Ramifications of a terracentric system?

[Roman]

That depends.

If you produce your day/night cycle by having the sun orbit the planet once each day, yeah, your seasons have a problem.

If, however, the day/night cycle is still produced by spinning the main planet, and the sun orbits the planet once each year, you can still produce normal seasons with a standard steady axial tilt on the planet.

You are correct - good catch. Other ways to achieve seasons would be changing the tilt of the Earth cyclically, or having the Sun orbit in a spiral orbit.

 

[Orius]

Of course there'd be seasons! I mean, if I were the god of the dead, and my girlfriend tried to skip town, I'd be pissed too.

I think you're confusing him with her mother.

 

[Delemental]

Thanks for the answers. I kind of figured there wouldn't be a significant difference, as long as the main planet had some axial tilt to it (to clarify, the planet does rotate to create days, and the sun orbits around it much more slowly). I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something I hadn't considered.

So, now, what are the ramifications of having your campaign world supported on the back of a giant turtle?

 

[Alzrius]

There's a good example of a geocentric system already in D&D, though most people don't realize it:

Oerth, the World of Greyhawk, is the center of a geocentric system.

 

[Umbran]

... or having the Sun orbit in a spiral orbit.

A highly eccentric (long and narrow) ellipse would be a better choice. Non-closed orbits tend to be unstable. Not that such a technicality means much for a fantasy world, but it pays to not use complex structures when simple structures would do.

 

[Black Omega]

So, now, what are the ramifications of having your campaign world supported on the back of a giant turtle?

Del beat me to it.

 

[DMScott]

So, now, what are the ramifications of having your campaign world supported on the back of a giant turtle?

You have to figure out what to do when your PCs kill it for the XP.

Actually, even that shouldn't be too bad, assuming that it's turtles all the way down...

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

You have to figure out what to do when your PCs kill it for the XP.

Actually, even that shouldn't be too bad, assuming that it's turtles all the way down...

But, as it isn't turtles all the way down, them your players have just destroyed the world and they deserve to die horribly.

Really, I'm very surprised at how difficult some of you are finding it to cope with the concept of a world with radically different physical laws. You seem able to cope with magic and many gods, (even the concept of killing a god 'for the experience') but insist of talking about eliptical orbits and spherical worlds. Why? I used a sun god example above, I could have equally used a moon goddess or the god of death, or love, or the Earth goddess.

1) There is no reason to assume accepted scientific physical laws work in a fantasy world. Things fall because they do, not because of gravity. People die because the death god brough death into the world to stop it from getting to rowded.

2) Gods ARE the living embodiment of their essence. If someone kill the death god, no-one can die. Kill the sun god, and the god of Darkeness covers the world.

GOM

 

[Umbran]

Really, I'm very surprised at how difficult some of you are finding it to cope with the concept of a world with radically different physical laws. You seem able to cope with magic and many gods, (even the concept of killing a god 'for the experience') but insist of talking about eliptical orbits and spherical worlds. Why?

Why? Not out of any "difficulty", I assure you.

There is no reason to assume that accepted scientific physical laws workin a fantasy world, true. We could just wave our hands, say, "It is magic" and move on. But that has drawbacks.

For one thing, it kills the conversation. "It is magic" pretty much precludes further discussion on the topic, and is such a strong simplification that I find it limits creativity in many ways.

For another thing, if you approach world design within a more structured framework, you tend to get results that have greater verisimilitude, and are easier to use later. When players ask questions you haven't thought about, the "It is magic" crew has to make up it's answer from whole cloth, and can easily wind up with contradictory answers. Those using a pseudo-scientific system have a path of logic to follow that will yield up more consistent answers.

For a third thing - it's fun to discuss it in a pseudoscience mode.

2) Gods ARE the living embodiment of their essence.

In your world, perhaps. But there's nothing to say that such is the case in all worlds. In many fantasy worlds, gods are an extension or representation of their essence, but the essence would continue to exist without the deity.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

What would be the major differences, if any, that a layperson would notice going from a heliocentric system like Earth to a terracentric one?

A layperson? None. An astronaut? Plenty!

Richard Garfinkle's Celestial Matters is a wicked cool exploration of space travel in a universe ruled by Ptolemaic terracentric astronomy. Highly recommended.