CWBP 2 Deciding the map

[Falconius]

While I certainly belive the setting would have some influence on the over all map, I think basic elements can easily be worked out before hand. I mean worlds are going to form in generally the same pattern given similar influences, the question arises just what other influences the setting is going to contribute.

I'll also say that the most of what I'm looking for in a world map is things that I'd think are interesting to map, regardless of how realistic they are. Those aren't so easy to come up with just as a matter of course. So working on them early may not be amiss. Also world maps can easily be a collaborative sort of effort, there is no reason not to take the best elements form several map or taking someone else's map and editing it as Azelor is doing with mine now. As long as the originator doesn't mind that is.

[Azélor]

While I certainly belive the setting would have some influence on the over all map, I think basic elements can easily be worked out before hand. I mean worlds are going to form in generally the same pattern given similar influences, the question arises just what other influences the setting is going to contribute.

I'll also say that the most of what I'm looking for in a world map is things that I'd think are interesting to map, regardless of how realistic they are. Those aren't so easy to come up with just as a matter of course. So working on them early may not be amiss. Also world maps can easily be a collaborative sort of effort, there is no reason not to take the best elements form several map or taking someone else's map and editing it as Azelor is doing with mine now. As long as the originator doesn't mind that is.

Did not had the time to open it yet, i'll try tomorrow (or later today since it's 1 AM here)

And your where right, we need some file sharing app if multiple members wants to work on the same project or exchange files.


Rooster: you are right about that. It's always good to have a clear overview.

[gspRooster]

You're absolutely correct. The basic elements can easily be worked out before hand. It's just part of my own personal process. I need to visualize the world in it's entirety. The setting, genre, culture, and physical geography all sort of unfold for me at once.

[gspRooster]

Anybody use digital dropbox? Thats good for file sharing.

[gspRooster]

Some very basic, done in 30 seconds concepts. Black outlines land, red lines are tectonic mountain ranges. Red rings are impact craters.

[Falconius]

I copied this from the Genre and Setting thread since I wanted to discuss the map components.

Aside from that we still need a world map. I see 2 ways to achieve this.

1: everyone submit a map and we choose the best.

or 2: we begin to wonder what we would like the map to look like and we build it together. Or one of us build/modify it and wait for approval.
At the beginning, I wanted to do #2 but too few people seemed interested at the time so I made a contest. It did not really work that well in my opinion. I'm sure 2 would be better. I think someone told me he would like a pangea world. Well that is the kind of suggestion that could start a discussion. So, what kind of world do we want? Any particular geographic elements? We don't need to have the whole world right on the beginning; we can just start with one continent. But the general layout of the world should be completed before mapping regional areas.


The other thing we discussed was dividing the map for regional mapping. Squared or odd shaped? With or without buffer zones?
Depending on how Viewingdale work (a mapping software), buffer zones might be unnecessary if it's easy to update. I'll ask Redrobes about that.

---

How to create the world:
1: everyone take some lands and decide what's on it. It end up more a patchwork than a credible world

2: decide collectively, vaguely what's on the land: approximate countries boundaries, or cultural boundaries, important cities. The idea is to make a credible fictional world that is interesting to read about or playing in a RPG.


ps: I know that my point of view is totally biased

First off I am totally opposed to a Pangaea world. I can't imagine it offering a great deal of interesting mapping ideas. Interesting mapping points is what I'm really looking for, this is a fantasy setting in a fantasy world, there is no need to be timid and conservative with the map. Realism should not necessarily be our main concern regarding land forms.

Regarding the World map, I'm happy with editing elements into a map as suggested in two, I mangled my attempt to work on Azelor's map in doing so but it's worth the attempts. Personally I feel like having the whole world map at least in overview is important to starting off. Specifics should be left open for now.

My views on the division are pretty clear. Land modified zones with good buffers. Tying into the next point...

I think the diversity of a world is best served by having a supposed patchwork. Even in this earth I can't imagine mapping cultural boundaries very definitively. I think rather if we have our setting overview and general ideas of what is in the area that is more than enough to run with. Collective decisions regarding these things would lead to an unnecessary homogeneity, and I feel would lead to exactly the opposite of a world that is interesting to read about or play in. It would be far less credible I think than having the greater diversity and creativity a more open plan would allow.

Perhaps if number 2 was done on a more regional scale somehow it would work, but on a world scale I don't think so. Another reason I don't like this is because I want us to be mapping and developing all over the place, not just one region or continent at a time, and doing this while also trying to stick to number 2 is not conducive to one another.

[octopod]

So, if not a Pangaea, what about a pre-Pangaea with high sea levels, like this Silurian map? Lots of island chains, warm shallow oceans with coral reefs, swamps -- kind of an Earthsea feel, possibly.

[gspRooster]

I could go with Falconius's traditional multi-continent approach.

[rgcalsaverini]

I could go with Falconius's traditional multi-continent approach.

I agree, I think it gives us more options. We did have many separated landmasses on the silurian period, I don't quite see your point @octopod.

[octopod]

@rgcalsaverini: Well, I was suggesting a world like that as a possible alternative to the "multi-continents", modern-Earth-like world or the Pangaea world that were being discussed above, because I thought it might be interesting. The big difference between this and the one Falconius suggested is that there is more underwater continental shelf than on the modern Earth (and therefore more tropical oceans like that of the present-day central Indo-Pacific), more island chains, and fewer large land masses.

What I'm trying to get at is, I suppose, this: is there anything established about the world already? That is, assuming it's roughly Earth-like: how big is it, what is the climate like (i.e. are there ice caps), what percentage of the surface is water? There are some basic things like that which should probably be agreed upon collectively, even if we're doing all the individual geography by claiming an area and talking to our immediate neighbours.

Very glad to see this going! I was sad when the CWBP1 stagnated and died.