Descent into Avernus Battle Maps

Not sure if these are the right maps, but why do all the battle maps looks like bare outlines?

The DMG Ship layout looks good, but all the rest.. Elfsong, Low Lantern, High hall... etc.  All look like something generated from davesmapper - stonewerks. 

This is no where near the battlemap quality of the other modules (Curse of Strahd, Storm Kings Thunder...).  Is this intended?  Is there another update with high quality maps?  Why are they all not like the DMG Ship?  I honestly feel like I'm being trolled.  Are these just placeholder maps? 

You look at the awesome art of Eturel and then I'm almost embarrassed to show my players the battlemap of... well anywhere.

Here's an example of in-game:


Here's an example of a teaser map:

This is how they look. Ever since Waterdeep they have moved from color maps to these line ones on white backgrounds. It's cheaper for them and people that play at tables say they like them better. Us on the VTT's are stuck with using them or finding resources to make our own. I haven't seen or heard anything from Wizards of the Coast saying that they are going back to the old way. The modules are selling better than ever, even with the inferior maps, so it's a no-brainer for them to go with the cheaper maps.

Wow, that's... very disappointing.

Ya, after a bit of research the teaser I found was from Beadle & Grimm's special limited edition.  I can't say how disappointed I am in the direction of the battlemaps.  

Scott "JokersWyld" said:

Ya, after a bit of research the teaser I found was from Beadle & Grimm's special limited edition.  I can't say how disappointed I am in the direction of the battlemaps.  

You should voice this to Wizards of the Coast. I'm not a big fan of them either for VTT use (although I do prefer it for a print book), but there's really nothing that Roll20 can do about it. It would certainly be nice if WotC would license a third party to sell enhancements for on-line play.

I feel the same about the recent rise of low-quality line maps. One of the reasons I got into mapmaking (and made a career out of it eventually) is because I was constantly remaking simple line maps from modules and adventure paths for my players. I believe a good map does half the work in describing a scene, and I hope to see this trend turn the other way. 

I may be the only person as a player I really liked the black and white maps

@Munky & @keithkurtis - Unfortunately, it is worse than that. They have actively removed high-quality remade maps from the DM's Guild for both Dragon Heist and Saltmarsh (and I assume the trend will continue with Avernus). That seems like the perfect marketplace to allow map makers to create replacements, but has so far proven to be a hostile place for map makers.

Loren the GM said:

@Munky & @keithkurtis - Unfortunately, it is worse than that. They have actively removed high-quality remade maps from the DM's Guild for both Dragon Heist and Saltmarsh (and I assume the trend will continue with Avernus). That seems like the perfect marketplace to allow map makers to create replacements, but has so far proven to be a hostile place for map makers.

It feels like it is very friendly and welcoming for writers but not at all for cartographers, but what can you do. I'll keep my fingers crossed for them to reach out to me one day. That would be a dream come true job!

Loren the GM said:

@Munky & @keithkurtis - Unfortunately, it is worse than that. They have actively removed high-quality remade maps from the DM's Guild for both Dragon Heist and Saltmarsh (and I assume the trend will continue with Avernus). That seems like the perfect marketplace to allow map makers to create replacements, but has so far proven to be a hostile place for map makers.

Were they licensed maps?

I still think that it's odd that Roll20 wouldn't just either A: Commission a mapmaker and just charge a couple more bucks or B: Ask the community here and incorporate the best...

It seems... shortsighted...

Scott "JokersWyld" said:

I still think that it's odd that Roll20 wouldn't just either A: Commission a mapmaker and just charge a couple more bucks or B: Ask the community here and incorporate the best...

It seems... shortsighted...

It is not wanting to get in legal trouble with a game company providing them the product.

A is against the license, and B is flat out illegal.

You can't help but feel Wizards of the Coast really don't value the players using roll20. They must have a separate licencing arrangement with the Beadle and Grimm guys if they're allowing them to include detailed and coloured alternatives to the Logos maps, so there must be some reason they are unwilling or unable to do the the same with roll20.

I wonder if they'll change their tune when DnD Beyond inevitably pivots into offering the VTT experience.

keithcurtis said:

Were they licensed maps?

Initially, they appeared to be covered under the standard DMs Guild license. They have more recently added language to their license that only allows maps of existing content when it is combined with other material such as an original adventure, or materials that expand on a published adventure (for instance, there are several guides to the various parts of Dragon Heist that include maps). I'm sure there are licensing reasons for this (which were definitely not defined at the time of Dragon Heist, when much of this art was generated), but my point is rather the DMs Guild is where artists should be able to engage with the adventures. I'd love for WotC to revisit this and allow new maps to be published there - or as others have suggested, for Roll20 to take this on and license new maps (it would seem if Beadle and Grimm can achieve that sort of license, so should Roll20 be able to). I'd personally be willing to pay a premium for new maps on Roll20 - perhaps keep the original adventure as is, and have a $40 new map pack add-on as well (to cover the cost of the licenses maps)?

Loren the GM said:

Initially, they appeared to be covered under the standard DMs Guild license. They have more recently added language to their license that only allows maps of existing content when it is combined with other material such as an original adventure, or materials that expand on a published adventure (for instance, there are several guides to the various parts of Dragon Heist that include maps). I'm sure there are licensing reasons for this (which were definitely not defined at the time of Dragon Heist, when much of this art was generated), but my point is rather the DMs Guild is where artists should be able to engage with the adventures. I'd love for WotC to revisit this and allow new maps to be published there - or as others have suggested, for Roll20 to take this on and license new maps (it would seem if Beadle and Grimm can achieve that sort of license, so should Roll20 be able to). I'd personally be willing to pay a premium for new maps on Roll20 - perhaps keep the original adventure as is, and have a $40 new map pack add-on as well (to cover the cost of the licenses maps)?

I feel the same exact way. And that's just for the Adventures. Personally, I have made several of the FR City maps for my own games, and I would love to release them publicly, but that is not allowed, and outside of the select few that Schley has created, there is a huge gap of quality city maps for one of the most popular settings in all of D&D.

Hello all,

The Roll20 Community Code of Conduct states:

The Roll20 Forums exist to discuss topics directly related to the use of the Roll20 program. Anything that more fittingly could be discussed on another website SHOULD be discussed there.

Here are some good places to discuss this topic:

• /r/rpg
• /r/dnd

As this post is considered Off-Topic for Roll20, I am going to close this post.

We thank you for your understanding.

Thanks Drespar! I have done back fed them. And yes, that's the past tense, because I said so.

Thanks Drespar, You rock!!! I've tossed feedback and even a portfolio to them. Fingers still crossed for a call back!

I let them know what I though also!  =D

Aniond said:

I may be the only person as a player I really liked the black and white maps

This makes me wish a player could choose. Like if a GM had two versions of a map, black and white or full color, the player could pick the one they prefer. Imagine a little slider on the side that increased or decreased details. Wishful thinking I know, but I felt like sharing.

I was thinking about a system precisely like this for a completely different reason. A limited sight individual reached out to me for some help using Roll20. One of the biggest challenges for him (and my other friends with limited sight) is getting the map to be visible in a way that he can make out what is going on. Being able to present a high contrast alternative map, with extra markings, would be great for that case. It could also be used for alternate languages, or even to give some players more information. 

Drespar said:

Hi everyone!

We are going to re-open this thread as we view this conversation as valuable feedback to bring back to Wizards of the Coast.

Do continue to keep things respectful and within our Code of Conduct. Responses that violate the CoC will be removed.

As for our role in how maps are converted, we create every module as close to the book as possible. The assets are provided from Wizards of the Coast and the process to change them is not possible at this time. However, as stated earlier, we pass along feedback we receive, but if you would like to provide more direct feedback to Wizards of the Coast you can do that here: Link

Thank you Drespar! I'm going there right now. I appreciate you reopening this topic and letting us chime in. I additionally want to thank you for that link!

Yea...I'm not a big fan of the new art direction for dungeon maps WOTC has taken. Unfortunately that isn't a unanimous opinion since some people do prefer the more basic layout. Perhaps as people increasingly use Roll20 or other VTTs in meatspace demand for higher quality will follow. Until then there are a few options:

1. Use the basic maps as the background template to over lay dungeon tiles over them. Easiest way would be to purchase said tiles from the Roll20 marketplace.

2. Wait for people to make high quality detailed maps. Usually you can find these with a Google search. I know a few people made some excellent ones for Dungeon of The Mad Mage and were freely available. Not sure about the legality but since they weren't charging for these, who knows (though my personal take would be it's more akin to fan art). I dunno if WOTC counts on the DND community making their own maps hence why bother making good ones if DMs are going to make better ones on their own. The draw back is these maps usually take several months to appear so you won't have them available on day 1.

dmsguild has colored maps for chapter 1 along with some useful changes to the adventure flow.

Yeah, Valeur RPG have produced some good alternate maps. (they have done this for all the Logos map modules)

I won't link it directly here but the first two chapters can be found on dmsguild under the titles 'A Tale of Two Cities' and 'Elturel has Fallen'. 

Wholeheartedly agree Chris (maphatter).  Your maps are beautiful and thought out.  I hope you see further success and get your point across to WotC.  Look forward to your KS.

Heya Drespar, no problem, that's all on me, sometimes passion gets the better of policy, won't happen again and thanks for your understanding. And thank you Scott - much appreciated.