Campaign Setting Using Real World Map? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Campaign Setting Using Real World Map? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
AnonymousInternets
10-04-07, 09:25 PM I'm starting up a campaign setting, and I'm strongly considering using a real world map for the campaign's world map (just geographically, not politically). Of course, there would be some adjustments to features, but for the most part, I think it'd be a lot easier to design, and might even be more fun to create the political landscape and national borders with. On the other hand, it might make the world feel like less of a fictional fantasy world, and deprive it of some originality and uniqueness.

What are your thoughts on using a real geographical Earth map for a campaign's geographical world map?
Orloff
10-04-07, 11:01 PM Depends upon whether you want your players to know that you're using the real world or not. I personally love using obscure geographical regions to inform my world building, because there's nothing that helps building a realistic world like modeling after the real world. If you don't want your players to see what you're up to, consider flipping or rotating a real world map, and changing around a few key geographical features. It's amazing what people won't notice if they don't know to look....

If you don't care what your players think, all the better. What the real world would have been like if there were elves and dwarves is as good a basis for a campaign world as anything else.
Tegemea
10-05-07, 08:54 AM I think this is a great idea - if you don't want the players to feel too at home, take a section of the world that your players don't know too much about, and tweak it a little - could be as easy as inverting the directions of the map. Or take a section of the world, and slice it up with some new coastlines, or add an inland sea. (if it were me, i'd also rearrange rivers and elevation features to match the coastline)

but even if you make no modification at all, people-ing the world with all new races and cultures is going to be plenty of change, and if the players catch you out on it or think its uncreative, its probably a small price to pay for the depth of realism your environment can have. The level of detail available on google earth or other satellite mapping software becomes your new best friend...
Rhineglade
10-05-07, 11:12 AM Probably all of us have wrestled with this question at least once. I have made a number of maps in the past based on the real world but always scrapped them for many of the reasons llisted above.

However, now I am beginning to change my opinion. I am a fan of the Warhammer game too and if you are familiar with that game, you know that their game world is practically a dead ringer for the "real world." Even though I always found that so obvious, as a player it never really bothered me in the slightest. In fact, sometimes it seems to add a sense of realism.
Eldritch_Lord
10-05-07, 06:19 PM I made one world whose map was based on the real world. I cut and pasted a map of Europe, taking each individual country, rotating it some, and attaching it where it looked good. I then made each region's government, culture, etc. resemble the original just enough so that it would be blindingly obvious if you knew the background but not if you didn't realize it was Earth. Throughout the campaign (this one was pretty short) my players kept saying they recognized things about the world's countries; during the campaign, I had Photoshopped real-world names off the map and made my own, but when I showed them the original, they all immediately recognized everything.

As long as it's not obvious you are doing so, the world is supposed to be an alternate Earth, or if you're cutting and pasting, using a real map is a great idea, but if you take the same map, same countries, etc. and just change names, it seems unoriginal and it looks like you didn't want to put thought into the world.
AnonymousInternets
10-05-07, 06:31 PM What if I just mostly copy it geographically, but completely redefine the national/political landscape and cultures?
Holy_Beholder
10-05-07, 07:17 PM Then you should be fine. Also, my advice would be to trim coastlines to change the shape. Picture Africa with a long cut along the bottom(say lower left side of south Africa to Eritrea, and no Madagascar) Most of Egypt, Lybia, Nigeria, and the Ivory Coast missing. You can use about 4 of the continents that way. Nobody will ever know.
Novem
10-05-07, 07:28 PM I would like to say that these boards have been stealing my ideas from my sleep with telepathic powers, because this idea is my greatest D&D fantasy. Ever.

You might also try focusing on one area so intently that it appears as a whole world- if you live in a rural town, you might make the town an entire continent!
animunculi
10-06-07, 01:24 PM I too have lately thought about launching a game using the outline of the map of South America. I mean, if you flip it and then rotate it, it will be pretty hard to recognize. I've also thought about mixing in some of North America and Africa, so it would be even more different and harder to recognize.

Now what I'm saying is that you can totally pull it off without anyone noticing, but basing your campaign somewhat on the real world can make the players feel more connections with your world.
ragoftag
10-06-07, 07:47 PM A GURPS game I played in during the '80s converted miles to leagues and dropped populations by 90%. Features were renamed to nicknames or what not. Georgia became Jawja, NYC was Nwyawk and Alaska became Denali (real name of Mt McKinley). The Mississippi River was renamed the Big Muddy and flowed to the city of N'Orlenz. The initial maps for the game were cribbed from old FAA charts.
Glak
10-06-07, 09:11 PM When I was in Iraq I spent a lot of time looking at imagery much better than anything you could find on Google:Maps. I would love to be able to use the images of villages for campaigns. I say that you should grab a map of an area but don't tell the players where. It is a good idea to change the cultures around, but remember that they way that cultures evolved has a lot to do with the terrain. For example in areas with lots of hills you will get more freedom loving cultures. In areas with vast plains you will get big government and all of the bureaucracy.
MasonMurdoc
10-06-07, 09:44 PM I'm starting up a campaign setting, and I'm strongly considering using a real world map for the campaign's world map (just geographically, not politically). Of course, there would be some adjustments to features, but for the most part, I think it'd be a lot easier to design, and might even be more fun to create the political landscape and national borders with. On the other hand, it might make the world feel like less of a fictional fantasy world, and deprive it of some originality and uniqueness.

What are your thoughts on using a real geographical Earth map for a campaign's geographical world map?

I was gonna do that. But didn't coz I'm lame. I think it's a good, though kinda lazy, idea. I was gonna have mine start in london.
pigknight
10-06-07, 09:50 PM Just flip around some stuff and fuse landmasses together. They'll never know.
yellowdingo
10-07-07, 07:31 AM Using the real world (without the current Political lines and Civilizations) offers you the easy solution of how do you show the Players a Location. You can pull out a real picture of the nearby Mountains, a waterfall, or even a coastline.
The DM Guide suggests borders along mountain ranges, rivers, ect. That would be interesting to see.

The City-state of Plooshnak: located on the island of Calona, Prince Rupert, Canada - a Terraced, stepped city leading up to the central temple where Tall People are Sacrificed to the God of Lightning. No wheeled transport, no beasts of burden other than slaves.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
AnonymousInternets 10-04-07, 09:25 PM	I'm starting up a campaign setting, and I'm strongly considering using a real world map for the campaign's world map (just geographically, not politically). Of course, there would be some adjustments to features, but for the most part, I think it'd be a lot easier to design, and might even be more fun to create the political landscape and national borders with. On the other hand, it might make the world feel like less of a fictional fantasy world, and deprive it of some originality and uniqueness. What are your thoughts on using a real geographical Earth map for a campaign's geographical world map?
Orloff 10-04-07, 11:01 PM	Depends upon whether you want your players to know that you're using the real world or not. I personally love using obscure geographical regions to inform my world building, because there's nothing that helps building a realistic world like modeling after the real world. If you don't want your players to see what you're up to, consider flipping or rotating a real world map, and changing around a few key geographical features. It's amazing what people won't notice if they don't know to look.... If you don't care what your players think, all the better. What the real world would have been like if there were elves and dwarves is as good a basis for a campaign world as anything else.
Tegemea 10-05-07, 08:54 AM	I think this is a great idea - if you don't want the players to feel too at home, take a section of the world that your players don't know too much about, and tweak it a little - could be as easy as inverting the directions of the map. Or take a section of the world, and slice it up with some new coastlines, or add an inland sea. (if it were me, i'd also rearrange rivers and elevation features to match the coastline) but even if you make no modification at all, people-ing the world with all new races and cultures is going to be plenty of change, and if the players catch you out on it or think its uncreative, its probably a small price to pay for the depth of realism your environment can have. The level of detail available on google earth or other satellite mapping software becomes your new best friend...
Rhineglade 10-05-07, 11:12 AM	Probably all of us have wrestled with this question at least once. I have made a number of maps in the past based on the real world but always scrapped them for many of the reasons llisted above. However, now I am beginning to change my opinion. I am a fan of the Warhammer game too and if you are familiar with that game, you know that their game world is practically a dead ringer for the "real world." Even though I always found that so obvious, as a player it never really bothered me in the slightest. In fact, sometimes it seems to add a sense of realism.
Eldritch_Lord 10-05-07, 06:19 PM	I made one world whose map was based on the real world. I cut and pasted a map of Europe, taking each individual country, rotating it some, and attaching it where it looked good. I then made each region's government, culture, etc. resemble the original just enough so that it would be blindingly obvious if you knew the background but not if you didn't realize it was Earth. Throughout the campaign (this one was pretty short) my players kept saying they recognized things about the world's countries; during the campaign, I had Photoshopped real-world names off the map and made my own, but when I showed them the original, they all immediately recognized everything. As long as it's not obvious you are doing so, the world is supposed to be an alternate Earth, or if you're cutting and pasting, using a real map is a great idea, but if you take the same map, same countries, etc. and just change names, it seems unoriginal and it looks like you didn't want to put thought into the world.
AnonymousInternets 10-05-07, 06:31 PM	What if I just mostly copy it geographically, but completely redefine the national/political landscape and cultures?
Holy_Beholder 10-05-07, 07:17 PM	Then you should be fine. Also, my advice would be to trim coastlines to change the shape. Picture Africa with a long cut along the bottom(say lower left side of south Africa to Eritrea, and no Madagascar) Most of Egypt, Lybia, Nigeria, and the Ivory Coast missing. You can use about 4 of the continents that way. Nobody will ever know.
Novem 10-05-07, 07:28 PM	I would like to say that these boards have been stealing my ideas from my sleep with telepathic powers, because this idea is my greatest D&D fantasy. Ever. You might also try focusing on one area so intently that it appears as a whole world- if you live in a rural town, you might make the town an entire continent!
animunculi 10-06-07, 01:24 PM	I too have lately thought about launching a game using the outline of the map of South America. I mean, if you flip it and then rotate it, it will be pretty hard to recognize. I've also thought about mixing in some of North America and Africa, so it would be even more different and harder to recognize. Now what I'm saying is that you can totally pull it off without anyone noticing, but basing your campaign somewhat on the real world can make the players feel more connections with your world.
ragoftag 10-06-07, 07:47 PM	A GURPS game I played in during the '80s converted miles to leagues and dropped populations by 90%. Features were renamed to nicknames or what not. Georgia became Jawja, NYC was Nwyawk and Alaska became Denali (real name of Mt McKinley). The Mississippi River was renamed the Big Muddy and flowed to the city of N'Orlenz. The initial maps for the game were cribbed from old FAA charts.
Glak 10-06-07, 09:11 PM	When I was in Iraq I spent a lot of time looking at imagery much better than anything you could find on Google:Maps. I would love to be able to use the images of villages for campaigns. I say that you should grab a map of an area but don't tell the players where. It is a good idea to change the cultures around, but remember that they way that cultures evolved has a lot to do with the terrain. For example in areas with lots of hills you will get more freedom loving cultures. In areas with vast plains you will get big government and all of the bureaucracy.
MasonMurdoc 10-06-07, 09:44 PM	I'm starting up a campaign setting, and I'm strongly considering using a real world map for the campaign's world map (just geographically, not politically). Of course, there would be some adjustments to features, but for the most part, I think it'd be a lot easier to design, and might even be more fun to create the political landscape and national borders with. On the other hand, it might make the world feel like less of a fictional fantasy world, and deprive it of some originality and uniqueness. What are your thoughts on using a real geographical Earth map for a campaign's geographical world map? I was gonna do that. But didn't coz I'm lame. I think it's a good, though kinda lazy, idea. I was gonna have mine start in london.
pigknight 10-06-07, 09:50 PM	Just flip around some stuff and fuse landmasses together. They'll never know.
yellowdingo 10-07-07, 07:31 AM	Using the real world (without the current Political lines and Civilizations) offers you the easy solution of how do you show the Players a Location. You can pull out a real picture of the nearby Mountains, a waterfall, or even a coastline. The DM Guide suggests borders along mountain ranges, rivers, ect. That would be interesting to see. The City-state of Plooshnak: located on the island of Calona, Prince Rupert, Canada - a Terraced, stepped city leading up to the central temple where Tall People are Sacrificed to the God of Lightning. No wheeled transport, no beasts of burden other than slaves.