Rivers are one aspect of creating game mapS that I have always found to be tricky. How have you guys gone about placing them - how many rivers do you place, how small a river or stream do you place on a given scale, that kind of thing.

In particular i'm thinking about the 5-miles-a-hex scale and then the mile-a-hex scale it zooms in to.

I'd show major creeks and streams.

It's a question of visualizing the geography for me. If you see the topography in your mind's eye, you'll be able to get a rough idea of where the rivers are supposed to be, how they'll flow and the like. Then, when I get to drawing them, I just do it like I'd do automatic writing, if you will. I just don't think about it, I just draw whatever flow "makes sense" for the scale.

I know that's not really helpful. It's just something I visualize and feel more than I rationalize it.

Quote from: Benoist;458039It's a question of visualizing the geography for me. If you see the topography in your mind's eye, you'll be able to get a rough idea of where the rivers are supposed to be, how they'll flow and the like. Then, when I get to drawing them, I just do it like I'd do automatic writing, if you will. I just don't think about it, I just draw whatever flow "makes sense" for the scale.

I know that's not really helpful. It's just something I visualize and feel more than I rationalize it.

It's okay...I mean, that is basically what I do. I'm just trying to improve my mapping...I always feel once I'm running a game with a given map that there isn't enough water there.

I improve by trial and error basically.

One thing to remember though is that map don't have to be scientifically or geographically accurate, though. In the sense that mediaeval maps were not accurate, you could assume that a given map is an artistic approximation, rather than a "real" representation of all geographical features. It helps because then you can always modify as you go to improve the actual game play, until you got a pretty good idea of what's there and what isn't.

Hadrian's Wall:

http://www.alaska-in-pictures.com/data/media/19/copper-river-delta-aerial-picture_10457.jpg

I think that the topography of the real world is so varied, you can make it almost anything in your RPG.

That said, I'm so bad a mapping, I just use photos of real places for inspiration and then describe the characters going through it. I know that isn't good for a full blown sandbox, but it works for how I run.

So I'm looking at a couple of real-world maps:






And thinking that on my regional map I want more water than I've used in the past. I'm still trying to figure out, though, the river/stream detail to work out on say a smaller hex map surrounding one city state and its territory, that kind of thing...

There are a lot of good suggestions for rivers on the Cartographer Guild's forums. But in practical terms, I usually go for figuring out the correlation to a real world scale and then use google maps\google earth (in terrain mode) to zoom into the appropriate level and nick ideas from there.

Quote from: Benoist;458044I improve by trial and error basically.

One thing to remember though is that map don't have to be scientifically or geographically accurate, though. In the sense that mediaeval maps were not accurate, you could assume that a given map is an artistic approximation, rather than a "real" representation of all geographical features. It helps because then you can always modify as you go to improve the actual game play, until you got a pretty good idea of what's there and what isn't.

Hadrian's Wall:

That map is really cool and is the kind of thing I'd be more likely to give a player as a handout. But from a DM perspective I find it easier if the map I am working with is more representative about the environment the PCs are in...maps help me picture the world I am DMing; personally I can present the game to the players better if I have a more concrete understanding of where they are.

Quote from: Cranewings;458048I think that the topography of the real world is so varied, you can make it almost anything in your RPG.

That's true, very good point. Maybe what I am asking is more "for a given area, how much detail of the water do I place." E.G. if I want the land to resemble Italy how much water do I map out, etc.

Quote from: Cranewings;458048That said, I'm so bad a mapping, I just use photos of real places for inspiration and then describe the characters going through it. I know that isn't good for a full blown sandbox, but it works for how I run.

I definitely do that, use landscape photos to give me a sense of the area, the last campaign I ran where I had my own campaign maps, I used a lot of landscape reference (and had a folder online to show the players.)

Actually if you like working from that starting point, there isn't really anything stopping you from taking an earth map and keeping the landscape as is, just re-settling the towns with your own NPCs, names, etc.

I think Hexographer Free Version actually lets you trace over an image...you could then alter your coastline somewhat if you wanted to personalize the area you're basing your map on.

Anyway, thanks guys, good stuff so far, I appreciate it.

Edit: Just caught this:

Quote from: tellius;458060There are a lot of good suggestions for rivers on the Cartographer Guild's forums. But in practical terms, I usually go for figuring out the correlation to a real world scale and then use google maps\google earth (in terrain mode) to zoom into the appropriate level and nick ideas from there.

Thanks for the link, checking that out now

If you want it to look like Italy, I'd recommend drawing in the mountains and hills first, then the coastline. This makes it much easier to place rivers, lakes and even swamps in a way that makes sense.


You could make a map showing a bunch of rivers like this one:



On the other hand, keep in mind that many good-sized rivers aren't very wide (for example, the Ohio River is less than 100 yards at its widest point) so you don't have to show them all (let alone streams) on your maps unless you think a particular river is important. I'd stick to the biggest and most important ones and not worry about rivers or other terrain features unless/until the PCs decide to go there.

Another thing I've been thinking about is the frequency of bridges (which hold great game potential, with or without attending trolls.) How often do you guys usually place a bridge, whether X bridges per distance, or % of a bridge. It would vary with how settled an area is obviously. I find the ancient, cyclopean variety especially appealing.

Quote from: Cole;459328Another thing I've been thinking about is the frequency of bridges (which hold great game potential, with or without attending trolls.) How often do you guys usually place a bridge, whether X bridges per distance, or % of a bridge. It would vary with how settled an area is obviously. I find the ancient, cyclopean variety especially appealing.

For the most part, I ALWAYS have a bridge between two settled areas. Whatever the most direct rout is will produce a bridge.

Just as big towns are usually 1d6 days apart, so are the bridges. If I have a detailed map, then the bridges are always on the straightest accessible path between two major towns.

Smaller and easier to construct bridges are always there if there would be local interest.

If the bridge represents a MAJOR investment, like from the peak of one mountain to the next, there won't be another way around it. Either use it or climb.

I would have said historically there were more fords/ferries than bridges. But a quick googling shows the complete opposite (colour me mildly surprise). Some of the links I found where a book review link here and the full book that google books has scanned here).

Seems like the Romans and early medieval folk put bridges will be wherever a road hit a river. Some nice pics here of some medieval bridges in France.

Quote from: Cole;459328Another thing I've been thinking about is the frequency of bridges (which hold great game potential, with or without attending trolls.) How often do you guys usually place a bridge, whether X bridges per distance, or % of a bridge. It would vary with how settled an area is obviously. I find the ancient, cyclopean variety especially appealing.

Rarely in either case, but I do put in ferries, which I understand were more common than either.

Edit: Also, then you can have a shifty gang of murderers running the ferry a la Blood Meridian.

I use the following loose rules for placing rivers.

Rivers flow down hill
River systems form drainage basins.
Not all drainage basins connect to the see although they all have a low point.
Rivers can meander or braid.
Rivers will have distributaries when it hits a swamp or a delta.
Swamps and lakes can feed two separate drainage basin. This is a rare feature although I have one a half mile down the road from my house. Lake Tamarack.

I recommend using this style of map to develop drainage basins and the subsequent river system.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mFjy4EWzmtg/SrLl2F9nSeI/AAAAAAAAAgg/xsUWXWTprDY/s1600-h/basemap2.jpg

Here is a version with the rivers drawn in.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mFjy4EWzmtg/SrQp8S0h_gI/AAAAAAAAAho/Sid-W_sBgso/s1600-h/fs02_00.jpg

Contours that effect water flow are drawn as a blobs on the map. Then you draw your drainage basins like national border and figure out the river's main channels or just eyeball it using the downhill rule. Note that the drainage borders are not transferred to the final map.

Zoom in and out Google Earth help develops of what the general pattern of rivers look like.

I like this map from wikipedia showing drainage basins.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Ocean_drainage.png

Basically learning to draw rivers on maps is like drawing portraits or still life. You learn a few rules, look at a lot of objects, and you practice.