Fantasy world maps and real world geology

[fusangite]

There are still a lot more fantasy settings in novels than there are in RPG settings, and they tend to be fairly conservative about the look of their worlds.

But given that this thread was posted in the General RPG Discussion forum rather than the Fantasy and Sci-Fi forum, I have interpreted it as asking questions about game worlds.

And I think you might have missed my point: I like the maps to be physically reasonable except where there is a reason in the nature of the background for them to differ from default physical reality, and those differences are set out somewhere. If the world has reasons for looking different from ours, that's cool, as long as there is an adequate explanation somewhere.

All I disagree with in this paragraph is your terminology. “Physically reasonable,” and “default physical reality” imply that resemblance to our world is the normative standard for deciding if a fantasy world is realistic. All I’m suggesting is that internal consistency is an equally valid standard. But yes, generally, we agree in practice if not terminology that worlds should make sense on their own terms.

Having a realistically designed world that includes magic is just as logically consistent as having a non-realistically designed world that includes magic.

My problem with this statement, again, is that you define “realism” as resemblance to our world; I think that this is a possible standard for assessing if a setting is realistic. But I think that an equally reasonable standard is internal consistency.

I care deeply about realism in my games and I have players who also care about being in a setting where they can kick all the walls and not have the facades fall down. My players and I feel that internal consistency is the way to give a world a realistic feel and enable us to suspend disbelief more effectively. All I am asking for in this thread is an acknowledgment that this is a legitimate way of giving players a feeling of realism.

When I am a player in a world that resembles ours but is not self-consistent, I lose my suspension of disbelief. So, I find it kind of absurd for people to define worlds that give me a feeling of realism as “unrealistic” and worlds that don’t as “realistic.”

Why is it important for people who freely admit that there is a radical disjuncture between their world’s physics and the RAW to label their world building principles as “realistic” and others’ world building principles as “unrealistic?” Why can’t we use language generous enough to admit that there is more than one approach to seeking and delivering realism?

If you have to choose between "Logically consistent map that uses real world physics and magic" and "Logically consistent map that doesn't use real world physics" I'd prefer the former. However, I don't believe that choice is necessary.

You can’t create a map that uses real world physics and magic because real world physics are incompatible with magic. But what you can do, however, is create a map that makes sense in our world’s physics and also makes sense in D&D physics. And, like you, I prefer such maps, to a point.

While I like local maps that could work well in either our physics or D&D’s, I do not like world maps that do. I prefer world maps that depict flat worlds with strange things at their edges like encircling mountains, burning jungles and infinite cliffs. But that’s just a matter of taste.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the French I took
But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be

 

[Wombat]

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?

Well, this is the major point.

Since I don't play a game that uses any of these elements, I am fine in wanting something that works a bit more with real-world physics. No widespread magic. No Elemental Plane of Anything. Limited interventionist gods. This makes me happy.

Different styles.

 

[jaerdaph]

I have no problem with things working a little differently in a fantasy world than they do in the real world, right down to geography. However, if you want to have a river flowing uphill in a fantasy map, you should have a good reason why it does so.

 

[Zaukrie]

Whizbang, when you started, I thought you were going to quote "Mayor of Simpleton" by XTC, but alas, it wasn't to be.

The part of the arguement I don't get is the part I never get - gamers saying that the way other people play is weak, a crutch, silly, cloying, stupid. Why can't it be fun for some to play "realistic" and others to play "high fantasy"?

Personally, I think it makes sense to have a map that seems realistic, but I could care less if it is. I prefer a more high fantasy element to my escapes from every day reality.

 

[Hussar]

This is a pretty weird argument. It's generally a hell of a lot easier to move very large amounts of cargo by sea than by land. I'm pretty sure most of the real world's major tade hubs are coastal cities for exactly this reason. A ship can carry a hell of a lot more than a wagon, and oceans don't tend to be quite so full of other people (such as bandits, enemy soldiers, and tariff collectors) as continents do. Explorers have spent a hell of a lot of time and lives trying to find sea routes to places they could already get to by land.

Ok, look at the map I linked. Think about that for a second. A trade HUB means that the majority of trade goes through that point. Sort of like how Venice or Florence were trade hubs for Europe. Makes perfect sense, you run the Silk Road through the Middle East and stick everything on a boat and float it accross the nice tame Mediterranean.

Now, again, LOOK AT THE MAP. Why would someone who lives at the 2 o'clock position, like say, Mithril, trade with someone at the 3 o'clock position, like say, Hedrad, by way of the 7 o'clock position?

The reason that trade HUBS are that way is because they are on the shortest point between two places. Hub meaning center usually. I have no problems with a coastal town being a trading town. I have a problem with Shelzar being the center of trade for the continent when 80% of the continent can trade with each other without going through Shelzar. If Shelzar is at 7 o'clock, anyone at positions between 10 and 4 can trade with each other directly without going through 7. Thus, the geography doesn't make much sense.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Fusangite, most of the D&D rules aren't intended to be the physical laws for the D&D universe. They're game rules. Approximations. A thorough and exact system of how the world works would be: a) impossible and b) unplayable.

They don't describe how a world works any more than the rules of chess accurately describe a battle.

 

[fusangite]

Well, this is the major point.

Since I don't play a game that uses any of these elements, I am fine in wanting something that works a bit more with real-world physics. No widespread magic. No Elemental Plane of Anything. Limited interventionist gods. This makes me happy.

Different styles.

I can get behind that. As I said, it's about consistency for me. Any world consistent with itself makes me happy. So I'm not even sure we have different styles. I currently play in a game set in 19th century earth and I enjoy it for its internal consistency just much as I do an internally consistent high fantasy world.

 

[fusangite]

Fusangite, most of the D&D rules aren't intended to be the physical laws for the D&D universe. They're game rules.

Look: whether people like it or not, game rules are the physics of the world they are playing. Because all "physics" are are the rules of cause and effect in a world. That's what game rules are -- they define how cause and effect work in the universe. I don't know what your definition of physics is but I have the feeling it's a little different from mine.

Approximations.

Like physics.

A thorough and exact system of how the world works would be: a) impossible and b) unplayable.

Did I ask for that? No. All I said is the I personally find worlds that have two competing and contradictory sets of rules for cause and effect harm my suspension of disbelief but that other people don't and I'm cool with that.

And frankly, the detail and specificity of most people's knowledge of D&D physics exceeds the detail and specificity of their knowledge of real world physics.

They don't describe how a world works any more than the rules of chess accurately describe a battle.

Yes. But a game of chess models itself not a battle.

The people I play chess with are not generating descriptions of battlefields complete with wounds, terrain, formations, commanders and troops and spinning this into a minute-by-minute narrative of the battle. But the people I play D&D with do. How would you feel if, instead of running combat on a miniatures board with pieces representing your characters and their adversaries, you just played chess against the DM every time combat started?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I gotta agree with fusangite. The game rules are the "physics" (or a part thereof) of the game world.