Difference between a Pure Magical Fantasy World and Realistic Fantasy World
I have noticed that the majority of cartographers on here favor a realistic fantasy map over a pure fantasy map. What I mean is that the terrain and how the land formation is mapped out is realistic and is complimentary to our Earth. The only difference is the shapes, names and locations of these environments on the maps we make.
Then there are those maps that are made for pure fantasy and doesn't necessarily comply with our Earth's formations or ecosystems. And if it does it's a veers off it. I guess these maps use the excuse "magic" made it happen.
I am just wondering why that those cartographers who make maps and use that excuse "magic" is the reason why that biome or climate doesn't make sense or whatever. How come those types of maps seem to get harsher criticism than realistic maps? Technically, it's their world and they can do what they want and set the laws of nature for it.
Another thing I would like to mention is that when I think of a Magical World, I see a vast array of different types of environments and interesting things that you may not find on earth or perhaps a different way to show it. When I think of a realistic fantasy world I imagine the essentials of different types of environments where nothing "fantasy" is predominant on them.
So I guess in my conclusion is that most of the posters on here favor a realistic fantasy map over a pure "magical" fantasy map?
Just wanted to write down both sides of the coin and see why some favor a realistic approach versus a pure magical approach.
Also another question, I assume that the majority of worlds on here are for D&D campaigns correct?