Freebie Tokens from Studio WyldFurr

[Tailz Silver Paws]

I use 50 pixels = 5 feet. Based on other user feedback in the forums over the last few years, this (50 pixels = 5 feet) or 64 pixels = 5 feet is by far the most used.

Yup, I have seen that. I always thought it was a bit too.... small. You just lose so much detail in a 50 pixel box. Plus with the growth of computing power (both processing power and the slow decline in the cost of getting it), and internet connection speeds, 180px is not that much of a jump.

[Trenloe]

Yup, I have seen that. I always thought it was a bit too.... small. You just lose so much detail in a 50 pixel box. Plus with the growth of computing power (both processing power and the slow decline in the cost of getting it), and internet connection speeds, 180px is not that much of a jump.

I don't think it's got much to do with computing power - it's really how big the GM and the players want to display the map on their monitor, and how big the maps the GM uses are.

If you take Full HD as an example of the average monitor size (1920x1080), and use 50 pixels per 5 foot square, then you can display a map that is 38 x 21 squares (if filling the whole screen). If you use 180 pixels per 5 foot square then you're limited to 10 x 6 squares on the whole screen. Most people would zoom the map out so they could see more of the map on the screen, which essentially has the effect of reducing the pixel count per square anyway.

If you're using small maps (10 x 6 squares or less) then 180 pixels per 5 foot is fine and does look great. But, if you're using larger maps (which I do, a lot) then 180 pixels is overkill for me

[Tailz Silver Paws]

I don't think it's got much to do with computing power - it's really how big the GM and the players want to display the map on their monitor, and how big the maps the GM uses are.

If you take Full HD as an example of the average monitor size (1920x1080), and use 50 pixels per 5 foot square, then you can display a map that is 38 x 21 squares (if filling the whole screen). If you use 180 pixels per 5 foot square then you're limited to 10 x 6 squares on the whole screen. Most people would zoom the map out so they could see more of the map on the screen, which essentially has the effect of reducing the pixel count per square anyway.

If you're using small maps (10 x 6 squares or less) then 180 pixels per 5 foot is fine and does look great. But, if you're using larger maps (which I do, a lot) then 180 pixels is overkill for me

This is true, but players zoom in and out on the map all the time. With their focus being on the room or corridor their in at the time.

It is mostly a thing of personal choice, and since I started out making maps and tokens for myself (and I still pretty much do this) I ended up with 180px.

Each has it's pro's and con's.

[damned]

I love your artwork and tokens but I also use 50px so I will just scale them down when I get to using them.

[Tailz Silver Paws]

Although not free, I thought I should let those who wants to now, know about the 50% off discount I am running this weekend for all of my goodies over at RPGnow.com.

[damned]

Ill definitely be checking that out!

[Tailz Silver Paws]

Just poped a new freebie up on the web site, this time it is a prop: War Banner. Use this banner as the call to war for a goblin horde or just as battlefield clutter.