Corjay:
I was looking at the full map of icebound that ArchMage did, and I was noticing many things about it that are incorrect concerning planet formation. If you've ever noticed the earth's continental drifts from Pangaea to now, you will notice that there's is relatively little north-south drift and even that is due to the east-west pushing of the continents. In the icebound setting, it looks like all the pushing is occurring in just about every direction. There are diagonal angles of development all over the map. In only one place do you see evidence of an east-west push, and in two other places a north-south push, one of which is a major push.
Before settling on a map, I'd like to see if we can get some map submissions. That's not to say ArchMage's work is bad, but I think we should have a map that reflects plate tectonics, subduction, craterology, meteorology, and iceflow research. This would give a sturdy base upon which to set the Icebound world, as well as provide some legitimization. I'm not more than self-taught in any of those areas and would only be able to provide work based on generic research, but I'd like to give ArchMage a chance to revise his map with some research into those areas. And if we by chance had any real cartographers that wanted to step up for the project, that would be awesome. I know there's a few cartographers floating around at WOTC/Gleemax, Enworld, and RPGnet.
ArchMage:
While I can agree with you on some of the premise, I was only aiming for similarity not actuality. The truth is no map will get it right unless it is done by a professional cartographer. Which I am by no means close. Carnifex is welcome to add to it or change it as he sees fit.
Heres the map in the gazeteer for icebound in pdf.
http://www.pixelsagas.com/library/f...zetter_002a.pdfProlificVoid
I realize that I'm not really "anyone," either hereabouts or in the realm of cartography, but I couldn't help repeatedly wondering, "Is this really a big concern? Especially for a fantasy setting?"
Just curious is all. I'd wager that the overwhelming majority of gamers, myself included, wouldn't know incorrect planet formation unless the entirety was something other than ... you know ... round. That would probably garner notice. Nor do I think they'd recognize the every-directional-pushing of tectonic plates if it came up and bit 'em on the arse.
I mean, it's cool that you (and at least some others) have an eye for that sort of detail - I think it's indicative of the level of creative immersion in the setting - I just wonder if it really should be a much of a factor in evaluating a potential map.
I could well be wrong six ways from Sunday on this and be completely oblivious. If such is the case, please forgive my ignorance.
Corjay:
Well, "immersion" is the key word here. Accuracy helps immersion, especially for those of us in the know. We want to immerse into the setting. To not take people like myself into account when developing something like this is to exclude that audience by producing elements that make immersion difficult. There are beliefs that can be suspended and knowledge that can't. For instance, if this were a fire plains world where nothing is solid in the traditional sense, there would be no physical plates to track, and thus belief can be suspended on account of it being beyond an individual's personal experience. But on a world where there is land and ice flows, the tectonics remain grounded in experience, so it becomes difficult for someone experienced in it to suspend belief.
It's easy to suspend belief on magic, because it is beyond our experience. But it is difficult to declare that a water-based ion drive can get us from the earth to solar major in 5 minutes WITHOUT magic. You see what I'm saying?
ArchMage:
On the first note I can understand your point, but considering what I worked with to get that map (based on WOTC boards post) I think the map closely resembles that more than accuracy. Given the circumstance it took me about an hour of volunteer time to develop that from a choppy description at best not to mention the rather primitive digital map that I originally pulled it from. So accuracy on that account is bar-none. As far as tectonics and obsure knowledge of the plates of earth (more a scientist approach) cartography, I certainly lack knowledge in that aspect, you are welcome to devise a map with accurate cartographical scale, skill and whatnot, I just was looking for a more visceral approach to what was provided by the community.
polletteirieska:
Well, hate to point out the obvious, but this is an ice world. Gods only know how far out the ice shelf extends, how stable it is, etc. It may not be tectonically accurate, but for an overwhelmingly arctic world, I think it looks just fine.
In addition to that, the tectonics on our planet don't hold true everywhere. If I recall correctly, there are two moons orbiting this world, one of which was recently (geologically speaking) destroyed in a cataclysmic fashion. That would throw a matter of normal tectonics out the window as the bulging of crust and ocean drastically shifted. Add to that the strike on the world itself and realistically, the planet could still be ringing like a gong in the deep caverns. All of these will drastically effect the nice calm (hah!) progression of tectonics.
I would also like the point out that the tectonics of earth are pretty active. A larger world, an older world would have a cooler core and much less active tectonics and currents.
Now, I don't care if the map gets reworked or not. I like the alien look of it, but I understand that some need their fantasy more grounded in reality. I just wanted to offer yet a third viewpoint.
Corjay:
Actually, two moons would increase the east-west tectonic flow, and just because a planet is ice on the surface doesn't mean the core is cooler or smaller. Planets with moons have a hot core. The more moons, the hotter the core for the very reason of those tidal forces. The less light the planet receives, the cooler its surface is, but that does not affect its core. A moon exploding would not affect the core except to cool it down because it's no longer there, and in the life course of tectonics, the effects of a moon's explosion would be instantaneous, having no lasting consequences other than the core's cooling to reflect having only one moon left, which would still give it a core similar to earth's, assuming the planet's composition is the same. If the core is harder, it will burn hotter and have less frequent and less disruptive earthquakes, but many more volcanic eruptions, fewer calderas, and retain a predominantly east-west attitude, but with fewer cracks. If it is softer, it will be cooler and have more frequent and deadly earthquakes, have greater and more common calderas, and contain many more plates still retaining a predominantly east-west attitude. Such a world would be susceptible to more frequent cataclysmic events. Considering the abundance of isolated islands and continents on the current map, I would conclude that it does indeed have a softer core, and therefore suffers frequent and terrible earthquakes and few volcanic eruptions and frequent cataclysms (of the global extinction variety). However, the dominant tectonic attitude would still be east-west. A softer core would mean there are fewer metals to mine. That's my layman perspective.
Corjay:
Working on it. But again, I'm a layman. Without a real cartographer, I can only improve it. It probably still wouldn't be all the way to a professional cartographer's or geologist's expectations, but I think it would at least be less distracting to one, and not distracting to a layman familiar with the basics of geology.
I will do what I can to retain as much of ArchMage's original design as I can. He was, after all, the only one to step up at the time, and I don't want to completely disregard his efforts. I simply stood back because I thought there would be more interest shown in the map and I had a lot on my plate at the time.
Author
Logged
