27 May 2019

Map K Redux

So after my last post about the map from B10 I was looking at some other maps from modules which Geoff Wingate was credited on. Then I noticed on some maps from UK1 All That Glitters that both ridges/peaks and valleys/passes were shown in the same manner.
Then I began to second guess my earlier decisions and was all confused. After some research I found Geoff Wingate's contact information and emailed about my quandary and with an explanation of what I was trying to do. To my surprise I got a reply.

"Hi Lance... I had to google DEM... that's cool what you've done and I'm flattered you've used my old D&D illustrated maps as inspiration... it's true my drawn lines representing mountainous  ridges and valleys are the same... and where mountains meet a flat plain... I guessed people would 'read' that a ridge line ends in a stick-out headland and a valley line ends in an inlet... if you know what I mean... to be honest, I really think I sort-of invented this graphic technique because I can't remember copying it from anywhere... I had studied architecture and architectural graphics standards and I also loved drawing in art nouveau style or folk-like Celtic style... when I started freelancing for D&D in Cambridge... I found existing rpg maps diagrammatic and abstract so I wanted to draw a more pictorial illustrated map... more fun, more expressive but still scaled and accurate... I'm proud of those maps and pleased players enjoyed them... I was proud of my 'Eye of the Serpent' map where I managed to combine a flat map within a perspective landscape... I don't think I've particularly answered your questions... maybe my response a bit vague... but anyway, thx for your email and nice to meet you... GEOFF"

So from this, we can conclude that both ridges and valleys are represented and we can identify each by the overall shape of the mountains. Using this principle as a guide I have revised my previous outline:





7 comments:

  1. Jeppe Ammitzbøll16 July, 2024 01:20

    Very interesting. Thanks. However I think the valley should be placed higher than Darokin in the north-west corner. I.e. if you stand in the north-west corner of the valley, you can look down into Darokin, and slide down there. Along this part of the border with Darokin the valley is a plateau (up) in the mountains.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reason I placed the cliff on the outer edge of the valley there was the only way to make to make the ridgelines consistent with the text. The text explicitly says that from inside the valley the mountains rise up all around and are sheer and impassable. I'm out of town right now. So can't quote from the book. The lost valley would still be higher elevation than darokin, just the mountains around are higher than the lost valley.

      Delete
    2. If we begin in Darokin to the north-west of the valley, on the red line you marked as a peak, we can follow your purple "downslope ridge" area all the way to the valley. Hence the valley must be lower than where we began!

      The problem is that on map K it seems we can travel from Darokin to the valley going either up or down all the way. If the text disallows "up all the way", I can think of only one solution: a ridge line is missing on map K. On map H there is a mountain ridge in the south west part of the map that is not shown on map K. This supports the idea that a ridge line could be missing on map K.

      Delete
    3. I think you misunderstand my intention with putting the redline there. I see it as a gradual downslope into the lost valley, and the other side is sheer cliffs buttressed against the hills on the darokin side. The hills are lower than the mountains, not even with them. The hill symbol I see as representing terrain inherently lower than any mountain terrain.

      Delete
    4. I don't understand. If I stand on the red line, bordering the hills, I am at the same height as the hills, right? This must be the case if the height of the landscape is continuous. If I then walk onto the purple area, have I gotten (slightly) higher or lower? And what happens if I keep walking in the purple area to the valley?

      Delete
  2. I don't understand. If I stand on the red line, bordering the hills, I am at the same height as the hills, right? This must be the case if the height of the landscape is continuous. If I then walk onto the purple area, have I gotten (slightly) higher or lower? And what happens if I keep walking in the purple area to the valley?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you can delete the above comment. I should have placed it as a reply to your reply.

      Delete