As an experiment, I ran a rather short lived little campaign where I deliberately depicted NOTHING with maps. That might sound odd, but look at it: as GM's we are bombarded with maps - typically, when asked to depict something we ue this handy tool to portray a great deal of information quickly and easily, with a minimum of misunderstanding. Yet this is terribly anachronistic.
If you were walking along the road from Adrianople, and asked Ithikos the
Merchant "Where do I find the Street of Smiths?" he would NOT have drawn
you a map. Rather, he'd give you directions and TIMES. Even now, someone
asks "how far are you from the airport?" most frequently the answer is "45
minutes".
In the context where the mode of transport is unquestioned (i.e. by foot or
horse, the actual speed isn't much different) distances are almost
exclusively replaced by TIMES.
Nobody in Pavis would really know the number of km to Corflu or the Paps,
but they'd almost all know how long it takes to get there..."yeah, about 3
days by boat, or a week on foot."
In the sense of a map of a city, I don't think we can replace maps for giving GM's info, but try only giving your *players* info that they would get in the methods they would get it. It takes a lot longer, but the versimillitude is pretty entertaining, and you'll be surprised how your players feel "in character" more easily.
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #212
Powered by hypermail