Well, unfortunately, mine isn't. Well, not unfortunately; i happen to think that it's quite cool. But it sure is a pain to create it since i have can't really compare it to anything else (and no, i'm NOT going to compare it to Discworld). So have any of you had thoughts about flat worlds? Any thoughts at all on how it would differ from a round world?
Basically, i'm thinking of a giant hovering rock, with a flattened side on which the world resides, surrounded by some sort of atmosphere. It doesn't have to spin around or anything, and i've taken care of the sun so i don't have to swing the rock around all the time. Oh, and the oceans don't spill over the edge everywhere (it's not a rock with a layer of water on top, more like a rock with a lake on top). Well, i hope some of you have had some kind of thoughts that might help me.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
I had to give you that link.
By making a non-round planet, you've fundamentally changed the world. Rimward land would be prized, as it's got one less side to defend, and central land would probably be a kind of no mans land.
How do you have your world set up in regards to night and day, other orbital bodies, etc?
Heh, was considering using those guys' name in the heading, but couldn't quite remember their name when i wrote it. The world-island pretty much just hovers, maybe floating a bit back and forth due to extrastellar winds (or something). They have circling moons and an currently also an orbital ring/halo. I've changed how the sun works quite fundamentally. Actually, there is no real sun that sets and rises like our own. Instead, solar light is generated when the phenomenon known as the Astral Wind collides with the atmosphere which creates at first a red glow on the sky (not unlike a sunrise) before suddenly erupting into a glowing hole in the sky (again, quite similar to our own familiar sun. except it stays still). Yes, it's a bit fantastic and stuff, but i actually find that it suspends disbelief relatively well (though you may disagree). Oh, and as far as rimcountry being coveted goes, most people don't know whether their world is round or flat or what it is, and there are still continents surrounded by seas. The sea just doesn't flow over the edges. So it's completely possible to be attacked from all sides no matter where you build your city.
Is your flat world a closed polygon, such as a square or triangle? Or does it curve around in a basically circular shape?
If it's not polygonal, it's round. Just not a spheroid.
Quote from: khyron1144Is your flat world a closed polygon, such as a square or triangle? Or does it curve around in a basically circular shape?
If it's not polygonal, it's round. Just not a spheroid.
Well then by your definition, every non-spherical world is 'round.' The common application of the word when applied to planets is spherical.
Another difference is that you could see farther over flat terrain (such as water). For example, at sea, we see the top of a ship first because of the curvature of the earth.
Well, i would say my world is flat, since if you continue in one direction, you'll eventually go over the edge and fall, and then be evaporated in the lower atmosphere because of the friction (which i use as an excuse to get the water that spills over the edge back up again). As far as shape goes, it resembles a giant rock with one flattened side as i said before. The underside would just consist of a bunch of stalagtites and monolithic rock outcroppings and the like. Good point with the sea, Phoenix. Of course, i still got mountains and hills and stuff, so it's not always you can see the end of the world, but at sea, it does make sense that you can see pretty far if the world is flat. Would this alter sea travel in any way?
Navigation would become easier, since you can distinguish landmarks from farther away.
Quote from: Stargate525Navigation would become easier, since you can distinguish landmarks from farther away.
In comparison to what, though? Unless you have characters moving back and forth between this flat world and a spherical one, nobody is going to have the frame of reference to comment on the peculiarities of navigation in either world. And navigation in general is not a process I explore with a high-enough level of detail to make a factor like "extra distance at which landmarks and vessels are visible" becomes significant.
I use a flat world myself, but I use it as a gimmick. I'm not sure it's possible for a world-shape feature to be anything
else but a gimmick; it can pique a reader's interest, but it's not enough to generate lasting interest on it's own. My answers for "How does THIS work on a flat world?" questions are comprised of equal parts semi-logical pseudo-science and vague handwaving, because ultimately, the geology isn't as important as the people and places and things that live on it. In a way, it's a deliberate focus shift, to try to keep my gimmick from stealing the show.
Remember that it's only through relatively recent developments in transportation and communication that Earth's roundness has become "noticeable" to most people on a daily basis. Thirteenth-century Europe would have hardly been impacted at all by the shape of the world (though we already knew it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes)), and most campaign worlds are likewise going to find the shape of the world pretty irrelevant, most of the time. (I say "most" worlds, because magic has a strong potential to be an exception to just about anything.)
As for me, the only aspect of my world's flatness that is really relevant is that the reverse side functions as an explorable wilderness-- prime adventuring territory. (Conversely, there are plenty of details-- such as how climate stays within a livable range from the rim to the center, in defiance of standard weather forces, or how a planet-sized, vaguely pizza-shaped mass exists at all without being crushed into a sphere by its own gravitation-- that I avoid entirely because they're headaches, and because answering them, even if I could, would have little benefit to me in terms of "fun" or "coolness.")
I'll be glad to help you brainstorm particular issues if you have them, but I'm going to clam up before I run the risk of hijacking your thread with my babbling. I'd just caution you not to be too concerned with making the world shape work realistically, or making it explainable by scientific means, because there is a pretty big chunk of realism and science that you have to throw out the window just to be able to say: "Okay, so the world is flat."
I suggest simply going away with space, planets, orbits, etc. The sun is some guy who rides a burning horse over the sky. The winds are spirits of the dead, travelling from our world to the next, or the spirits of those about to be born, entering this world. And so on. A lot easier than trying to get scientific with a flat world. As a bonus, it is also more interesting.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenesalready knew it[/url]), and most campaign worlds are likewise going to find the shape of the world pretty irrelevant, most of the time.
On a flat world, the horizon would be much farther away, and this would greatly impact society. The ability to build a tall tower allows you to see hundreds - if not thousands - of miles, almost like a spy satellite. Civilizations placing a strong emphasis on architecture and engineering would have a vast military and intelligence advantage. Also, mountains, storm clouds, and other features that block line of sight become even greater tactical considerations, changing the ways in which terrain and weather affect warfare and shape civilizations.
Well, i could of course just curve the surface of the flat world. Then i wouldn't have to worry about distances at least. Hmm, i was wondering, tides are normally "bumps" in the sea created by the gravitational force of the moon. So if the moon circles a flat world, would you eventually get reversed tides (when it gets to the backside)? Where the water is actually lower than usual?
Quote from: Eldritch ArcanumHmm, i was wondering, tides are normally "bumps" in the sea created by the gravitational force of the moon. So if the moon circles a flat world, would you eventually get reversed tides (when it gets to the backside)? Where the water is actually lower than usual?
I'm pretty sure that tides work that way even on a spherical world. When the gravitational pull of the moon forces some areas of ocean to rise, the other areas of the oceans lower a bit as some of their water is pulled into the raised areas.
Tides: Your seas are kind of like a big dishpan, the pull of the moons would tend to cause it to slosh around a bit. It can't actually go lower or higher because there's nowhere for that water to go to or come from.
Still, worrying about tides is kind of fruitless. Gravity has got to be a lot different - a whole lot - so you can pretty much have the tides do whatever you want, and put it down to the sea god's unrequited love for the moon goddess or what have you.
If the moon is orbiting the planet perpendicularly then you'll find that the water level will generally be higher at the center of the planet, and lower around the edges. This will be most noticeable when the moon is directly above or directly below the centre of the planet. At that point the centre of the planet is the closest point to the moon, so all tides will be pulled there.
If the moon is orbiting the planet parallel to the edge then the tides will follow the moons orbit as it goes around.
Hope that makes sense.
It does. thanks.
It also gives the interesting visual of a moon that is always on or near the horizon, I believe.
Well now, that's just kinda cool. What would an ever-present moon do to infected lycanthropes?
My guess is that it would then be a factor of how close the moon happens to be to you. I also suspect that all lycanthropes that don't like their condition would then immediately head hubward to be as far from the moon as possible it all times.
well, wouldnt they be a bit like barghests if there is an ever-present moon?
I have to throw my hat in with Luminous Crayon here.
Let's say I, the DM, want to have my players discover a long-lost dungeon that is suddenly revealed by an earthquake. I haven't mapped out the geological fault lines and continental rift zones of my world; on a flat world (which is currently the world I'm DMing in) continental drift might simply not work. I don't lose sleep over it, and neither do my players (hopefully), because it falls into the realm of suspension of disbelief.
As the DM of a flat world, what I'm concerned with are things that impact the players directly. What's on the other side? What happens if you fall off the edge? Are there tunnels from one side to another? Unless your characters are interested in the tides, or the precise distance at which objects can be seen under totally clear conditions miles away, I would advise not to bother with it. Better to spend that thought on things of more pressing concern to characters. :)
Is the world "really" a rock floating in space, with an atmosphere clinging to its surface, or is it "really" a flat piece of land with edges, and maybe a dome overhead that holds the stars ...
Since you talk of an other side, I'm assuming it's a rock with a flat side. If you want to be realistic, then wouldn't the edges of the flat plane seem more like slopes, since gravity will want to pull towards the center of weight of the flat-sided rock. Since you probably don't want that, I wouldn't worry about it.
Most old cultures didn't have any concept of physics beyond what was applicable to them. I'm more impressed by a world that is entertaining, fun, and thought provoking rather than one that obeys all reasonable laws of physics.
The beauty of having a flat world means your players will be less likely to question things that wouldn't seem out of place amongst ancient myth. You should be able to get away with a lot more, because they will already know that the laws of nature as they know it don't apply perfectly.
I think the underside should be a horrendously mountainous wasteland, with countless caverns. If you were to dig through, there should be a point of "upside down, where gravity flips; if you were to go to the edge, you'd fall momentarily before finding yourself righted. I think the world should be rimmed by mountains, making it more difficult to find the edge; having a world sea that spills over the edge could be cool, though, and the rain would be the heavens giving water back to the world.
I think i'll have the gravity directed downwards, even if you end up on the underside. This could also lead to some strange lifeforms or civilizations who have adapted to live over a yawning abyss. Maybe a couple of standard hanging bridge villages, just with trees replaced by stalagtites. I considered having all of the world encompassed by mountains at one time, but then again, i quite like the idea of the water spilling over the edge too. But i think i'll just combine them so there are the mountains, and then there are a couple of water-filled mountain passes leading over the rim. But i'll probably make the mountains quite steep and inhospitable so they are hard too climb and live on; i don't want anyone to start building villages on them.
Maybe there is no underside. Endless series of caverns as long as you can and will burrow, with random Cthulhuan deities and balors along the way, waiting to be unearthed and released.
Quote from: Eldritch ArcanumI think i'll have the gravity directed downwards, even if you end up on the underside. This could also lead to some strange lifeforms or civilizations who have adapted to live over a yawning abyss. Maybe a couple of standard hanging bridge villages, just with trees replaced by stalagtites.
I really like this idea. You could fall forever... or just maybe, you could find yourself hurtling through space until you were dumped on another plane.
Quote from: Holy Carp!Let's say I, the DM, want to have my players discover a long-lost dungeon that is suddenly revealed by an earthquake. I haven't mapped out the geological fault lines and continental rift zones of my world; on a flat world (which is currently the world I'm DMing in) continental drift might simply not work. I don't lose sleep over it, and neither do my players (hopefully), because it falls into the realm of suspension of disbelief.
Living in Hawaii, which is smack dab in the middle of the Pacific plate on our own Earth, I have to mention that we have both volcanoes and earthquakes here. In fact, one woke me up last year; it made it all the way from the Big Island to Oahu where I live. So it would be entirely possible to have an earthquake (or a volcano) of significant magnitude even about as far away from the edge of a continental plate as you can get.
Quote from: limetomQuote from: Holy Carp!Let's say I, the DM, want to have my players discover a long-lost dungeon that is suddenly revealed by an earthquake. I haven't mapped out the geological fault lines and continental rift zones of my world; on a flat world (which is currently the world I'm DMing in) continental drift might simply not work. I don't lose sleep over it, and neither do my players (hopefully), because it falls into the realm of suspension of disbelief.
Oh, heck, possible without the underlying suspension that a sphere physically gives, the shockwaves may actually travel much further. I just wonder what happens to these shckwaves when they hit the outside edge...
That could be an interesting endgame problem, the edges of the world cracking off because of seismic activity. You'd have to go to the other side to explore what's causing it an how it can be stopped.