Fantasy world maps and real world geology

[HandofMystra]

I checked don't know much (BS in physics but failed intro to Geology 30 years ago). I would like a campaign world where magic is lawful and science (defined as a process not a set of findings ) is in charge of everything else. I wanted to run DCC#1 for my group but then I decided the map was too unrealistic (an abandoned silver mine looking like a rectilinear dungeon - I would still love to get floor plans of a a real abandoned medieval silver mine).

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I checked don't know much (BS in physics but failed intro to Geology 30 years ago). I would like a campaign world where magic is lawful and science (defined as a process not a set of findings ) is in charge of everything else. I wanted to run DCC#1 for my group but then I decided the map was too unrealistic (an abandoned silver mine looking like a rectilinear dungeon - I would still love to get floor plans of a a real abandoned medieval silver mine).

Now that's funny, because I had the same reaction you did when I saw the map.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

I have to have my climates match the regions, and I even take into consideration geographic features and ocean currents. The map I'm using for my next campaign is based on earth in 1,000 years after global warming has raised sea levels all across the planet. I found this map online, and the continents look familiar enough that players can recognize them, but different enough to offer a feeling of fantasy to the setting.

 

[Arnwyn]

I don't know all that much about real-world geology (but I do know a tiny bit - enough to be able to point out a young and old river, for example [if that meets the "inflated idea of how much I know" that some random internet guy vomited out]), and - especially after reading this thread - I realize I don't care much at all.

 

[Ceresco]

I know some, and I do care.

joe b.

That's an understatement!

I know more than some (less than others), and I care more than most.

edward kopp

 

[Doug McCrae]

Like physics.

The principle goal of physics is to model the world. The principle goal of game rules is that they must work as a game. They must be playable. Realism is a secondary consideration. That's why the contents of game rules (including those for games purportedly set in our universe) are different from the contents of physics books.

As Gary Gygax says on page 9 of the 1e DMG, D&D isn't realistic. It's much more a game than a simulation.

As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it [AD&D] can be deemed only a dismal failure.

 

[Nail]

I'm shocked that the people that know and care are in the lead. I've always assumed that most people don't care.

Me too.

Go geology!

-an Earth Sciences Professor

 

[Raven Crowking]

The principle goal of physics is to model the world. The principle goal of game rules is to model the action that takes place in the game. The real world and the game world have different rules because real world physics are based upon discovering what rules might actually exist, whereas the game rules are created to model the type of rules that the designer(s) believe will make a good game. That's why the contents of game rules (including those for games purportedly set in our universe) are different from the contents of physics books, even though both are ostensibly the same thing: a model for how things work within a real or imaginary universe.

FIFY.

 

[fusangite]

The principle goal of physics is to model the world. The principle goal of game rules is that they must work as a game. They must be playable.

Agreed. Therefore all successful games have rules that describe a system of cause and effect that is defined in a playable way.

Again, I think that you are using a funny definition of physics in order to come up with these objections.

Realism is a secondary consideration.

I don't know what you mean by "realism" here.

That's why the contents of game rules (including those for games purportedly set in our universe) are different from the contents of physics books.

They are different from the contents of physics books because (a) physics books describe our world which has different laws of cause and effect than game worlds; (b) physics tell people different kinds of information about physics than gaming books do; (c) if physics books were designed to give people rough rules for probabilistically estimating the causes and effects of ordinary, everyday events so that they could run a simulation of reality, I imagine they would be written like gaming books and would bear a much closer resemblance to them; (d) physics books are a different genre and have a different audience than gaming books.

As Gary Gygax says on page 9 of the 1e DMG, D&D isn't realistic. It's much more a game than a simulation.

But I agree with what Gygax says in his quote. D&D models a different, fantasy, make-believe world that has different rules than medieval and ancient military engagements.

You seem to think that physics is the rules of our universe when, in fact, it is the rules of a universe.

 

[RFisher]

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

I voted "Don't know much..." because Sam Cooke rocks!

...oh...& because I don't know much...

I wanted to run DCC#1 for my group but then I decided the map was too unrealistic (an abandoned silver mine looking like a rectilinear dungeon - I would still love to get floor plans of a a real abandoned medieval silver mine).

Just pretend it isn't rectilinear. Think of it as an abstract representation. Don't describe it as all right angles & orthogonal corridors. Say "left", "right", "forward", & "back" instead of the cardinal directions.

Although, I haven't seen the map in question, but that's often how I treat maps in modules.