How important is the map quality to you?

As a player, or a DM, from the basic sketch on grid paper to the photo-realistic, I would like to know how important the quality of the play map is to you?

Sorry if I posted in the wrong section.

It depends entirely on the game-type being played. Card games, not so much. Theater of the Mind games, not at all Pathfinder and other positional tactic games, very much 5e and more hybrid-ish games that can do with or without a map, it's nice but not necessary. For the most part they're nice to have, and help immersion but not necessary. In some cases it can get in the way, too. Like if it's a static image with crates in the corner and players want to move them...

higher quality maps are usually better... but there's really a certain balance that should be had... if you have a map that is overly detailed then players will investigate stuff that is of no importance what so ever... but if the map isn't detailed enough then players will miss important elements or wander around lost for hours without DM intervention. I've personally played on a variety of maps from hastily drawn sketches moments before the encounter to over-detailed elaborate maps built weeks in advance... and I honestly have to say that the maps that were more in the mediocre detail range were the more enjoyable ones since everything you needed to know was clearly defined and detailed while stuff that is of no importance is kept to a minimum and draws little attention.

It's all a balance. Something needs to be high quality. A rough, sudden, one-color sketch map could be ok (or no map at all). But the Verbal and Text descriptions should be outstanding, colorful, in-depth, well-stated, to make up the difference. Another idea is using actual pictures of the scene (photographs or art, from the image search). You can show ground-level first person viewpoints. It enhances a dull map. GM can put the photographs in Handouts, or put them on the Tabletop in small-size and GM can use Shift-Z to pop-up the photos to full screen size. It's an effective way to illustrate a room that just looks like a square on the top-down map.

I find maps important when it comes to combat. The more tactical/detail-oriented the combat system, the more precise I want the maps. But that doesn't mean photorealistic maps, that just means 'we have a map with squares (or hexes) and tokens and distances are accurate'. Which is easy enough with Roll20 and the box&line tools.

As a DM, I expect the interaction quality to at least be that of Final Fantasy 7, where you can navigate any map, but also interact or recognize what is a major identifiable object.

I agree, it varies. As long as I can tell what's going on, might be a map is not even needed.

A detailed map is useful when the party is likely to encounter things... allows for rapid exploration with the visual cues preventing them having to stop every 10 feet for a new paragraph of descriptive oratory. However for none combat situations i prefer to have backdrops that sum an area up or maps of the town for ease of organising players plans. But that is just my style of play, a more description heavy GM would get the same effect from hand drawn 'old school' maps with ease, i just do what i do so i can focus my writing on the plot/story rather than describing that beautifully worked stone passage they just found themselves in...

Very interesting replies! The reason I ask is I am creating a campaign to run soon™ and I make all my own maps with PSCS6 and its a huge time sink to get the maps how I like them and I was just wondering if I was putting too much effort into them considering a lot of them will only be used for a short while. I keep them bare of decoration and opt to add the decor in within Roll20.

You could always build yourself some tile sets and assemble them in roll20 to get greater milage out of your maps

what works from me is epic campaign map. Maps of towns they'll be living in and meeting pcs in or fighting over. a few dungeons. Small encounter areas like encounter on a road with woods, encounter on a beach. Encounter in a muddy swamp. Like what paizo does for their battle mat series, not sure what the name is. love those.

I tend to go with highly detailed maps, for my D&D2E games. Spending hours on details that the players can be confused by.

A GM's curse is that enough is never really enough.... i will literally spend hours on a map they'll use for part of one session and then never see again *sigh*

Personally I only want one thing from a map - to keep a consistent scale. If it's only a few black lines on a white sheet, or a full blown photo/colour drawing doesn't really matter (though I do appreciate the effort it took to make a full colour map). A grid helps with this, but I come across GMs that draw a 1meter door on one end of a map and make it 4meters on the other, so you know :-P.

I'd love to have better quality but I'm not hitting much if anything in tiles and having to improvise more than I'd like... it be nice if we got more basic tiles to start with. ( basic maps that fit what I'm looking for also make it easier to customize the background and some of the environment speak for its self for the players though a bit of introduction doesn't hurt) ... still feel a bit bad when I'm make my maps by hand to a lesser degree when tiled inviroment woluld improve it a lot visually.

I hear that, it often frustrates how many 10' long beds those dungeon dwellers seem to have lol

For me, a map is moderately important, but not vital. A crudely hand-drawn map can, potentially, be just as viable as a super-detailed, hyper-accurate photorealistic map. At the same time, a very attractive hand-drawn map can be much worse than a simplistic map composed of detailed elements. The visual quality of the map isn't what's important, to me... it's the way the map is used. Which is another way of saying that the map itself is just a reflection on the GMs style, ability, and the quality of her game... all of which are far more important than any visual aspects. I'm old; I grew up in the time before video games became popular, and have watched them evolve. Realistic graphics are a relatively new invention; most of my formative years were spent immersed in games which looked like this (Bonus points to anyone who can tell me what game this is (without google-cheating!)): The graphics were horrible by today's standards, but that didn't matter - it was the gameplay, the story, the adventure of it that was the thing that drew you in, kept you playing, and left you wanting more. And that's one thing that still hasn't changed. You can have a game with beautiful, photo-realistic graphics, but if the game itself isn't worth playing, the graphics don't matter at all. As an example, I Googled up the worst games of 2014 and found this (Rambo:The Video Game, apparently): Compare the two pictures and tell me, just by looking, which game you'd rather play? MOST people, going by only what they can see, will say the second game is better than the first. But that's just because you can't judge a book by the cover, nor can you judge a game by the map. And it's the same with maps in a tabletop RPG. Prettier does not necessarily mean better! In my own personal not-so-humble opinion, the map I see when I play a game on Roll20 tells me one thing: How Much Effort Did This GM Put Into This Game? And that is really the deciding factor in whether I'll enjoy a game or not. If the GM can't be bothered to at least TRY to make his maps look good, they (probably) haven't put that much effort into the game itself. On the other hand, if the GM spent way, way too much time designing the map, they (probably) haven't put that much effort into the game PLAY. I want a map that does what it needs to do, and anything beyond that is gravy. A map needs to show the character's surroundings, in such a way that the players are able to know what they need to know. Whether this is crude line drawings or detailed tiles and tokens or whatever, that's all the map is for, really. I've played great games that were drawn out by hand during the game. I've played awful games that had amazing-looking dungeons set up. And I've played everything in between, including games with no map at all. I personally try to make my maps nice and detailed, with as much information as is needed, but don't go to too much trouble. Imagination fills in the gaps. And an RPG is really about imagination. Which is all my long-winded way of saying "The Map is Not the Territory", I suppose! Your mileage may vary. -Phnord, the long-winded.

Phnord Prephect said: a lot... Yeah, what he said ;)

Phnord Prephect said: ... stuff That sums it up. I had a player once tell me 'I can't be in a game if there's no map graphics' we ended up parting ways for other reasons down the road but it brings up 'what is a roleplaying game' at the very core. Back in the day, it was just a grid, imaginations, vivid descriptions as well asplenty of snacks. Now I'm not that old in fact, I started tabletops only a few years ago; but the premise remains.

walls have to look like walls, floors need to look like floors, stairs stairs, water waters.... does not in any way have to be photo realistic, but some sort of shadowing / highlighting / texturing is needed, MS paint is a no go.... very basic Photo shop / gimp editing is a must. Tile set maps are your friend, there are MANY free resources out there, but if the DM is not going to put forth much effort, its not a group i would want to join when a game is designed to include grid/hex maps during combat. a dirt or stone tile floor texture, a tile-able rock texture for cave walls, and the airbrush for shadow is all you need, and can expand from there. photocopying a dungeon from a premade adventure and using it without editing the "secret door" symbols off is... And there is no reason not to include Dynamic lighting, or take the time to insure scale is consistent.

I've had many a grand adventure with maps that were nothing more than raw line-drawn boxes/circles/whathaveyou on the grid. I don't need someone to use fancy tilesets, but I appreciate when someone goes to that level of effort.

Until I began using Roll20, all my tabletop games used nothing more than vinyl battlemats, markers, and miniatures. But those tools worked fine, imagination made up for the rest. The thing I love about Roll20 is that now I can build detailed maps with tiles, scenery, dynamic lighting, line of sight, etc. I don't really see building these encounter maps as a chore, it's just part of the hobby I engage in when not actually playing. However, I do understand that it's not every DM's desire to spend time doing that sort of thing. Happily, Roll20 also gives you basic drawing tools which allow you to simulate using vinyl battlemats and markers. If that works for your game and your players are having fun then by all means, carry on!

Maps devolved to this during my 5e mini campaign. Working long weeks, I couldn't make the maps I normally did. I kind of liked it though, reminded me of what my maps looked like in person, minus all the fancy light effects. It just depends on the player/GM preference I guess, my players didn't mind (at least I don't thiink, I don't ask their opinion, i just force mine upon them).

Jake M. said: Maps devolved to this during my 5e mini campaign. Working long weeks, I couldn't make the maps I normally did. I kind of liked it though, reminded me of what my maps looked like in person, minus all the fancy light effects. It just depends on the player/GM preference I guess, my players didn't mind (at least I don't thiink, I don't ask their opinion, i just force mine upon them). I do this all the time for my one-shots. I only recently began using maps as I realized I could buy the module's map pack which was VTT ready. For quick encounters, I still use the drawing tools, a wacom makes this feel natural. Graphics aren't essential to the role-play experience, that's like judging your S.O. on how hot she/he looks, or as the common saying goes 'a book by its cover' .

Here is an example of quality of mapping from my campaign. The first is the starting town, I made it simplistic because the players, most likely (ha), will not explore the town in any detail as per the urgency of the adventure they will be embarking on. I feel it should suffice for a reference of the layout of the town ("Head West, beyond the old Johnson farm" for example) and allow them to get a general idea of the points of interest (which will be highlighted via Roll20) And this is the first battle map that will be used (the "roof" will be a removable image over the indoor areas) that will be populated via Roll20. Since they will spend some quality time on this map, I feel it needed enough detail to set the mood of a decrepit fort that has long since been forgotten by the civilized world (but not the UN-civilized...ho-HO). I really want my players to feel I have put some effort into making their campaign as enjoyable and immersive as possible so they hopefully will be eager to see what is next. I feed off the player's reactions. nom nom Does the difference in style throw any red flags to you knowing their purpose or do you feel they are suited to do the job they are created to do?

Wow, those pics are big on this forum.

its better than what i pushed out for damn sure, i wish the DM's ive met in the last few months put in 1% of the effort you did.

My first maps were detailed but basic but worked just fine. As my Gimp skills have increased so has the look of my maps, still nowhere near yours, those are beautiful and will work very well. I just hope your players appreciate them!

Chili said: I really want my players to feel I have put some effort into making their campaign as enjoyable and immersive as possible so they hopefully will be eager to see what is next. I feed off the player's reactions. nom nom Sure, I make maps for my campaigns all the time, see examples below from a finished campaign: (note the world map is Glassfall by Pasis @ cartographer's guild with modifications, the combat map below uses Plex's iso map tiles) But that's where I have time, it's not required to drive the story home, or to have a fun experience. If your players need maps and graphics, they're really missing the point of the game honestly. It's a nice accent like Genkitty mentioned, but not something that makes or breaks a GM, or should be a way to judge someones GMing style. SilentOsiris for example, is an excellent narrative story teller (see his west mashes series on RollPlay) who engages his players, but maps he simply draws out using the drawing tools.

I am quite impressed by the maps I've seen thus far! Of course, a good game needs immersion and good maps can surely help, depending of your game's setting. For my part, I am overly dedicated to my maps, and because of the type of game I organize, I have but little choice to do detailed maps... You see, my game is based on old school videogame setting, which any actions are in a 2d landscape with semi-real time combat system. So, players must carefully move on their initiatives, having multiple actions in the same turn that follow a Turn Order, as well as the enemies and stage threats, like those reactors for example. So visual for me is key to my setting, but I do love to put some icing on the cake, a really time consuming cake...To think that before Roll20 I used to do draw this on grid paper, color it with my 5th grade drawing skills and print players and enemies token and cut them all up to fit on the sheet....DAMN I LOVE ROLL20!!!