psh, everybody knows the world is round...

[Superfluous Crow]

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.

[Stargate525]

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?

[Superfluous Crow]

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.

[khyron1144]

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.

[Stargate525]

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.

Well then by your definition, every non-spherical world is 'round.' The common application of the word when applied to planets is spherical.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

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.

[Superfluous Crow]

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?

[Stargate525]

Navigation would become easier, since you can distinguish landmarks from farther away.

[Lmns Crn]

Navigation 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), 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."

[Thanuir]

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.

[Epic Meepo]

already 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.

[Superfluous Crow]

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?

[Epic Meepo]

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?

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.

[snakefing]

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.

[Pellanor]

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.