| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
 Posted - 10 Jun 2009 : 23:10:57
|
I've run into yet another map conundrum, and this one is more on the order of "preferences", then anything else, hence my asking what others think, over just taking it upon myself.
I realized that the little bit of the Hordelands that is shown on the official 3eFR map caused me to greatly distort everything else 'eastern'. I have now corrected the problem, and the newest iteration of the Hordelands looks much more consistent with previous editions. The Great Ice Sea (Yal Tengri) was too far south, and Brightstar lake (Gbor Nor) was way too large.
Anyhow, I'm now down south, conecting Zakhara to the Uter East, and I've run into a new problem. I took the Zakharan Map from the FRIA as a basis for my outline, and increased it in size until the scale matched the 3e one (from the official map) precisely... and now its too large!
Here's my question to you scribes: Should I reduce the size of the Zakharan map until it 'fits into' the neck of land I have from the 2e Kara-Tur trail map (which is how I corrected the Utter East). or should I 'fudge' where the two continents connect? 
On the one hand, I'd rather keep the size correct for Zakhara, so there is no confusion for folks using the original Zakhara maps (which didn't sustain the size-changing anomally that the other two main campaign areas did from edition to edition). On the other hand, aesthetically it should be reduced, to correspond to the reductions that Faerūn and Kara-Tur underwent.
So which is more important? Aesthetics and conformity, or keeping all the old Al-Qadim maps 100% accurate?
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 26 Sep 2012 15:58:37
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2009 : 00:51:18
|
I'm not keen on the "fudging" option. While it is probably the easiest option and it's likely to be more convenient for scribes to understand some very minor geographical changes as they observe where the two maps meet, we've all managed to understand the changes made to the 3e FR map after its own overall size was reduced. Given that reduction, it seems appropriate that the Zakharan map should also be downsized in order to ensure a kind of "relativity" between the two maps.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
 |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2009 : 02:29:40
|
While I was leaning that way myself for aesthetic reasons, and was going to do it that way, one thing held me back (and is why I am asking for some sort of general consensus)...
The maps of Faerūn changed in every edition, shrinking twice, and changing shape as well in 3e. Kara-Tur had one original (HUGE) size, and then The Horde boxed set recommended reducing the size by 2/3, and we got a 'final version' (and size) with the K-T trail map. Add to that the large number of adventures set in both settings, nearly all of which have regional maps, which also have their own individual scales (and nothing is ever exactly the same from product to product).
That gives me tons of leeway when I make these things - I can adjust anything I want and just chalk it up to the maps being an amalgam or three editions.
Unfortunbately, I do not have that luxury with the Zakhara maps - they retain their precise scales from product to product, to the point where I am amazed by the consistency. Even the FRIA map of Zakhara works-out exact to the ones in the Al-Qadim products.
If I change the size of Zakhara, I will be the first to do so. 
Thats why I'm thinking 'fudging' the neck where it meets the other two settings is better then fudging the whole continent.
Add to that that there are many Al-Qadim players that do not bother with FR. They either run it independently, or have it attached to their own homebrews (I have seen a couple of neat maps like that). If I change the size to suit us FR fans, aren't I doing a diservice to the folks that don't care about the Realms?
Thats why I feel its not so simple. 
I'm going to try and figure-out the exact percentage it needs to be reduced/increased by... if its not all that noticable it may be a non-issue. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 11 Jun 2009 06:28:13 |
|
|
|
Patrakis
Learned Scribe
Canada
256 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2009 : 03:50:50
|
I hit this wall more than a year ago when istarted my map of Toril. I decided to keep contient dimension the way they were in 2E and connect the 3E map of Fearun to it. In other words, i chose to fudge the coastline linking Zakhara/Kara-Tur to Faerun.
Pat |
Dancing is like standing still, but faster.
My site: http://www.patoumonde.com |
Edited by - Patrakis on 11 Jun 2009 03:51:13 |
|
|
|
Patrakis
Learned Scribe
Canada
256 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2009 : 03:57:09
|
You will find that it is not that easy to do so because the scale by which they shrunk Faerun is not the same on east-west axis as the north-south axis. I tried many iteration and decided to change the coastline to fit the bill. The impact in the Kara-Tur/Faerun frontier is important but let's just say i explain this only by saying cartography wasn't an exact science until the invention of sattelites. You might want to ask Ed but i don't think Elminster brought back that echnology yet into the realms :)
Pat
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I'm going to try and figure-out the exact percentage it needs to be reduced/increased by... if its not all that noticable it may be a non-issue.
|
Dancing is like standing still, but faster.
My site: http://www.patoumonde.com |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2009 : 06:45:44
|
Okay, I think I have it solved.
I've fiddled with it, and noticed something peculiar, even with all the size changes - the tiny bit of Dambrath (that peninsula) that winds-up on the Zakharan Map lifted from the FRIA comes very close to where I have it on my corrected map... damn close, in fact.
So, playing around with stuff, the coast of the Utter east 'grows' about a hundred miles westward, and only in the most southern portion (just below Konigheim). Since this section doesn't match the piece of map from the K-T trail map (the shape is off, right around where I need to fudge things), I now have two different canon maps disagreeing with each other PRECISELY where I need them to do so. 
That means my Zakhara can remain consistent with the original maps, and the difference isn't even noticeable on the continental map. In fact, I dropped it onto the outline-map that came in the 3e FRCG (which is totally wack), and it looks like a better fit then if I had shrunk Zakhara down (as I did with my original continental map, unknowingly).
The only problem I am having now is in the region of the Larang Valleys where the neck meets Kara-Tur - the coast is some two hundred miles further south, and not nearly as easy to fudge (unlike the Utter East, there is a highly detailed map of this region that came with Ronin Challenge). I managed to get the coast to work, by fiddling with three different maps that overlap this area, but I'm still not sure how that will look once I start to drop-in the interior terrain. I may have to elongate Tabot slightly, but we shall see.
Thanks for the input so far. I hadn't really run into this scale problem before now, because the maps were always changing (which covers any of my 'fixes'). The internal consistancy of the Al-Qadim setting threw me for a loop, and I had to start paying attention to distances for a change.
Hopefully all of this will work out and I'll get larger islands for Wa and Kozakura - the only other region that drove me nuts with scales (there are FOUR official sizes for that region!!!) |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 11 Jun 2009 20:34:45 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
|
|
Patrakis
Learned Scribe
Canada
256 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2009 : 18:35:47
|
Good. When it's done, i'd like to compare maps someday :)
PAt |
Dancing is like standing still, but faster.
My site: http://www.patoumonde.com |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2009 : 09:38:02
|
| Great that you went with consistency with the original versions ( I think my opinion on the changes in 3ed. is well known), I look forward to seeing the finished maps. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2009 : 16:29:49
|
LOL... so do I.
I worked on the Hordelands all day yesterday. I wanted to finish that first before moving back down to the Utter East (it helps with perspective). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Sep 2012 : 23:44:41
|
*** Casts "Resurrect Scroll" ***
Okay, new question/dilemma: I am doing a new FR map (taking the existing 3e terrain and retro-fitting it to the 1e/2e geography), and I really hate how much detail I lose with the 3e mountains. How terrible would it be if I switched over to something a little more artistic? You know, mountains that look like mountains (going 'old school')?
The big problem is that the 3e style is top-down, and the mountains I want are isomorphic, and mixing styles is usually NOT recommended. If I do this, I may have to do the hills in a similar fashion, and that could really get complicated. Maybe I should try a test-run of both? |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2012 : 02:33:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
*** Casts "Resurrect Scroll" ***
Okay, new question/dilemma: I am doing a new FR map (taking the existing 3e terrain and retro-fitting it to the 1e/2e geography), and I really hate how much detail I lose with the 3e mountains. How terrible would it be if I switched over to something a little more artistic? You know, mountains that look like mountains (going 'old school')?
Can you provide a visual example of the artistic styling your thinking for the mountains?
quote:
The big problem is that the 3e style is top-down, and the mountains I want are isomorphic, and mixing styles is usually NOT recommended. If I do this, I may have to do the hills in a similar fashion, and that could really get complicated. Maybe I should try a test-run of both?
Could you blend the stylised and isomorphic renditions? I've seen it done in a couple of 3rd party RPG books with small budgets, so it's obviously possible. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2012 : 07:50:17
|
Like what I did on This Map.
That was part of my 'insert Laerakond (Returned Abeir) into existing Anchorome' conversion... which is another I never bothered to finish. I kept the color palette exactly the same as the 3e textures, but used a different style.
BTW, that is what I am capable of when I'm not trying to duplicate the 3e terrain, in case some people think all I do is C&P. 
Anyhow, I've decided to just continue forward with how I was doing it before, because it is coming along quickly and I might actually finish (at least part of it) before I become bored. My biggest problem is my constantly changing things, so I never get done (that, and my ADD). So my current plan is to produce the map the way I said - just using the 3e terrain on the old layout, and then when it is done, I can go back and do all the fun tweaks I want to it (like testing out new artistic approaches).
This way, maybe the community will finally get another finished map from me. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 21 Sep 2012 07:52:18 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 26 Sep 2012 : 03:15:38
|
New Map WIP.
I'm doing a re-paint right now of the 2e campaign map with the 3e textures. At first I was going to do direct C&P of each item, but I couldn't help tweaking the heck out of everything (to better conform to the 1e/2e terrain shapes). I still have quite a ways to go before even this region is finished (I have some major hill work to do yet, along with a couple of other things).
Decision:
The 3e map shows cliffs in isomorphic, which is silly because the rest of the map is top-down. To illustrate them they have to be 5-10 miles wide! That means a forest that is supposed to go right up to the cliff-face (and be right on the coast) has to be shown to be at least that distance from the coast, which screws up the accuracy. I've decided to simple forgo drawing cliffs on the world map - the scale is too large to portray them. Those are the types of details that should be shown on smaller maps (and hopefully we will eventually get a zoomable version of the FR map, along the lines of the FRIA, but with better tech/graphics).
I plan to do all of Faerūn, right up to the Shou border. When the terrain is complete, I will start laying in the settlements. I will leave all the 'places of interest' for last (so DMs will have a player's map to work with). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 26 Sep 2012 03:16:54 |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 26 Sep 2012 : 17:55:23
|
:cough:fiveshires:cough:
 |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11701 Posts |
Posted - 26 Sep 2012 : 20:38:02
|
| Hmmm, I never would have really thought about this being an issue. I guess I put too much faith in the cartographers that the stuff matched up. Visually in my head, miles don't really say to me how much of a discrepancy there was. You say you added about 100 miles to the utter east.... give me that in roughly country size comparison? Is that like half the width of Halruaa? |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 26 Sep 2012 : 23:27:06
|
I've resolved my original issues (from back when I started this thread). Now I have new issues. 
I think this complete re-draw - using the 2e campaign map, but referencing dozens of smaller ones - will solve all my problems; its something I should have done from the beginning. Although I am taken some small things from the 3e map, they are 'additive' in nature - stuff I have to assume just never appeared on earlier maps. All old geography/terrain features will be put back they way they were, including correcting the N/S axis that 3e messed up (like Icewind Dale is actually supposed to be more north then Sossal).
The biggest change was around the desert border - you can see how much more busy its gotten (because its the 1e/2e setup, but with all the 'hilliness' from 3e). I did add a forest to Evereska, because there is supposed to be one (although the one I added is probably not to scale). I will be limiting my tendency to 'correct' stuff as much as possible, except where it absolutely makes no sense in regards to printed canon (for example, Skull Gorge must be further east and tweaked in order to match the lore regarding it - its supposed to be the one major exit from the Goblin Marches).
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
:cough:fiveshires:cough:
I have that in mind - it won't be on this map, since I want this to be as canon as possible. When this is all finished I will probably blend that conversion with this map (along with any other conversions I do). This new blank map will be a base for all my maps moving forward (something I did the last time, but that was more of an amalgam of the 1e/3e geography, unlike this new one, which favors the 1e/2e layout).
And I have another canon locale for that map as well - its a town that has never appeared on any official published map.
Expect an update soon. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 26 Sep 2012 23:28:00 |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2012 : 00:36:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
:cough:fiveshires:cough:
I have that in mind - it won't be on this map, since I want this to be as canon as possible. When this is all finished I will probably blend that conversion with this map (along with any other conversions I do). This new blank map will be a base for all my maps moving forward (something I did the last time, but that was more of an amalgam of the 1e/3e geography, unlike this new one, which favors the 1e/2e layout).
And I have another canon locale for that map as well - its a town that has never appeared on any official published map.
Expect an update soon.
Yay for the little ones! |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Map Consistency: Advice & WIP
