Fantasy world maps and real world geology

[Doug McCrae]

The question is how much do your players know. Ignorant players are a great boon to a GM, you need to do a lot less work.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Know a good bit on geology but this is fantasy, where gods and characters that can effect the land, it does not matter to me.

 

[RFisher]

By believable, I mean that the geology is realistic OR that there's an explicit reason in the source as to why it's not realistic.

I thought having unexplainable stuff that the DM gets to make up secret explainations for--that the PCs discover in play--was at least half the fun of any good fantasy setting.

What matters about a game world is not how consistent it is with our world but how consistent it is with itself.

Or just that it's good enough for the players in your group.

Similarly, I think a poorly designed and highly improbable map takes away so much of its believability.

In cases like these though--it's often been my experience that what laypeople consider unrealistic by their limited knowledge of a subject seldom jibes with experts or reality.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I care about real world geology. When I was remaking the map for my fantasy world I had a friend place the mountains so they'd be placed correctly. Heh.

One map I was always fond of was from Birthright. The mountains looked like they were in roughly appropriate places, to where you could almost see the plates, and you could get an idea of prevailing weather patterns.

Brad

 

[Argus Decimus Mokira]

I know, and I care. As a geologist (there's a lot of us - we should start a thread in OffTopic), I find realistic terrain, climate, and drainage patterns very important. Thinking about these sorts of things (however briefly) has always been a baseline for me in creating a setting - and is one of the first steps in campaign design in both the old World-builder's Guidebook and the MMS world-building book. I should add that there is still the fantastic to be found IMC - magically-nuked deserts, volcanos over portals to the Elemental Plane of Fire, vast dwarven metropoli that would surely cave-in with real-world physics, etc.

I prefer geologically sound underground settings (karst, flumes, etc) to the typical 'dwarven ruins' (not that I don't use those, either), also. The reality of a cavern system is a wonderful thing, full of holes and nooks ready for exploration; 5'x5' blocks really can't reproduce it.

Thanks,
Matt

 

[Argus Decimus Mokira]

(sorry to DP)

One map I was always fond of was from Birthright. The mountains looked like they were in roughly appropriate places, to where you could almost see the plates, and you could get an idea of prevailing weather patterns.

Brad

QFT. Yet another example of the superiority of Birthright as a campaign setting.

-Matt

 

[fusangite]

I know, and I care. As a geologist (there's a lot of us - we should start a thread in OffTopic), I find realistic terrain, climate, and drainage patterns very important.

As I mentioned in my longer response above, I find it really weird that people conflate "realistic" with resembling the world in which we live.

Why is it "realistic" for a world with widespread magic, an Elemental Plane of Earth, interventionist gods and only four elements to look like a world that doesn't have any of those things? How can plate tectonics, for instance, operate in a world in which earth is an element, as opposed to a highly variable amalgam of compounds made up for 50+ elements?

Thinking about these sorts of things (however briefly) has always been a baseline for me in creating a setting

That's great for you. As I said above, I'm always glad to see people being able to integrate their professional and recreational lives. But I do not see how this makes your worlds any more realistic than those of someone who uses different, but equally consistent design principles.

 

[WayneLigon]

I know something about it and care about it on a fantasy map. In the vast majority of cases, the map really does need to make some kind of geographic sense; mountains run in ranges, rivers from from higher ground to lower ground, hot deserts do not lie next to ice fields.

Magic, of course, allows for some of these laws to be broken in certain ways over a limited period of time. If a kingdom is cursed into eternal winter then I don't much care for a long scientific explanation of how the massive cold front affects the surrounding areas, but I'd like to see some effect from it addressed. A trapped demon can cause a volcano to erupt where none could normally exist. I can deal with that, too. As long as there's some explanation that's not 'It's magic' because all too often that's a way of saying 'I thought it was cool to have it this way and I want it that way so that's that'. Most of the time you can find an explanation for having things almost any way you want them; not taking the time to do so is laziness.

Now in certain areas like Xen'drick that have suffered some sort of magical apocalypse, all bets are all. Then the crazyquilt terrain becomes a feature, not a bug. But again, there is an explanation for it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

The one with the green country surrounded by deadly deserts on four sides.

 

[Wombat]

I am a lover of that oxymoron, "realistic fantasy:.

Probably explains why I like Tolkein and Guy Gavriel Kay.

I like to believe there is at least some basis in reality before the abberations appear on the scene. This extends to geography as well as societies and monsters. Nations don't stop at "borders"; cultures slosh and overlap. Creatures move about. Rivers and mountains appear in certain areas for reasons. Jungles don't simply appear.

So, yes, I like maps that seem at least semi-plausible. This shouldn't be that hard if you look at all the fascinating oddities of the Earth's geography and geology, and yet so many maps miss the point anyway.