Globs & Blobs

I've questioned if I should write this post, because on the surface it sounds lunatic.  Nonetheless, I haven't anything else in the offing.  My cerebrum seems to be functioning less as summer comes on.  Must be the gravity chair on my deck.  Tilting back slows brain activity.

No doubt, you've seen maps like this section from Faerun, thick with a graphic of dense trees from edge to edge.  The effect of fluffy edges does entice and is suggestive of high adventure and such, but in fact the forest depicted doesn't work especially good as a map.  As in, doesn't really explain how to find our way to where we might be going.  Nor does it especially give us information on what sort of forest it is.  After all, even forests with the same basic vegetation, say deciduous, can be quite different from place to place.  The high forest depicted here would be inundated with streams and rivers (not indicated), since the trees need water; that would presume dales and valleys (not indicated), meaning some parts ought to be "high ground" (not indicated) and even somewhat boggy in nature (not indicated).  In fact, because the forest is quite far north, obviously there ought to be snow fall, and frozen ground, so that a large area like this in a north temperate region ought to be replete with muskeg and beaver ponds (not indicated).

Of course, all this can be written out on the side, but without a map indicating which parts are which, the big green adventurous forest is somewhat, well, grey.

I used to employ trees on maps but I've moved away from that; most regular readers know that of late I've been incorporating hills and mountains in the maps I've been posting.  Hills, like trees, are usually painted in a sort of glob, such as the Dessarin example here.  The hills in the three groups are differently located, and the western example includes a group of purplish mountains, but on the whole these look like three of the same thing ... except, of course, they have different names.

Consider the opportunities available when assigning globs of hills and forests to your game map.  Notice how the Dessarin Hills have little, smaller blobs of hills, like satellites attached to the main body.  The Faerun map above does the same, with drips and drops of forest around the main body, like patches of spilled paint.  These single hills, or hill-glops, are much more interesting than the main body of hills, since they suggest isolation.  They are perhaps inhabited by singular groups small enough for a party to handle, or they represent differently thinking peoples separated from the main tribe.  Humans like bite-sized pieces.  It helps to produce maps that give this.

So.  What is the difference between these two groups of hills?

If you said there are many more on the left, congratulations, you're very smart.  Nonetheless, the point is that there are more hills on the left ... because those are "foothills," clustered against a row of mountains, while the hills on the right are surrounded by a grassy, well-watered plain.  In both cases, let me explain that the distribution of hills is not random.  Oh, there's a certain arbitrary attitude I have about plopping in one hill after another, but I'm also conscious that I'm representing certain kinds of topography with each symbol I place.

The hills on the left are south and east of the Transylvanian Alps ... which are being formed by the steady northward movement of the north African techtonic plate.  These same Alps have been shaped by various Ice Ages over the last million years.  The area has a pattern of general uplift complimented by cutting and shaping of huge mile-high sheets of ice, advancing and retreating.

The hills on the right are found on the boundary between Romanian Moldavia and independent Moldova; they, too, were formed by glacier, but in their case they represent till left behind after the last glacier retreated.  They're not very high and they're generally not made of rock ... but rather piled up soil, sand and gravel.  Thus, while the hills on the left are empty of settlers, the hills on the right support shepherds and small-plot vegetable farmers.

Now consider this splattering of hills around a bend of the Prut River in northeastern Moldova.  Presume for a moment that each hill is an actual hill, sitting out on the plain through which the river flows.  Each hill is pile of gravel left behind by glacier.  There aren't enough of them to hinder the development of farms or roads ... they might even be accompanied by ground water springs, making these few hills both valuable and attractive to look at.  I can say that having looked very closely at this area, this is not exactly how the topography looks; in fact, the hills are lower and somewhat closer together ... but I'm simplifying by using one symbol in different ways, to produce different topographies.

Therefore, by choosing how far apart those symbols are placed or how they're joined, we can invent a more interesting map.  Notice how on some maps, the hills are placed so they actually touch one another ... but on this last map, every hill is isolated.  There are two hills near Chirca on this last map that are nearly touching.  It's easy to imagine that both hills form a single small biosphere ... unlike the two hills near Hirbovat, which are clearly independent hills.

The larger globs of the foothills above, and on the left, are sometimes clustered in groups of three and four.  We may surmise that while the hills around Chirca can be easily traversed, these thicker patches of hills are a real obstacle.  Thus to convey a part of the world where travel is difficult and harsh, I need merely pack the hills in tighter.  Or use more elaborate hill-symbols to indicate higher hills or those that are more craggy.  Since I'm drawing the images myself, this is no problem.

Space matters.  In making your game map, be aware of the space on the map and how you're using it.  The larger map of Romania and surrounding environs I've been making is a series of connected hill groupings, with areas where the hills thin and thicken.  The real world isn't like the sharp dividing lines of most fantasy maps, where the hills clearly end next to plains like an existing property line, or where the mountains come to a halt here, and no farther.  Vegetation grows denser or it thins.  Hills pack tightly together or they get scattered.  Mountains right next to each other don't look the same, because the last Ice Age bore through inconsistently.  This mountain here may be 8,000 ft. high; but the one next to it might be only 4,000.  This mountain may form a four-sided spike, but the next one over might be a pile of four rounded mountains knotted together.  Plains are broken all over by hills, deep valleys, large depressions, patches of semi-desert.  Don't make every mountain, hill, tree and grassland on your maps a single "type."  Each type of terrain ought to bleed together, slowly, over hundreds of kilometers in some cases.

It makes the map more interesting.