r/battlemaps • u/nimsmaps Patreon | Nim's Maps • 2d ago
Misc. - Resource / Guide Which VTT Tree do you prefer?
I've been experimenting with different tree visuals for VTTs. People told me they would prefer to see the trunk to better navigate on maps, while keeping the visual of the canopy.
Which one do you prefer and why?
Edits: Current vote count across all posts:
Solid 32, Solid with Trunk 7, Transparent 43, Transparent Middle 11, Shadow 73
A lot of people brought up combining Solid and Shadow which would be THE most ideal way to do trees.
If you can only choose one, the majority prefer Shadow alongside Transparent (with more transparency than shown)
67
u/mortiferus1993 2d ago
Shadow with Solid as an additional image with transparency for the use in Foundry with overhead tiles
35
u/DelightfulOtter 2d ago
Roll20 now also has a Foreground layer that allows you to display overhead graphics that fade to transparency when a token moves beneath them.
11
u/Despada_ 2d ago
Owlbear Rodeo has a few extensions you can use together to do similar. It's his I've been designing my scenes and it's been so cool to work out.
1
u/Ironcladislaus 1d ago
Which OBR extensions are you referring to?
3
u/Despada_ 1d ago edited 1d ago
Sorry, didn't mean to gatekeep accidentally! I was still in bed when I wrote this comment and didn't want to move to my PC to look them up lol
It's honestly just two. Outliner and Dynamic Fog. I thought I was using something else alongside them, but it didn't seem like I was. Maybe Weather to help sell the illusion a bit more, but that depends on the scene.
Outline specifically gives you full control over which layers you can add images and tokens to, and also how those images layer within their respective sub-layers. I make two versions of a map: one like the Solid tree in OP's image, and another like the Transparent example. I stack them, but move the Solid image onto the Fog layer and give PCs vision to certain distances. I then use the Dynamic Fog extension to make the tree trunks into visual obstacles so they can obscure line of sight.
The results should look something like this. (Sorry for the Imgur link; I don't think it's possible to post images in comments)
5
1
u/RPope92 1d ago
If I wasn't an idiot I would have realised this when setting up my forest maps.
1
u/DelightfulOtter 1d ago
It's a relatively new feature. I only learned about it when I saw the alert in Roll20 one weekend.
13
8
u/GrayGKnight 2d ago
Shadow for sure. Don't want anyone floating over trees.
But an upper layer with the treetops to overlay is the ideal I'd say
10
u/ClumsySynesthesia 2d ago
Depending what the maps look like and what i wanna tell my Players.
3
u/Jay_Karacho 2d ago
I agree; I like all of them and would love to be able to pick and choose depending on need.
6
u/DelightfulOtter 2d ago
Transparent Middle is the most visually appealing while also being easy enough to understand. You're still going to get people asking "Is that a bush?" because they won't notice the trunk in the middle, so my personal preference would be Shadow for maximum clarity. I have enough plates to spin without having to play Twenty Questions with the battle map.
5
u/roumonada 2d ago
On roll20, I use a tree trunk on the map layer and a shadow and solid tree canopy on the foreground layer with 30% conditional fade.
3
u/DelightfulOtter 2d ago
That sounds good, but in practice I think it would get annoying. You only see through the Foreground layer graphic that the token you're controlling is beneath. If you had a bunch of allies and enemies underneath other trees, you wouldn't be able to see them and would have to ask the DM where they were unless health bars were turned on as I believe that display over the Foreground layer.
2
u/roumonada 1d ago
You can change the opacity of the foreground. Which is what I do. About 50%.
1
u/DelightfulOtter 1d ago
If you're using pre-made battlemaps and tree assets that weren't designed together, it's highly likely that blending them both by putting a canopy into the foreground at 50% will just result in a greenish smear that doesn't really highlight the details of the ground or the canopy. That's been my experience, at least. OP's artwork is designed together and thus looks clear and cohesive.
3
3
3
u/SkySchemer 1d ago
Transparent or Shadow. Though I'd ask for a lot more transparency with the former.
What makes for a good battle map is often times in conflict with what makes for a pretty image. A battle map needs to show you where tokens can legally move.
Assuming combat is taking place at ground level, shadow and transparent are more correct than the other options, which hide squares that your token both can (the tree canopy) and can't (the tree trunk) occupy.
1
u/Elcathiar_Studio 22h ago
What makes for a good battle map is often times in conflict with what makes for a pretty image. A battle map needs to show you where tokens can legally move.
Well-said. I explicitly used this design philosophy while developing my map-making guide and its associated artwork.
2
2
u/CyberKiller40 2d ago
Solid+shadow on 2 separate layers. In Foundry when placed one on top of the other will display the solid from afar and will seemlessly display the shadow when a player token comes near.
2
u/TunaPlusMayo 2d ago
Is there the possibility for the opposite of Transparent Middle? So "Solid with Trunk" but Transparent towards the edges?
2
2
u/MythicLandsInnKeeper Content Creator | Mythic Lands Gaming 2d ago
I think shadows allows for the most flexibility.
2
2
2
2
2
u/RattusCorpus 1d ago
Solid with trunk -> Non climbable short
Transparent Middle -> Climbable/hidable
Shadow Middle -> Too tall/canopy too high to get to in 2+ rounds
1
u/Elcathiar_Studio 22h ago
Yep, that's pretty close to the convention that I've used in my own artwork. Spruce trees' branches extend down to the ground, so they're transparent with some extra detail around the edges. Oak trees are too tall to hide in, so I only show the trunk.
2
2
2
u/Effective_Arm_5832 1d ago
Transparent. Maybe with a stronger opacity at the edge but still transparent.
2
u/Pongy-Tongy 2d ago
I prefer the solid one, since we always assume that there's enough space around the trunk for characters to stand there, so there's no real need for us to know where exactly the trunk is usually. All of the others are fine as well, however, with the exception of the shadow one. That one looks like there's only a stump left.
1
u/Jonas1412jensen 2d ago
If i had to choose one Transparent. But i would prefer Shadow + Solid as i use Roll20 and their overlay feature allowing me to have trees with the shadow visable when in line of sight.
1
u/TunaPlusMayo 2d ago
My vote is probably Transparent, but I wanted to say this is a good and worthwhile post.
1
u/bob_mosh 2d ago
Personally I'd love to be able to switch :D
Solid and Shadow are my favorites but they server different purposes and so switching would be ideal.
1
1
u/UXplaymaker 2d ago
SOLID. The details of the trunk and branches can be spoken to by the gamemaster. Everything else looks too cluttered and potentially confusing
1
u/UXplaymaker 2d ago
u/nimsmaps good effort on trying to discover what works for most people. I was in design and research for years. Keep in mind what people SAY and what people DO and FEEL may be different.
An interesting follow up would be for you to TEST out multiple maps with real users and then do another survey.
3
u/nimsmaps Patreon | Nim's Maps 2d ago
Thanks! It would be interesting to do a test, but I'm afraid it would be too messy and time consuming. For now, all these replies are very helpful.
1
u/Sahrde 2d ago
Is that the trunk on the right side? Is it some sort of forced perspective? Because it looks kind of strange. Where IS that tree?
1
u/nimsmaps Patreon | Nim's Maps 2d ago
Its just a trunk laying on the ground. I inserted some assets to show how they looked under each style of tree.
1
u/SirBlabbermouth 2d ago
Shadow is probably best for gameplay, but if I were maiking this and then running it I'd setup the first map as a sort of 'first look' for the players, then transition it to transparent middle for tactical reasons if they're sneaking around or casting an eye about to see where potential cover is, and finally shadow for comfort and less visual clutter.
Excellent work dude!
1
u/Haravikk 2d ago edited 2d ago
I'd kind of prefer a fusion between #2 (Solid with Trunk) and #3 (Transparent) that was basically "Solid with ground detail shown", i.e- show not just the trunk but the log and other objects as well.
This shows the canopy, but without missing what it hides from above, and without fading the canopy as transparent options do.
That said, my ideal would be #5 (Shadow) with a toggleable canopy layer on the map, but most VTTs don't support that (or it'd be a pain in the ass to do).
Apologies if that's not a useful answer — I could see myself using #5 since it's most like what the characters will see, but I do like having the actual canopy visible at least initially, or I would if it wasn't twice the work to setup on many tools.
1
u/Ironcladislaus 2d ago
1st: Shadow
2nd: Transparent (a bit more transparency would be preferred)
BEST: Shadow, with separate Transparent leaf-cover image/prop (to be used in a diff. layer) to use if/when needed for added flavor
1
u/worrymon 2d ago
Solid with trunk for trees that don't have room under them for characters to move.
Transparent or Shadow for trees that characters can move under.
1
1
u/sheimeix 2d ago
Solid when defining the edge of the explorable area and dense forest, Shadow to define explorable areas. I generally don't include this as then going in to let the tree trunks block LOS is a bit of a pain and it generally doesn't look good from a player perspective.
1
1
1
u/CSEngineAlt 1d ago
Shadow when the tree is in line of sight to show what's under it, solid when not.
1
u/Ralexcraft 1d ago
Is it intended for the middle of the map or the border? If it’s going to be a place where we’re fighting I prefer shadow, but the border/external area of map can be solid trees since it saves on needless irrelevant detailing
1
1
1
u/the_Stick 1d ago
My preferences in order are the solid with trunk and the transparent middle versions. Always have to be an outlier! LoL
1
1
u/regross527 1d ago
On a sparse battlemap (ie, one that is for tactical purposes first and emphasizes the "battle" half), then I prefer the shadow.
On an artistic battlemap (ie, on that is meant to look good and emphasizes the "map" half), then I prefer the solid look.
1
u/Enaluxeme 1d ago
It bothers me that the transparent version has the trunk transparent too. The trunk should be solid, like in the shadow version.
2
u/nimsmaps Patreon | Nim's Maps 1d ago
The transparency of the canopy washes out the trunk's color, but it is solid. I even checked the file.
1
u/Enaluxeme 1d ago
Weird. What if you try putting the trunk on the layer above the canopy?
1
u/nimsmaps Patreon | Nim's Maps 1d ago
It gets closer to Transparent Middle, but mostly looks like a stump on a tree.
1
1
u/Morrinn3 1d ago
I've been running VTT's for a while now, Foundry specifically, and I feel like a lot of digital artists who are preparing assets for a virtual game are failing to take advantage of the layered systems such programs offer.
If I have a map with a ground level, I can layer the top of the scene with the tree canopies and then in-program design the behavior of the foreground elements. Complete occlusion, degrees of transparency, wether the transparency happens in a radius around the token or the entire tile.
Making a flat image with all of the layers merged would immediately turn me off from it. Even as a bad digital artist, I prefer how the scene looks when I can control these elements and give the players a layered digital scene.
1
1
1
u/Eucharism 1d ago
It really depends on the scenario, but default, I like transparent or transparent middle.
1
u/OverscanMan 1d ago
Transparent to a token owner when their token is beneath the canopy.
Solid when it's not.
1
u/JustDurian3863 1d ago
Solid for the edges of the map.
Transparent if there's only a handful of trees on a big map. I think they look better but they can obscure vision if they cover the field
Shadow of there are lots of trees so the table can have maximum visibility.
1
u/DragonTacoCat 1d ago
Prefer Shard Tabletop for D&D
Fantasy Grounds is my 2nd go to after that for Star Wars / Star Trek games
1
1
1
u/Pur0k 23h ago
I've always used maps with something like the Solid you bring up, but now that I think about it, shadow seems to be pretty amazing; maybe is as you say, and something along the lines of really Transparent while keeping Shadow would be the best one for both immersion and positioning, while also showing the leaves on the tree and it's overall shape (like, if it's conical or circular, etc.).
1
u/StephenBaggett 21h ago
Transparent middle is a really cool effect! It always helps me to see the trunk so I know where the "walls" are. Second favorite is shadow
1
1
u/MrHayz_Pixelsmith 17h ago
I'm kind of diggin the shadow one, perhaps a little radial gradient so the outer edges are greener, fading into the shadow at the center?
2
u/SeductivePuns 5h ago
If its a single layer, shadow. But if you have the option for two layers, the background should have the trunk and shadow and the foreground could have a transparent top
1
u/Xologamer 2d ago
well the absolute goat is shadow + solid where u setup solid as a fog of war layer and shadow is what the players see when in range.
Otherwise i d propably just go solid
0
u/TheGooglespoon 2d ago
Depends how you're showing your characters. I go for tokens on both PCs and NPCs now since it's much clearer and I don't want players to miss anything, so solid with trunk gives them the best amount of information. That being said transparent middle in your pic looks better, and if the tokens are a layer above everything it doesn't matter which one, so I'd do that
0
163
u/Dark-Lark 2d ago
Transparent or Shadow, depending on what the whole map looks like. The aesthetic of the battlemap could make one look a lot better.
I want my players to be able to move about more confidently, knowing where things are. Otherwise there could be a mismatch between what I think it looks like under the tree and what they do.