Reply With Quote
Welcome to the Guild Newt, I'm sure you will get a lot of help, and there are a lot of tutorials as well.
new member—Elmincár
Hello, my name is ObsequiousNewt, and I'm an alcoholic. Oh wait, wrong group.
I have a map I drew for a D&D world when I was probably twelve or thirteen, and, simply put, I'd like to make it better. Upon looking at it I can tell, with my however limited knowledge of geography, that I apparently had the right idea when it came to rivers (all of which flow downhill-like). That said, I can see a few glaring (and less glaring) problems that I'd like to fix, but am not necessarily sure how to:
- First and foremost, what is the scale? I have no idea what the scale is even supposed to be. I have no idea what would even be a sensible range of numbers. I never wrote an adventure that involved travel between two cities.
- The existence of the lake 'Namó Ablés' which doesn't flow anywhere. However, that lake as I recall is magical, so it's certainly possible to handwave that as an explanation—assuming that doesn't screw with too much else causally.
- Namó Tabin is less excusable, and I will have to do something with that—either add a river flowing outward or convert the entire thing into coast. This may depend on...
- What exists beyond the borders is left ambiguous, and I'd like to keep it that way—largely because it's not important, partly because I'm not entirely sure what kind of world this even takes place on (for purposes of climate, a globe is fine to assume, though I have no idea what latitude this takes place on.) That said, I do think I might expand the map past what is shown—but probably mostly to the west. The Agrócar coastline needs improvement.
- Été (the desert), Anarós (not sure), Mádrós (hills), Harad Cuerol ('Southern Plains'), and the group of three mountains in the lower left corner are all sort of thrown on because I thought I needed biome/landform diversity, and should probably be replaced with more appropriate features (though the toponyms will stay.) Of course, if any of these would help determine what the otherwise ambiguous climate map should be, so much the better.
- With regards to the forests (the heavily shaded areas): Agrómé Maktos (the forest in the upper right hand corner) doesn't need to stay (same for the nearby forested island); Agrómé Tolet (the huge one) is kind of plot-important but need not necessarily retain its size or shape.
- Despite the labeling, it seems like the south-east mountains are more collinear with the northward chain (Fír Édris) than with the western mountains. I just figured I'd point this out to mitigate potential confusion.
- The dots (towns/cities/whatever) are placed somewhat sensibly (most of them are near water) but not very sensibly (obviously sparse distribution in anything that's not Talócár. Or maybe Talócár is too dense. I don't really know, that's why I'm asking for help.)
I don't want to seem like I'm asking for people to do everything for me, but I would like to be pointed in the right direction, and I want to be aware of any other problems that should be solved.
So... uh, yeah. Hello and please help me recreate my map. Kthxbai.
EDIT: Oh, yeah, better actually attach the map.
Last edited by ObsequiousNewt; 09-07-2015 at 10:59 PM. Reason: attach the map
Welcome to the Guild Newt, I'm sure you will get a lot of help, and there are a lot of tutorials as well.
My Battlemaps Gallery http://www.cartographersguild.com/al...p?albumid=3407
Hello ObsequiousNewt, Welcome to the Guild!
You have done a good job of identifying what needs to be done. From here, try the great tutorial in the sticky section of Tutorials, called Quickstart Guide to Fantasy Mapping: http://www.cartographersguild.com/showthread.php?t=4276
From there, go to Hand Drawn Mapping for the Artistically Challenged: http://www.cartographersguild.com/sh...ad.php?t=10655
Once you have completed those two tutorials, you'll be well on your way!!
I did look at several tutorials listed, including those two, which were helpful but not what I was looking for—most of the tutorials were aimed towards 'how to make nice-looking maps using software X', and seem to presume that one already knows how to make a realistic map. I am more concerned with knowing what my world should look like, from a geological perspective—and some of the problems above (viz. most especially the question of scale) I don't know how to answer except by asking the experts.
At the top of your screen is an option called "Gallery", a pulldown menu. Click on Gallery and then on Picture Gallery, and start looking through the maps there. Look at the maps you like in detail to see how they did the things you are interested in -- scale, representation of mountains, rivers, forests, etc, and whatever else is on the map you want to make.
Then also go look at this thread for advice on various geological and scaling problems that newbie tend to have: http://www.cartographersguild.com/sh...ad.php?t=30156
Both of those exercises should help you in seeing what you need for your map.
There's something with that "little kid map" of yours that I liked immediately. I think it shows promise concerning geography (at whatever age it was made)... I mean, it's not just a mindless-collage-of-clichés and that makes it a nice starting point.
However, it was difficult to decipher, so I took some 20 mins putting this together before I could properly try to help with the geology/climate. It's just a simplification, no roads, no labels, I'm sure some stuff slipped past and it has no artistic intention. If you feel I'm stepping on your toes, just say..
Having done that, there's some comments I can share with you:
- Good stuff -
Rivers flow in directions that seem natural and hint at some more topography that the line of mountains shows, I'll get back to that later.
Cities are located in slightly disperse clusters, which is something natural and also hints on the climate of the area.
- Not so good -
Desert and forest at the same latitude is going to be hard to explain...
- What I see -
Grassland north of a desert area means one of two things: we're talking about the northern hemisphere and that grassland/savannah will transition to mediterranean climate where applicable and steppe for the most part until the northern forests (assuming no large water bodies in the way) OR we're talking about the souther hemisphere and that grassland/savannah is a transition region before denser forests start to appear, and all the way to rainforest!
Or... that desert is not located in the typical desert latitudes and it is created by particular orographic conditions (like being a valley surrounded by mountains on all/most sides). In this case, the forest is believable where it is, but you should add those mountains. Unless that's the explanation, that forest in the south shouldn't be there.
The area in the east looks like a raised plateau. This is because it boasts more rivers than the rest of the area (more altitude, cooler air, less evaporation and more rain) and also because some rivers run to a large lake and after it, the entire water runs in a drainage route paralel to the main ridge. This could explain why it is more heavily settled than the rest of the region.
The area in the southwest is possibly drier (again, I think that forest must go, alternatively, you can make it a forest of cactii, like some areas in mexico or in madagascar). Settlement exists mainly around that lake, which might fill and retreat seasonaly, at the base of the mountains where local streams support agriculture, or aligned with a possible trade route between the coast and the inland plateau.
...
Is this what you wanted?
Oeuf... #4 regarding the mountains does kind of throw a wrench in the whole design. I'm not sure what to do about that...Originally Posted by Chick
Eech, I hate to say it (that map looks prettier by far than mine), but the area to the northeast is supposed to be ocean. On behalf of twelve-year-old me, I apologize for my poor marking.However, it was difficult to decipher, so I took some 20 mins putting this together before I could properly try to help with the geology/climate. It's just a simplification, no roads, no labels, I'm sure some stuff slipped past and it has no artistic intention. If you feel I'm stepping on your toes, just say..
Really, I'd much rather remove the desert than the forest. I doubt it really belongs there to begin with. (I know this might make determining climate more difficult, but it didn't really belong there in the first place. Plus I have a nagging suspicion that if I look at my campaign notes that area should be more heavily civilized.)- a lot of things about the desert -
Very much so—this is very much the kind of help I was looking for (even if your specific answers were founded on poor communication by myself.)Is this what you wanted?
There is no rule that says your map can't have unrealistic mountain ranges, just that it wouldn't happen in our natural world. If you want to fix it, you would need to make the mountain ranges more parallel or separated a bit.
Aren't there places where three tectonic plates intersect? Or would that not result in such a formation?
(If not I'd still throw something magic at the wall to explain it. I feel like altering that range would be too drastic of a change.)
Posting Permissions
