I actually had forgotten about this thing... but awhile back, I found this fairly in-depth guide to world-building. I probably have others stored away, too. I'll add them in if I find them.
Seems like the sort of thing that'd be useful to those wanting to flesh things out more, even if you don't want to dive into full-on world building (which, by the way, can be really fun). Adding a little more to a setting can make it significantly more fun and interesting to be a part of.
EDIT: I've added some more stuff (and in the process, realized just how badly I need to clean up/reorganize my bookmarks x.x ). I'll happily add more if people make suggestions.
List o' Stuff!
General World-building
Map Making
SPAAAAACE!
Language
Seems like the sort of thing that'd be useful to those wanting to flesh things out more, even if you don't want to dive into full-on world building (which, by the way, can be really fun). Adding a little more to a setting can make it significantly more fun and interesting to be a part of.
EDIT: I've added some more stuff (and in the process, realized just how badly I need to clean up/reorganize my bookmarks x.x ). I'll happily add more if people make suggestions.
List o' Stuff!
General World-building
Map Making
SPAAAAACE!
Language
- Language Construction Kit
- How to Create a Language
- ConLang - Create a Language
- FSI Language Courses - It only teaches real languages, but it can give a better understanding of language structures.
- My Script Font - You won't be able to type in in here, but you can create your own character set for use in images and such.
- Elven Phrases, English-Elvish Translator, Elvish Dictionary - All based on Tolkien
Ooo, these are really good guides. I've already found a couple things I have overlooked in some of my own original worlds. Thanks for sharing! 
I actually quite enjoy reading these. Very useful for starting to think about the kinds of questions one needs to ask.
However I encourage people to use these guides as just that: a way to develop questions that you intend to independently research. A lot of the information, especially in the physics sections, is ill-explained, misleading, and occasionally just wrong.
However I encourage people to use these guides as just that: a way to develop questions that you intend to independently research. A lot of the information, especially in the physics sections, is ill-explained, misleading, and occasionally just wrong.
I actually have what should be a roughly scientifically accurate placement of a world, its star, and its two moons. 
It's based on a model I built in Universe Sandbox while in an astronomy class.
Gravitational pull is tricky to get right...
It's based on a model I built in Universe Sandbox while in an astronomy class.Gravitational pull is tricky to get right...
I freaking love Universe Sandbox. Though I am not sure I understand all of the mechanics of it quite yet. Some weird stuff tends to happen when I try and plot things. I intend to keep playing.
The main errors I noticed were in the descriptions of stars and their life-cycles. None of the incorrect information changes how you would actually build a world, but I don't feel like the life cycles and types of stars are properly explained.
The main errors I noticed were in the descriptions of stars and their life-cycles. None of the incorrect information changes how you would actually build a world, but I don't feel like the life cycles and types of stars are properly explained.
Apologies for the double post. My main problem is with her assumptions like this one:
"Different types of stars have different lifespan. It's important because the brighter, the bigger, and the hotter the star is, the shorter its lifespan and thus, the lesser chances on the emergence of life are. ..."
This, and the statements she makes afterward, are erroneous. Brightness, size, and heat are not related in that way. A red giant, for example, in general is going to be bigger and brighter than our sun, but much colder. But none of these things are the determining factor in the lifespan of a star. Mass determines a star's life. Higher mass stars have greater core temperatures and burn through their "fuel" more quickly. But high mass doesn't necessarily mean greater size or luminosity. For the most part on the main sequence, higher mass stars are bigger. But red giants defy this rule, as do neutron stars and black holes. It DOES mean greater heat. Apart from that, different sizes, colours, types, etc are often the expressions of different stages in the life cycle of a single star. And she could have broken this down much more simply, and in a more useful way:
She already touched on colour, but there's a lot more to it. The wavelength of light determines how much energy a star is producing, and from there you can infer a lot about it. Red stars are emitting a longer wavelength with less pronounced peaks and dips. Blue stars have shorter wavelengths with high peaks and low dips. Basically: Red = low energy, blue = high energy. The further away in the colour spectrum you get from red (at dwarf size, I'll touch on this later), the shorter the lifespan of the star, and less chances of finding a planet with life orbiting it.
This also can be used to explain big stars of different types. Large red stars are low mass, because they are shedding their outer layers. But blue stars of the same size are high mass, because they are producing enough energy to sustain themselves.
So here's the thing. All stars that achieve nuclear fusion become main sequence stars. Stars not on the main sequence are unlikely candidates NOT because they have short lifespans. But because they represent the evolution of a main sequence star.
A red giant is unlikely to host a planet with life because it is the result of a main sequence star that has expanded and eaten up everything inside its habitable zone. NOM NOM NOM. This happens when a star uses up all of its hydrogen and starts to fuse heavier elements. It takes more energy to fuse heavier elements, therefore there is less energy leftover to keep the star running. At this point the star is cannibalizing its self, and can't sustain it's own gravitational pull. Gas from the surface begins to escape and expand.
White/blue dwarfs are the next part of that evolutionary process (not always, but they will be for our sun.) Once a red giant has exhausted all it's fuel and can no longer sustain its self, it releases its outer layers and only the core remains. These stars are unlikely to host a living planet because they're in the middle of huge freakin' nebulae of radiation.
The conclusion is this:
The further from red a main sequence star is, the shorter it will live before becoming a red giant (or red supergiant the case of massive stars.) Therefore the most likely candidates are red dwarfs, followed by orange and yellow dwarfs. They mention that a brown dwarf supporting life is theoretically possible but I disagree. It's not just about heat.
I'm being SUPER DUPER PICKY. Because this is the same conclusion that she came to, but that doesn't change the fact that the process was incorrect and THAT BOTHERS ME ;.;
"Different types of stars have different lifespan. It's important because the brighter, the bigger, and the hotter the star is, the shorter its lifespan and thus, the lesser chances on the emergence of life are. ..."
This, and the statements she makes afterward, are erroneous. Brightness, size, and heat are not related in that way. A red giant, for example, in general is going to be bigger and brighter than our sun, but much colder. But none of these things are the determining factor in the lifespan of a star. Mass determines a star's life. Higher mass stars have greater core temperatures and burn through their "fuel" more quickly. But high mass doesn't necessarily mean greater size or luminosity. For the most part on the main sequence, higher mass stars are bigger. But red giants defy this rule, as do neutron stars and black holes. It DOES mean greater heat. Apart from that, different sizes, colours, types, etc are often the expressions of different stages in the life cycle of a single star. And she could have broken this down much more simply, and in a more useful way:
She already touched on colour, but there's a lot more to it. The wavelength of light determines how much energy a star is producing, and from there you can infer a lot about it. Red stars are emitting a longer wavelength with less pronounced peaks and dips. Blue stars have shorter wavelengths with high peaks and low dips. Basically: Red = low energy, blue = high energy. The further away in the colour spectrum you get from red (at dwarf size, I'll touch on this later), the shorter the lifespan of the star, and less chances of finding a planet with life orbiting it.
This also can be used to explain big stars of different types. Large red stars are low mass, because they are shedding their outer layers. But blue stars of the same size are high mass, because they are producing enough energy to sustain themselves.
So here's the thing. All stars that achieve nuclear fusion become main sequence stars. Stars not on the main sequence are unlikely candidates NOT because they have short lifespans. But because they represent the evolution of a main sequence star.
A red giant is unlikely to host a planet with life because it is the result of a main sequence star that has expanded and eaten up everything inside its habitable zone. NOM NOM NOM. This happens when a star uses up all of its hydrogen and starts to fuse heavier elements. It takes more energy to fuse heavier elements, therefore there is less energy leftover to keep the star running. At this point the star is cannibalizing its self, and can't sustain it's own gravitational pull. Gas from the surface begins to escape and expand.
White/blue dwarfs are the next part of that evolutionary process (not always, but they will be for our sun.) Once a red giant has exhausted all it's fuel and can no longer sustain its self, it releases its outer layers and only the core remains. These stars are unlikely to host a living planet because they're in the middle of huge freakin' nebulae of radiation.
The conclusion is this:
The further from red a main sequence star is, the shorter it will live before becoming a red giant (or red supergiant the case of massive stars.) Therefore the most likely candidates are red dwarfs, followed by orange and yellow dwarfs. They mention that a brown dwarf supporting life is theoretically possible but I disagree. It's not just about heat.
I'm being SUPER DUPER PICKY. Because this is the same conclusion that she came to, but that doesn't change the fact that the process was incorrect and THAT BOTHERS ME ;.;
NERRRRD!
But really, info-sharing, especially when clear and easy to understand, makes me happy.
But really, info-sharing, especially when clear and easy to understand, makes me happy.
I know, it's pretty awful how nerdy I am. xD
Anyway. Apart from that it's an awesome set of tools, really neat find.
Anyway. Apart from that it's an awesome set of tools, really neat find.
Just added a bunch of stuff.
If I could like this post I would. Although now you're going to have me lose several hours of sleep as I pine through and pick apart tid bits!
While I like the intent of trying to offer such resources, the fact that so many are downright wrong more than a little disheartening. What I do is just turn to the Internet in general. If I'm curious about, say, a star's lice cycle, I'll head over to my search engine of choice (which, in a shameless and free plug for a service I like, I'll mention it's Duck Duck Go) and look it up.
While such resources--were they accurate, anyway--would be grand to have, I don't really see a need for them, for myself, anyway. A few more minutes and using such authorities as NASA, the Encyclopædia Britannica, and so on can answer the same questions in nearly the same amount of time.
While such resources--were they accurate, anyway--would be grand to have, I don't really see a need for them, for myself, anyway. A few more minutes and using such authorities as NASA, the Encyclopædia Britannica, and so on can answer the same questions in nearly the same amount of time.
Which?
You are on: Forums » RP Discussion » World Building
Moderators: Mina, Keke, Cass, Claine, Sanne, Ilmarinen, Darth_Angelus