Fantasy world maps and real world geology

[Thornir Alekeg]

I've been wrestling with this for the campaign I am working on since the area in which it will start has some unique features from geological changes that were the unforseen consequences of a massive magical event many years earlier.

I'm no geologist so I don't care about the finer details of the map, but overall I prefer a standard fantasy world map to have some real world logic to it. I don't feel like having to answer tons of questions from players about the terrain, or explain all the different things until it numbs them to the oddities. If it is laid out in ways similar to our reality, the players can safely make assumptions about the geography of the real world. I will tell them where there might be notable exceptions, and hopefully it will make a bit of an impression on them when it happens.

 

[fusangite]

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

Probably explains why I like Tolkein and Guy Gavriel Kay.

Have you read the Silmarillion? It explains a lot about why the geography of Middle Earth is the way it is. And the reasons it offers are radically different than anything I have read about our world. For one thing, Middle Earth is located on a flat disc; at least one of the stars is actually a guy in a flying boat; the natural features of the world have been made by the Valar with their own hands. Tolkien explains why mountain ranges, bays, gulfs, etc. are where they are and his explanations bear no resemblance to the explanatory structures that exist in contemporary geology.

I like to believe there is at least some basis in reality

What does this mean? Tolkien's natural features have a basis in reality but not in the reality of this world; they have a basis in the reality of the world he created.

before the abberations appear on the scene.

The absence of, for instance, plate tectonics in a D&D world is not an aberration. It arises from a consistent interpretation of the rules of the game. This is like calling Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity aberrations in our world.

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.

For certain reasons; I believe strongly that everything in D&D worlds should happen for reasons. But to make the reasons things happen in D&D worlds identical to the reasons they happen in our world seems, frankly, unsupportable.

So, yes, I like maps that seem at least semi-plausible.

edit: political reference removed - U. People in this thread seem to feel that the best way to argue in favour of their definition of "plausible" and "realistic" is to repeat as though it has already been established to be true through reasoned argument when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Maldin]

Hmmm... I guess I didn't explain myself clearly enough. I've never expected anyone else to sign onto what I do in my campaign, and I wouldn't have ever considered a description of "my viewpoint" to be a "rant". A magic-saturated world is always gonna contain... ermm... unexplainable stuff (hence the proviso I have on that webpage), and I said that pretty clearly in my post. I think my "Wondrous Materials" page also makes that point as well. My opinion is that to throw around the "magic card" ::snicker:: sweepingly across the campaign world is... well, I said that as well... but I've always been a strong advocate of "DM's can do whatever the heck they want". I assume nothing at all about your intelligence, fusangite.

Other points? Well, I don't have the time or patience to chop up a post into tiny little pieces, but, seeing as this thread has somewhat evolved into a discussion of more then just maps....

Sure, fusangite, a planet without wind and water won't experience erosion. It won't experience most life either. I think that is going to be a pretty universal process, magic or not. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Phil Farmer's work, grodog. Even not knowing the details, anything is certainly plausible if the DM wishes it to be so.

Again my opinion (since I seem to have to state it), but magic is not just another physical law, nor is it "natural" to the Prime. You ask for a definition? Ok... Physical laws (science) act in a consistent, measurable, and observable manner, dependent on a immediately local force (electricity, chemical bonds, etc) and the material they are acting on. The effects of Magic are the result of forces and effects that are often alien to the Prime (from the outer, inner, astral, etc) and dependent not on the material they effect but on the manipulator of the magic (often intelligent, either present, in the case of a spell, or past, in the case of a created magic item or regional effect created by a god/artifact/etc). In my Grand Unified Theory (IMC!), "Magical Energy" is most certainly a different entity (or "Variable") then "Physical Energy" and "Matter", although they are certainly all capable of being mixed and combined in wide variety of manners and circumstances.

IMC (that's "In My Campaign"!) The Prime is composed of normal matter like our own universe, with elements like carbon, sulphur, oxygen, etc. that behave as those elements in our own universe. The quaint belief that wood is composed of the "elements" earth and fire (or whatever) is as accurate as when the Greeks of our own world believed that. Its wrong. The "element" Fire (as in from the Elemental Plane of Fire) is an entirely different material that is not native to the Prime (although it can be brought here by spells such as "Fireball"), as is the "chaos stuff" that makes up Limbo. Xorns? Elementals? They don't come from the Prime either. YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY.

My Oerth certainly does have plate tectonics, as it is mainly a fairly (Earth-)normal planet. Thats not to say that "magic" has not affected other planets in my campaign world to a greater degree! I use the "Greyspace" product from Spelljammer, so yes there are planets in the crystal sphere which most certainly don't! (Most of them don't, actually.) And lets not even get into the crystal sphere itself... or phlogiston... or... you get the picture. Yet there are certainly places in my Oerth that are (locally) effected by portals to the Elemental Plane of Fire (and other things). If you don't want plate tectonics on your Oerth, thats ok.

Sooo.... maps?
Well, if more then half the people want a believable map, and the rest don't care as long as it looks good and has cool stuff in it. Then having a believable map with cool stuff that looks good pleases everybody. Is that such a controversial wish?

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

 

[Father of Dragons]

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?

The Poll was for Fantasy Worlds, not just D&D ... All of the settings I have ever GM'ed have been homebrewed, and none of them had Elemental Planes of Earth or only four elements (there were four or eight mystical elementals, but they didn't have much to do with everyday stuff). In my current fantasy campaign, for instance, the geology predates magic. As for maps in fantasy novels: I either like them to be realistic, or, if not, there to be plausible story or world reasons why it does not. And I'm not particularly interested in the official D&D settings for reasons that have nothing to do with this thread.

 

[fusangite]

A magic-saturated world is always gonna contain... ermm... unexplainable stuff

How does that follow? Some worlds have magic that is inexplicable. Some world have magic that is clearly systematic, explicable and predictable. Most D&D worlds fall into the latter category not the former. Otherwise, skills like Spellcraft and spells like Analyze Dweomer would not produce consistent and predictable results that describe magical effects in predictable and systematic terms.

My opinion is that to throw around the "magic card" ::snicker:: sweepingly across the campaign world is... well, I said that as well...

I'm getting the feeling you didn't actually read through my post because it begins with me agreeing with you that using "magic" as a handwave is poor GMing. So, given that you don't appear to have read my post or don't understand it and that you have failed to pick up on what I'm actually saying in any of my posts since the one responding to yours, I'll boil my argument down for you:

We both value realism in our games equally.
You define realism as bearing a strong resemblance to the world in which we live.
I define realism as internal consistency.​

For you to characterize any world, no matter how internally consistent it is as unrealistic simply because it does not resemble the world in which we live bothers me.​

Sure, fusangite, a planet without wind and water won't experience erosion.

I'm not sure that I make that point anywhere in my post. The dispute I am having with you is not about the variety of worlds that exist in the universe in which we live. My dispute with you has to do with your assumption that all universes have either (a) almost exactly the same physical laws as this one or (b) no consistent physical laws at all. The worlds I design have (c) different but internally consistent physical laws that are different from our universe's. So, my problem with your sentence here has more to do with the fact that you assume world=planet; why would a fantasy world be a planet? Many fantasy worlds are on flat discs or rectangles.

It won't experience most life either.

If life arose in D&D worlds by the same principles that govern it in the world in which we live, almost no creatures statted outside of the appendices of the Monser Manual could exist at all. So it is pretty clear that the processes by which life emerges in D&D worlds is different than the processes by which it emerges in our world.

Most setting materials back this up by explaining how life on these worlds was created by gods.

I think that is going to be a pretty universal process, magic or not.

Why would the emergence of life be identical in a system in which carbon is not an element but earth is?

Again my opinion (since I seem to have to state it), but magic is not just another physical law,

Why not? In D&D it is consistent, systematic, predictable and governed by rules. That's all physics is: the rules by which the universe works. Now, if D&D magic were inconsistent, unpredictable and not rule-governed I would agree with you. But the RAW makes it pretty clear that this is not the case.

nor is it "natural" to the Prime.

This makes no sense. If you accept, as you just appear to have done, the Great Wheel cosmology, it is clear that the physics of the universe constitute a radical departure from the physics of our own system.

Physical laws (science) act in a consistent, measurable, and observable manner, dependent on a immediately local force (electricity, chemical bonds, etc) and the material they are acting on.

So, how do the set of spell descriptions in the PHB and the set of item creation rules in the DMG fail to meet these criteria. Magic acts in a consistent, measurable and observable manner.

The effects of Magic are the result of forces and effects that are often alien to the Prime (from the outer, inner, astral, etc) and dependent not on the material they effect but on the manipulator of the magic

By that logic, if a weak person tried to bend a thin metal bar and couldn't but a strong person tried to bend the same bar and could, the laws of physics would have been defied.

In my Grand Unified Theory (IMC!), "Magical Energy" is most certainly a different entity (or "Variable") then "Physical Energy" and "Matter", although they are certainly all capable of being mixed and combined in wide variety of manners and circumstances.

IMC (that's "In My Campaign"!) The Prime is composed of normal matter like our own universe, with elements like carbon, sulphur, oxygen, etc. that behave as those elements in our own universe.

I'm glad that works for you and your players. But to suggest that this model of understanding a D&D world has a stronger claim on "realism" than mine is what I really object to.

It seems to me that your D&D world is full of constant hand-waves and internal inconsistencies every time magic is used, elementals appear, etc. I'm fine with you liking your worlds better than mine; to each his own. But to suggest that you have somehow discovered a more "realistic" way of understanding D&D is just not on.

The quaint belief that wood is composed of the "elements" earth and fire (or whatever) is as accurate as when the Greeks of our own world believed that. Its wrong. The "element" Fire (as in from the Elemental Plane of Fire) is an entirely different material that is not native to the Prime (although it can be brought here by spells such as "Fireball"), as is the "chaos stuff" that makes up Limbo. Xorns? Elementals? They don't come from the Prime either. YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY.

Well, it sounds to me like you prefer to spend your energy house-ruling your way around the conception of physics that works for you. Me, I'd rather spend my energy coming up with explanations that make sense of the rules that the game has. I'd rather not change the summoning spells, encounter tables and a myriad of other things just to shore up a conception of D&D physics that is clearly contradicted by the RAW (which specifically state that there are four elements, for instance).

Now, I'm not telling you you are playing the game wrong. All I'm saying is that your style of play has no more claim to the mantle of "realism" than mine does.

Well, if more then half the people want a believable map,

My point here is that your definition of believability/realism excludes a lot of people's settings and play dynamics. To suggest that my world is less believable than yours because I treat the RAW as the physics of the world whereas you treat the RAW as a mixture of lies, untruths and handwaves is just not on.

and the rest don't care as long as it looks good and has cool stuff in it.

My point is that there are a lot of people who care deeply about consistency, realism and believability just as much as (or perhaps more than) you do. The fact that our solutions to the problems of D&D physics are different than yours does not mean that we do not care about these values.

 

[fusangite]

The Poll was for Fantasy Worlds, not just D&D

Uh... okay. Are you suggesting that the worlds described in Runequest, Exalted, LOTR, etc. are somehow significantly more consistent with the physical laws of this world than D&D is? Because I'm just not seeing it.

I either like them to be realistic,

What you guys seem totally unable to grasp is that I do too. I'm just working with different criteria for realism that you are. And nothing that has been said in this thread indicates to me that your criteria are better or more logical than mine.

 

[Grymar]

(As an aside, I have a geography degree, although it was mostly "human geography" ala Pred with a bunch of computer work that led me into GIS. Geography and Geology degrees aren't really all that common, and I am amused to see several people with them here.)

Ha, my thoughts exactly. I also have a degree in geography (urban/city planning focus) and I'm stunned at how many have a similar background.

On topic, I like for a reasonable attempt at logic in a map, but it wouldn't ruin a game for me if there was a problem.

 

[fusangite]

On topic, I like for a reasonable attempt at logic in a map,

This is a very clear articulation of my position. I evaluate maps based on how logically consistent they are with the fantasy world they depict not on their resemblance to the world in which I live.

 

[helium3]

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?

See, I think you're making a better arguement for dropping the silly four elements approach in D&D than anything else. Let's face it, most players interact with your typical campaign setting as if it were the real world with the add-on of magic and monsters. Wouldn't it be better for the general ruleset underlying the whole thing to inherently mate up with the vast majority of what the players expect? I've tried to put together a framework in my head for how you would generate most real-world phenomena with four elements and it fails every time. I suppose that's why the theory was abandoned five hundred years ago.

BTW, when is someone going to post a reply accusing us of engaging in clomping nerdism?

 

[S'mon]

I like maps that look plausible. BTW New Mexico has striking forests surrounded by desert - the forests are at higher altitude, as air rises from the desert floor it cools and rain falls, enabling forests.