Geography when Making a World

[DireSickFish]

One thing that bugs me when looking at the Forgotten Realms map is how inappropriate all the landscape is. There's a mountain range every 100 miles in criss crossing directions following no semblance of fault lines! The Rivers flow whatever way they want, and with so many mountains there should be a lot more deserts. Swampland is also underused. And I know almost nothing about appropriate Geography in the real world.

How can one use the real world to make a fantasy map with appropriate Geography? When I'm making a setting I don't want to have it stagnate and repeat, I want something that makes sense and offers diversity. Do you ever take Geography into account when making your fantasy worlds?

[Remmirath]

I always try to take at least basic geography into account if I'm making a world that is supposed to be at all realistic and normal. There are some cases where I might throw that to the wind, but that's if they're supposed to be strange and alien in every way, or if they've been so heavily terraformed or changed that the original geography wouldn't be relevant any more (and then, I might at least give a thought to what it used to be like).

As to how one does it, I mostly just make sure that I'm not going against any basic geographic principles, looking them up as I go if necessary. One can also alter actual landmasses for their purposes, of course.

[Aliquid]

I always consider geography when building a world, and I agree it is frustrating looking at a fantasy map that isn't realistic.

Some things I can ignore... if a desert is placed in an odd location, I can accept that. I can tell myself that it doesn't rain there because of something related to the reality of that magical world. For example, if it is a world with multiple gods, then the desert exists because the god of weather (Thor etc) wants it to exist. As long as there is a reason consistent with the world's reality, I'm ok.

Rivers really bug me though. Rivers DO NOT FLOW UP HILLS... and too often when you look at a map and you follow the path of a river, it goes over a hill/mountain. That can't be explained with in world logic.

A fun trick for making a realistic looking map is to take real world geography and change the scale. For example, look off of Norway, there are thousands of islands on that rugged coast. Pick a spot, zoom in and copy it exactly. Now change the scale so that the larger islands becomes continents, creeks become rivers, hills become mountains etc.

[snowblizz]

The Giant wrote an article about designing geography.
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/xO3...JPlKxmVoG.html

[GPuzzle]

I use the real world as a basis for my geography. No, seriously. I've had several parts of the world used as campaign settings... It works, that's the worst part.

[sktarq]

Rivers really bug me... That can't be explained with in world logic.

A fun trick

On the first point. Can't is pushing it but it happens so rarely as be like hen's teeth. A couple RW rivers are older than mountain ranges they cut through and maintained an erosion rate high enough to counter the lift rate. Also dramatic tectonic shifts can open rift and buckle canyons that could allow rivers to bypass an upland-while normally found only on a small scale it can be worked up in a fantasy world. Finally a mountain pass could allow for such a river to slide between mountains in a range. All these are great dramatic vista's and plot hook bait. But on a general level totally agree.

On the second idea-if you are willing to mix and match bits from across the globe (and flip things 180 to get pole and wind direction right) one can match groves of trees to forests and meadows to savannas pretty well. Also the Philippines make for good fodder for this technique.

[hymer]

I use the real world as a basis for my geography. No, seriously. I've had several parts of the world used as campaign settings... It works, that's the worst part.

I don't see the problem. Care to elaborate?

[DireSickFish]

I use the real world as a basis for my geography. No, seriously. I've had several parts of the world used as campaign settings... It works, that's the worst part.

Yeah I'm not getting how it's a bad part. I'm actually starting to look at a Herodotus map to use for my setting. Zoom in by the Caspian Sea to start the adventure off so they don't immediately connect my setting with it. Looking up forests/hills/desers/svanah is going to be a bit trickier. Any advice for topographical maps of the world?

[GPuzzle]

I don't mean taking some stuff from Earth. I mean using Earth and renaming places to fill out the serial numbers. The bad part is that sometimes, players don't notice it.

[sktarq]

I don't mean taking some stuff from Earth. I mean using Earth and renaming places to fill out the serial numbers.

I find if one uses historical vegetation it stymies them even more. The forests of the Levant, the grasslands of Arizona, etc. And having worked in a store that sold travel supplies and finding out that about half of the people who wanted to work there could tell me where The Pyramids of Giza, The Eiffel Tower, and the Vatican/Rome was I refuse to be surprised when people don't know geography.

[JusticeZero]

If you use areas that aren't common destinations, they will never notice. Alaska, Canada, Africa, Southeast Asia, Russia.. and only portions of those. Keep the focus on small areas of space. There is no reason for anyone medieval to be looking at a huge world map. Look at a map of the U.S. - those first few states on the east coast. The little ones that you have to have arrows pointing to tem. That's a more appropriate size for people to be looking at, those areas are huge. Flip or rotate 180 degrees. Redraw the political boundaries. Change the names.