So the amazing new book Waterdeep: Dragon Heist (overall I think the book is fantastic) uses a new sketch on white paper style of map.  Some people seem to like it but I am not a fan.  Just curious what other people think.  Maybe I am alone but I much preferred the more detailed maps in Tomb of Annihilation. 

The only pro I can think of is that they are easy for the DM to re-draw.

My list of Cons:

1. Boring to look at.  I normally love looking over all the maps but these are like looking over low-quality blueprints.  They just don't grab my imagination.

2. All the maps look the same.  Sure the layouts are different but the warehouse looks like a manor house and a slum looks like a boss hideout.

3. Not going to be very fun to use on digital platforms like Fantasy Grounds.

4. Not fun to blow up an use on the table.  In this day and age of animated digital maps, these are not fun.

I am a huge fan of the maps in The Tomb of Annihilation and I have a feeling the maps in Dungeon of the Mad Mage are going to be more this ruff scetch style and I find that disappointing.  It bums me out that all the levels of the dungeon will on paper look mostly the same.  I was planning to by the WD:DotMM map pack but if these are the kinds of maps that will be in that map pack I will be canceling my pre-order.

Please don't take this as internet hating or bashing.  This is just not my preferred map style.  I know others like it and I am not saying they are wrong.  I just wanted to express my opinion and to hear what other people think.  I may be in the minority and that is fine. I get that these are very functional maps.  I just don't find them very fun to look at.  What does everyone else think?   Is this the style of map people would like to see going forward?

I usually re-draw the maps on large 1x1 grid easel pads anyway, adding in my own color and artistic flair so the art style of the maps doesn't bother me at all, and I actually find them easier to read and quickly see where things are. I like them.  I also tend to only use maps when there is combat anyway, otherwise it's all theater of the mind.

But at the same time I can see how someone is going to directly use these maps to be blown up or uploaded for digital use as the actual map in game would find them lackluster.  

I don't know how you'd find out of the map pack is the same style or not, but I'd honestly just hold off on pre-ordering it until you can find out for sure.

I like them quite a bit, but then I've been a fan of Dyson Logos's work for years. I wouldn't use them for every type of adventure, but I don't have any complaints about them here. And yeah, they might not be ideal for Roll20 or FG, but I personally think they encourage us to focus more on the roleplay and less on detailed tactical play.

I don't have Dragon Heist, so I can't compare.  But I've struggled with the maps in TOA.  They LOOK fine, until you start using them in actual play, at least if you are using minis.  Because it quickly becomes apparent that the map maker didn't pay attention to the creatures in the "dungeon" the map details. or maybe the writer didn't look carefully at the map.  Lots of times, the creatures listed simply can't fit in the spaces drawn unless you change the scale.  I've had to start carefully looking at each map and the description and decide ahead of time if I need to change the scale or not.  If Dyson's maps are scaled to make sense with the descriptions of the areas, especially the creature stocking, I'll take black and white "pen" style over fancy color and image maps every time.

I was in no way blaming DDB.  I was just curious what others thought of the new map style.  Just putting it up for discussion.  It is not that it is bad just not an art style choice I prefer.  I will give WotC some feedback as well.

I get what you are saying regarding the scale of the maps vs the creatures populating the map.  I don't see that this style would have any bearing on that issue.  My guess (only a guess) is that the map illustrator is given the dimensions and a description of each room.  I doubt the illustrator decides the scale or the map layout.  I agree that the person designing the encounters needs to better take into account creature size and number when designing the rooms.  To me, this is not a limitation of a particular art style but an error in encounter design and either art style could be done in a way that fixes this problem.  

Oh, absolutely. For me it's just that correct scaling/populating is more important than style. I will also say that if I was of a mind to print them out to scale, I'd prefer black and white over color just for the cost. But I don't have that kind of budget, so I redraw them on a vinyl or dry erase grid. 

My bad. I thought I posted his under general.  Not sure how it ended up in feedback.  I must have hit something wrong.

I agree the maps are disappointing.  I posted earlier with the topic "What happened to the good dungeon maps".  I'm one of those DM's that project the maps down onto a playing table with miniatures.  The map makes a big difference in my games I believe.  It creates a more immersive atmosphere for players and the DM.  These white graph paper type maps are the kind I used to make back in the day.  We have computers now.  Let the pro's do their thing and make a map that's not only worth it to buy but something worthy of the module.   

I like the maps for the utility and practicality.. Would be a lot easier to print in large scale 1" grids in BW if need be without needing to make everything greyscale. If I ever print a colour map at those sizes I always feel compelled to not mess it up as it was pricey.