18 réponses à ce sujet

[Jezla]

Hi all, looking for some player input here...

I'm working on a campaign set in the Dalelands, based on my experiences in a now defunct PW.

I'm trying to decide before I get too involved in the build process whether to use a world map or an overland map.

I'm leaning toward the WM myself, but I'm curious what you mod players think.  Which would give a better play experience, given the setting?

[kamal_]

OM, it's more work though. No ones going to complain either way if the campaign is good.

[MokahTGS]

 Both are good, but for very different purposes.

The World Map - Great for giving a sense of large world scale and keeping a story tight.  If you have a very tight storyline and want to just allow the player a quicker way to access far-flug locals, then this is your better choice.

The Overland Map - Great for giving a  sense of large world of scale but with exploration.  This is better suited for looser, sandboxish modules where the player is free to roam.  The OM is the side questers best friend.  Lots to do, see and explore, plus random encounters done right. 

It all comes down to what your overall goal is.  There is nothing that would keep you from using both if you wish as well, although the OM is a considerable amount of work compared to the World Map.

[Eguintir Eligard]

World map. Overland pretty much necessitates combat encounters which pretty much throws out any plans you had for balanced, calculated combats and is generally a big addition to the workload.

[Dann-J]

I'd go for the world map as well. That way you can create an original piece of art that isn't restricted by what you can cobble together in the toolset.

[_Knightmare_]

Personally I like the OM. What you can do is combine the ideas if you wanted. Use a OM for the general area/countryside and then use a WM for when the player is in cities/towns.

[M. Rieder]

My vote is for neither. Just make your areas continuous. One starts where the other ends. Make a nice little game world and it is very immersive. I cite Last of the Danaan as an example.

Of course, if your adventure occurrs over a large area, then this is pretty much impossible. In that case, for a story driven mod I recommend world map and for sandbox, the OM seems to work a little better. My rational is that a sandbox is more geared for just tooling around and the OM is great for that. A world map is a little more focused and is a good vehicle to keep the story rolling.

If you forego a OM or WM, you may want to include a map type item that allows the player to quickly move from area to area. Checkout Moonshadows to see how that would work.

[steelfire_dragon]

my oppinion is that it depends on how big your module is going to be.

they both work well.

[Morbane]

M. Rieder wrote...

My vote is for neither. Just make your areas continuous. One starts where the other ends. Make a nice little game world and it is very immersive. I cite Last of the Danaan as an example.

Of course, if your adventure occurrs over a large area, then this is pretty much impossible. In that case, for a story driven mod I recommend world map and for sandbox, the OM seems to work a little better. My rational is that a sandbox is more geared for just tooling around and the OM is great for that. A world map is a little more focused and is a good vehicle to keep the story rolling.

If you forego a OM or WM, you may want to include a map type item that allows the player to quickly move from area to area. Checkout Moonshadows to see how that would work.

I also like the continuous map option - both projects (unfinished as yet) I have put together aviod use of the OM or  WM.

[Jezla]

Thanks for the input everyone. I was leaning toward using the WM. Mokah, DannJ, and M.Rieder your posts confimred it for me, since this is a fairly story driven mod. It will (hopefully) not be very linear, but it's far from a sandbox.

Modifié par Jezla, 10 août 2011 - 12:09 .

[Eguintir Eligard]

what my post wasn't good enough to support the world map side? Forget you!

[Jezla]

Dang dude...sorry I missed it. Sheesh!

[PJ156]

Were I to use either I would go with world map for some of the aforementioned issues. Balance is one and story continuity another. I personally think that a OM can amke a module flacid if not careful. In SoZ it works because the visiting of places forms part of the story but if you are strongly story led and OM might not be the better way forward. 

Do to lack of skill in the first instance I went with placeables for transitions, controling the choice of location through the conversation fired off the object (signpost). It works well i think though it is a touch clumsy. It is simpler again than the world map and has the advantage in my case of not having to pin point exactly where the mod is taking place.

PJ

[rjshae]

I like the WM, but I think it would be good to include some measure of travel time and path determination (which is reflected in the game clock and the risk and type of encounters). I.e. similar to what is done in the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale series.

[M. Rieder]

Write a good story, make sure there are some orcs for me to blow up, and I'll be happy with OM or WM or neither! Best of luck!

[nicethugbert]

Both!

[Omega27]

kamal_ wrote...

OM, it's more work though. No ones going to complain either way if the campaign is good.

Im going to go with Kamal on this one. But i also agree to using both . As said im sure as long as the story and etc is good you wont get negative feed back about it. 

Good luck.

[The Cow King]

Definitely World Map as long as it looks GOOD.

Otherwise OM.

[Shallina]

OM well done can give everything a WM can do. But it's a lot of work. Is it better to do full area or an OM ?

Modifié par Shallina, 13 août 2011 - 12:09 .