For this topic, I feel as if I am lacking the language to truly describe what I mean by "Map Layout" in a brief manner. For the purposes of this article, "Map Layout" refers to how players portray their characters in relationship to the game space. Examples of this would be theatre of the mind, square grids, hex grids, zones, range bands, and map + measure. Most TTRPGs use one of these six options as their default assumption for a given mode of play, and each option has its own unique benefits and restrictions. Here, I will discuss what those benefits and restrictions are, and what you should use a given map layout for.
Theatre of the Mind
The most basic map layout is the lack of any sort of visual aid, although some tables may use miniatures without a map just for a little bit of extra assistance. This is most commonly used for rules-lite and narrative RPGs, and the various properties of TotM reflects this.
Pros:
- Requires the least time/monetary investment
- Very flexible and encourages player embellishment
- Allows players to portray the environment to their own tastes
Cons:
- Leans heavily into good narration by the GM
- Can lead to players floundering due to lack of visual prompts
- Is very poor in situations where relative positioning is important (often combat)
Generally, Theatre of the Mind is best used when only a few details of an area are important and players don't need to consider how their character is oriented in a space. Fast and loose systems such as PbtA and OSR titles use TotM particularly well.
Grid-Based Maps
Popularized by TTRPGs with wargaming roots such as Dungeons & Dragons, grid-based maps overlay a grid, typically square or hexagonal, over an illustrated or model-based map, with players using miniatures to denote the position of their characters. Square grids are typically used for indoor areas as many real-world buildings use 90-degree angles, while hex grids are typically used for either large-scale exploration (hexploration) or for games with a heavy emphasis on tactics.
Pros:
- Gives players the most detailed information on how characters are positioned
- Easy to gauge distance between characters by counting tiles
Cons:
- Requires the most setup of any map style
- (Square Grids only) Is poor for measuring diagonals
- (Hex Grids only) doesn't work well for 90-degree angles
For any game that wants a high degree of fidelity when it comes to positioning, grid-based maps are your best bet. Note that you'll likely need premade grids and maps for lots of games, but virtual tabletops make this much easier than physical tabletops.
Zone-Based Maps
The younger brother of grid-based maps, zone-based maps use illustrations or models to define an area, but rather than overlaying a grid, you simply segment the map into abstract zones based off of landmarks, barriers, and other geographical features. This is often used for games that want additional fidelity compared to Theatre of the Mind, but don't have require enough to use a grid.
Pros:
- Gives players a decent amount of information regarding position
- Assists in map design by encouraging every zone to have an identifiable landmark
- Can be sketched quickly for improvised maps
Cons:
- Needs an illustration to work to its fullest
- Can be difficult to create zones for intentionally barren areas
Overall, zone-based maps are a good solution for games that cover a wide variety of ideas. It's just enough detail for use when positioning is important, but not enough that it becomes difficult to improvise. A special mention goes to how it encourages the use of landmarks and setpieces and how this can dramatically improve one's map design by making each location particularly memorable.
Range Bands
Rather than being a specific mapping style, range bands are a tool used with miniatures without a proper map illustration below it. Range bands gauge relative distance between two characters or spaces, and when characters move, they typically move a set number of range bands. Think of them as rungs on a ladder that connects two points in space, but each rung might not actually be the same literal size.
Pros:
- Very little setup time, so easy to improvise
- Great for determining distance quickly
Cons:
- Gets incredibly messy when comparing more than two locations in space
- Has issues with very short ranged engagements
- If Range Bands vary in size, movement can become incredibly awkward in-fiction
Overall, Range Bands are useful, but only in very limited circumstances. For linear corridors or encounters with only two moving pieces (ship vs ship combat), it's quite useful. For everything else it will likely get very messy.
Map + Measure
Familiar to many wargamers, Map + Measure is a mapping style that utilizes an illustration or models, but instead of segmenting the map using grids or zones, players will physically measure the distance using a ruler or tape measure to gauge distances. This is not commonly used for TTRPGs by default, but it is common for war games.
Pros:
- Is the most granular, allowing for very precise positioning
- Can be quickly assembled using physical props
Cons:
- Requires both scale-accurate miniatures as well as a measuring device
- The granularity can become quite finicky
- Measuring distance can be quite slow
Map + Measure may be good for wargames, but groups might find the mapping style either too clunky or too slow for RPGs. However, it is quite fast on virtual tabletops, so may be worth consideration there.
Concluding Thoughts
Personally, I believe zone-based maps are the overall best choice when it comes to a balance of fidelity vs simplicity, but different games have different mapping needs. Consider asking how a mapping style will impact how your players go about an RPG when thinking about how to design your maps.
Next time, I'll be discussing a specific game: Dragon's Dogma, and how its enemy gameplay design is some of the best and most interesting of any action RPG and how the concepts DD uses can be applied to other games.
Comments