Personally, I'm quite happy with the result. What do you think?
I'm a newbie to Greyhawk as of 3e, and I have been doing hours of research on 1e and 2e Greyhawk materials. With each map I opened, I found interesting places that made me ask, "What's that?" I search the name of the locations and find all sorts of wonderful details that help me breath even more life into my Greyhawk.
But the maps have rekindled my interest in and passion for Greyhawk! I've been having so much fun finding locations on the map and then reading about those locations in my 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition Greyhawk products.
Plus Dungeon magazine is the best it has been in the 5 years I've been a subscriber. I've even decided to take the RPGA test and run Dungeon adventures as part of the Player Rewards program.
If people are considering ordering the Greyhawk map issues, getting a subscription, or both I highly recommend it!
Maybe my displeasure is just because I've already been using the older Darlene maps from the Greyhawk Folio, though. Comparing the two, I find the new maps have some slight "irregularities," many of which are falling right on my campaign area. (That kinda thing'll put a damper on purt near anyone's enthusiasm, I reckon. ;) )
Plus, the adventures in the magazines aren't inspiring me much at all.
*hides behind twelve stacks of books*
To me, a campaign world starts with the map. I fondly remember opening up the Greyhawk gold box, and pulling out the map first thing. I poured over that thing quite a while before I even looked at the books. And I love how Greyhawk has all these evocative (some may say obvious) names. You don't even need to look at the books to be inspired. Yeomanry. Yeomen live there. I don't remember what a yeoman is, but they sound like nice folk. Scarlet Brotherhood. Shady characters for sure. Shield lands. What are they defending? Bandit Kingdoms. Probably some bandit kings running around there. Frost Barbarians. Bet its cold up there.
A good map makes a good campaign setting great.
Yeah I have that problem too. I really want to take the maps into the game and lay it out for my players, so they can see how big the world is, but there is that little "Vault of the Drow" marker, and they are currently in G2
To me, a campaign world starts with the map. I fondly remember opening up the Greyhawk gold box, and pulling out the map first thing. I poured over that thing quite a while before I even looked at the books. And I love how Greyhawk has all these evocative (some may say obvious) names. You don't even need to look at the books to be inspired. Yeomanry. Yeomen live there. I don't remember what a yeoman is, but they sound like nice folk. Scarlet Brotherhood. Shady characters for sure. Shield lands. What are they defending? Bandit Kingdoms. Probably some bandit kings running around there. Frost Barbarians. Bet its cold up there.
A good map makes a good campaign setting great.
Totally with you on that. When I first perused the contents of the old '82 Greyhawk boxed set, the maps immediately enthralled me. The books left much to the imagination, which I guess could be seen as good or bad, but the sense of wonder and high fantasy evoked by what was included fueled countless hours of gaming goodness for my players and I.
Yeah, I know that ink is expensive, but if you're going to spend $40+ for maps, then printer ink isn't much more of a stretch for your hobby, I think.
On a somewhat related matter, that which really annoys me is the inconsistencies between the maps of Oerik and Oerth (everything outside of the Flanaess, that is). For instance, the most official map I know of is the one published by TSR on the Dragon Annual which shows Oerik and a few pieces of the other continents. However, judging by the Oerth Journal, the map can't be correct because the Flanaess is only 14% of the full landmass of Oerth - which means that the rest of the planet would have to be Huge (and defintely much bigger than the Dragon Annual rendition).
Some people worry about "canon", but that's not much of a problem for me because I can have the same world, and give it a different timeline. I *do* get worried when the physical description of said world is inconsistent...
The only solution I found was to consider the Dragon Annual map as "an inaccurate estimation of Oerth". Afterall, the article that came with the map describes it as a "gift" to Mordenkainen, so it is implied that the map is just an "in-character" drawing which is limited by that character perception of his world (kind of like we thought the earth was flat at one point).
However, if I do the above, that leaves me "mapless", since there's still no other official map of Oerik... let alone Oerth. :whatsthis
...
I guess I just went on a rant here...
I'm not sure I follow you on the issue of the scale on the new map of the Flanaess vs the scale on the map of Oerth from the Dragon Annual. if your issue is that the Flanaess is 14% according to Oerth Journal, which is fan-based, then change the percentage to suit your own needs.
Scan the map? Uh, have you seen how large it is?
Well, you can scan and print it in sections. The only real work is putting it back together, once printed, but if you're generous on the margins, you can just overlap any portion which was scanned twice.
I'm not sure I follow you on the issue of the scale on the new map of the Flanaess vs the scale on the map of Oerth from the Dragon Annual. if your issue is that the Flanaess is 14% according to Oerth Journal, which is fan-based, then change the percentage to suit your own needs.
The problem is that the Oerth Journal is based on the information provided in the 1983 Greyhawk setting, so it's so much "fan-based" as it is "fan-researched".
I think the maps were pretty cool and fun and I enjoy them alot. But from a gaming perspective it has limited use by the DM only. I wouldn't put these maps out for the PC's to use. To many secrect places layed out on them to see.
I think all these maps are designed for DMs only. Most PCs would have no clue about the locations of settlements except on a case by case basis. Sadly, us DMS have to draw (badly) our own maps for our PCs to emulate the awful maps that would normally be available in medieval times. That's why everyone follows the trade routes.
The maps are kewl but I'm actually disappointed that quite a lot of canon was left out. For example, we have entries for Fenril in the Pomarj - a location about which I have never seen any canon, and Nol-daer - a keep detailed only in an obscure Dungeon adventure (which I don't have.. grumble) and yet the orc settlement of Cantona, which has several canon entries, was left off, as was the Slaver's Stockade from the original slavers mods.
While I appecaite that space constraints may limit the number of entries, and the size of settlements was taken into consideration, this doesn't seem to be true for some of the missing locations.
Even so, they're still pretty good.
.........................................Omote
FPQ