful in that regard.

 

[Ice]

This is the same justification I give for the existence of Read-Aloud: rooms can be super fucking janky shaped, and it gets real slow when you're trying to come up with the right way to explain what your characters are seeing. I find that having text written out beforehand to convey the situation is supremely helpful in that regard.

Yeah, having a room description makes a huge difference for immersion and keeping the game going smoothly. It doesn't necessarily have to be read-aloud, though. I tend to like read aloud because I've really honed my reading-aloud skill outside of DnD, so I am good at making the read-aloud sections sound very good. A well written short paragraph adds a lot. Bad, lengthy read-aloud fucking sucks though.

A really great alternative to read aloud are the style of room-description done in adventures like Hole in the Oak and Winter's daughter.

One measure of a good map is whether or not I can easily visualize how it would actually look in 3D (as that's typically how you're going to describe its dimensions to players both when they're approaching the structure itself and when navigating the rooms). I've seen some maps that look neat on paper but don't make any sense spatially or would just be confusing to explore in play (especially so if your players do their own mapping-- they have to be able to draw the damn thing).

Concerning the last one posted above: Not bad, you can see that it's a fortress built into the earth, with a main hallway leading east to a second large structure (I would probably have extended part of this one upward to reach the ground above, adding a third entrance to the dungeon), with crypts built into the walls on both levels. My only real issue with it is who in their right mind would build those triangular-ass rooms on the left? I know it's a fantasy game and all but some things just don't have any practical purpose even in elfland.

Yeah, having descriptions in the text of the rooms makes it considerably easier to map out/visualize for the players.
When I tried to run The Darkness Beneath, I basically failed because I couldn't describe the rooms for shit in a way the players could map out or comprehend. Saying that the room is "irregularly shaped" really doesn't work for immersion. I also couldn't really comprehend the map myself because I didn't realize it is two separate levels, a side-view cut-away of the map would have made a huge difference. I ended up just putting the map on the table covered in shredded paper to make a 'fog of war.' I've picked up a few skills since then and I am going try running it again in the near future but man that was a tough session.

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

I find with Dyson's maps, if you want the jacquaying and loops and the like, the easiest way to get it is to grab a bunch of them and then link them together. A lot of the smaller maps come in two types - a lot of corridors, or a small, node-like location. I've had good luck in the past lining up the corridor ones and then sticking the nodes on the end of various corridors.

 

[The1True]

This is the same justification I give for the existence of Read-Aloud: rooms can be super fucking janky shaped, and it gets real slow when you're trying to come up with the right way to explain what your characters are seeing. I find that having text written out beforehand to convey the situation is supremely helpful in that regard.

Why not just give them a drawing of the room? Their characters are looking at it, the players might as well see it on the page. I get that some DM's might be concerned that the players are going to extrapolate from the resulting negative space the existence of secret rooms, but that's just a reward of thorough exploration I think. But if you're really worried about it, draw each room separately on random areas of the graph paper so it's more difficult to put together an overall picture of the dungeon in their head. Listening to the DM relate room dimensions is a drag.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

draw each room separately on random areas of the graph paper so it's more difficult to put together an overall picture of the dungeon in their head.

Seems excessive. Might as well just be using one of those decks of random geomoph cards if you're going that route.

I mean, hey, if you could run Barrowmaze or Rappun Athuk or whatever by transcribing each individual room onto it's own piece of paper, then more power to you, but I find a couple of pre-written sentences to be a pretty simple solution comparatively.

 

[The1True]

Nah, draw them all on one sheet of paper, just not all together if you're worried about people spotting the negative spaces...which I'm not, so I just uncover the dungeon using the fog of war in Roll20. Pretty sure I'm not alone in this practice. A WHOLE lot easier than sitting there correcting the poor guy doing the mapping. I'm a visual guy though, and so are the dudes I play with.

 

[squeen]

One the topic of maps: Huso has this one (interactively zoom-able) on his website.

How does he do it?
I get that he's a professional video game designer/artist...but bloody hell, I want to be able to make some this good!

 

[Malrex]

Looks like Campaign Cartographer stuff...but the zoom in feature he did is really cool. Huso does some excellent work.

 

[squeen]

Looks like Campaign Cartographer stuff...but the zoom in feature he did is really cool. Huso does some excellent work.

Dang Malrex, you are right. Thanks.

CC3 seems pricey and doesn't run on Linux (I haven't had a Windoze compatible machine in two decades).

Oh well...at least I have a visual reference point I like to consider emulating (pen and ink).

 

[DangerousPuhson]

You can accomplish the same with a brush pack download for Photoshop (or GIMP) and some layer effects. Just takes a modicum of know-how.

 

[squeen]

I've got CC3+ with a lot of add-ons. You can do it cheaper with freeware like GIMP. Once you get past how the basic mechanic of CC3 works, I find it easier to do the basic map in CC3+. But the final touches are better done with GIMP or Adobe Creative products.

What is it that CC3+ mainly brings to the table? The artwork?