Different styles for regional vs. world maps
Ciel
Traveler
Ahoy mappers! So I'm FINALLY getting back to doing some mapping for an actual fantasy world, after literally years of using CC3/CC3+ for nothing other than modern national/city maps.
I'm plotting out details for maps that will go along with a fantasy novel project I'm working on. I haven't decided on what EXACTLY the total size of the world will be yet, but something occurred to me. The (beautiful) Mike Schley style that came bundled with CC3+ has long been what I figured I'd use for maps of specific regions within this world. However, looking at an example of it (my go-to example for this style is always this excellent rendition of the 13th Age map, found on this ProFantasy blog post):
http://rpgmaps.profantasy.com/the-dragon-empire-an-example-of-mike-schleys-overland-style-for-cc3/
...it's pretty easy to see just from looking at that map, that this style could be stretched beyond its limits if used for areas significantly bigger than what is in this map. It's a high-detail style, so if the map were much bigger than this, it would be impossible to see anything when zoomed to extents. Based on the scale, this map is about 1300 by 1000 miles.
So, say I want my whole world for this setting, in total, to be bigger than that. Looking at other map styles I have access to, I remembered this style here, from the April 2009 volume of the Annuals:
https://www.profantasy.com/annual/2009/april09.html
I have had it for a while, but never did much with it. It definitely looks well-suited to big world maps, and even says that's what it's good for right on that page. So my questions are thus:
1) Do you guys think I'm basically right in my assessment that the Schley CC3+ style would really be kind of awkward if I was trying to use it to make a big map of the entire world? Again for reference, the 13th Age map is 1300 x 1000 miles, and I'm talking about making a world map that's more along the lines of say, 2500 x 2000 or so.
2) What do you think of the idea of using completely different styles for different scales (world vs. regional) of maps, when those maps are supposed to be of the SAME world/setting/story? Say you're reading this novel or looking at a website with expanded info about this setting or whatever, and you come upon the maps. First you see a world map in the April 2009 Annual style. This mapping style has some callbacks to that classic Tolkien map of Middle Earth, with somewhat uniform brown spiky mountains, small round tree shapes for forests, smooth water, etc.
Then you "turn the page" and now you're looking at regional maps of specific areas within that world, and THEY all have a completely different look from the world map, being made in the Schley style with its bumpier, more realistic looking gray mountains, that textured water effect, taller and more distinct trees, etc etc.
Would that be weird? Or am I overthinking this as usual, haha. Give me your opinions and advice map folks!
I'm plotting out details for maps that will go along with a fantasy novel project I'm working on. I haven't decided on what EXACTLY the total size of the world will be yet, but something occurred to me. The (beautiful) Mike Schley style that came bundled with CC3+ has long been what I figured I'd use for maps of specific regions within this world. However, looking at an example of it (my go-to example for this style is always this excellent rendition of the 13th Age map, found on this ProFantasy blog post):
http://rpgmaps.profantasy.com/the-dragon-empire-an-example-of-mike-schleys-overland-style-for-cc3/
...it's pretty easy to see just from looking at that map, that this style could be stretched beyond its limits if used for areas significantly bigger than what is in this map. It's a high-detail style, so if the map were much bigger than this, it would be impossible to see anything when zoomed to extents. Based on the scale, this map is about 1300 by 1000 miles.
So, say I want my whole world for this setting, in total, to be bigger than that. Looking at other map styles I have access to, I remembered this style here, from the April 2009 volume of the Annuals:
https://www.profantasy.com/annual/2009/april09.html
I have had it for a while, but never did much with it. It definitely looks well-suited to big world maps, and even says that's what it's good for right on that page. So my questions are thus:
1) Do you guys think I'm basically right in my assessment that the Schley CC3+ style would really be kind of awkward if I was trying to use it to make a big map of the entire world? Again for reference, the 13th Age map is 1300 x 1000 miles, and I'm talking about making a world map that's more along the lines of say, 2500 x 2000 or so.
2) What do you think of the idea of using completely different styles for different scales (world vs. regional) of maps, when those maps are supposed to be of the SAME world/setting/story? Say you're reading this novel or looking at a website with expanded info about this setting or whatever, and you come upon the maps. First you see a world map in the April 2009 Annual style. This mapping style has some callbacks to that classic Tolkien map of Middle Earth, with somewhat uniform brown spiky mountains, small round tree shapes for forests, smooth water, etc.
Then you "turn the page" and now you're looking at regional maps of specific areas within that world, and THEY all have a completely different look from the world map, being made in the Schley style with its bumpier, more realistic looking gray mountains, that textured water effect, taller and more distinct trees, etc etc.
Would that be weird? Or am I overthinking this as usual, haha. Give me your opinions and advice map folks!
Comments
Yeah, the Mike Schley overland style is really meant for kingdom level maps, not world level maps. It is awkward to try to make larger maps with it because of the very reasons you gave.
As far as using other map styles on the same world, unless every map you are using is supposed to have been made by the same cartographer in your world, then I see no reason why the different maps in your world would also be drawn different and use different styles.
That sounds like a good idea, and one that I would definitely be interested in seeing progress on.
Not trying to steal a thread, but since it *is* a related topic...
As an ok battle-map-maker, who would like to progress upwards in scale I realize that I have no real good idea which overland style is appropriate for what scale overland map. I know that I can always compare to a real google earth map and do my best to eyeball it, but I would really be grateful if one (or perhaps more) of the more seasoned veterans would offer their input into what one would consider to be an appropriate style for say, 5 x 5 miles, 50 x 50 miles, 500 x 500 miles, etc. with maybe even a link to the style in question.
I know that this might generate a good amount of "Do what feels right for you.", but sometimes I NEED (and I'm sure others fall into the same boat) to have some concrete guidelines laid down in front of me.
I've done world scale maps in Mike Schley.
Where's the problem?
Sometimes, after I have worked on a regional or larger map, it just feels "wrong" to me. I don't know why exactly, I just have the feeling.
Perhaps you could elucidate why you feel that that the style is perfectly fine for world scale maps?
This is an extract from one - representing 2000 square miles.
The symbols are large enough so you can see what they are, and all the stuff that is too small to see on a world map isn't shown. That's why you do regional maps - to show the details that you can't on the world map. For example, that region between Umber and Kist is riddled with towns and villages, but this is a world map and they are too small to be seen. They would make a messy clutter if I tried to show them, but they are there - represented by the farmland fill.
Its a simple point of Level of Detail (frequently called LOD, or LoD). You don't have to shrink your symbols down incredibly small and show every last detail on a world map. You just have to show the predominant use of the land, and understand that a single tree is probably a forest, and a single mountain most likely to be a whole range of the things.
Think of an OS 1:50,000 map. They use tree symbols within the green shading indicating a forest. Each of those tree symbols is probably well over a mile wide and tall if you measure it using the scale, but that doesn't matter. The point is that it's a symbol, and not a scale drawing of a tree. It's function is not to be a map of a single tree, but to show what the predominant use of that piece of land is.
EDIT: This extract is from Dorina, which I used in an article about special effects. That map is approximately 8,000 miles wide on an Earth-sized planet of 25,000 miles in circumference. The full world map is pretty big, but it is a world map. (I just need to finish it one day!)
I'm only saying that I am perplexed by the sense of feeling that is coming across that the MS style is only useful as a regional map style.
Now I'm more inclined to see what I can come up with using the Mike Schley style even for the larger world map. Especially since the full version of the map you used as an example is 8000 miles across Loopysue? Mine wouldn't be that big. I guess it just depends on how it looks and if I'm happy with the result, so best thing is probably to just try some mapping. If I really feel its necessary, i.e. if I start building a world map in the MS style but don't think it's working, I can recreate what I have so far in a second map, in the April 2009 Annual style, and then continue from there.
So with that in mind, best thing I can do is just try to start playing around more with maps in the MS style, which is something I've done very little of as of yet.
Thanks!
Many fantasy planets are smaller than that, and some are larger. I just find it easier to make worlds that are Earth-sized because it helps me to relate properly to the scale of the largest desert (Sahara is 3,000 x 1,200 miles), or the largest mountain range (Himalayas are 1,500 x 250 miles), and to keep the dimensions of such things in the fantasy world realistically proportioned so that they are at least believable.
This (below) is the outline shape of the world in the (massively unfinished) full map. This one will be done with the black and white ink version of the MS style when I've decided whether I'm going to put all that effort into it or remodel some of the other continents first.
The FCW is 25,000 map units wide - a big map, but actually to scale at the equator at the scale of 1 mile per map unit.
If you want to get more ideas why not have a look at what the community has done with the world of Nibirum. That world is mapped in just about every single style you can imagine at global, continental, regional, city, and dungeon levels.
https://atlas.monsen.cc/
As I said earlier - I am simply perplexed that so many mappers feel the MS style is unsuitable for world mapping, which is kind of a side conversation to your initial comment. You use what you want to use - what you like the look of and will enjoy all the way through the job
Guidelines for what... which part of it, exactly?
And am I really the one to produce guidelines if I am the minority?
I recommend to take some inspiration from the atlas, almost all the continent maps there are made in the Mike Schley style, and several of the continents there (Especially Dioriant and Alarius) are huge.