Yesterday I DMed one of the worst sessions of my life.

The reason? Shitty mapping.

Let's be honest. D&D and its derivatives are based on figure scale of play. If one would use a scale of 1cm to 1m scale (I don't know what it is in retard units), one would need three full measurement tapes for modern infantry battles, using 2cm (very small models, not the tiniest ones) model dudes.

Hex scale wargamers know a lot better than this. DO NOT USE FIGURES FOR REALISTIC SCALE GAMING!

My ass would've been saved if the cartographer would've thought things through using a much more smaller scale map for that encounter. Also I myself could've done better if I'd have questioned the cartogrhaphers skill beforehand, but no.













EDIT  - SPOILER ALERTS FOR CURSE OF STRAHD ADVENTURE AHEAD!





FUCK YOU, Francois Beauregard, Mike Schley or Ben Wootten (whichever you fuckheads decided to ruin my day on the Yester Hill map in Curse of Strahd)

Oh yeah, have any of you guys seen decent topographic maps for RPGs?

Quote from: Moracai;1029596Oh yeah, have any of you guys seen decent topographic maps for RPGs?

Harn uses topographic maps for regional and local scale.

Regional
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2303[/ATTACH]


However prepping a topo map on the time budget of a hobby is a royal pain the ass. The fast way is to use the US National Map, pick a area with a geography close to what you want to detail, download the PDF, and then use a vector editor to pull out the contour line. If you have the software it takes about a quarter of the time to setup contour lines doing this.

This is an example of one I did recently. I picked an area in my hometown I knew well.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2302[/ATTACH]

How it looked in Roll20

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2301[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Moracai;1029595FUCK YOU, Francois Beauregard, Mike Schley or Ben Wootten (whichever you fuckheads decided to ruin my day on the Yester Hill map in Curse of Strahd)

What specifically is wrong with the Yester Hill map? The only thing I see that one square is 50 feet but then it again it is a outdoor map.

From Mike Schley website

Quote from: estar;1029609What specifically is wrong with the Yester Hill map? The only thing I see that one square is 50 feet but then it again it is a outdoor map.

It's the scale of the thing. It might be OK, if you want your character to wander around for a few combat rounds after the first initiative has already taken place. Not very fun for you, I think. Also, the spell ranges are in the maximum of 150ft. range. Not much chance to affect anything even on the other side of the top part (way out of range and LOS blocked).

I guess that it boils down to dynamics. I do not want the PCs to run around doing nothing. We're all doing this in our spare time, and I saw some players going to sleep mode, and all of them were discussing off-topic things way more than I want to see in my table.

I'm more of an action oriented GM and like things to move rapidly, but most of the players involved are experienced wargamers also, and they weren't having fun either.

So, basically there's nothing wrong with the map, but it is not made for D&D rules.

Oh, the players were trying to approach the hill strategically. The furthest distance between 2 PCs (out of five), before the initiative was rolled, was about 700ft.

Which according to the rules is waaaaaay off the range to help other dudes within a reasonable time limit. So I guess it was the players fault?

Yeah, and a fireball affects almost an entire square!!! I think I was pretty generous to let the party mage to hit two beings at once with it.

Quote from: Moracai;1029622Oh, the players were trying to approach the hill strategically. The furthest distance between 2 PCs (out of five), before the initiative was rolled, was about 700ft.

Honestly that portion of it sounds like a PC fuck up. Should have used better tactics. While they tried, it wasn't a very good plan.

Which among other things being within support range (which can vary based on capabilities and circumstances). It like blaming God for making South central PA too big when it was really Stuart was grandstanding trying to ride around the Union Army. Thus depriving General Lee of his cavalry (a 19th century army eyes and ears) during the crucial opening hours of the Battle of Gettysburg.

Quote from: Moracai;1029622Oh, the players were trying to approach the hill strategically. The furthest distance between 2 PCs (out of five), before the initiative was rolled, was about 700ft.

Which according to the rules is waaaaaay off the range to help other dudes within a reasonable time limit. So I guess it was the players fault?

Yes. Or if being kind to players, a GM fuckup for not warning them their plan was idiotic. I have taken to warning mine - "That's a good way to die" or similar.

I get the point of you both perfectly. PCs were being stupid. But how about the 'almost' 1 square fireballs? I do not think that is fair in any direction. If I was to hurl fireballs at the PCs, I'd expect to hit more than one of them. I do not think that it is the intention of the game to do one of the biggest AoE attacks in the game and hit only one creature.

Hm. Perhaps my ideas of fairness and party dynamics fall on deaf ears here.

I was someyear ago prepping for Birthright where high level spells were considered cantrips. Never ran it though. In this current campaign the baddie has drowned a village with a single spell.

I want the players and myself hit more foes than one with a fireball. Is it too much to ask?

Quote from: Moracai;1029617It's the scale of the thing. It might be OK, if you want your character to wander around for a few combat rounds after the first initiative has already taken place. Not very fun for you, I think. Also, the spell ranges are in the maximum of 150ft. range. Not much chance to affect anything even on the other side of the top part (way out of range and LOS blocked).

Well even if the map was zoomed in onto the hill top, that kind of thing always exist. It is just not drawn or described. It important to remember this because tabletop roleplaying campaign are not comprised of bunch of wargame scenarios with defined starting conditions and pre-determined victory conditions. Encounter happen as a consequence the PC interacting with the setting and what they do or not do.

What see at the table is a snapshot of a given moment described as best as we can given the limits of verbal description, the size of table in laying out a physical depictions (mini or printed map), etc. There is still a setting outside of been described or laid out (if using physical prop).

The implication is that if the players want to do something that outside of the immediate area it is reasonable to expect the referee to handle that. Conversely if, like in this case, a larger area is depicted. It is reasonable to focus just on the center area. And start the PCs closer in at the point where there is a consequence to failure.

My general rule of thumb is that I start the encounter at the point where there is a consequence to failure given what the PC want to do.

Quote from: Moracai;1029617I guess that it boils down to dynamics. I do not want the PCs to run around doing nothing. We're all doing this in our spare time, and I saw some players going to sleep mode, and all of them were discussing off-topic things way more than I want to see in my table.

Sound like you feel that movement on a large proportion of them didn't carry any significant consequence for failure. As stated above, my recommendation is to start them in closer at the point where you feel positioning and stealth checks matter.

Quote from: Moracai;1029617So, basically there's nothing wrong with the map, but it is not made for D&D rules.

I hold the heretical belief the point of playing a tabletop roleplaying campaign is to pretend to be a character doing interesting things within a setting. Not to play a specific set of rules like we would chess or monopoly. In your case the presence of a map covering a large area defined the starting "conditions" like a wargame scenario in your mind.

My advice is to always look at as if you were there witnessing the action and start the encounter at the point where failure matters or when gets interesting. Regardless of what the author of an adventure gives to do use.

Quote from: Moracai;1029637I get the point of you both perfectly. PCs were being stupid. But how about the 'almost' 1 square fireballs? I do not think that is fair in any direction.

50 foot squares means that multiple opponents are going to be occupying the same square. I know when I use a larger scale map that there comes a point where I say "Look everybody is within melee range so ignore the range ruler and use the relative spacing of the figure to understand where everybody at.".

I opened up my copy of the book, and my opinion that given the circumstances, fireball is not going to be as useful as the players like. With the druid doing their thing at the top of the hill and the berserkers spread around.

Quote from: Moracai;1029637If I was to hurl fireballs at the PCs, I'd expect to hit more than one of them. I do not think that it is the intention of the game to do one of the biggest AoE attacks in the game and hit only one creature.

Then quit thinking of it as a game and think if as a pen & paper virtual reality and that you are dealing with a situation where the elements are spread across an area larger than a half-dozen football fields.

Quote from: Moracai;1029637I want the players and myself hit more foes than one with a fireball. Is it too much to ask?

Yes if it doesn't make sense if you actually standing there and looking at what is going on.

I made a lot of bad judge callings that night, and I think it was because the 6 second rounds, not so well balanced spell thingies for open ground and whatnot.

Now I realise that it was not all my and/or cartographers fault, and I've calmed down.

Thanks for reminding me that a lot of it was my players fault too. And no, I'm not being sarcastic

Anyone still here in the mood to talk about topography?

I think that it is very difficult to pull off, especially in the types of games that I'm running. I don't hide any of my speech from other players, and sometimes they tend to do stuff out of character knowledge. Which with I am sometimes cool with, and sometimes am not.

What do you mean by "difficult to pull off"?

Quote from: Moracai;1029648Anyone still here in the mood to talk about topography?

I think that it is very difficult to pull off, especially in the types of games that I'm running. I don't hide any of my speech from other players, and sometimes they tend to do stuff out of character knowledge. Which with I am sometimes cool with, and sometimes am not.

It can be challenging, and I think takes some trial and error to become familiar with different types of issues, what you want the topography to be like for what reasons, and how all those things interact.

How far away people can affect one another with weapons and spells is one consideration. So is how they can communicate with each other at distance, and whether that's also apparent and understandable to other people in the area. So is how far way people can see (and in some cases, hear or even smell) each other, and how much that varies by weather and light conditions. And, how difficult is it to move over different terrain types and slopes.

The scale of the map (and if you play by putting figures or counters on it, the size of those) of course also matters.

All those things can make for very interesting varied situations that arise naturally from the game map and its history and the locations and movements and abilities of the various figures on the map. However, if the players (and especially the GM) don't really understand or engage with those things, it can become frustrating for some or all of them.