Heretic Saga is this Setting-heavy, high-fantasy game I’m working on. When I say “Setting-heavy,” I don’t mean that there’s pages of history you have to wade through or any of that – I mean that pre-established Setting elements have a powerful role in gameplay, all the time, especially with regard to the introduction and development of conflict. To get around the “read this forever” problem, I’ve been boiling everything down as far as possible, and baking everything into the mechanics themselves as much as I can. Which actually isn’t as hard as I thought. The Burning Wheel (which lies, lies, lies when it claims to have no Setting) is an excellent giant to stand on the shoulders of, as is Poison’d in some very subtle, surprising, and astounding ways.

To lower the entry barrier even further, I’ve been breaking up the system into modular sub-systems that you don’t have to use unless you want to highlight certain things – you don’t even have to learn them until you’re ready to explore the kind of conflicts, Color, and Characters that hinge on them. As an example, there’s a fairly in-depth set of sailing rules. But until some sailing happens in your game and you want it to be more than a “roll to see if you make it safely to Porta Reyes” kinda thang – which is to say, until somebody wants to play a sailor as a PC – you don’t even have to think about those rules, let alone read and learn them. And all of these subsystems tie into the setting because they’re divided up by racial and cultural lines – for instance, sailing is a thing that the humans do, and it’s part of their culture, and it means things to them. (To the extent that human characters can take relationship stats with sailing vessels, an option not normally available to any other race.)

But that’s not the topic at hand; I just wanted to make clear my design philosophy for this game re: Setting, what it should do, how it should get along with the other elements of Exploration, and so on.

The topic is, MAPS. Specifically, should I draw and include them?

It should be made clear up front that I consider the role that maps play in contemporary fantasy fiction – as things that must be prepared in full detail before story can begin – to be an abomination. We can talk about that if people want to, but I’d rather not get into it. My point is, that sort of a priori detail is not what I’m going for in this game.

A map as a reference, on the other hand, is very, very good. When I’m watching Lord of the Rings with my girlfriend, I’m very glad to have a map that I can point to and explain to her, “These are the mountains they have to get across. The easy way was down here, but they couldn’t go that way because this tower right here is where the bad-guy wizard lives.” This is good because it helps her to understand which keeps her from losing interest. To contrast, had I shown her the map first and been like, “Look, this is Middle Earth, and here’s a million details that are cool except you don’t know why they’re cool yet so I’ll explain,” that would have just made her eyes glaze over.

Sometimes I find myself wishing for a map when there isn’t one. For instance, when I was reading The Spider King by Lawrence Schoonover (which is historical, not fantasy, but whatever), I’m wishing for a map of France and the surrounding areas so I can understand which of these regions they keep talking about are where, and why they specifically need so-and-so’s support to keep the Germans at bay and so on.

Let’s get down to a concrete, the-game-in-question level here. We’ll stick with the humans ‘cause they’re the most fleshed-out at this point. What you get is, you open up the human handbook, and you get an overview of the general characteristics – socially, ethically, economically, etc. – of the humans of Westgard, for about three pages. Go further and you get three cultural profiles, defined in terms of additions, deletions, and other modifications to the general overview: the culture of the city of Morado, the culture of its surrounding countryside, and the culture of the local sailors. These serve not only as ready-made starting points for pick-up-and-go play, but also as templates for the creation of new cultures on-the-fly when it becomes necessary to introduce one to the game – that is, when somebody’s PC travels beyond the countryside of Morado and into the countryside of another city. (You also get lists of place names that you can pick from as you’re building this stuff on.)

The no-map argument: it’s all build-as-you-go anyway, right? So why bother with a map? Just let people build it how they want.

The yes-map argument: if there’s no maps, how do people know that it’s time to create & introduce another culture? How do they know that they’ve crossed a border somewhere? Who gets to make that call, and by what principles does he make it?

No map: clearly the GM makes those calls, and his principles are the same ones he’s using in general to frame relevant conflict for the PCs. Having no map gives him total freedom to frame totally relevant conflict. A map would get in his way.

Yes map: but a map can provide emergent conflict, taking some of the weight off the GM’s shoulders. For instance, say a war is brewing. One look at the map indicates what states are in the best position to provide aid and thus which states need to be talked into helping – material which, without a map, would have to be invented from whole cloth by the GM. You can still build as you go, allowing the GM to make sure that the conflict stays relevant.

Map + build-as-you-go isn’t contradictory. The map can just feature cities and regions that are as-yet unnamed and unpeopled. Once they get introduced to the game, give ‘em a cultural profile and slap a name on ‘em.

Furthermore, having a map strengthens the presentation of certain Setting elements that are supposed to be important to the conflicts. For instance, if I can depict on a map the few areas where the treow have settlements of meaningful size whereas I’ve got these human city-states dotting the entire continent, it reinforces the concept that the treow have a very limited presence compared to the humans. Also, once blanks start getting filled in, this can lead to emergent conflicts. Like, once we know that this half of treow territory is controlled by Seelie factions, and this half by Unseelie factions, that becomes fuel for conflict in-game when it becomes necessary for someone’s human PC to cross through this territory.

As you might be able to tell, I’m leaning towards having a map. But I can still see the merits of not having one. It’s a tough call. Let’s discuss it.

a simple map is a framework for the players and GM to get them all on the same page.  I would do a map unless the technology is so low that the characters would not have access to maps.

filling in all of the details is bad - there isn't space for the GM to add their own.  But a rough map that shows the major cities, mountains, coasts, and rivers helps establish the setting.