new member—Elmincár

[Chick]

Aren't there places where three tectonic plates intersect?

Yes, but not that form two ranges of mountains simultaneously.

Or would that not result in such a formation?

No, sorry, it would not.

(If not I'd still throw something magic at the wall to explain it. I feel like altering that range would be too drastic of a change.)

Why alter it or try to explain it, just leave it. Anyone who knows better will roll their eyes at most, and then just ignore it. The mountains are where you want them, so just let them be there without justification.

[Cuin]

Aren't there places where three tectonic plates intersect?

Certainly. However, there are no modern analogues where there is a triple junction where all 3 plates are continental crust. This would occur though during a supercontinent phase.

Desert and forest at the same latitude is going to be hard to explain...

Unless the desert is caused by a mountain chain causing a rain shadow, but to explain your map there would need to be a mountain chain N-S between the forest and dessert. So yep, difficult to explain that one by natural phenomena. As Chick said, you can always use magic!

Cool map!

[Pixie]

The way your mountains are represented seems to indicate a ridge, but that is mainly a limitation of that kind of representation. As I said before, one of the sides of either of those lines of mountains could be elevated ground. The closest I can find to a continental triple point with mountains is southeast turkey, where the Arabic, Anatolia and Eurasia plates meet, but they aren't all converging to that point anymore. Have a good look at the topography of that area... Although the junction, in theory, is practically at 90º, the ridgelines of those mountains are hardly linear.

Climate wise, if the desert is to be "deleted" and an ocean-type water body exists in the north, then the most likely placement for your map is in the southern hemisphere, in the transition between savannah/steppe and forest, but all that would be very influenced by the altitude profile of the area, which you need to decide first.

[ObsequiousNewt]

I'm eager to try to draw an elevation map, but that among many other things seems to rely on the scale question. I don't know how big this map is supposed to be, or largely how big this map can be. One thousand km tall? Three? (More? Less? Looking at existing maps doesn't seem to help much—I just don't know enough.)

[Pixie]

You ask the right questions, ObsequiousNewt.

Illustrating the area I tried to point you to (Anatolia/Syria/Curdistan/Armenia), here's an attempt at an overlay from google maps to the map I drew previously. This is just to help you in visualizing the similarities. (I looked around the globe and you could also see some similarities between your map and the andean mountains between Venezuela and Colombia, but with different alignments)
However, when it comes to scale, you can probably have a scale 3 times larger or smaller and still have a very sensible map...

I'm not sure this helps, though, but have a look: