Fantasy world maps and real world geology

[Maldin]

I do know alot about geology (I teach it in a university - and I'm fascinated to see that there are alot of other geologists here!), and I do care alot about it in my fantasy maps. I think using the old "its magic!" excuse is the lamest crutch possible. Thats not being creative... its being lazy. And even in the most magical world, magic does not rule it. Science does. Water and wind erosion are going to do more to shape the geography then anything else short of continuous cataclysm (and the resulting end of all life on the planet). Did magic rattle the crust rather then plate tectonics? Ok... if thats what makes your plot spin... but even then, the crunching rock will still behave the same no matter what is crunching it. Heck, I've even got a webpage on the geology of the World of Greyhawk's Irongate region (with photographs!), and I think it contributes to the mystery and playability of the area, not diminishes it.

Magic in a magical world suffers from a sort of "Nature TV" syndrome. Watch nature shows on TV long enough and you'd think that most of life on earth consisted of a few dozen large African plains' mammals. Thats the flashy stuff that catches everybodies attention, and so is talked about ad nauseum. What really makes the world go round (and what shapes its ecology) is the millions of beetles! And other boring insects, worms, crustaceans, jellyfish, snails, clams, corals, sea cucumbers, etc. that nobody seems to bother to notice.

When its something important to my game world... something that pushes forward plots, mechanics, or just plain "coolness factor"... I'm all for it! I'm a scientist with a PhD, yet I can reconcile perfectly Spelljammer physics!!! (See my "Life, the Multiverse and Everything" Grand Unified Theory of D&D on my website for the most extreme version of "this is not your father's universe!"). But I think that overusing the "its magic" arguement diminishes the special nature of magic, so I try to use "natural" explanation for as much of my campaign world as possible. Many in this thread have already said the same thing... Forest in the middle of desert? A lake with two different outflows? There is a special reason! Hey PCs! Go find it. ;-) Similarly, I think a poorly designed and highly improbable map takes away so much of its believability. From a playability point of view, there is no suspension of disbelief. From a DM design point of view, it becomes more difficult to expand upon the details because you can never answer the question "What is likely to be there?" The whole world is screwed up? Meh. Everything becomes "common".

I think this poll is quite fascinating. I've heard from the very mouths of many game designers and publishers that most players don't care about "realism" in their maps. All that matters is fun-ness (and what the designer thinks is pretty). I think this poll clearly shows that their assumption has been wrong all along, and that they are assuming an insulting level of mass-ignorance. Its never been an either/or situation. A map can be both believable AND pretty. Lets see more of those!

Denis, aka "Maldin"
Maldin's Greyhawk http://melkot.com

 

[fusangite]

I do know alot about geology (I teach it in a university - and I'm fascinated to see that there are alot of other geologists here!), and I do care alot about it in my fantasy maps. I think using the old "its magic!" excuse is the lamest crutch possible.

I agree that "it's magic" is a lame excuse. But invoking that excuse is not identical to acknowledging that game worlds have different physical laws than our world does. A systematic interpretation of these laws, while it would likely produce different geology than our own, is not simply an "it's magic handwave."

And even in the most magical world, magic does not rule it. Science does.

How are magic and science different in D&D? What do you think the magic rules in the PHB and DMG are other than an expression of a D&D world's physical laws? Magic is part of the physics of a D&D world, not separate from it.

Science is not a specific set of truths; it is a way of approaching and understanding phenomena based on empirical observation. The empirical observation of a D&D world reveals magic.

Water and wind erosion are going to do more to shape the geography then anything else

Doesn't this depend on the world?

short of continuous cataclysm (and the resulting end of all life on the planet).

So, you're saying that D&D worlds that have frequent cataclysmic realignments of the physical world are, by definition, impossible? Surely one would have to actually know something about such a world before making that call.

Did magic rattle the crust rather then plate tectonics?

How could a D&D world have plate tectonics? Plate tectonics don't exist in universes with only four elements. I mean, how can you even explain plate tectonics using the D&D element system described in the rules?

Ok... if thats what makes your plot spin... but even then, the crunching rock will still behave the same no matter what is crunching it.

So, what do you make of the MOTP sections on the Elemental Plane of Earth? Of Xorns in the MMI? The rules are quite specific that "earth," (a category of thing that doesn't even exist in our world) has some notably different properties than variously-composed chunks of minerals that we colloquially call "earth" on this planet.

Heck, I've even got a webpage on the geology of the World of Greyhawk's Irongate region (with photographs!), and I think it contributes to the mystery and playability of the area, not diminishes it.

I have no objection to your take here and am glad you have been able to put your degree to use in a way that makes your players happy. But to assume that your approach to D&D physics is the only creative and intelligent one smacks of unjustified arrogance.

I'm a scientist with a PhD, yet I can reconcile perfectly Spelljammer physics!!! (See my "Life, the Multiverse and Everything" Grand Unified Theory of D&D on my website for the most extreme version of "this is not your father's universe!").

That's funny. I find Spelljammer's superficial and incoherent way of thinking about magic makes it tough for me to suspend disbelief.

But I think that overusing the "its magic" arguement diminishes the special nature of magic, so I try to use "natural" explanation for as much of my campaign world as possible.

You are presuming some kind of nature/magic dichotemy that I just don't see borne out in the rules. I think that if you step back and try to construct a definition of "nature" that is stable and useful in a D&D world, you will find yourself hard-pressed.

Similarly, I think a poorly designed and highly improbable map takes away so much of its believability. From a playability point of view, there is no suspension of disbelief.

Suspension of disbelief matters a lot to me too. But for me, and many of my players, the believability of a world is contingent on how consistent it is with itself, as opposed to how consistent it is with our world.

From a DM design point of view, it becomes more difficult to expand upon the details because you can never answer the question "What is likely to be there?" The whole world is screwed up?

So you feel that our world's physical laws are the only possible set of rules/laws one can use to predict things? As long as GM creates a set of consistent physical rules for their world, people can make predictions using them, irrespective of their resemblance to our world's rules.

 

[Hussar]

*snip*

Hussar: when cities are all on the outside circumference of a continent sometimes the shortest viable trading distance *is* around the circumference, via sea, as the interior is one of: impassably mountainous; held by monsters; completely unexplored; nothing but desert, etc., etc. One such city being a trading hub simply tells us that's the city where most of the off-continent trade comes in, from across the ocean.

Lanefan

I was actually referring to Shelzar in the Scarred Lands setting. The only overseas trade is actually in the wrong direction from Shelzar and the history of the setting isn't based on that, but on trade within Ghelspad. To the east you have a belligerent military nation in Calastia that doesn't trade with you and would sink most trading ships passing through their waters and to the west you have a belligerent xenophobic military nation that would sink pretty much anyone passing through their waters. Kinda makes naval trade pretty difficult.

Like the Mississippi? (There's a silly fantasy name.)

Like North America? NA is not round, but the major trading centers are on opposite coasts. In the 18th and 19th century, most people sailed all the way around the southern tip of South America to get from New York to San Francisco, instead of trekking across the land.

*snip*

Quasqueton

Most people? I guess all those wagon trains and, since we're into the 19th century, actual trains weren't full of people going west. Never mind that we're talking about ships that are almost a thousand years more advanced than what you would see in a D&D campaign. Does make ship travel slightly more reliable when you have schooners instead of caravels.

Take a look at the geography of Ghelspad The other major continent is behind that great big red ocean full of blood sea mutants. The major port of trade in the other continent is controlled by Calastia. Exactly who is Shelzar trading with?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

And, again, when you consider the presence of monsters and demihumans, the fact that magic violates some of the basic laws of physics (fireballs and lightning bolts essentially create energy out of nothing; the Negative Material Plane's energy destroys matter and atomic particles), and the presence of a wide variety of different minerals and plants that have no equivalent in our real world, would it even make sense if your standard D&D campaign setting was totally based on real-world principles?

Well, it has to be based on some sort of principles. Yes, it can just be the whim of the gods, but then I have to figure out which god wants things which way and why. And I have to determine if laws of nature are predictable enough for society to operate by. If I don't have a clever and flavorful magical explanation, I'll fall back on realism.

My subterranean geology has magical explanations (extensive caverns shaped by delvers, dwarven gods, and ancient evils; large caverns allowed by stone having a greater tensile and shear strength than it has in our world).
Certain properties of my ocean have a magical explanation (the god of the sea has a particular agenda).
My moon has an astronomical explanation. Phases of the moon are determined by the moon's position relative to the planet and the sun, and it has a 30-day month.
My forests are generally not magical, so they need water and soil and are not overpopulated with large predators. If I wanted, I could have magical forests with 400' oak trees growing on bedrock and 500 owlbears per square mile. The Faerie Realm may indeed have such forests.
My rivers are generally not magical (few river gods or Elemental Plane anomalies) so they require drainage basins, flow downhill, and so on.
My mountains are generally not magical aside from the caverns, so they follow some of the patterns that we see in our world. A solitary mountain with nothing else around it is likely to have some sort of an explanation -- not just a handwaved "It's magic" but an actual story.

Things are "realistic" based on what would fit the observations of a Dark Ages scholar. River flows, predator populations, mountain ranges, etc. Germ theory of disease isn't necessarily correct, species don't all have a common ancestor, and many concepts of advanced physics are altered.

At least, that's how I like to design a world.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Next you're going to say Oz doesn't make sense, either!

Oz, as in Australia or as in the land Oz from the Wizard of Oz?

Olaf the Stout

 

[Hussar]

Just to add a point.

If you look at Seas of Blood, it places the distance between Termana and Ghelspad at about 16000 miles. Obviously wrong. Now, there was some fluff text that pegged it at a much more respectable distance, but, this was contradicted in the Termana guide. So, basically, you had three different answers to a very simple question - how far is it from A to B?

After Seas of Blood, I refused to buy another Scarred Lands book. Sure, I could simply do the work myself and fix the distances, but, if that's what I would do, why did I spend money on source books? To me, if the designers leave in such obvious bad design, it means that they just don't care. It's sloppy work.

There's more than enough material on the market that I don't have to put up with sloppy work anymore.

So, to answer the original question more fully, yes, geology, or rather geography, matters. If the maps contradict the setting, then, something should be changed. Either move some cities around or change the fluff text.

It's absolutely no different than a dungeon map where the rooms are too small for the monsters. It's sloppy design.

 

[Tonguez]

I do know alot about geology (I teach it in a university - and I'm fascinated to see that there are alot of other geologists here!), and I do care alot about it in my fantasy maps. I think using the old "its magic!" excuse is the lamest crutch possible. Thats not being creative... its being lazy. And even in the most magical world, magic does not rule it. Science does.

What science dude? The Spirits of Earth constantly battle with the spirits of Water and Wind. The Water cuts into the earth and the Wind scatters its stength whilst the stone constrains the water and clouds it with debris. Why they do this is ancient and known only to themselves

I've even got a webpage on the geology of the World of Greyhawk's Irongate region (with photographs!), and I think it contributes to the mystery and playability of the area, not diminishes it.

Dude you can't be ranting on about the place of science in explaining fantasy and then put a proviso on it like this:

A side note on the science of this page (or lack thereof)....
As a geologist in real-life, I am compelled to point out a few things. Limestone gives a great landscape filled with caves, ripe for adventuring, but on its own contains little in the way of gems and native metals which, according to the WoGH Gazetteer, are supposed to be present.

... Hence, I call upon the magical nature of the fantasy world to accomplish this. ;-) Relate the hot spot to a confluence of portals to the Elemental Planes of Fire and of Earth and just about anything is possible. Just don't waste your time trying to find a real-world gem mine using the descriptions here-in. ;-)

 

[Turanil]

Just 2 questions:

1) Any scientific resources online that would help design a geologically realistic world?

2) There is a PDF ebook on this subject (creating geologically realistic RPG worlds), but I don't remember its name. Anyone has a link?

Thanks.

 

[grodog]

Water and wind erosion are going to do more to shape the geography then anything else short of continuous cataclysm (and the resulting end of all life on the planet).

In a magical universe, a planet like Phil Farmer's Lavalite world from the World of Tiers series is perfectly plausible, as long as it's self-consistent, right Denis?

 

[Bagpuss]

I care about geology, but if you want a hollow world, or canyon so deep it leads to the abyss I'm okay with that, but I still want my rivers to follow valleys, and sensible stuff like that.