I'm not sure if it's too late to do this, but I know that one of the stumbling blocks I'm having is with aligning things to the grid. Now, I know 'real world' construction isn't aligned that way all the time, and in general architects don't tend to work with a 5' grid, but do you think it would be useful to have the walls etc. fixed firmly on a 5' square grid? It would cause some distortion to the original plan to make things line up, but I know it would be easier for me to work with.
I've attached a png file of the walls that I think would be easy for everyone to work with and also a jpeg showing how my adjustments (in blue) overlay the original map. Let me know if this is a desirable direction to go. It's very easy for me to then make the walls look more like wood or whatever, but I've just left this sample in monochrome to reduce file size. I realize finally that, when you have a very limited colour palate, a .png file can actually be very efficient for file size!
Laying out the walls like this is a fairly quick task too, so it's something I could contribute until I find the answer to making wood curve.
In regards to that, here's my latest go at it. My problem is that if I get something that I can curve easily it just doesn't quite match the more realistic look of our wood textures.
Grids are nice to help layout things during design but the final map would have a gridless version anyway.
I also find most of the buildings/maps that I like are not quite true squared things. Matt Jackson does a lot of those just off kilter walls very well.
Anstett - I totally agree with your plan adjustments in blue - I definitely think we should go with them - in particular expanding the staircases to two full grid squares width. Great work on the theatre wood too!
Just a quick update (I avoided some other work today by playing with the curvy wood again). This version looks better but it doesn't work on the sharp corners. Maybe we could fill those in by hand?
And regarding the grid, I should probably clarify why I suggested the 'blue prints'. When I'm trying to work out curves especially, it's easier for me to manage if things line up regularly. Also in my experience having most things fit to a regular grid does help on the VTT. I'm thinking in particular of stairs here. If we go with 7.5' wide stairs you might end up with awkward questions of position when the players are moving around the map.
However, Anstett, the theatre needs to represent the space you want to play in, so if you're not keen on the modifications (in blue) let me know. If they ARE okay, I will do the walls for the other levels of the map too.
I am very happy with the modifications you made. I was only mentioning that the final product should not have a grid on it. Or at least there be a grid-less option for everyone.
The VTT I use (Klooge) does all the measurements for us with no grids required and players can move naturally around the maps and let the program do the math for them.
Oh excellent! Yes, I'm on the same page as far as gridless maps, I mean, you can always add a grid in if you need one but it's hard to take out of a map that has it built in. Also I was thinking in terms of D&D's stuck on a grid game style, which is odd since my gaming lately has been totally free move (playing Mordheim on MapTool).
Originally Posted by anstett
There's a few spots on the map where I moved the walls a bit blatantly, like a half-square, just to line up with the 5' grid. So now I'm wondering what you think; keep the walls close to the original map (so there'll be some 7.5' stairways) or open it up a little to make the map more amenable to gridded game-play.
Or to rephrase as an attempt at design philosophy, how do we design the map space so that it is inviting to the largest number of potential users? Hmmm, maybe I'm overthinking this one.
Also I just realized I put a wall where a railing should be. I think I'm having trouble visualizing the split-level or whatever is happening there.
I'm still struggling a bit with how the maps fit together, but to me it looks like the map called Box Seats and Basement is below the tiered seats shown on the Overall Layout map, but on the same level (ground) as the seats shown in the centre of the Overall Layout map. The Overall Layout map seems to be showing two levels together. So if you were sitting in the seats in the centre and you looked around you would see the curtains for the box seats level. It seems like those curtained alcoves wouldn't be very good seats, since the people on the ground floor seating would kind of be in the way. Are they just used to store chairs? The closest example I can find is this, so if the bottom row of seating in this picture had a little less headroom then I could see it working. Also not sure what all the small square chambers with doors are for on the Box Seats map are for. You certainly couldn't see the play from there. The access to this level also confuses me a bit, since it comes only from the area that includes the tiered seating. You'd think that if it was for storage then access would come from back stage.
Ultimately we can, of course, alter the original plan as it suits anstett, but I just want to figure out what each part of the map is for and where it fits.
Does it seem like I'm on the right track?
Edit: The maps I'm referring to are here.
Meshon - did you see my post No. 8 in this thread? I think I had the same problem and resolved it.
Yes, I had read that over to see if it resolved my uncertainty. I'm still trying to make sense of the relative positions of the various maps. Is your take on it that there are then two basement levels? Or am I right in positioning the "box seats" map (the one with all the little curtains over the doors) on the same level as the seating in the centre of the theatre? I wasn't totally certain from your post that we were seeing the same thing. What I'll do is put up a map tomorrow, that will be more concrete. Or we might be on exactly the same page and I'm just too fog-brained, definitely a possibility!
Originally Posted by Jacktannery
So if the maps are made up of all the floor-plans that are on the same level, we would have:
2. A combination of the centre area of overall layout, the curtained "boxes" and the "underworld"
3. The tiered seating and the main stage level
4. Second backstage level
5. Third backstage level
6. Upper seating and fourth backstage
7. Roof storage
Does that look the same as your concept?
No - it was not my concept. But this is an accurate description of the theatre maps Anstett provided. The problem I immediately saw was that we would be making too many maps if we simply tried to recreate every level of the theatre - not good. I'm not sure where Anstett got the six maps from either - I counted many many more if we did everything.
My concept was thus to cut all this down to just three levels, and make only half of each of the levels:
1. 5000x1600px map ground floor theatre & main stage [upper half - then mirror this for the lower half]. This is http://www.cartographersguild.com/at...all-layout.jpg
2. 5000x1600px maps upper seating level (boxes & balcony) & second backstage level [upper half - then mirror this for the lower half]. This is http://www.cartographersguild.com/at...ting-level.jpg
3. 5000x1600px basement level and underworld [upper half - then mirror this for the lower half]. This is the left hand of http://www.cartographersguild.com/at...s-basement.jpg and the left hand of http://www.cartographersguild.com/at...age-levels.jpg
This significantly cuts down on the neccessary work, cuts out a lot of the boring 'chaff' from the theatre (roof storage level?) and is a more realistic goal I felt. Of course, once we did that we might decide we love it so much that we want to do every single level.