VTT Best Practices?
Royal Scribe
🖼️ 373 images Mapmaker
I have a question about the best practices for creating/using larger maps for Virtual Tabletop systems (VTTs).
I am in the process of preparing some of my maps to be used in all sorts of VTTs, so I'm looking for information that can be applied generally to all systems, rather than advice that is specific to Roll20, or to DNDBeyond, or to other specific system. I've never personally used a VTT yet, not as GM loading maps nor even as a player using one, so this is all new to me.
I've been getting advice from ChatGPT but I know its information is sometimes out of date or unreliable, so I wanted to get expertise from folks here, especially advice specific to CC3 exports.
- ChatGPT says it's best to have two output versions, one at 150 pixels per inch and the other for slower connections at 70 pixels per inch. Does that seem like the best approach?
- As I understand it, 1 inch should be 5 feet in map units. And the pixel dimensions for the file should be designed with pixels per inch times number of inches (which would be the map units divided by 5). So for example: a map that is 40 feet x 80 feet would be (on the 80 foot side): 80/5 for the number of inches (16), and multiply that by the number of pixels per inch, so at a resolution of 150px, the 40x80 map should be 1200x2400 px? Is my math correct?
- ChatGPT recommended that the VTT output include one version that includes a 5-foot-per-inch grid and another version without a grid. (I gather that VTTs can add a grid but some GMs want a pre-gridded map.) These maps should be the player-facing map that doesn't have labels, and things like traps and secret doors are not shown. I'm wondering, though, if I should also have a version that does show the secret doors and passageways (but not the traps)?
But the big question is about Large Outputs.
- I'm trying to prepare a dungeon map prepared in Forest Trail that is 480x400 map units (imperial feet). By my math, that would be 6720 x 5600 px for a 70px/inch scale, and 14400 x 12000 px for the 150px/inch scale. I was able to create an output for the 70px version but when I tried to create it for the 150px version, CC3 balked and said it was too big.
- I'm reading the instructions in CA129 annual about large outputs, and it's very helpful. I'm sure I can get it to work, but my question is less about how to do it and more about should I do it? Would the resulting file be too big for typical VTT services?
- Alternatively, should I have a 70px/inch version of the entire map, and then 150px versions of parts of the map (like one section of a crypt, or one neighborhood of a town)?
Anyone who has experience with using VTTs or creating maps for them, I would really appreciate any advice. (I think it was hinted that Kurt was working on something about this for CC4, but in the meantime, I'll need an approach I can use with CC3.)
Thank you!
Comments
ChatGPT says it's best to have two output versions, one at 150 pixels per inch and the other for slower connections at 70 pixels per inch. Does that seem like the best approach?
ChatGPT recommended that the VTT output include one version that includes a 5-foot-per-inch grid and another version without a grid. (I gather that VTTs can add a grid but some GMs want a pre-gridded map.) These maps should be the player-facing map that doesn't have labels, and things like traps and secret doors are not shown. I'm wondering, though, if I should also have a version that does show the secret doors and passageways (but not the traps)?
Are you preparing maps so others can download and use them? If so, this makes sense, as it allows the end user to pick which map to use. If you are only using them yourself, having all these version makes no sense, just grab what you actually will use.
As I understand it, 1 inch should be 5 feet in map units. And the pixel dimensions for the file should be designed with pixels per inch times number of inches (which would be the map units divided by 5). So for example: a map that is 40 feet x 80 feet would be (on the 80 foot side): 80/5 for the number of inches (16), and multiply that by the number of pixels per inch, so at a resolution of 150px, the 40x80 map should be 1200x2400 px? Is my math correct?
Yes
I'm sure I can get it to work, but my question is less about how to do it and more about should I do it? Would the resulting file be too big for typical VTT services?
Quite possibly. Most online VTT services have strict limits on file sizes. But, the only way to find out is to export that particular map, and then compare to the allowed file sizes for the various VTT's. If it is over 10MB, it is not going to fit them all, but some may still allow it.
For Roll20, I just drag the image onto the page. It's dealt well with size and bandwidth on its own. If the image export snaps to CC3 grid squares, then the mapping of Roll20 grids is pretty easy: how many grids wide is it? Bam.
I used to make VTT maps.
The 70 pixels per grid is a roll20 thing, most other VTTs do 50/100 pixels per grid. And of course for high end printing you want something like 300 dpi. For roll20 I would make a 70 and a 140 pixels per grid version.
most modern games do 5feet per grid and it’s what I would suggest doing.
For large exports I will refer you too this post:
specifically the EXPORTSETMPPP command.
I could never get maps to do multiple exports seamlessly, so if the map was too large to upload to a VTT I would chop it up post production to get to a better file size.
The biggest I exported was 14800x14400 pixels, and at that point dynamic lighting was no longer functioning.
i would not recommend making maps with different parts being different resolutions. Offering different resolutions is primarily so the end user can choose what’s right for their quality vs bandwidth balance.