D&D/GURPS map

[moop123]

Hey, its been a while since I have posted on the forums here but I have a question.

Since recent me and a group of my friends have been playing dungeons and dragons on the regular (since switched to the GURPS system but its the same principle if you don't know much about table top RPGs). I have been playing the role of GM and throughout all of our campaigns we have never used one, concrete world map to illustrate the players positions in the world. I am in the process of making one. Literally to show the position of land nations in an overworld view. I have just made two maps. Each has most of the same nation names but drastically different positions. All I want you to take into account at the moment with these maps (as they are very basic gimp made maps. Just colourized land and water) is the positions of the nations and shape of the land. All I am asking is, which one would be more appealing to you to play in a tabletop RPG setting ? Feel free to ask any questions to help make your decision but I would like a general consensus.

Map 1:

Elsywn world map.png

Map 2:

Elsywen world map 2.png

[Coreyartus]

Hm. Going only on the relationship of land masses to water, it feels like the upper map is a smaller scale than the lower, because islands in general seem to be smaller and the nature of the "river" that flows between the two halves of the island is too smooth and clean in comparison to the watery edges of the island itself. Also, the appearance of higher geography (as indicated by shadows) would imply that the island has less mountainous ranges.

So my preference would be the lower map. It's bigger. More fleshed out. The upper map could almost fit into the lower map along a coastline, and you could retain the best of both efforts. Perhaps, starting with the island of nations, then moving to the larger continental map as the players explore might be a good option?

The delineation between states on a map should usually echo reality in the sense that sometimes geology often imposes natural "borders" between nations. The upper map would need more natural components to help us understand why the nations are in the proximities they're in. The lower map, by virtue of its implied scale, doesn't have that burden--in some ways, it's so high up that it's naturally abstracted and we don't find natural phenomenon (like rivers and mountains) a necessity to understand national borders.

Which map is appropriate for your purposes also depends on the role of politics and nationalism in your game. If it's important that the players have an opportunity to travel to many different distinct governmental factions, then having a smaller geographical area (the top map) might be a necessity. But if your players aren't into state-hopping and it's not important to your campaign, then having the scale of those countries be larger might be more desirable, as the presence of those forces/governments is enough without your players ever needing to go there...