# Fantasy world maps and real world geology



## Quasqueton (Jun 5, 2007)

When looking at a fantasy world map, do you know or care anything about real world geology?

Quasqueton


----------



## Mark Plemmons (Jun 5, 2007)

Well, I care, but I suspect I'm part of a very small minority. 

Though my ego is huge, so they cancel each other out.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 5, 2007)

I know some, and I do care.

joe b.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 5, 2007)

8 people have voted, but the main page shows only 3 views. Huh?

Quasqueton


----------



## Rhun (Jun 5, 2007)

I know some geography, and I care about it in my fantasy maps.


----------



## kirinke (Jun 5, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> When looking at a fantasy world map, do you know or care anything about real world geology?
> 
> Quasqueton





Nope. In fantasy, real world geology has about as much meaning as you want. I mean, you can have flying castles and mountains.  You can literally journey to the center of the earth without worrying about plate techtonics or being zapped by the electricity when you hit the core or crushed or vaporized or.... Well you get the picture.

Fantasy geology can be as real and as fanciful as you want in your game setting. It all depends on what you are going for.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jun 5, 2007)

I know a few things about geology from college but I really don't care about the 'realism' of geology in a fantasy game setting.

When there are magical, titanic, reality-warping forces around, you can't really expect everything to necessarily be nice and tidy realistic in its geography and suchlike.  I don't need to know how the heck a mountain range is shaped just so, or why there's a lone mountain over here, or why there's an arid desert adjacent to a humid marsh (as there is in my Rhunaria homebrew, where magic and spirits shaped the landscape).

It's friggin' magic.  And gods.  And spirits.  And the rampages of psychotic wizards, deranged cultists, angry dragons, demonic hordes, Far Realmsian invaders mucking up reality, and that slaadi over there who just thought it would be cute to have a shiny, crystalline mountain range in the middle of the bayou that happens to be shaped like a grinning slaadi's face.  Or whatever.

Geological forces do not a D&D world make.  Gods and mystical, unknowable, fey forces of Nature shape the world in a D&D setting, generally.  They might build some geological forces into the world when they do so, but those're still at the mercy of gods and strange Nature.


----------



## Nyeshet (Jun 5, 2007)

I studied a couple books on geology just to make certain my map was halfway realistic, so I suppose I fit into the last option.   

Seriously, I have trouble accepting maps that look completely unrealistic. So long as they might potentially be plausibly halfway realistic I do not mind over much, so most fantasy world maps I can accept (especially since most only show part of the world, making it easier to accept that any unusual formations near the edges have understandable reasons just beyond the edges of the visible map). 

I tend to view fantasy as being mostly about the addition of magic rather than a whole-scale rewriting of all physical forces and laws. Gravity exists in (nearly all) magical worlds, I notice. So too does heat, light, pressure (to a lesser degree), and so forth. True, air might all be breathable, and water not notably increasing in pressure the farther you go down, but some forces do exist, and so the world maps should reflect the existence of those forces. Plate Techtonics adds realism and thus enjoyability to the setting. 

This may be part of the reason I never got much into Hollow World, actually.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 5, 2007)

I have a base formation in Biology/Geology, was in Geography and History university, and don't care about real world geology in fantasy. I do care about coherence, but said coherence does not have to be analogous to real world sciences, as long as it's stated somewhere (example: Glorantha, which has a magical/mythological coherence, not a scientific one).


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 5, 2007)

Know a bit about geography, but I don't care for realism in fantasy maps, unless it's really stupid. The map can look like whatever it want to look like, as long as there is some reasoning/logic (not necessarily real-world logic). If it's just random, _then I care!_


----------



## Aezoc (Jun 5, 2007)

I voted for option #3. I'm not a geology expert by any means, but I do expect a fantasy map to at least be believable for a layperson like myself. By believable, I mean that the geology is realistic OR that there's an explicit reason in the source as to why it's not realistic. In general, I (and I think most other people) assume that a fantasy world conforms to the basic physical laws of the real world unless the source material states otherwise. So clearly unnatural geology with no explanation is a little jarring to me.


----------



## JRR_Talking (Jun 5, 2007)

worked for 17 years for the British Geological Survey

Like to try and have dungeons/caves make sense....but only if it doesnt get in the way of the plot/idea too much

John


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jun 5, 2007)

Aezoc said:
			
		

> I voted for option #3. I'm not a geology expert by any means, but I do expect a fantasy map to at least be believable for a layperson like myself. By believable, I mean that the geology is realistic OR that there's an explicit reason in the source as to why it's not realistic. In general, I (and I think most other people) assume that a fantasy world conforms to the basic physical laws of the real world unless the source material states otherwise. So clearly unnatural geology with no explanation is a little jarring to me.



Basicly the same as what I would say. If I notice a "problem" with the geography, hopefully there will be some real planned reason for it. (and not just a handwaved, "it's a magic world so it looks weird" excuse). I won't notice any but the most obvious ones, so I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation....


----------



## blargney the second (Jun 5, 2007)

Fun first, realism dead last (so I can loot its body!).
-blarg


----------



## Kvantum (Jun 5, 2007)

I'm a geologist by trade, and by training (with 2 1/2 years of physics thrown in). Realism is pretty important to me... right up until the point where it starts to kill the coolness or fun of an idea. I like my maps to at least try and make some sense, unless the idea is just too cool to pass up.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 5, 2007)

For me, it depends on how similar the physics of the fantasy world are to those of our own. Obviously, the more similar the world's physical laws are to our own, the more important real world geology is to me.


----------



## Dr. Harry (Jun 6, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> When looking at a fantasy world map, do you know or care anything about real world geology?
> 
> Quasqueton




   When I'm looking at a world, my personal style is that it is easier to get into it if I have to suspend my disbelief on limited topics, to make what is different more special.  Expeditious Retreat Press' *A Magical Society: Ecology and Culture* has gotten a good deal of use, as have textbooks on geology and Earth Science.

  What it comes down to is that I want to use something out of the ordinary as a flag to my players that something is going on.  If water is flowing uphill, or there is a forest surrounded on alll sides by desert, I want this to mean that something is going on, not that this is just Exit 16 off the highway to Shadowdale.

  Harry


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 6, 2007)

I don't know much, and I don't care.

That's not to say that I don't want a supernatural explanation for obviously aberrant geographical features, like a single volcano in the middle of an otherwise flat, forested plain. Just that I'm satisfied with even "a wizard did it" - or, alternatively, "volcanoes aren't the result of geological pressures in this world".


----------



## Hussar (Jun 6, 2007)

I don't know much about geology, but, the map should be at least plausible.  No continent cutting rivers or stuff that they teach you in 8th grade shouldn't happen.  Unless, of course, there is a reason for it to happen.

Personally, I have more of a problem with campaign maps that don't make sense in context.  Such as having a trade hub on the circumference of a reasonably round continent and all the other major settlements also on the circumference.  The shortest distance between two points is not on the edge of a circle.


----------



## Galethorn (Jun 6, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> For me, it depends on how similar the physics of the fantasy world are to those of our own. Obviously, the more similar the world's physical laws are to our own, the more important real world geology is to me.




I'm with you, Fusangite.

To expand on that, the map I've been working on is my attempt to make something notably different from but reminiscent of earth's 'old world' for the 'prime material' plane of the setting I'm working on, while the spirit/dream world is unmapped, infinite, and follows no universal rules.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 6, 2007)

I'd like a map to seem believable to my not-super-proficient eyes. If there's something that's a glaring exception, it better be rare and come with a cool and compelling reason. (I just introduced a seaside cliff of black volcanic glass into my campaign setting, for instance. Pretty wacky, but I think its coolness, and the explanation for it, makes it work.)


----------



## Father of Dragons (Jun 6, 2007)

I either like the fantasy map to follow the rules of real world geology, or, I want there to be a reason in the history and/or cosmology of the game world for the difference.  In fact, in a game of mine run back in the 80's, certain geologically impossible terrain features were actually artifacts of a previous civilization and some of my players eventually picked up on that and investigated.

(As an aside, I have a geography degree, although it was mostly "human geography" ala Pred with a bunch of computer work that led me into GIS.  Geography and Geology degrees aren't really all that common, and I am amused to see several people with them here.)


----------



## Hairfoot (Jun 6, 2007)

I care.  The Elsir Vale map from Red Hand of Doom is a classic: desert surrounding an arena of varying terrain types for the PCs to explore.  Like it was designed for that purpose by god(s).

www.wizards.com/dnd/images/rhod_maps/95679.jpg


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jun 6, 2007)

You have made me develop a mental image with this thread:

A world lovingly assembled by powerful wizards, with all the terrain types where they wanted.  Only to discover that physical laws can't be held at bay without constant effort.

So all of the weather forces are destroying the lovely landscape, leaving vast jungles frozen to tundra and tumbling hillsides baking into deserts.  Volcanoes erupting in the fertile plains where the continental shelves didn't quite fit right.  That sort of thing.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 6, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> I care.  The Elsir Vale map from Red Hand of Doom is a classic: desert surrounding an arena of varying terrain types for the PCs to explore.  Like it was designed for that purpose by god(s).



Mystara setting has similar issues


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 6, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> I care.  The Elsir Vale map from Red Hand of Doom is a classic: desert surrounding an arena of varying terrain types for the PCs to explore.  Like it was designed for that purpose by god(s).
> 
> www.wizards.com/dnd/images/rhod_maps/95679.jpg



Next you're going to say Oz doesn't make sense, either!


----------



## Kaodi (Jun 6, 2007)

I would not say large doses of realism are a required element, but I think making maps according to the forces present in the world is definately an enhancing factor. Perhaps one of the few things about Secrets of Sarlona that bugged me was that there were zillions of manifest zones, but no clear picture of how they affect the world around them. Random Fernian and Risian manifest zones must be like the Hosts curse on meteorologists.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 6, 2007)

I know some, and I care... but if there's a good fantasy explanation as to why the geography is screwy, then I am totally satisfied.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 6, 2007)

Long ago I learned enough geology to vaguely know what I was doing, and it bugs me when a map makes no geological sense.  That said, if there's a feature you want, and you can explain it, by all means plug it in.

Same goes for climate.

Someone used Mystara as an example that makes no sense...I'd guess you're referring to the desert where no desert should be?  Simple answer there is that some long-ago divine battle or nuke-level wizarding experiment scarred the land beyond recovery...

Hussar: when cities are all on the outside circumference of a continent sometimes the shortest viable trading distance *is* around the circumference, via sea, as the interior is one of: impassably mountainous; held by monsters; completely unexplored; nothing but desert, etc., etc.  One such city being a trading hub simply tells us that's the city where most of the off-continent trade comes in, from across the ocean. 

Lanefan


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> I care.  The Elsir Vale map from Red Hand of Doom is a classic: desert surrounding an arena of varying terrain types for the PCs to explore.  Like it was designed for that purpose by god(s).
> 
> www.wizards.com/dnd/images/rhod_maps/95679.jpg



 "We go west."

"To the west you see vast, trackless wastelands."

"South?"

"To the south lie impassable mountains."

"North?"

"More mountains, plus an impenetrable forest."

"Oookay then, east?"

"Yes. You head east, towards Edoras."

"I hate this campaign."


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 6, 2007)

> No continent cutting rivers



Like the Mississippi? (There's a silly fantasy name.)



> Such as having a trade hub on the circumference of a reasonably round continent



Like North America? NA is not round, but the major trading centers are on opposite coasts. In the 18th and 19th century, most people sailed all the way around the southern tip of South America to get from New York to San Francisco, instead of trekking across the land.

I guess I'm just really accepting of fantasy geology. I'm surprised that so many other people are not. Does everyone also have problems with fantasy ecology? Fantasy biology? Magic.

"A great undead dragon lives in the forest near this lone volcano in the swamp. His lair us guarded by owlbears. There is an entrance to the vast Underdark at the back of his lair where he can trade with the ancient lived dark elves."

Quasqueton


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 6, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> 8 people have voted, but the main page shows only 3 views. Huh?
> 
> Quasqueton



To save server resources, views have always updated once an hour.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jun 6, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Like the Mississippi? (There's a silly fantasy name.)



I think the point is no rivers that actually cut a continent clean through.  The Mississippi doesn't do that.  The Krandai/Streel in Mystara seem to come close (beginning just 24 miles from a fjord in Vestland in the northeast and going about 1000 miles southwest to Darokin) but in fact what it's doing is coming close to cutting off a small part of a big continent.  Even so, it's fairly odd.

I have enough of a grasp of geology and geography to know that I should do better than I usually do when designing maps.  How many large rivers and lakes for a given climate, placement of mountain ranges, coastlines, island chains, making sure my elevations are consistent, and so on.  I make an effort and am usually reasonably satisfied with the realism of my maps.  Not great, but okay.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 6, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> I think the point is no rivers that actually cut a continent clean through.  The Mississippi doesn't do that.  The Krandai/Streel in Mystara seem to come close (beginning just 24 miles from a fjord in Vestland in the northeast and going about 1000 miles southwest to Darokin) but in fact what it's doing is coming close to cutting off a small part of a big continent.  Even so, it's fairly odd.



Try looking at the Rocky Mountains in Alberta for continent-cutting rivers. Check out the proximity of the sources of the Columbia, Fraser, Nelson and Mackenzie systems. Continental divides are so-called for good reason.

Now, that stated, I'd also be inclined to evaluate what we can infer of Mystara's hydrology rules from the materials produced for the setting because when I see something improbable or impossible in our world described in setting materials, I take it to indicate something important about how the setting's physics differ from our own.







> I have enough of a grasp of geology and geography to know that I should do better than I usually do when designing maps.  How many large rivers and lakes for a given climate, placement of mountain ranges, coastlines, island chains, making sure my elevations are consistent, and so on.  I make an effort and am usually reasonably satisfied with the realism of my maps.



What matters about a game world is not how consistent it is with our world but how consistent it is with itself. We all accept that some of the physical laws of game worlds are different from those that govern our world; given that water and earth are _elements_ and that elements, as a class of thing, have different properties than those in our world (such as the capacity to create/support elementals). Given that what we already know of water and earth in D&D indicates very strongly that they have different properties than the things we call by those names in our world, it seems a leap, at best, to decide that they will generate topography in exactly the same way as exists in our world.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 6, 2007)

I'm shocked that the people that know and care are in the lead. I've always assumed that most people don't care.

Also, IMHO, using ancient cataclysmic magical events to explain bizarre and impossible features in a campaign world is so overdone these days. When I look at a fantasy map, I always almost immediately try to guess which feature is the "ancient magical nuclear war" region.


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 6, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Next you're going to say Oz doesn't make sense, either!




Please Australia doesn't make any sense at all!



			
				Savage Wombat said:
			
		

> You have made me develop a mental image with this thread:
> 
> A world lovingly assembled by powerful wizards, with all the terrain types where they wanted.  Only to discover that physical laws can't be held at bay without constant effort.
> 
> So all of the weather forces are destroying the lovely landscape, leaving vast jungles frozen to tundra and tumbling hillsides baking into deserts.  Volcanoes erupting in the fertile plains where the continental shelves didn't quite fit right.  That sort of thing.




I like this idea it coulkd be a cool campaign

An advanced civilisation comes to a primitive planet and terraforms it turning it all into a temperate plains and forest. The civilisation then exits but leave a number of artifacts in place to maintain the terraformed world.
The natives advance to the start of the game at which point the artifacts start to fail and the natural world starts to reassert itself through massive climatic and geological upheaval

What do the PCs do? Do they attempt to fix the artifacts and restore their ideal world or do they let nature run its course?


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> I think the point is no rivers that actually cut a continent clean through.  The Mississippi doesn't do that.  The Krandai/Streel in Mystara seem to come close (beginning just 24 miles from a fjord in Vestland in the northeast and going about 1000 miles southwest to Darokin) but in fact what it's doing is coming close to cutting off a small part of a big continent.  Even so, it's fairly odd.




Check out the Traverse Gap. On a rainy day, you could split a continent in two!


----------



## CruelSummerLord (Jun 6, 2007)

My problem is that I simply can't tell when a map violates real-world geology.  If I could design a map (which I can't-I can't draw) I wouldn't really care, because I wouldn't know what to look for.  

And, again, when you consider the presence of monsters and demihumans, the fact that magic violates some of the basic laws of physics (fireballs and lightning bolts essentially create energy out of nothing; the Negative Material Plane's energy destroys matter and atomic particles), and the presence of a wide variety of different minerals and plants that have no equivalent in our real world, would it even make sense if your standard D&D campaign setting was totally based on real-world principles?  

Remember: Sorcery, not science, rules in your standard D&D world, even more so if you arbitrarily (as I do) decide that mankind will never industrialize or develop firearms.  So geology doesn't play nearly as important a role.


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 6, 2007)

The only rules you need is

1.Rivers flow down from mountains
2 Plants need water
3. Topography is what you want it to be

After that anything goes


----------



## Coplen (Jun 6, 2007)

I care about real world geology. When I was remaking the map for my fantasy world I had a friend place the mountains so they'd be placed correctly. Heh.


----------



## Maldin (Jun 6, 2007)

I do know alot about geology (I teach it in a university - and I'm fascinated to see that there are alot of other geologists here!), and I do care alot about it in my fantasy maps. I think using the old "its magic!" excuse is the lamest crutch possible. Thats not being creative... its being lazy. And even in the most magical world, magic does not rule it. Science does. Water and wind erosion are going to do more to shape the geography then anything else short of continuous cataclysm (and the resulting end of all life on the planet). Did magic rattle the crust rather then plate tectonics? Ok... if thats what makes your plot spin... but even then, the crunching rock will still behave the same no matter what is crunching it. Heck, I've even got a webpage on the geology of the World of Greyhawk's Irongate region (with photographs!), and I think it contributes to the mystery and playability of the area, not diminishes it.

Magic in a magical world suffers from a sort of "Nature TV" syndrome. Watch nature shows on TV long enough and you'd think that most of life on earth consisted of a few dozen large African plains' mammals. Thats the flashy stuff that catches everybodies attention, and so is talked about ad nauseum. What really makes the world go round (and what shapes its ecology) is the millions of beetles! And other boring insects, worms, crustaceans, jellyfish, snails, clams, corals, sea cucumbers, etc. that nobody seems to bother to notice.

When its something important to my game world... something that pushes forward plots, mechanics, or just plain "coolness factor"... I'm all for it! I'm a scientist with a PhD, yet I can reconcile perfectly Spelljammer physics!!! (See my "Life, the Multiverse and Everything" Grand Unified Theory of D&D on my website for the most extreme version of "this is not your father's universe!"). But I think that overusing the "its magic" arguement diminishes the special nature of magic, so I try to use "natural" explanation for as much of my campaign world as possible. Many in this thread have already said the same thing... Forest in the middle of desert? A lake with two different outflows? There is a special reason! Hey PCs! Go find it. ;-)  Similarly, I think a poorly designed and highly improbable map takes away so much of its believability. From a playability point of view, there is no suspension of disbelief. From a DM design point of view, it becomes more difficult to expand upon the details because you can never answer the question "What is likely to be there?" The whole world is screwed up? Meh. Everything becomes "common".

I think this poll is quite fascinating. I've heard from the very mouths of many game designers and publishers that most players don't care about "realism" in their maps. All that matters is fun-ness (and what the designer thinks is pretty). I think this poll clearly shows that their assumption has been wrong all along, and that they are assuming an insulting level of mass-ignorance. Its never been an either/or situation. A map can be both believable AND pretty. Lets see more of those!

Denis, aka "Maldin"
Maldin's Greyhawk  http://melkot.com


----------



## fusangite (Jun 6, 2007)

Maldin said:
			
		

> I do know alot about geology (I teach it in a university - and I'm fascinated to see that there are alot of other geologists here!), and I do care alot about it in my fantasy maps. I think using the old "its magic!" excuse is the lamest crutch possible.



I agree that "it's magic" is a lame excuse. But invoking that excuse is not identical to acknowledging that game worlds have different physical laws than our world does. A systematic interpretation of these laws, while it would likely produce different geology than our own, is not simply an "it's magic handwave."







> And even in the most magical world, magic does not rule it. Science does.



How are magic and science different in D&D? What do you think the magic rules in the PHB and DMG are other than an expression of a D&D world's physical laws? Magic is part of the physics of a D&D world, not separate from it. 

Science is not a specific set of truths; it is a way of approaching and understanding phenomena based on empirical observation. The empirical observation of a D&D world _reveals_ magic.







> Water and wind erosion are going to do more to shape the geography then anything else



Doesn't this depend on the world?







> short of continuous cataclysm (and the resulting end of all life on the planet).



So, you're saying that D&D worlds that have frequent cataclysmic realignments of the physical world are, by definition, impossible? Surely one would have to actually know something about such a world before making that call.







> Did magic rattle the crust rather then plate tectonics?



How could a D&D world have plate tectonics? Plate tectonics don't exist in universes with only four elements. I mean, how can you even explain plate tectonics using the D&D element system described in the rules?







> Ok... if thats what makes your plot spin... but even then, the crunching rock will still behave the same no matter what is crunching it.



So, what do you make of the MOTP sections on the Elemental Plane of Earth? Of Xorns in the MMI? The rules are quite specific that "earth," (a category of thing that doesn't even exist in our world) has some notably different properties than variously-composed chunks of minerals that we colloquially call "earth" on this planet.







> Heck, I've even got a webpage on the geology of the World of Greyhawk's Irongate region (with photographs!), and I think it contributes to the mystery and playability of the area, not diminishes it.



I have no objection to your take here and am glad you have been able to put your degree to use in a way that makes your players happy. But to assume that your approach to D&D physics is the only creative and intelligent one smacks of unjustified arrogance.







> I'm a scientist with a PhD, yet I can reconcile perfectly Spelljammer physics!!! (See my "Life, the Multiverse and Everything" Grand Unified Theory of D&D on my website for the most extreme version of "this is not your father's universe!").



That's funny. I find Spelljammer's superficial and incoherent way of thinking about magic makes it tough for me to suspend disbelief.







> But I think that overusing the "its magic" arguement diminishes the special nature of magic, so I try to use "natural" explanation for as much of my campaign world as possible.



You are presuming some kind of nature/magic dichotemy that I just don't see borne out in the rules. I think that if you step back and try to construct a definition of "nature" that is stable and useful in a D&D world, you will find yourself hard-pressed.







> Similarly, I think a poorly designed and highly improbable map takes away so much of its believability. From a playability point of view, there is no suspension of disbelief.



Suspension of disbelief matters a lot to me too. But for me, and many of my players, the believability of a world is contingent on how consistent it is with itself, as opposed to how consistent it is with our world. 







> From a DM design point of view, it becomes more difficult to expand upon the details because you can never answer the question "What is likely to be there?" The whole world is screwed up?



So you feel that our world's physical laws are the only possible set of rules/laws one can use to predict things? As long as GM creates a set of consistent physical rules for their world, people can make predictions using them, irrespective of their resemblance to our world's rules.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 6, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> Hussar: when cities are all on the outside circumference of a continent sometimes the shortest viable trading distance *is* around the circumference, via sea, as the interior is one of: impassably mountainous; held by monsters; completely unexplored; nothing but desert, etc., etc.  One such city being a trading hub simply tells us that's the city where most of the off-continent trade comes in, from across the ocean.
> 
> Lanefan




I was actually referring to Shelzar in the Scarred Lands setting.  The only overseas trade is actually in the wrong direction from Shelzar and the history of the setting isn't based on that, but on trade within Ghelspad.  To the east you have a belligerent military nation in Calastia that doesn't trade with you and would sink most trading ships passing through their waters and to the west you have a belligerent xenophobic military nation that would sink pretty much anyone passing through their waters.  Kinda makes naval trade pretty difficult.  



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Like the Mississippi? (There's a silly fantasy name.)
> 
> Like North America? NA is not round, but the major trading centers are on opposite coasts. In the 18th and 19th century, most people sailed all the way around the southern tip of South America to get from New York to San Francisco, instead of trekking across the land.
> 
> ...




Most people?  I guess all those wagon trains and, since we're into the 19th century, actual trains weren't full of people going west.  Never mind that we're talking about ships that are almost a thousand years more advanced than what you would see in a D&D campaign.  Does make ship travel slightly more reliable when you have schooners instead of caravels.

Take a look at the geography of Ghelspad  The other major continent is behind that great big red ocean full of blood sea mutants.  The major port of trade in the other continent is controlled by Calastia.  Exactly who is Shelzar trading with?


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jun 6, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> And, again, when you consider the presence of monsters and demihumans, the fact that magic violates some of the basic laws of physics (fireballs and lightning bolts essentially create energy out of nothing; the Negative Material Plane's energy destroys matter and atomic particles), and the presence of a wide variety of different minerals and plants that have no equivalent in our real world, would it even make sense if your standard D&D campaign setting was totally based on real-world principles?



Well, it has to be based on some sort of principles.  Yes, it can just be the whim of the gods, but then I have to figure out which god wants things which way and why.  And I have to determine if laws of nature are predictable enough for society to operate by.  If I don't have a clever and flavorful magical explanation, I'll fall back on realism.

My subterranean geology has magical explanations (extensive caverns shaped by delvers, dwarven gods, and ancient evils; large caverns allowed by stone having a greater tensile and shear strength than it has in our world).
Certain properties of my ocean have a magical explanation (the god of the sea has a particular agenda).
My moon has an astronomical explanation.  Phases of the moon are determined by the moon's position relative to the planet and the sun, and it has a 30-day month.
My forests are generally not magical, so they need water and soil and are not overpopulated with large predators.  If I wanted, I could have magical forests with 400' oak trees growing on bedrock and 500 owlbears per square mile.  The Faerie Realm may indeed have such forests.
My rivers are generally not magical (few river gods or Elemental Plane anomalies) so they require drainage basins, flow downhill, and so on.
My mountains are generally not magical aside from the caverns, so they follow some of the patterns that we see in our world.  A solitary mountain with nothing else around it is likely to have some sort of an explanation -- not just a handwaved "It's magic" but an actual story.

Things are "realistic" based on what would fit the observations of a Dark Ages scholar.  River flows, predator populations, mountain ranges, etc.  Germ theory of disease isn't necessarily correct, species don't all have a common ancestor, and many concepts of advanced physics are altered.

At least, that's how I like to design a world.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Jun 6, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Next you're going to say Oz doesn't make sense, either!




Oz, as in Australia or as in the land Oz from the Wizard of Oz?

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Hussar (Jun 6, 2007)

Just to add a point.  

If you look at Seas of Blood, it places the distance between Termana and Ghelspad at about 16000 miles.  Obviously wrong.  Now, there was some fluff text that pegged it at a much more respectable distance, but, this was contradicted in the Termana guide.  So, basically, you had three different answers to a very simple question - how far is it from A to B?

After Seas of Blood, I refused to buy another Scarred Lands book.  Sure, I could simply do the work myself and fix the distances, but, if that's what I would do, why did I spend money on source books?  To me, if the designers leave in such obvious bad design, it means that they just don't care.  It's sloppy work.  

There's more than enough material on the market that I don't have to put up with sloppy work anymore.

So, to answer the original question more fully, yes, geology, or rather geography, matters.  If the maps contradict the setting, then, something should be changed.  Either move some cities around or change the fluff text.  

It's absolutely no different than a dungeon map where the rooms are too small for the monsters.  It's sloppy design.


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 6, 2007)

Maldin said:
			
		

> I do know alot about geology (I teach it in a university - and I'm fascinated to see that there are alot of other geologists here!), and I do care alot about it in my fantasy maps. I think using the old "its magic!" excuse is the lamest crutch possible. Thats not being creative... its being lazy. And even in the most magical world, magic does not rule it. Science does.




What science dude? The Spirits of Earth constantly battle with the spirits of Water and Wind. The Water cuts into the earth and the Wind scatters its stength whilst the stone constrains the water and clouds it with debris. Why they do this is ancient and known only to themselves



> I've even got a webpage on the geology of the World of Greyhawk's Irongate region (with photographs!), and I think it contributes to the mystery and playability of the area, not diminishes it.




Dude you can't be ranting on about the place of science in explaining fantasy and then put a proviso on it like this:



			
				Maldin said:
			
		

> *A side note on the science of this page (or lack thereof)....*
> As a geologist in real-life, I am compelled to point out a few things. Limestone gives a great landscape filled with caves, ripe for adventuring, but on its own contains little in the way of gems and native metals which, according to the WoGH Gazetteer, are supposed to be present.
> 
> ... *Hence, I call upon the magical nature of the fantasy world to accomplish this. ;-) * Relate the hot spot to a confluence of portals to the Elemental Planes of Fire and of Earth and just about anything is possible. Just don't waste your time trying to find a real-world gem mine using the descriptions here-in. ;-)


----------



## Turanil (Jun 6, 2007)

Just 2 questions:

1) Any scientific resources online that would help design a geologically realistic world?

2) There is a PDF ebook on this subject (creating geologically realistic RPG worlds), but I don't remember its name. Anyone has a link? 

Thanks.


----------



## grodog (Jun 6, 2007)

Maldin said:
			
		

> Water and wind erosion are going to do more to shape the geography then anything else short of continuous cataclysm (and the resulting end of all life on the planet).




In a magical universe, a planet like Phil Farmer's Lavalite world from the World of Tiers series is perfectly plausible, as long as it's self-consistent, right Denis?


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 6, 2007)

I care about geology, but if you want a hollow world, or canyon so deep it leads to the abyss I'm okay with that, but I still want my rivers to follow valleys, and sensible stuff like that.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 6, 2007)

The question is how much do your players know. Ignorant players are a great boon to a GM, you need to do a lot less work.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 6, 2007)

Know a good bit on geology but this is fantasy, where gods and characters that can effect the land, it does not matter to me.


----------



## RFisher (Jun 6, 2007)

Aezoc said:
			
		

> By believable, I mean that the geology is realistic OR that there's an explicit reason in the source as to why it's not realistic.




I thought having unexplainable stuff that the DM gets to make up secret explainations for--that the PCs discover in play--was at least half the fun of any good fantasy setting.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> What matters about a game world is not how consistent it is with our world but how consistent it is with itself.




Or just that it's good enough for the players in your group.



			
				Maldin said:
			
		

> Similarly, I think a poorly designed and highly improbable map takes away so much of its believability.




In cases like these though--it's often been my experience that what laypeople consider unrealistic by their limited knowledge of a subject seldom jibes with experts or reality.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jun 6, 2007)

Coplen said:
			
		

> I care about real world geology. When I was remaking the map for my fantasy world I had a friend place the mountains so they'd be placed correctly. Heh.




One map I was always fond of was from Birthright.  The mountains looked like they were in roughly appropriate places, to where you could almost see the plates, and you could get an idea of prevailing weather patterns.

Brad


----------



## Argus Decimus Mokira (Jun 6, 2007)

I know, and I care.  As a geologist (there's a lot of us - we should start a thread in OffTopic), I find realistic terrain, climate, and drainage patterns very important.  Thinking about these sorts of things (however briefly) has always been a baseline for me in creating a setting - and is one of the first steps in campaign design in both the old World-builder's Guidebook and the MMS world-building book.  I should add that there is still the fantastic to be found IMC - magically-nuked deserts, volcanos over portals to the Elemental Plane of Fire, vast dwarven metropoli that would surely cave-in with real-world physics, etc.

I prefer geologically sound underground settings (karst, flumes, etc) to the typical 'dwarven ruins' (not that I don't use those, either), also.  The reality of a cavern system is a wonderful thing, full of holes and nooks ready for exploration; 5'x5' blocks really can't reproduce it.

Thanks,
Matt


----------



## Argus Decimus Mokira (Jun 6, 2007)

(sorry to DP)



			
				cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> One map I was always fond of was from Birthright.  The mountains looked like they were in roughly appropriate places, to where you could almost see the plates, and you could get an idea of prevailing weather patterns.
> 
> Brad




QFT.  Yet another example of the superiority of Birthright as a campaign setting.

-Matt


----------



## fusangite (Jun 6, 2007)

Argus Decimus Mokira said:
			
		

> I know, and I care.  As a geologist (there's a lot of us - we should start a thread in OffTopic), I find realistic terrain, climate, and drainage patterns very important.



As I mentioned in my longer response above, I find it really weird that people conflate "realistic" with resembling the world in which we live.

Why is it "realistic" for a world with widespread magic, an Elemental Plane of Earth, interventionist gods and only four elements to look like a world that doesn't have any of those things? How can plate tectonics, for instance, operate in a world in which earth is an element, as opposed to a highly variable amalgam of compounds made up for 50+ elements?







> Thinking about these sorts of things (however briefly) has always been a baseline for me in creating a setting



That's great for you. As I said above, I'm always glad to see people being able to integrate their professional and recreational lives. But I do not see how this makes your worlds any more realistic than those of someone who uses different, but equally consistent design principles.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 6, 2007)

I know something about it and care about it on a fantasy map. In the vast majority of cases, the map really does need to make _some _ kind of geographic sense; mountains run in ranges, rivers from from higher ground to lower ground, hot deserts do not lie next to ice fields.

Magic, of course, allows for some of these laws to be broken in certain ways over a limited period of time. If a kingdom is cursed into eternal winter then I don't much care for a long scientific explanation of how the massive cold front affects the surrounding areas, but I'd like to see _some _ effect from it addressed. A trapped demon can cause a volcano to erupt where none could normally exist. I can deal with that, too. As long as there's some explanation that's not 'It's magic' because all too often that's a way of saying 'I thought it was cool to have it this way and I want it that way so that's that'. Most of the time you can find an explanation for having things almost any way you want them; not taking the time to do so is laziness.

Now in certain areas like Xen'drick that have suffered some sort of magical apocalypse, all bets are all. Then the crazyquilt terrain becomes a feature, not a bug. But again, there _is _ an explanation for it.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 6, 2007)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> Oz, as in Australia or as in the land Oz from the Wizard of Oz?



The one with the green country surrounded by deadly deserts on four sides.


----------



## Wombat (Jun 6, 2007)

I am a lover of that oxymoron, "realistic fantasy:.

Probably explains why I like Tolkein and Guy Gavriel Kay.  

I like to believe there is at least some basis in reality before the abberations appear on the scene.  This extends to geography as well as societies and monsters.  Nations don't stop at "borders"; cultures slosh and overlap.  Creatures move about.  Rivers and mountains appear in certain areas for reasons.  Jungles don't simply appear.

So, yes, I like maps that seem at least semi-plausible.  This shouldn't be that hard if you look at all the fascinating oddities of the Earth's geography and geology, and yet so many maps miss the point anyway.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 6, 2007)

I've been wrestling with this for the campaign I am working on since the area in which it will start has some unique features from geological changes that were the unforseen consequences of a massive magical event many years earlier.

I'm no geologist so I don't care about the finer details of the map, but overall I prefer a standard fantasy world map to have some real world logic to it.  I don't feel like having to answer tons of questions from players about the terrain, or explain all the different things until it numbs them to the oddities.  If it is laid out in ways similar to our reality, the players can safely make assumptions about the geography of the real world.  I will tell them where there might be notable exceptions, and hopefully it will make a bit of an impression on them when it happens.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 6, 2007)

Wombat said:
			
		

> I am a lover of that oxymoron, "realistic fantasy:.
> 
> Probably explains why I like Tolkein and Guy Gavriel Kay.



Have you read the Silmarillion? It explains a lot about why the geography of Middle Earth is the way it is. And the reasons it offers are radically different than anything I have read about our world. For one thing, Middle Earth is located on a flat disc; at least one of the stars is actually a guy in a flying boat; the natural features of the world have been made by the Valar with their own hands. Tolkien explains why mountain ranges, bays, gulfs, etc. are where they are and his explanations bear no resemblance to the explanatory structures that exist in contemporary geology.







> I like to believe there is at least some basis in reality



What does this mean? Tolkien's natural features have a basis in reality but not in the reality of this world; they have a basis in the reality of the world he created.







> before the abberations appear on the scene.



The absence of, for instance, plate tectonics in a D&D world is not an aberration. It arises from a consistent interpretation of the rules of the game. This is like calling Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity aberrations in our world.







> This extends to geography as well as societies and monsters.  Nations don't stop at "borders"; cultures slosh and overlap.  Creatures move about.  Rivers and mountains appear in certain areas for reasons.



For _certain reasons_; I believe strongly that everything in D&D worlds should happen for reasons. But to make the reasons things happen in D&D worlds identical to the reasons they happen in our world seems, frankly, unsupportable.







> So, yes, I like maps that seem at least semi-plausible.



_edit: political reference removed - U_. People in this thread seem to feel that the best way to argue in favour of their definition of "plausible" and "realistic" is to repeat as though it has already been established to be true through reasoned argument when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## Maldin (Jun 6, 2007)

Hmmm... I guess I didn't explain myself clearly enough. I've never expected anyone else to sign onto what I do in my campaign, and I wouldn't have ever considered a description of "my viewpoint" to be a "rant". A magic-saturated world is always gonna contain... ermm... unexplainable stuff (hence the proviso I have on that webpage), and I said that pretty clearly in my post. I think my "Wondrous Materials" page also makes that point as well. My opinion is that to throw around the "magic card" ::snicker:: sweepingly across the campaign world is... well, I said that as well... but I've always been a strong advocate of "DM's can do whatever the heck they want". I assume nothing at all about your intelligence, fusangite. 

Other points? Well, I don't have the time or patience to chop up a post into tiny little pieces, but, seeing as this thread has somewhat evolved into a discussion of more then just maps....

Sure, fusangite, a planet without wind and water won't experience erosion. It won't experience most life either. I think that is going to be a pretty universal process, magic or not. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Phil Farmer's work, grodog. Even not knowing the details, anything is certainly plausible if the DM wishes it to be so. 

Again my opinion (since I seem to have to state it), but magic is not just another physical law, nor is it "natural" to the Prime. You ask for a definition? Ok... Physical laws (science) act in a consistent, measurable, and observable manner, dependent on a immediately local force (electricity, chemical bonds, etc) and the material they are acting on. The effects of Magic are the result of forces and effects that are often alien to the Prime (from the outer, inner, astral, etc) and dependent not on the material they effect but on the manipulator of the magic (often intelligent, either present, in the case of a spell, or past, in the case of a created magic item or regional effect created by a god/artifact/etc). In my Grand Unified Theory (IMC!), "Magical Energy" is most certainly a different entity (or "Variable") then "Physical Energy" and "Matter", although they are certainly all capable of being mixed and combined in wide variety of manners and circumstances.

IMC (that's "In My Campaign"!) The Prime is composed of normal matter like our own universe, with elements like carbon, sulphur, oxygen, etc. that behave as those elements in our own universe. The quaint belief that wood is composed of the "elements" earth and fire (or whatever) is as accurate as when the Greeks of our own world believed that. Its wrong. The "element" Fire (as in from the Elemental Plane of Fire) is an entirely different material that is not native to the Prime (although it can be brought here by spells such as "Fireball"), as is the "chaos stuff" that makes up Limbo. Xorns? Elementals? They don't come from the Prime either. YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY.

My Oerth certainly does have plate tectonics, as it is mainly a fairly (Earth-)normal planet. Thats not to say that "magic" has not affected other planets in my campaign world to a greater degree! I use the "Greyspace" product from Spelljammer, so yes there are planets in the crystal sphere which most certainly don't! (Most of them don't, actually.) And lets not even get into the crystal sphere itself... or phlogiston... or... you get the picture. Yet there are certainly places in my Oerth that are (locally) effected by portals to the Elemental Plane of Fire (and other things). If you don't want plate tectonics on your Oerth, thats ok.

Sooo.... maps?
Well, if more then half the people want a believable map, and the rest don't care as long as it looks good and has cool stuff in it. Then having a believable map with cool stuff that looks good pleases everybody. Is that such a controversial wish?

Denis, aka "Maldin"
Maldin's Greyhawk http://melkot.com


----------



## Father of Dragons (Jun 6, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Why is it "realistic" for a world with widespread magic, an Elemental Plane of Earth, interventionist gods and only four elements to look like a world that doesn't have any of those things? How can plate tectonics, for instance, operate in a world in which earth is an element, as opposed to a highly variable amalgam of compounds made up for 50+ elements?



The Poll was for Fantasy Worlds, not just D&D ... All of the settings I have ever GM'ed have been homebrewed, and none of them had Elemental Planes of Earth or only four elements (there were four or eight _mystical_ elementals, but they didn't have much to do with everyday _stuff_).  In my current fantasy campaign, for instance, the geology predates magic.  As for maps in fantasy novels: I either like them to be realistic, or, if not, there to be plausible story or world reasons why it does not.   And I'm not particularly interested in the official D&D settings for reasons that have nothing to do with this thread.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 6, 2007)

Maldin said:
			
		

> A magic-saturated world is always gonna contain... ermm... unexplainable stuff



How does that follow? Some worlds have magic that is inexplicable. Some world have magic that is clearly systematic, explicable and predictable. Most D&D worlds fall into the latter category not the former. Otherwise, skills like Spellcraft and spells like Analyze Dweomer would not produce consistent and predictable results that describe magical effects in predictable and systematic terms.







> My opinion is that to throw around the "magic card" ::snicker:: sweepingly across the campaign world is... well, I said that as well...



I'm getting the feeling you didn't actually read through my post because it begins with me agreeing with you that using "magic" as a handwave is poor GMing. So, given that you don't appear to have read my post or don't understand it and that you have failed to pick up on what I'm actually saying in any of my posts since the one responding to yours, I'll boil my argument down for you:

*We both value realism in our games equally.*
*You define realism as bearing a strong resemblance to the world in which we live.*
*I define realism as internal consistency.*​
*For you to characterize any world, no matter how internally consistent it is as unrealistic simply because it does not resemble the world in which we live bothers me.*​


> Sure, fusangite, a planet without wind and water won't experience erosion.



I'm not sure that I make that point anywhere in my post. The dispute I am having with you is not about the variety of worlds that exist in the universe in which we live. My dispute with you has to do with your assumption that all universes have either (a) almost exactly the same physical laws as this one or (b) no consistent physical laws at all. The worlds I design have (c) different but internally consistent physical laws that are different from our universe's. So, my problem with your sentence here has more to do with the fact that you assume world=planet; why would a fantasy world be a planet? Many fantasy worlds are on flat discs or rectangles.







> It won't experience most life either.



If life arose in D&D worlds by the same principles that govern it in the world in which we live, almost no creatures statted outside of the appendices of the Monser Manual could exist at all. So it is pretty clear that the processes by which life emerges in D&D worlds is different than the processes by which it emerges in our world.

Most setting materials back this up by explaining how life on these worlds was created by gods.







> I think that is going to be a pretty universal process, magic or not.



Why would the emergence of life be identical in a system in which carbon is not an element but earth is?







> Again my opinion (since I seem to have to state it), but magic is not just another physical law,



Why not? In D&D it is consistent, systematic, predictable and governed by rules. That's all physics is: the rules by which the universe works. Now, if D&D magic were inconsistent, unpredictable and not rule-governed I would agree with you. But the RAW makes it pretty clear that this is not the case.







> nor is it "natural" to the Prime.



This makes no sense. If you accept, as you just appear to have done, the Great Wheel cosmology, it is clear that the physics of the universe constitute a radical departure from the physics of our own system.







> Physical laws (science) act in a consistent, measurable, and observable manner, dependent on a immediately local force (electricity, chemical bonds, etc) and the material they are acting on.



So, how do the set of spell descriptions in the PHB and the set of item creation rules in the DMG fail to meet these criteria. Magic acts in a consistent, measurable and observable manner.







> The effects of Magic are the result of forces and effects that are often alien to the Prime (from the outer, inner, astral, etc) and dependent not on the material they effect but on the manipulator of the magic



By that logic, if a weak person tried to bend a thin metal bar and couldn't but a strong person tried to bend the same bar and could, the laws of physics would have been defied.







> In my Grand Unified Theory (IMC!), "Magical Energy" is most certainly a different entity (or "Variable") then "Physical Energy" and "Matter", although they are certainly all capable of being mixed and combined in wide variety of manners and circumstances.
> 
> IMC (that's "In My Campaign"!) The Prime is composed of normal matter like our own universe, with elements like carbon, sulphur, oxygen, etc. that behave as those elements in our own universe.



I'm glad that works for you and your players. But to suggest that this model of understanding a D&D world has a stronger claim on "realism" than mine is what I really object to. 

It seems to me that your D&D world is full of constant hand-waves and internal inconsistencies every time magic is used, elementals appear, etc. I'm fine with you liking your worlds better than mine; to each his own. But to suggest that you have somehow discovered a more "realistic" way of understanding D&D is just not on.







> The quaint belief that wood is composed of the "elements" earth and fire (or whatever) is as accurate as when the Greeks of our own world believed that. Its wrong. The "element" Fire (as in from the Elemental Plane of Fire) is an entirely different material that is not native to the Prime (although it can be brought here by spells such as "Fireball"), as is the "chaos stuff" that makes up Limbo. Xorns? Elementals? They don't come from the Prime either. YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY.



Well, it sounds to me like you prefer to spend your energy house-ruling your way around the conception of physics that works for you. Me, I'd rather spend my energy coming up with explanations that make sense of the rules that the game has. I'd rather not change the summoning spells, encounter tables and a myriad of other things just to shore up a conception of D&D physics that is clearly contradicted by the RAW (which specifically state that there are four elements, for instance). 

Now, I'm not telling you you are playing the game wrong. All I'm saying is that your style of play has no more claim to the mantle of "realism" than mine does.







> Well, if more then half the people want a believable map,



My point here is that your definition of believability/realism excludes a lot of people's settings and play dynamics. To suggest that my world is less believable than yours because I treat the RAW as the physics of the world whereas you treat the RAW as a mixture of lies, untruths and handwaves is just not on.







> and the rest don't care as long as it looks good and has cool stuff in it.



My point is that there are a lot of people who care deeply about consistency, realism and believability just as much as (or perhaps more than) you do. The fact that our solutions to the problems of D&D physics are different than yours does not mean that we do not care about these values.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 6, 2007)

Father of Dragons said:
			
		

> The Poll was for Fantasy Worlds, not just D&D



Uh... okay. Are you suggesting that the worlds described in Runequest, Exalted, LOTR, etc. are somehow significantly more consistent with the physical laws of this world than D&D is? Because I'm just not seeing it.







> I either like them to be realistic,



What you guys seem totally unable to grasp is that *I do too*. I'm just working with different criteria for realism that you are. And nothing that has been said in this thread indicates to me that your criteria are better or more logical than mine.


----------



## Grymar (Jun 6, 2007)

Father of Dragons said:
			
		

> (As an aside, I have a geography degree, although it was mostly "human geography" ala Pred with a bunch of computer work that led me into GIS.  Geography and Geology degrees aren't really all that common, and I am amused to see several people with them here.)




Ha, my thoughts exactly.  I also have a degree in geography (urban/city planning focus) and I'm stunned at how many have a similar background.

On topic, I like for a reasonable attempt at logic in a map, but it wouldn't ruin a game for me if there was a problem.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 6, 2007)

Grymar said:
			
		

> On topic, I like for a reasonable attempt at logic in a map,



This is a very clear articulation of my position. I evaluate maps based on how logically consistent they are with the fantasy world they depict not on their resemblance to the world in which I live.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 6, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> How can plate tectonics, for instance, operate in a world in which earth is an element, as opposed to a highly variable amalgam of compounds made up for 50+ elements?




See, I think you're making a better arguement for dropping the silly four elements approach in D&D than anything else. Let's face it, most players interact with your typical campaign setting as if it were the real world with the add-on of magic and monsters. Wouldn't it be better for the general ruleset underlying the whole thing to inherently mate up with the vast majority of what the players expect? I've tried to put together a framework in my head for how you would generate most real-world phenomena with four elements and it fails every time. I suppose that's why the theory was abandoned five hundred years ago.

BTW, when is someone going to post a reply accusing us of engaging in clomping nerdism?


----------



## S'mon (Jun 6, 2007)

I like maps that look plausible.  BTW New Mexico has striking forests surrounded by desert - the forests are at higher altitude, as air rises from the desert floor it cools and rain falls, enabling forests.


----------



## Father of Dragons (Jun 6, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Uh... okay. Are you suggesting that the worlds described in Runequest, Exalted, LOTR, etc. are somehow significantly more consistent with the physical laws of this world than D&D is?



There are still a lot more fantasy settings in novels than there are in RPG settings, and they tend to be fairly conservative about the look of their worlds. 


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Because I'm just not seeing it.What you guys seem totally unable to grasp is that *I do too*. I'm just working with different criteria for realism that you are. And nothing that has been said in this thread indicates to me that your criteria are better or more logical than mine.



That is not the impression that I got from your earlier posts in this thread, where (as far as I could tell) you were talking about about the effects of D&D cosmology on the nature of the physical world.  And I think you might have missed my point: I like the maps to be physically reasonable except where there is a reason in the nature of the background for them to differ from default physical reality, and those differences are set out somewhere.  If the world has reasons for looking different from ours, that's cool, as long as there is an adequate explanation somewhere.  Of course, the definition of "adequate" may be a matter of personal taste.  But then, we started with a poll here...

There is also an aesthetic reason too: while fantasy worlds are certainly allowed to differ from base reality, I prefer for them to differ only where explicitly specified.  So if the author/GM doesn't tell you trees are actually warmblooded and walk, you can assume trees in the fantasy world are pretty similar to trees in our world.  This is, of course, a personal preference.  But since I've spent a certain amount of my life looking at maps, and sort of have ideas what terrain should look like, I prefer it to look like real world terrain unless there is a specific reason in the setting for it to look otherwise.  But that's me.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 6, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> See, I think you're making a better arguement for dropping the silly four elements approach in D&D than anything else. Let's face it, most players interact with your typical campaign setting as if it were the real world with the add-on of magic and monsters. Wouldn't it be better for the general ruleset underlying the whole thing to inherently mate up with the vast majority of what the players expect?



For most of the past 4000 years, people believed that the universe was composed of 4 or 5 elements. Yet they still expected water to run downhill, apples to fall from trees and swords to cut people. In many respects, our expectations of the natural world are actually closer to the 4/5 element physics described by Aristotle. For instance, we continue intuitively to expect heavy objects to fall faster than light objects.

The great thing is that most of an average person's expectations of the natural world, to this day, more closely resemble Taoist or Aristotelian physics than they do contemporary quantum mechanics. It continues to _look_ like the sun is revolving around the earth.







> I've tried to put together a framework in my head for how you would generate most real-world phenomena with four elements and it fails every time.



Then read some Aristotelian or Taoist physics; there's a reason they remained so popular for so long. No need to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Jun 6, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Let's face it, most players interact with your typical campaign setting as if it were the real world with the add-on of magic and monsters.
> 
> BTW, when is someone going to post a reply accusing us of engaging in clomping nerdism?




That's a broad assumption. Most players I know are interested in killing things and taking their stuff, and having "phat buildz" for their PCs.

It's not only clomping nerdism, but very presumptuous nerdism and very cloying.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 6, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Why is it "realistic" for a world with widespread magic, an Elemental Plane of Earth, interventionist gods and only four elements to look like a world that doesn't have any of those things? How can plate tectonics, for instance, operate in a world in which earth is an element, as opposed to a highly variable amalgam of compounds made up for 50+ elements?




Having a realistically designed world that includes magic is just as logically consistent as having a non-realistically designed world that includes magic. The existence of magic doesn't have to mean that "real life physics doesn't work any more" to be logically consistent.

That being the case, I find it a superior design choice to use realistically designed maps that include magic because using realistic geography to build worlds has rarely resulted in someone saying "That map isn't magical enough for me! I want rivers that flow uphill!" Most of the time, you'll have someone say, "Tundra and tropical rainforest don't abut each other in the real world." If you have to choose between "Logically consistent map that uses real world physics and magic" and "Logically consistent map that doesn't use real world physics" I'd prefer the former. However, I don't believe that choice is necessary.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 6, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> For most of the past 4000 years, people believed that the universe was composed of 4 or 5 elements.




And with magic, there is no need to assume that the universe isn't composed of those 4 or 5 elements and that realistically designed worlds/maps don't also exist. They're not exclusive.

joe b.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 6, 2007)

Prince of Happiness said:
			
		

> It's not only clomping nerdism, but very presumptuous nerdism and very cloying.




Cloying? I think that's the first time I've been accused of tasting or smelling sickly sweet.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 6, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Cloying? I think that's the first time I've been accused of tasting or smelling sickly sweet.




Usually you just make everyone sound like a chipmunk.

joe b.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Jun 6, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Cloying? I think that's the first time I've been accused of tasting or smelling sickly sweet.




Well it *is* cute.


----------



## GreatLemur (Jun 6, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Personally, I have more of a problem with campaign maps that don't make sense in context.  Such as having a trade hub on the circumference of a reasonably round continent and all the other major settlements also on the circumference.  The shortest distance between two points is not on the edge of a circle.



This is a pretty weird argument.  It's generally a hell of a lot easier to move very large amounts of cargo by sea than by land.  I'm pretty sure most of the real world's major tade hubs are coastal cities for exactly this reason.  A ship can carry a hell of a lot more than a wagon, and oceans don't tend to be quite so full of other people (such as bandits, enemy soldiers, and tariff collectors) as continents do.  Explorers have spent a hell of a lot of time and lives trying to find sea routes to places they could already get to by land.


----------



## Eltharon (Jun 6, 2007)

I have a high school level of geography/geology, and try to make my worlds look like they could make sense (Rivers flow from high ground towards a large body of water, mountains aren't artfully placed to dramatically ring the Kingdom of Evil), but I'm not good enough at geology to have a campaign map that, if made real, would "work" perfectly. I try, though. Then again, if your campaign world is high magic (mine isn't), strange geographical thingies are fine.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 6, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> For most of the past 4000 years, people believed that the universe was composed of 4 or 5 elements. Yet they still expected water to run downhill, apples to fall from trees and swords to cut people. In many respects, our expectations of the natural world are actually closer to the 4/5 element physics described by Aristotle. For instance, we continue intuitively to expect heavy objects to fall faster than light objects.
> 
> The great thing is that most of an average person's expectations of the natural world, to this day, more closely resemble Taoist or Aristotelian physics than they do contemporary quantum mechanics. It continues to _look_ like the sun is revolving around the earth.Then read some Aristotelian or Taoist physics; there's a reason they remained so popular for so long. No need to reinvent the wheel.




Eh. I guess. Most of my players know that objects in motion tend to stay in motion, that the earth orbits the sun, that the world is round and that air resistance is what causes some objects to fall slower than others.

Most of my RPG designs are heavily informed by natural phenomena that I'm quite well versed in. It's too much effort to put together something that works with real physics and then translate it into ancient physics. It's not what I enjoy.

I don't think I'm making my point very well here but I'm at a loss as to how I would.

I've seen way too many bad setting designs that mainly come about because of a DM's lack of knowledge about what the real world looks like. Silly stuff, like not really having a sense of how big 1,000 miles really is. *shrug*


----------



## Maldin (Jun 6, 2007)

Argus Decimus Mokira said:
			
		

> ... (there's a lot of us - we should start a thread in OffTopic)...
> Matt



Done! Geologists and geographers go -->  Here!!  

Denis, aka "Maldin"
Maldin's Greyhawk http://melkot.com


----------



## No Name (Jun 6, 2007)

*Please don't take this the wrong way, I mean no offense*

I see this poll and it makes me wonder. Almost all of the gamers I know personally have inflated ideas about what they know and what they can do. They sometimes come off as experts in everything. However, gamers tend to be smarter than the average joe.

So back to the poll. I see twice as many "know some" as "don't know." To those that voted "know some," how did you qualify yourself for that category? Maybe my concept of "know some" is different than yours. Or maybe my local gamer sample will generalize to the larger population. Just curious.

I did vote in the "know some" category. I minored in geology in college.  Geology rocks!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 6, 2007)

Spending enough time on ENWorld helps dispel the whole "gamers are smarter than the average joe" myth.


----------



## rgard (Jun 6, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Spending enough time on ENWorld helps dispel the whole "gamers are smarter than the average joe" myth.




I guess I should go look at porn on line instead.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Jun 6, 2007)

No Name said:
			
		

> I see this poll and it makes me wonder. Almost all of the gamers I know personally have inflated ideas about what they know and what they can do. They sometimes come off as experts in everything. However, gamers tend to be smarter than the average joe.




This is a result of vague wording in the question. I *know some* and *don't know much* is a low threshold to cross. I know some... I have read about it at length but by no means do I consider myself an expert - more of an informed laymen, i.e. "I know some."

PS- I prefer hugging to real world geography in my fantasy maps. I am not a stickler looking for any nit to pick but I dislike obviously impossible geology/geography. I am less of a stickler in maps from novels ... ? The closer a map/region/game world comes to our own the less suspension of disbelief required by the players. The less thought needed to plan through the ramifications of the frozen jungle, etc... Balance that with art and function and you have the perfect rpg map.


----------



## ZombieButch (Jun 6, 2007)

Maldin said:
			
		

> I think this poll clearly shows that their assumption has been wrong all along, and that they are assuming an insulting level of mass-ignorance.




No, it doesn't, or at least not as definitively as you claim. It's just as likely that people who are interested in geology saw "real world geology" in the thread title and took the poll, while folks who don't give a hoot about geology just passed on by and didn't take it.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jun 6, 2007)

No Name said:
			
		

> So back to the poll. I see twice as many "know some" as "don't know." To those that voted "know some," how did you qualify yourself for that category? Maybe my concept of "know some" is different than yours. Or maybe my local gamer sample will generalize to the larger population. Just curious.




I put myself in "Don't Know Much", as I didn't want to say I was really good with it, but I'm reasonably edumacated for a layperson who was two classes shy of a geography minor and likes geology stuff.

I'd've preferred a "Don't Know much", "Know Some", and "Know Lots" option set.  In which case, I'd put myself in the middle.

Brad


----------



## grodog (Jun 6, 2007)

*Farmer's World of Tiers books*



			
				Maldin said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Phil Farmer's work, grodog. Even not knowing the details, anything is certainly plausible if the DM wishes it to be so.




Denis:  given your love for high-magic, gates, the Codex, and such, you should definitely pick up the first five books in Farmer's *World of Tiers* series:  they're great inspiration!  The Lavalite World is the 5th World of Tiers book, and features the main characters on a world with physical properties like a lava lamp:  highly-mutable, quickly-changing, and insane for its inhabitants.  Some details and bookcovers @ http://www.xs4all.nl/~rnuninga/NovCol/NClw.htm


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 7, 2007)

I, too, am surprised by the number of people with knowledge of geology. I figured there wouldn't be 1 in 10 with enough knowledge to matter. But the poll shows 7 in 10.

My thought with the wording of the poll is that people would realize that "know some" meant "know enough to recognize some geological aspect of the fantasy map was right or wrong".

Quasqueton


----------



## fusangite (Jun 7, 2007)

Father of Dragons said:
			
		

> There are still a lot more fantasy settings in novels than there are in RPG settings, and they tend to be fairly conservative about the look of their worlds.



But given that this thread was posted in the General RPG Discussion forum rather than the Fantasy and Sci-Fi forum, I have interpreted it as asking questions about game worlds.







> And I think you might have missed my point: I like the maps to be physically reasonable except where there is a reason in the nature of the background for them to differ from default physical reality, and those differences are set out somewhere. If the world has reasons for looking different from ours, that's cool, as long as there is an adequate explanation somewhere.



All I disagree with in this paragraph is your terminology. “Physically reasonable,” and “default physical reality” imply that resemblance to our world is the normative standard for deciding if a fantasy world is realistic. All I’m suggesting is that internal consistency is an equally valid standard. But yes, generally, we agree in practice if not terminology that worlds should make sense on their own terms.







			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Having a realistically designed world that includes magic is just as logically consistent as having a non-realistically designed world that includes magic.



My problem with this statement, again, is that you define “realism” as resemblance to our world; I think that this is _a_ possible standard for assessing if a setting is realistic. But I think that an equally reasonable standard is internal consistency. 

I care deeply about realism in my games and I have players who also care about being in a setting where they can kick all the walls and not have the facades fall down. My players and I feel that internal consistency is the way to give a world a realistic feel and enable us to suspend disbelief more effectively. All I am asking for in this thread is an acknowledgment that this is a legitimate way of giving players a feeling of realism. 

When I am a player in a world that resembles ours but is not self-consistent, I lose my suspension of disbelief. So, I find it kind of absurd for people to define worlds that give me a feeling of realism as “unrealistic” and worlds that don’t as “realistic.” 

Why is it important for people who freely admit that there is a radical disjuncture between their world’s physics and the RAW to label their world building principles as “realistic” and others’ world building principles as “unrealistic?” Why can’t we use language generous enough to admit that there is more than one approach to seeking and delivering realism?







> If you have to choose between "Logically consistent map that uses real world physics and magic" and "Logically consistent map that doesn't use real world physics" I'd prefer the former. However, I don't believe that choice is necessary.



You can’t create a map that uses real world physics and magic because real world physics are incompatible with magic. But what you can do, however, is create a map that makes sense in our world’s physics and also makes sense in D&D physics. And, like you, I prefer such maps, to a point. 

While I like local maps that could work well in either our physics or D&D’s, I do not like world maps that do. I prefer world maps that depict flat worlds with strange things at their edges like encircling mountains, burning jungles and infinite cliffs. But that’s just a matter of taste.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 7, 2007)

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the French I took
But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be


----------



## Wombat (Jun 7, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Why is it "realistic" for a world with widespread magic, an Elemental Plane of Earth, interventionist gods and only four elements to look like a world that doesn't have any of those things? How can plate tectonics, for instance, operate in a world in which earth is an element, as opposed to a highly variable amalgam of compounds made up for 50+ elements?




Well, this is the major point.

Since I don't play a game that uses any of these elements, I am fine in wanting something that works a bit more with real-world physics.  No widespread magic.  No Elemental Plane of Anything.  Limited interventionist gods.  This makes me happy.  

Different styles.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jun 7, 2007)

I have no problem with things working a little differently in a fantasy world than they do in the real world, right down to geography. However, if you want to have a river flowing uphill in a fantasy map, you should have a good reason why it does so.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 7, 2007)

Whizbang, when you started, I thought you were going to quote "Mayor of Simpleton" by XTC, but alas, it wasn't to be.

The part of the arguement I don't get is the part I never get - gamers saying that the way other people play is weak, a crutch, silly, cloying, stupid. Why can't it be fun for some to play "realistic" and others to play "high fantasy"?

Personally, I think it makes sense to have a map that seems realistic, but I could care less if it is. I prefer a more high fantasy element to my escapes from every day reality.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 7, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> This is a pretty weird argument.  It's generally a hell of a lot easier to move very large amounts of cargo by sea than by land.  I'm pretty sure most of the real world's major tade hubs are coastal cities for exactly this reason.  A ship can carry a hell of a lot more than a wagon, and oceans don't tend to be quite so full of other people (such as bandits, enemy soldiers, and tariff collectors) as continents do.  Explorers have spent a hell of a lot of time and lives trying to find sea routes to places they could already get to by land.




Ok, look at the map I linked.  Think about that for a second.  A trade HUB means that the majority of trade goes through that point.  Sort of like how Venice or Florence were trade hubs for Europe.  Makes perfect sense, you run the Silk Road through the Middle East and stick everything on a boat and float it accross the nice tame Mediterranean.  

Now, again, LOOK AT THE MAP.  Why would someone who lives at the 2 o'clock position, like say, Mithril, trade with someone at the 3 o'clock position, like say, Hedrad, by way of the 7 o'clock position?

The reason that trade HUBS are that way is because they are on the shortest point between two places.  Hub meaning center usually.  I have no problems with a coastal town being a trading town.  I have a problem with Shelzar being the center of trade for the continent when 80% of the continent can trade with each other without going through Shelzar.  If Shelzar is at 7 o'clock, anyone at positions between 10 and 4 can trade with each other directly without going through 7.  Thus, the geography doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 7, 2007)

Fusangite, most of the D&D rules aren't intended to be the physical laws for the D&D universe. They're game rules. Approximations. A thorough and exact system of how the world works would be: a) impossible and b) unplayable.

They don't describe how a world works any more than the rules of chess accurately describe a battle.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 7, 2007)

Wombat said:
			
		

> Well, this is the major point.
> 
> Since I don't play a game that uses any of these elements, I am fine in wanting something that works a bit more with real-world physics.  No widespread magic.  No Elemental Plane of Anything.  Limited interventionist gods.  This makes me happy.
> 
> Different styles.



I can get behind that. As I said, it's about consistency for me. Any world consistent with itself makes me happy. So I'm not even sure we have different styles. I currently play in a game set in 19th century earth and I enjoy it for its internal consistency just much as I do an internally consistent high fantasy world.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Fusangite, most of the D&D rules aren't intended to be the physical laws for the D&D universe. They're game rules.



Look: whether people like it or not, game rules are the physics of the world they are playing. Because all "physics" are are the rules of cause and effect in a world. That's what game rules are -- they define how cause and effect work in the universe. I don't know what your definition of physics is but I have the feeling it's a little different from mine.







> Approximations.



Like physics.







> A thorough and exact system of how the world works would be: a) impossible and b) unplayable.



Did I ask for that? No. All I said is the _I personally find worlds that have two competing and contradictory sets of rules for cause and effect harm my suspension of disbelief_ but that other people don't and I'm cool with that.

And frankly, the detail and specificity of most people's knowledge of D&D physics exceeds the detail and specificity of their knowledge of real world physics.







> They don't describe how a world works any more than the rules of chess accurately describe a battle.



Yes. But a game of chess models itself not a battle. 

The people I play chess with are not generating descriptions of battlefields complete with wounds, terrain, formations, commanders and troops and spinning this into a minute-by-minute narrative of the battle. But the people I play D&D with do. How would you feel if, instead of running combat on a miniatures board with pieces representing your characters and their adversaries, you just played chess against the DM every time combat started?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 7, 2007)

I gotta agree with fusangite.  The game rules are the "physics" (or a part thereof) of the game world.


----------



## HandofMystra (Jun 7, 2007)

I checked don't know much (BS in physics but failed intro to Geology 30 years ago). I would like a campaign world where magic is lawful and science (defined as a process not a set of findings ) is in charge of everything else. I wanted to run DCC#1 for my group but then I decided the map was too unrealistic (an abandoned silver mine looking like a rectilinear dungeon - I would still love to get floor plans of a a real abandoned medieval silver mine).


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Jun 7, 2007)

HandofMystra said:
			
		

> I checked don't know much (BS in physics but failed intro to Geology 30 years ago). I would like a campaign world where magic is lawful and science (defined as a process not a set of findings ) is in charge of everything else. I wanted to run DCC#1 for my group but then I decided the map was too unrealistic (an abandoned silver mine looking like a rectilinear dungeon - I would still love to get floor plans of a a real abandoned medieval silver mine).




Now that's funny, because I had the same reaction you did when I saw the map.


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Jun 7, 2007)

I have to have my climates match the regions, and I even take into consideration geographic features and ocean currents.  The map I'm using for my next campaign is based on earth in 1,000 years after global warming has raised sea levels all across the planet.  I found this map online, and the continents look familiar enough that players can recognize them, but different enough to offer a feeling of fantasy to the setting.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 7, 2007)

I don't know all that much about real-world geology (but I do know a tiny bit - enough to be able to point out a young and old river, for example [if that meets the "inflated idea of how much I know" that some random internet guy vomited out]), and - especially after reading this thread - I realize I don't care much at all.


----------



## Ceresco (Jun 7, 2007)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I know some, and I do care.
> 
> joe b.




That's an understatement!

I know more than some (less than others), and I care more than most.

edward kopp


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 7, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Like physics.



The principle goal of physics is to model the world.  The principle goal of game rules is that they must work as a game. They must be playable. Realism is a secondary consideration. That's why the contents of game rules (including those for games purportedly set in our universe) are different from the contents of physics books.

As Gary Gygax says on page 9 of the 1e DMG, D&D isn't realistic. It's much more a game than a simulation.



			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it [AD&D] can be deemed only a dismal failure.


----------



## Nail (Jun 7, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I'm shocked that the people that know and care are in the lead. I've always assumed that most people don't care.



Me too.

Go geology!

     -an Earth Sciences Professor


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> The principle goal of physics is to model the world.   The principle goal of game rules is to model the action that takes place in the game.  The real world and the game world have different rules because real world physics are based upon discovering what rules might actually exist, whereas the game rules are created to model the type of rules that the designer(s) believe will make a good game.  That's why the contents of game rules (including those for games purportedly set in our universe) are different from the contents of physics books, even though both are ostensibly the same thing:  a model for how things work within a real or imaginary universe.





FIFY.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> The principle goal of physics is to model the world.  The principle goal of game rules is that they must work as a game. They must be playable.



Agreed. Therefore all successful games have rules that describe a system of cause and effect that is defined in a playable way. 

Again, I think that you are using a funny definition of physics in order to come up with these objections.







> Realism is a secondary consideration.



I don't know what you mean by "realism" here.







> That's why the contents of game rules (including those for games purportedly set in our universe) are different from the contents of physics books.



They are different from the contents of physics books because (a) physics books describe our world which has different laws of cause and effect than game worlds; (b) physics tell people different kinds of information about physics than gaming books do; (c) if physics books were designed to give people rough rules for probabilistically estimating the causes and effects of ordinary, everyday events so that they could run a simulation of reality, I imagine they would be written like gaming books and would bear a much closer resemblance to them; (d) physics books are a different genre and have a different audience than gaming books.







> As Gary Gygax says on page 9 of the 1e DMG, D&D isn't realistic. It's much more a game than a simulation.



But I agree with what Gygax says in his quote. D&D models a different, fantasy, make-believe world that has different rules than medieval and ancient military engagements. 

You seem to think that physics is the rules of _our_ universe when, in fact, it is the rules of _a_ universe.


----------



## RFisher (Jun 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Don't know much about history
> Don't know much biology
> Don't know much about a science book
> Don't know much about the French I took
> ...




I voted "Don't know much..." because Sam Cooke rocks!

...oh...& because I don't know much...



			
				HandofMystra said:
			
		

> I wanted to run DCC#1 for my group but then I decided the map was too unrealistic (an abandoned silver mine looking like a rectilinear dungeon - I would still love to get floor plans of a a real abandoned medieval silver mine).




Just pretend it isn't rectilinear. Think of it as an abstract representation. Don't describe it as all right angles & orthogonal corridors. Say "left", "right", "forward", & "back" instead of the cardinal directions. 

Although, I haven't seen the map in question, but that's often how I treat maps in modules.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 7, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> But I agree with what Gygax says in his quote. D&D models a different, fantasy, make-believe world that has different rules than medieval and ancient military engagements.



!!!

Gary says that D&D _fails_ as a simulation of the world of make-believe.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 7, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Agreed. Therefore all successful games have rules that describe a system of cause and effect that is defined in a playable way.



Playability is the key here. The falling rules in D&D are linear not because things fall at a different rate in D&D world but because 1d6 per 10 feet is a lot easier to calculate than the realistic alternative.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Jun 7, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Just pretend it isn't rectilinear. Think of it as an abstract representation. Don't describe it as all right angles & orthogonal corridors. Say "left", "right", "forward", & "back" instead of the cardinal directions.
> 
> Although, I haven't seen the map in question, but that's often how I treat maps in modules.




No no no, we mean it is *really* not mine-ish. Classic D&D speaking, I was put off that for the first DCC, flat lines to depict the corridor instead of the classic squiggly-line "this-is-a-cave/mine" mapping set. They've made up for it since.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Playability is the key here. The falling rules in D&D are linear not because things fall at a different rate in D&D world but because 1d6 per 10 feet is a lot easier to calculate than the realistic alternative.




Which only means that the physics of falling objects in a D&D world are not the same as the physics of a falling object in our world.

Consequently, if a scientist living in a D&D world examined the physics of falling objects in that world, his observations would correspond to the RAW.  And if he then compared his observations to a game in which falling was determined "realistically" (from our POV) from his POV it would not only be _harder_ to calculate, but also less "realistic" because the laws of his universe differ from the laws of ours.

RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 7, 2007)

The question here is why are the D&D rules different from the rules of our world. Is it:

A) A deliberate decision by the designers to simulate a very strange world. One where housecats can kill people, peasants don't know what a horse is and objects fall at a different rate.

OR

B) They're an imperfect set of game rules, designed mostly for playability, which at some points fail to simulate the reality of the D&D universe.

I believe (B) is significantly more plausible.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> The question here is why are the D&D rules different from the rules of our world. Is it:
> 
> A) A deliberate decision by the designers to simulate a very strange world. One where housecats can kill people, peasants don't know what a horse is and objects fall at a different rate.




So, you are arguing that physics can only exist as as a result of _deliberate_ action?    



> OR
> 
> B) They're an imperfect set of game rules, designed mostly for playability, which at some points fail to simulate the reality of the D&D universe.




At which points do the rules fail to simulate the reality of the D&D universe?  Perhaps if you provided some examples that would help.  



> I believe (B) is significantly more plausible.




I believe that (A) isn't a requirement for a physical system (you can have physics without an intelligent designer) and that (B) doesn't necessarily differ from physics (physics in the real world also fails to simulate reality in some cases, such as discrepencies between Relaticity and QM).


RC


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 7, 2007)

Can someone please explain to me where and how the rules indicate that a D+D world would not or cannot have plate tectonics - a result of the natural movement of molten earth - because earth is an element??? (the one exception would be a hollow world with no molten core; plate tectonics would not exist here, but nor would most other physical things from our world - e.g. enough gravity to hold you down - without some serious explaining)

And, while you're at it, please also explain why weather (a result of the natural movement and mixing of air [another element]) *does* exist?

If you've got weather, internal consistency dictates you've got tectonics.  Conversely, if you don't have tectonics, internal consistency dictates you don't have weather...which would make many things very difficult indeed.

 Lane-"BSc Geography"-fan


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Jun 7, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Can someone please explain to me where and how the rules indicate that a D+D world would not or cannot have plate tectonics - a result of the natural movement of molten earth - because earth is an element??? (the one exception would be a hollow world with no molten core; plate tectonics would not exist here, but nor would most other physical things from our world - e.g. enough gravity to hold you down - without some serious explaining)
> 
> And, while you're at it, please also explain why weather (a result of the natural movement and mixing of air [another element]) *does* exist?
> 
> ...




Because the God of Weather makes it happen. Because there's a really giant giant standing off of the edge of the world blowing really hard. Because the Great, Great, Great, Great, Really Great Druid sees to it that weather happens. 

Explain to me why ultra-powerful entities grant powers to spellcasters? And why spellcasters can generate weather patterns and earthquakes, earthquakes which, may or may not be anywhere near a fault zone? Tell me where in the rule books where you have to have plate tectonics?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 7, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Can someone please explain to me where and how the rules indicate that a D+D world would not or cannot have plate tectonics - a result of the natural movement of molten earth - because earth is an element??? (the one exception would be a hollow world with no molten core; plate tectonics would not exist here, but nor would most other physical things from our world - e.g. enough gravity to hold you down - without some serious explaining)




There is no reason that a fantasy world cannot have plate tectonics.



> And, while you're at it, please also explain why weather (a result of the natural movement and mixing of air [another element]) *does* exist?
> 
> If you've got weather, internal consistency dictates you've got tectonics.  Conversely, if you don't have tectonics, internal consistency dictates you don't have weather...which would make many things very difficult indeed.




However, with or without tectonics, you could still have weather.  The reason that you have weather might just be closer to that believed by earlier societies:  the gods dictate that it is so.


RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> At which points do the rules fail to simulate the reality of the D&D universe?  Perhaps if you provided some examples that would help.





			
				Me said:
			
		

> housecats can kill people, peasants don't know what a horse is and objects fall at a different rate.





> So, you are arguing that physics can only exist as as a result of deliberate action?



I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. Our disagreement is very straightforward imo, about what the game rules are supposed to be. Game or simulation of a strange reality?

The magic rules are a tricky area because they don't resemble anything in our world. In my view they too are imperfect. I see magic in the D&D universe as having complex, though to us the players, unknown, rules of which the game rules are an imperfect simulation.


----------



## jolt (Jun 7, 2007)

Well, I think a lot would depend on how large and active a pantheon exists in the world in question.  If you have a deity of rivers, for example, then rivers presumabley behave in whatever manner the diety in charge of them has dictated.  Why do volcanoes exist?  Is it the same reason they exist on Earth or is it because the diety of [whatever] said so?  I think both are valid explanations.  A deity may choose to have things work the same way it does on Earth but in a fantasy world that's hardly a given.

Now, some things are always going to be assumed (like gravity; at least at it's most basic observational level) because it would be too wonky not to.

In some worlds/settings, you have both magic and science but in others magic has effectively replaced science (the world was created by magic, magic is the reason things work the way they do, and the world would fall apart if not maintained by magic).  In the latter world a scientist, as we think of one, would more than likely go nuts unless there was a deity of science and/or technology.  Deities of knowledge (the closest general equivalent) are more often associated with magic than science (when they're associated with anything else at all).

A world needs to be internally consistent, but it only needs to be externally consistent enough to provide us with a framework we can understand.  After that, anything goes; it's your world after all.  It's a groups decision what viewpoint(s) they're going to follow but one isn't inherently superior to the other.  I would find any such claims (either way) to be rather elitist.

jolt


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> At which points do the rules fail to simulate the reality of the D&D universe?  Perhaps if you provided some examples that would help.



All non-barbarian humans have the exact same overland movement rate. A 25-year old ranger with an 18 con can cover as many miles in a day as a 90-year old wizard with a 3 con.

Being asleep doesn't affect your chances of dodging a fireball.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. Our disagreement is very straightforward imo, about what the game rules are supposed to be. Game or simulation of a strange reality?




Either way, the rules are _the laws by which the game universe functions_.  Physics as a science is the pursuit of knowledge of the laws by which the universe functions.  When one refers to "physics" in the sense of "how matter and energy behave" then the game rules tell you how matter and energy behave within the game universe.

If you lived in a D&D universe, and you were a scientist, the physical laws that you would discover would be different from those of our real universe, and would cleave very closely to the RAW, regardless of whether or not this was the intention of the game designers.

Indeed, because they are quantifiable, the D&D scientist could refer to XP, levels, hit points, alignment, and classes in scientific terms.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> All non-barbarian humans have the exact same overland movement rate. A 25-year old ranger with an 18 con can cover as many miles in a day as a 90-year old wizard with a 3 con.
> 
> Being asleep doesn't affect your chances of dodging a fireball.





Again, how does this fail to simulate the reality of the D&D universe?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Either way, the rules are _the laws by which the game universe functions_.



Well that's where we disagree. In my view, the rules are the laws by which the game functions, not the game universe.







> regardless of whether or not this was the intention of the game designers.



I see the intention of the designers as having a great deal of bearing on the status of the game rules.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, how does this fail to simulate the reality of the D&D universe?



If those things are literally true of the D&D universe then that universe is ridiculous. It doesn't make sense to the players.

Imperfect rules, fine. Mad reality, less fine.

Are you telling me that you have gone through the D&D rules in all their mad, beautiful glory and come up with an in-world reason for all the weirdness? For why aged wizards are as speedy as young, fit rangers, and why housecats are so deadly? That you have thought through the consequences of most people being ignorant of horses?

I have a feeling the answer to those questions may be yes (at which point I will fall off my chair) but if it is...

Don't you think that's rather a lot of unnecessary work?


----------



## fusangite (Jun 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Well that's where we disagree. In my view, the rules are the laws by which the game functions, not the game universe.



Can you explain how these are operationally different? Are there ever moments in your game when the rules say that one thing will happen but what happens is different than what the rules say? Because if not, like it or not, the rules of the game _are_ the rules of your game world.







> I see the intention of the designers as having a great deal of bearing on the status of the game rules.



I think that the rules should be evaluated on their own terms. Einstein thought quantum uncertainty was wrong and tried to disprove it. Newton thought his discoveries about the universe were part of a greater alchemical truth he worked his whole life to uncover. 

Gary, as inventor of the game, is a very important guy. But, like any other great inventor, he got some things wrong and sometimes used language that was imprecise, confusing or downright wrong. 

I am, however, happy to concede that I misread his quotation in my first response to it. Sorry about that.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Are you telling me that you have gone through the D&D rules in all their mad, beautiful glory and come up with an in-world reason for all the weirdness?



No. You come up with it as you go, as necessary







> For why aged wizards are as speedy as young, fit rangers,



Same reason ancient martial arts masters catch flies with chopsticks in Chinese movies: because they have lived a disciplined life that has kept their senses and mental acuity in perfect form.







> and why housecats are so deadly?



Because they're tougher than the housecats we're used to? Or at least the ones who attack the players are.







> That you have thought through the consequences of most people being ignorant of horses?



Huh? There has never been a time in our civilization that most people have known how to train (or even ride!) horses so I'm not seeing the problem.







> I have a feeling the answer to those questions may be yes (at which point I will fall* off my chair) but if it is...
> 
> Don't you think that's rather a lot of unnecessary work?



I do it on the fly. And it's not that hard. I think you are imagining it to be a harder job than it is because you don't enjoy doing it and haven't tried.

In part, that's because different GMs find different things easy. I might spend 10 hours prepping for a battle that might take another GM 30 minutes. On the other hand, if somebody asks me whether their Shocking Burst longsword will work underwater, based on the D&D element system, I know the answer in 5 seconds. And that's where I get a lot of my fun.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Are you telling me that you have gone through the D&D rules in all their mad, beautiful glory and come up with an in-world reason for all the weirdness?




No....I _change_ rules that don't reflect the reality I am trying to portray.

But, again, fusangite is correct:



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Can you explain how these are operationally different? Are there ever moments in your game when the rules say that one thing will happen but what happens is different than what the rules say? Because if not, like it or not, the rules of the game are the rules of your game world.




I certainly believe that "setting trumps RAW", but in that case we are dealing with _new_ rules, and the same still applies.  If falling works this way today, the odds are good (but not completely certain, thank you Mr. Hume) that falling works the same way tomorrow.

RC


----------



## fusangite (Jun 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No....I _change_ rules that don't reflect the reality I am trying to portray.
> 
> But, again, fusangite is correct:
> 
> ...



Quite so. I mean the rules in effect, not the RAW, if there is a discrepancy between the two.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 7, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> You can’t create a map that uses real world physics and magic because real world physics are incompatible with magic.




I don't think that this dichotomy exists. If you want to say you can't create a map that 100% uses real world physics and also uses magic you're correct, but except for 100% or nothing scenarios you certainly can create a map that uses real world physics and magic.

joe b.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 7, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Can someone please explain to me where and how the rules indicate that a D+D world would not or cannot have plate tectonics - a result of the natural movement of molten earth - because earth is an element???



I'm not sure what to do with this question. You have all the information I use to deduce that the most logical interpretation of the RAW is that D&D worlds don't have plate tectonics.

The reason our earth's core is molten is because a nuclear reaction is continuously taking place in there. If we accept that earth is an element, it therefore follows that the things that we define as elements are not. Either air is an element or hydrogen is an element; either carbon is an element or earth is an element. There are no systems of physics in which both the periodic table and the four elements exist concurrently. And nuclear reactions happen because certain isotopes of certain elements that do not exist in D&D interact in a particularway. 

In the 4 and 5 element systems of physics that I know of, there are very different explanatory structures for vulcanism sometimes involving gods, the telos of the fire at the time of its creation or the transformation of metal into fire through the passage of time. 

Now I suppose I could design a system with plate tectonics and four elements so perhaps I should tone down my language. I'm just saying that I think it is the most logical assumption that a game that stipulates a four element system and the existence of gods is tilting towards terrain features having been formed using very different processes that those which formed our world's terrain.







> And, while you're at it, please also explain why weather (a result of the natural movement and mixing of air [another element]) *does* exist?



Because of the action of meteors. Says so right in Aristotle. Hence the discipline Meteorology.







> If you've got weather, internal consistency dictates you've got tectonics.



All 4/5-element theories that exist in the world have weather; no 4/5-element theory that exists in the world has plate tectonics. So I'm afraid I'm not getting the point you are trying to make.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 7, 2007)

Turanil said:
			
		

> Just 2 questions:
> 
> 1) Any scientific resources online that would help design a geologically realistic world?
> 
> ...




On number one, a really great place to start reading is wikipedia's entry on Geography. It has a lot of cool branches to go down for both physical and human geography. Just pick and read and eventually things will start to stick and you'll find something that interests you particularly.

On number two that's _A Magical Society: Ecology and Culture_. There's also the free chapter on mapping called _A Magical Society: Guide to Mapping_. They're both available at www.yourgamesnow.com.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 7, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what to do with this question. You have all the information I use to deduce that the most logical interpretation of the RAW is that D&D worlds don't have plate tectonics.




And yet we have reached different conclusions. Perhaps there is a communication issue.



> The reason our earth's core is molten is because a nuclear reaction is continuously taking place in there. If we accept that earth is an element, it therefore follows that the things that we define as elements are not. Either air is an element or hydrogen is an element; either carbon is an element or earth is an element. There are no systems of physics in which both the periodic table and the four elements exist concurrently.




Yes there is: the Joe B. System of Physics and Four-Element Concurrent System. 

It's not either/or. Just because there's magic doesn't mean that real-world physics doesn't work. Just because there's elements doesn't mean that real-world element theories work *either*. And in both situations there's nothing saying that one or the other is more logical for the construction of worlds in which D&D games occur.



> Now I suppose I could design a system with plate tectonics and four elements so perhaps I should tone down my language.




Which is what I think you've been missing. Your argument seems to be based upon a conception that if real-world physics can't work in an elemental world, than real-world elemental physics works. I don't think it's either/or.

I suspect that most of the time, both work in the bog-standard D&D world. Volcanoes blow up not only because of tectonics, they can blow up because of an elemental-physics (magical) reason.

joe b.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 8, 2007)

Picked this out of some really good thoughts:



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Because they're tougher than the housecats we're used to? *Or at least the ones who attack the players are.*




((Emphasis mine))

See, right there, that's the out.  When you say that the reality for the players might be different than the reality of the general populace, then the whole physics=game rules argument goes out the window.  As RC has repeatedly stated, if I was a scientist in a D&D world, I would discover that RAW=physics.

But, if I was an NPC scientist, I might discover that RAW =/= physics since I get different cats.  ((Would that be a Schrodinger?))  Thus, the rules of the game apply to the players, but not to the world at large.  

We see this all the time.  Why isn't every person in a D&D world 20th level by the time they are 40?  Why isn't every Elf epic leveled?  Even if they only survived a single CR encounter every year, they would still be epic leveled.  A forest fire would see every survivor gain a level or just about.  Someone who had been near a tornado survives a CR 10 encounter.  Poof, instant 2nd level and very close to 3rd.

People in Kansas must all be epic.



> I suspect that most of the time, both work in the bog-standard D&D world. Volcanoes blow up not only because of tectonics, they can blow up because of an elemental-physics (magical) reason.




Actually, I would say that volcanoes blow up due to the reasons of DM intervention.


----------



## awayfarer (Jun 8, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> People in Kansas must all be epic.




I'm sure Multi would be glad to hear you say that. There might be some truth to it though. I imagine you'd need to have an epic level will save to not end up bored to death in Kansas.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 8, 2007)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> And yet we have reached different conclusions. Perhaps there is a communication issue.



I think it's more about how you and I understand systems of cause and effect and how physics models them with imperfect knowledge. It may be a communications issue at its root but I think it hinges more on how we understand predictive systems and how their are modeled.







> It's not either/or. Just because there's magic doesn't mean that real-world physics doesn't work.



Yes it does. I'm sorry but it's just that simple. Real world physics predicts that you will be unable to transform a ball of bat guano into 33510.32 cubic feet of pure fire using only words. D&D physics predicts that you can. When a wizard attempts to cast fireball, one of these systems will be validated but not both.







> Which is what I think you've been missing. Your argument seems to be based upon a conception that if real-world physics can't work in an elemental world, than real-world elemental physics works. I don't think it's either/or.



I don't understand this paragraph. I'm not disagreeing with it. I just don't understand it.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 8, 2007)

But, Fusangite, real world physics should apply pretty much universally.  Or at least as close to universally as possible.  Yet, the xp rules in the DMG don't apply to the general population or else everyone over the age of 40 would be a double digit level NPC.

The rules apply to playing the game.  It is not an attempt to model the reality in which the game is plaed.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 8, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, Fusangite, real world physics should apply pretty much universally.  Or at least as close to universally as possible.  Yet, the xp rules in the DMG don't apply to the general population or else everyone over the age of 40 would be a double digit level NPC.



The DMG has clear demographics rules that say that this is not the case. There are specific rules in the book that contradict your assertion.







> The rules apply to playing the game.  It is not an attempt to model the reality in which the game is plaed.



Here's the problem. If you argue that one set of physical laws applies when the characters are present and a completely different set of physical laws applies when they are not there, you don't have a very coherent or sensible universe.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 8, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what to do with this question. You have all the information I use to deduce that the most logical interpretation of the RAW is that D&D worlds don't have plate tectonics.



I do?  Where?  (remember, I'm not dyed-in-the-wool 3e, so if it's obvious to you in there it's probably not going to be obvious to me...) 


> The reason our earth's core is molten is because a nuclear reaction is continuously taking place in there. If we accept that earth is an element, it therefore follows that the things that we define as elements are not. Either air is an element or hydrogen is an element; either carbon is an element or earth is an element. There are no systems of physics in which both the periodic table and the four elements exist concurrently. And nuclear reactions happen because certain isotopes of certain elements that do not exist in D&D interact in a particularway.



OK, there's our problem: use of the word "element".  Just like the word "level", it can have different meanings.  The way I see it, the "element" air is made up of the "elements" oxygen, hydrogen, and a bunch of other stuff.  Ditto for earth-the-element; it is made up of a bunch of "elements" that react with each other in ways quite easily translatable from the real world, and there is absolutely no reason why the in-game existence of one must perforce preclude the in-game existence of the other.







> Now I suppose I could design a system with plate tectonics and four elements



I would hope you could; it's trivially easy. 


> so perhaps I should tone down my language. I'm just saying that I think it is the most logical assumption that a game that stipulates a four element system and the existence of gods is tilting towards terrain features having been formed using very different processes that those which formed our world's terrain.



Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  And even if the gods built the mountains to begin with, they're going to erode the same way mountains on Earth do.  Further, I see no problem with tectonics and god-forces existing side-by-side...a god put a continent *here* but 25 million years later it has drifted to now be over *there*, no problem! 


> [re weather]Because of the action of meteors. Says so right in Aristotle. Hence the discipline Meteorology.All 4/5-element theories that exist in the world have weather; no 4/5-element theory that exists in the world has plate tectonics. So I'm afraid I'm not getting the point you are trying to make.



Weather is something most DMs bother to think about.  Plate tectonics aren't.  Further, I've never seen a theory anywhere (though in truth I haven't looked too hard) that says the 4 or 5 earth-air-fire-water-magic/spirit "elements" are not just the sum of the even more basic elemental parts that make them up, the workings of which (well, except for magic/spirit) we somewhat know from real-world experience.

It just makes things easier for most people if things as far as possible work they way we're used to, with magic/spirit kind of overlaid on top.

That said, I'm not sure I'm getting your point either. 

Lanefan


----------



## Turanil (Jun 8, 2007)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> On number one, a really great place to start reading is wikipedia's entry on Geography. It has a lot of cool branches to go down for both physical and human geography. Just pick and read and eventually things will start to stick and you'll find something that interests you particularly.
> 
> On number two that's _A Magical Society: Ecology and Culture_. There's also the free chapter on mapping called _A Magical Society: Guide to Mapping_. They're both available at www.yourgamesnow.com.
> 
> joe b.



Thanks for the answer! I will check these immediately!


----------



## S'mon (Jun 8, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Can you explain how these are operationally different? Are there ever moments in your game when the rules say that one thing will happen but what happens is different than what the rules say? Because if not, like it or not, the rules of the game _are_ the rules of your game world.




No - the rules are there to aid player interaction with the game world, not to define the game world.  In the game world things 'off stage' operate much like the real world - young fit Rangers run faster than 90 year old great-grandmothers, weapons can break bones and cause crippling injuries, wound infection and mortal injuries that cause drawn-out painful death over days - those things don't happen to PCs within the rules framework, doesn't mean they don't happen at all.  Indeed I've used various different rulesets for games in the same game world, doesn't mean that the physics of the world itself have changed.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 8, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The rules apply to playing the game.  It is not an attempt to model the reality in which the game is plaed.




QFT.  Really I think you have to be some kind of nerdism-fundamentalist to insist that a bunch of fairly arbitrary game rules designed to facilitate PCs monster hacking in dungeons can be applied as the encompassing physics of the entire reality in which that monster-hacking takes place.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 8, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> The DMG has clear demographics rules that say that this is not the case. There are specific rules in the book that contradict your assertion.




Take a look at those demographics bits again.  Those are guidelines at best and are certainly not hard and fast rules that must be adhered to.



> Here's the problem. If you argue that one set of physical laws applies when the characters are present and a completely different set of physical laws applies when they are not there, you don't have a very coherent or sensible universe.




Exactly.  As a player, I can use diplomacy and change the attitude of any NPC.  I may not get what I want, but, I can change his attitude.  No matter how high the diplomacy skill of the NPC, he cannot influence a PC's attitude.  Ever.

The rules inherently apply to one group and not to another.  The xp rules as well.  If you apply the xp rules, then the demographics guidelines go straight out the window.  In other words, one part of the rules contradicts another.

Why?  Because the xp rules apply to PC's and not to NPC's.  Usually.  Unless they do.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 8, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> If you argue that one set of physical laws applies when the characters are present and a completely different set of physical laws applies when they are not there, you don't have a very coherent or sensible universe.




I wonder how you manage to watch an Action movie set in the 'real world'!     The rules that apply within the framework of the movie are clearly different from the background rules of the universe in which the movie takes place.

Re Elements - the 4 D&D elements are more like metaphysical forces, not scientific elements.  IMC they exist on a metaphysical level because they're believed to exist, not because they define reality.


----------



## hong (Jun 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, how does this fail to simulate the reality of the D&D universe?



 Why should the reality of the D&D universe be one where all non-barbarian humans have the exact same overland movement rate, a 25-year old ranger with an 18 con can cover as many miles in a day as a 90-year old wizard with a 3 con, and being asleep doesn't affect your chances of dodging a fireball?

The answer: because it's convenient for gaming purposes. Which, in the end, is what Doug McCrae is talking about.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 8, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Yes it does. I'm sorry but it's just that simple. Real world physics predicts that you will be unable to transform a ball of bat guano into 33510.32 cubic feet of pure fire using only words. D&D physics predicts that you can. When a wizard attempts to cast fireball, one of these systems will be validated but not both.




A bad analogy of how both can exist is how Newtonian physics doesn't work once you get small, or big, enough. Magic breaks the "standard" but still follows it's own laws.



> I don't understand this paragraph. I'm not disagreeing with it. I just don't understand it.




I'm trying to say that because there is magic, you believe that real-world physics isn't applicable in a D&D world. You then decide that, because D&D uses elements, to apply a real world system of elemental physics (Aristotle, et al) to use in the D&D universe. I don't think using elemental physics to model a D&D universe is any better as so much of the D&D universe is _not_ magical, and elemental physics models are utterly magical.

I was thinking about this as I went to sleep, trying to figure out what was bothering me most with viewing a D&D world through any predictive system except modern physics: the PCs won't know *why* something happens. Why does water flow downhill? Why is the air thinner a top a mountain? All of the everyday effects that we, as modern players, understand (be that intuitively or just because we were educated about it so long ago that it seems intuitively to us) suddenly occur for reasons we don't understand and the simple idea that fire is released from wood during combustion as opposed to effects of real combustion means that _every little thing_ in the world is magical.

When that's the case, you also get into predictive problems. Can I now as a player drop a heavier object and have it drop faster than a lighter one? What else has changed that I as a player, because my knowledge of non-scientific predictive systems is partial (at best), will have to find out that the world I'm playing in doesn't work the way the real-world works?

When dealing with magic in a modern-physics world as given in the rules, that easy. Each breach of reality is explicitly described in its cause and effect. I'm effectively given a new set of predictive rules that changes the universe my PC is interacting with- but I, as a player, know most of the rules and know the general parameters in which those magical rules work. I have knowledge again.

Kinda a long tangent, but I think it's fairly important.

joe b.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Take a look at those demographics bits again.  Those are guidelines at best and are certainly not hard and fast rules that must be adhered to.




Same for XP and levelling, though.    

I would certainly agree, however, that a D&D world scientist would potentially discover that there was a class of people to whom the rules applied differently than to the majority of the population.  For example, this group of people would never encounter a situation where monsters could capture them and hold them for ransom until the heroes showed up.  Much like the earth of our mythologies, some people would simply possess extraordinary gifts of luck....and very strange turns of phrase.    



> Exactly.  As a player, I can use diplomacy and change the attitude of any NPC.  I may not get what I want, but, I can change his attitude.  No matter how high the diplomacy skill of the NPC, he cannot influence a PC's attitude.  Ever.
> 
> The rules inherently apply to one group and not to another.  The xp rules as well.  If you apply the xp rules, then the demographics guidelines go straight out the window.  In other words, one part of the rules contradicts another.




Which means that, in all likelihood, "PC" and "NPC" are quantifiable states in the D&D universe, and are therefore open to study by the D&D scientist (should such a being exist).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Why should the reality of the D&D universe be one where all non-barbarian humans have the exact same overland movement rate, a 25-year old ranger with an 18 con can cover as many miles in a day as a 90-year old wizard with a 3 con, and being asleep doesn't affect your chances of dodging a fireball?
> 
> The answer: because it's convenient for gaming purposes. Which, in the end, is what Doug McCrae is talking about.




I'm not arguing about the _reason_ that the game universe is this way; I am arguing that _the game universe is this way_.  The laws of physics aren't a "why are they?" proposition but a "what are they, and how do they interrelate?" proposition.


----------



## RFisher (Jun 8, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Really I think you have to be some kind of nerdism-fundamentalist to insist that a bunch of fairly arbitrary game rules designed to facilitate PCs monster hacking in dungeons can be applied as the encompassing physics of the entire reality in which that monster-hacking takes place.




Not that there's anything wrong with that. (^_^)

Actually, it's kind of interesting to think about what a game might be like in which everything in the game-world has to be justified by text in the books. Kind of like the Church's arguments against Galileo based on Biblical statements that were trying to tell people how to be better people rather than communicate truths about cosmology.

Heck, that doesn't really sound all that different from the attitudes my old AD&D group (myself included) seemed to hold at times. It just sort of extends that attitude to its logical conclusion. No wonder it took me so long to form a true appreciation for the older game!

The _real_ fundies probably wouldn't hang with fusangite, though, since he relies on a source (Aristotle) they wouldn't consider canon despite any similarity between it & canon. (^_^)


----------



## hong (Jun 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I'm not arguing about the _reason_ that the game universe is this way;




Isn't it fun arguing with yourself?



> I am arguing that _the game universe is this way_.




The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat.

From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolized by closed guilds, now no longer suffices for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed aside by the manufacturing middle class; division of labor between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labor in each single workshop.

Meantime, the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturers no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, MODERN INDUSTRY; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2007)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> A bad analogy of how both can exist is how Newtonian physics doesn't work once you get small, or big, enough. Magic breaks the "standard" but still follows it's own laws.




Newtonian physics supplies a model that is _close enough_, and is useful in its own right.  The same with Relativity and QM.  All three systems cannot be true, but there might be a potential model that successfully explains the observations that led to all three being formulated.

Similarly, while both magic and selected portions of modern physics (those not done away with by game rules) seem to work within the game environment, that doesn't mean that either theory is actually correct within that universe.

Observations can be factual.  Insofar as our observations match the predictions of our model, our model can be said to be a good predictive tool.  Other than this, we have no way to determine how factual _any_ model is from within the confines of the system being modelled.



> I'm trying to say that because there is magic, you believe that real-world physics isn't applicable in a D&D world.




Routine observations that violate the predictions of a model are contraindicative of that model's accuracy.    

This doesn't preclude _elements_ of that model from being useful when creating a new model, but it certainly means that your model isn't applicable as-is.



> You then decide that, because D&D uses elements, to apply a real world system of elemental physics (Aristotle, et al) to use in the D&D universe. I don't think using elemental physics to model a D&D universe is any better as so much of the D&D universe is _not_ magical, and elemental physics models are utterly magical.




The terms "magical" is used in more than one way in the RAW.  For example, does _detect magic_ detect a magical beast?  If not, the D&D universe clearly has "magic" that is not "magical" in nature....certainly a question for the game world philosophers!    



> I was thinking about this as I went to sleep, trying to figure out what was bothering me most with viewing a D&D world through any predictive system except modern physics: the PCs won't know *why* something happens. Why does water flow downhill? Why is the air thinner a top a mountain? All of the everyday effects that we, as modern players, understand (be that intuitively or just because we were educated about it so long ago that it seems intuitively to us) suddenly occur for reasons we don't understand and the simple idea that fire is released from wood during combustion as opposed to effects of real combustion means that _every little thing_ in the world is magical.




Why is this a problem?

If we assume that the players can know that water flows downhill, air is thinner atop a mountain, and you can make a fire with wood, what difference does it make whether or not the world works using a physics different than our own?  Especially since, as opposed to the real world, there is a set of books that can tell you _what model is correct_, which we certainly don't have.

The RAW uses a different set of physical rules for the purpose of playability.  It makes the changes in rules explicit in many cases.  Thereafter, how the DM frames the world determines the remaining laws.  In any event, the players know more about the physics of the world than 90% of its inhabitants......in many cases, more about D&D physics than about their real life counterpart.

When Spelljammer appeared in 2nd Edition, alternate rules appeared for all sorts of physical problems, including gravity, atmosphere, and the presence/qualities of celestial bodies.  These rules were based off of older theories about the universe, and were determined by taking what occurs in D&D already and playing "what if?".  Gravity planes not only meant that ships in space have gravity, they were invoked to explain flying dragons and hollow worlds.  The darkness of the night sky was really a crystal sphere, and those glittering lights might be billions of lanterns or holes to the phlogiston.

I take it you were not a fan.    



> When that's the case, you also get into predictive problems. Can I now as a player drop a heavier object and have it drop faster than a lighter one? What else has changed that I as a player, because my knowledge of non-scientific predictive systems is partial (at best), will have to find out that the world I'm playing in doesn't work the way the real-world works?




The same as any other inhabitant of the world?  Except that you can check the rulebooks, which the NPCs presumably cannot do?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Isn't it fun arguing with yourself?





Your clever and to the point arguments blow me away, as always, hong.


----------



## hong (Jun 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Your clever and to the point arguments blow me away, as always, hong.




Exactly.



>












>


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Which means that, in all likelihood, "PC" and "NPC" are quantifiable states in the D&D universe, and are therefore open to study by the D&D scientist (should such a being exist).



And particularly noticeable in Eberron where PCs have action points.

It's postmodern, like the characters in a novel discovering that's what they are. That their lives are governed by the rules of plot and drama rather than the rules of the real world. In the rpg Over The Edge, Jonathan Tweet suggests a plot in which the PCs discover that they are characters in a roleplaying game. I don't think it would work very well.

You and fusangite seem to have slightly different views. You both agree that there should be a tight connection between rules and game universe. But it seems you believe universe should take precedence. Ie that where it is discovered that the rules don't accurately represent the universe, the rules should be changed. Whereas fusangite seems to hold that the rules have precedence and that as the depths of the rules are plumbed, the universe can actually change as a result. Is this correct?

If so it seems the rules-as-physics analogy holds more true for you than fusangite as in our world physics (in the sense of the human endeavour) doesn't control the real universe, it's the other way round.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 8, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> If you argue that one set of physical laws applies when the characters are present and a completely different set of physical laws applies when they are not there, you don't have a very coherent or sensible universe.



And yet are the rules coherent? The rules on XP don't seem to square with the rules on demographics. If coherence is the aim, we can't find it in the rules.

In fact as you pointed out before, the laws of physics aren't coherent yet because quantum theory hasn't been reconciled with relativity. However science is striving to reconcile them, I think it's the #1 goal in physics, whereas game designers don't seem too bothered if there are discrepancies here and there, so long as their rules work.

I think the rules-as-physics analogy fails. Game rules aren't like physics. As rules for modeling reality there is a monstrously huge gulf in quality between the rules of D&D and the works of science. The laws of physics are as close as humanity can get to the truth. They are a great and noble body of work.

D&D is just a game.

You're absolutely right that there's an issue of coherence when the rules used for PC action do not correlate with the game universe. For me it isn't much of a problem though. We just accept that those rules are approximations. So long as what happened by the rules doesn't break the laws of universe (as perceived by the GM and players) there isn't any difficulty. So long as what happened could have happened, it's ok.

For me, the universe comes first, and rules are modified or ad hoc rulings made where there's a plausibility issue.

Isn't there an issue of coherence for you too, when all the cats the PCs meet are mutants? I don't feel you really answered the ranger problem either, as your answer doesn't explain how the wizard could have a con of 3, or how the same could apply to any 90-year olds.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> All three systems cannot be true




With magic, they could be.

joe b.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 8, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Can you explain how these are operationally different? Are there ever moments in your game when the rules say that one thing will happen but what happens is different than what the rules say? Because if not, like it or not, the rules of the game _are_ the rules of your game world.



 I sometimes break my own rules if I feel they have led to an implausible result, so for me setting trumps rules. 







> I think that the rules should be evaluated on their own terms.



How are they to be evaluated? My understanding was that for you the game rules are axioms.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 8, 2007)

> Which means that, in all likelihood, "PC" and "NPC" are quantifiable states in the D&D universe, and are therefore open to study by the D&D scientist (should such a being exist).




Really?  And you don't think that would be reaching really, really far to try to defend your point?

Fusangite said that the RAW provides the physics of the universe.  But, the RAW contradicts itself frequently when dealing with PC's and with everyone else.  Either the RAW XP rules are universal or the Demographics are, because both cannot be.

Because of that contradiction, as well as others, suddenly we find that RAW doesn't work too well as physics.  After all, there are absolutely no rules for pregnancy to be found in RAW.  None.  Should we then surmise that nothing can become pregnant and that the world is very short lived as the current generation is the last?

The RAW provides a framework to interact with our imaginary worlds.  It is not the imaginary world itself.  I believe that you guys are mixing the media with the message, to borrow a metaphor.  The rules do not explain a great deal of how the universe works.  And, the rules are often contradictory, because we don't need a framework for how peasants gain levels.  It's not important.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> And particularly noticeable in Eberron where PCs have action points.




True.



> It's postmodern, like the characters in a novel discovering that's what they are. That their lives are governed by the rules of plot and drama rather than the rules of the real world. In the rpg Over The Edge, Jonathan Tweet suggests a plot in which the PCs discover that they are characters in a roleplaying game. I don't think it would work very well.




Overall, I would agree with you.  The PCs could discover that they are "favoured of the gods" without too much hassle, though.    

(In one game I ran, waaayyyy back in high school...1982, I think...the players were shocked when NPCs were sitting in the corner table at the inn because that's where PCs sit!)

In any event, my D&D scientist was hypothetical.  I would imagine that a D&D world has many theologians and philosophers who argue about things like this, though, but who do not draw the same conclusions because of their differing observations/philosophical outlook.



> But it seems you believe universe should take precedence. Ie that where it is discovered that the rules don't accurately represent the universe, the rules should be changed.




That would be correct.  I can't speak for fusangite.



> If so it seems the rules-as-physics analogy holds more true for you than fusangite as in our world physics (in the sense of the human endeavour) doesn't control the real universe, it's the other way round.




Perhaps.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And you don't think that would be reaching really, really far to try to defend your point?




No.

As a thought experiment, imagine that you were living in a universe in which the D&D rules were true, and in which there existed one individual from outside the system (the DM) whose choices determined how those rules would be applied.

Now imagine that you understood the scientific method, and attempted to use the philosophy of science to understand the universe you were living in.

The first important thing to learn would be what was quantifiable, and how to quantify it, in order to begin to explore the relationships between those quantifiable things.  The existence of spells would help in this.  The various healing spells cure different amounts of hit points, and the existence of a spell that cures 1 hp would make "hit points" exactly quantifiable.  Likewise, levels would be quantifiable by observation, and one could determine that there was a relationship between levels and hit points.  

Because levels would be quantifiable, it would be possible to learn that there exists a relationship between killing things and levels, and the existence of magic item creation and spells that affect this relationship would also make XP quantifiable.  This would, no doubt, take longer than quantifying levels and hit points, but it could be done.

Ability scores are all quantifiable, as is the fact that any attack has a 5% chance to miss and at least a 5% chance to hit.

It would take far, far longer (human generations, in all likelihood) for D&D scientists to discover that certain individuals were able to act in ways that violate the general rules, or that the general rules acted in different ways around them.  Considering the number of NPCs vs. PCs in a given world, there would simply not be enough data to draw such conclusions easily, but it would be possible.

Some might argue that these "special people" could not exist because a large enough breeding population was not possible.  Others might claim that these "special people" could not exist because there is no possible mechanic for them being able to affect the general laws of physics in the way they would be described as doing.  Still others would demand proof in the form of repeatable clinical trials, which is something few PCs would agree to do (instead of fighting monsters).  In the D&D world, PCology might be a psuedoscience!    



> Fusangite said that the RAW provides the physics of the universe.  But, the RAW contradicts itself frequently when dealing with PC's and with everyone else.  Either the RAW XP rules are universal or the Demographics are, because both cannot be.




Why isn't it possible that neither is?


----------



## prosfilaes (Jun 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Indeed, because they are quantifiable, the D&D scientist could refer to XP, levels, hit points, alignment, and classes in scientific terms.




So in a D&D world, knife fights never cause someone to lose a finger or an arm or an eye? Nobody returns from war with an old war injury unless they ran into a cleric or mage, because non-spellcasters only do hit-point damage and that'll heal pretty quickly? How did Galileo, in the Masque of the Red Death world, find out that objects fall at the same rate and then convince everyone of this fact if in fact they don't? Why doesn't the fact there's a specific, and short, list of skills never seem to have any effect on anyone?

What about other games? How do the folks in the Traveller universe undergo frequently changes in the fundamental nature of their universe and not notice? How can you have all the brilliant minds at universities fumbling around with the same quantum physics in a D20 Modern game or GURPS game set in the modern world, and never seem to figure out any of the broad rules of the universe? In any modern setting, the millions spent on education should quickly figure out that knowledge comes in quanta, and the XP/skill system behind it. Statisticians wouldn't use bell-curves and real numbers for much of their figures; since the early days of the science, it would have been obvious that a lot of properties are discrete. 

Basically, there is no rules ever published that would remotely make sense for a modern game, since scientists would be working based off the game rules instead of real-world physics, which would logically skew everything in the world.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jun 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As a thought experiment, imagine that you were living in a universe in which the D&D rules were true, and in which there existed one individual from outside the system (the DM) whose choices determined how those rules would be applied.
> 
> Now imagine that you understood the scientific method, and attempted to use the philosophy of science to understand the universe you were living in.




There's at least one published D&D universe where this is true (Masque of the Red Death) and many D20 Modern universes. Why haven't they figured it out?


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jun 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Because levels would be quantifiable, it would be possible to learn that there exists a relationship between killing things and levels, and the existence of magic item creation and spells that affect this relationship would also make XP quantifiable.



Is this necessarily true?  Or do NPCs have whatever XP and levels the DM wants them to have, regardless of how many things they've killed in the past?  What if "XP comes from killing things" ONLY applies in a rigorously measured manner for PCs, and it is erratic and unpredictable for NPCs?

What if other aspects of game reality are similarly different for NPCs?  They can linger with wounds too severe to heal, just long enough to speak a few dying words.  They can suffer, as others have said, maiming injuries.  They can actually have their acuity of vision and hearing DECREASE as they grow old, not increase as happens to PCs.  They can travel overland at rates that depend on their health and fitness.  They can have magical mishaps far more catastrophic and unpredictable than happen to PCs.

What if the regular, predictable, and quantifiable world is ONLY one that the PCs see, due to the whims of the gods?  They can try to convince the people around them that things like levels and HP exist, and everybody else thinks they're insane?


----------



## prosfilaes (Jun 8, 2007)

My big fuss about geography was Eberron. I look at the world map, and it looks nothing like any world map I've seen; no isthmuses, no peninsulas, just five blobs surrounded by random islands.  It just doesn't work for me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Is this necessarily true?  Or do NPCs have whatever XP and levels the DM wants them to have, regardless of how many things they've killed in the past?  What if "XP comes from killing things" ONLY applies in a rigorously measured manner for PCs, and it is erratic and unpredictable for NPCs?
> 
> What if other aspects of game reality are similarly different for NPCs?  They can linger with wounds too severe to heal, just long enough to speak a few dying words.  They can suffer, as others have said, maiming injuries.  They can actually have their acuity of vision and hearing DECREASE as they grow old, not increase as happens to PCs.  They can travel overland at rates that depend on their health and fitness.  They can have magical mishaps far more catastrophic and unpredictable than happen to PCs.
> 
> What if the regular, predictable, and quantifiable world is ONLY one that the PCs see, due to the whims of the gods?  They can try to convince the people around them that things like levels and HP exist, and everybody else thinks they're insane?





Then _that_ is the physics of that world.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> There's at least one published D&D universe where this is true (Masque of the Red Death) and many D20 Modern universes. Why haven't they figured it out?




A force in the physics of their universe (often called the DM or GM) prevents them from doing so.


----------



## hong (Jun 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> A force in the physics of their universe (often called the DM or GM) prevents them from doing so.



 This is getting needlessly messianic.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 8, 2007)

What this world needs is narrativium.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> What this world needs is narrativium.




 

Look, physics can be the way that the world works, regardless of how we define it.

Or physics can be the predictive model that we use to explain the world.

I would say that the first meaning of "physics" within the context of a D&D world contains a lot of real world physics (2nd meaning) because we naturally use our model to explain how things work, and that means that the DM is going to (instinctively) use our real-world model as a fallback.

However, the rules _are_ a predictive model that we use to explain (parts of) the world.  Insofar as there are rules to cover something within the game rules, those rules are that world's physics in the second sense.  Insofar as those rules are followed, they are that world's physics in the first sense.

Not _all_ of that world's physics (excepting that Rule 0 literally makes it so), but certainly a _substantive part_ of that world's physics.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 8, 2007)

Even if you do go down the gaming as simulation route, physics isn't the best analogy. Physics understands reality at a deep and universal level - the laws of physics are intended to work everywhere, always - whereas game rules are, as you say, incomplete. In the sphere of science what they most closely resemble are computer sims such as climate or traffic models. Tools designed to predict the outcome of complex interactions. Combat (which practically all rpg rules dwell on), is a similarly complex, chaotic situation. But as sims, rpgs are very primitive compared to these computer models. To simulate a world, rather than just a part of it, we would need something much vaster than typical roleplaying rules.

When comparing a complex non-roleplaying game, such as Squad Leader, to a simple rpg such as Tunnels & Trolls, we would have to say that Squad Leader is the better sim. And yet it isn't a roleplaying game! This goes against the roleplaying game as simulation idea.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Even if you do go down the gaming as simulation route, physics isn't the best analogy. Physics understands reality at a deep and universal level - the laws of physics are intended to work everywhere, always - whereas game rules are, as you say, incomplete. In the sphere of science what they most closely resemble are computer sims such as climate or traffic models.  Tools designed to predict the outcome of complex interactions.




Interesting.  IMHO, physics is a tool designed to predict the outcome of complex interactions.    

What would you say determines how falling works in a D&D world?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> What would you say determines how falling works in a D&D world?



Imo physics is a better fit for falling than it is for most of the stuff in rulebooks.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Imo physics is a better fit for falling than it is for most of the stuff in rulebooks.




Alrighty then.  What do you think determines aerodynamics in D&D worlds?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 8, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> My big fuss about geography was Eberron. I look at the world map, and it looks nothing like any world map I've seen; no isthmuses, no peninsulas, just five blobs surrounded by random islands.  It just doesn't work for me.



I'm having a  moment. I'm looking at the map of the world and I'm seeing peninsulas all over the place. And how big does an ithsmus need to be before you call it that? Because you could easily lable the sliver of land that connects the portion of Xendrik that stradles the equator with the bulk of the continent an ithsmus.


----------



## Argus Decimus Mokira (Jun 9, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> As I mentioned in my longer response above, I find it really weird that people conflate "realistic" with resembling the world in which we live.
> 
> Why is it "realistic" for a world with widespread magic, an Elemental Plane of Earth, interventionist gods and only four elements to look like a world that doesn't have any of those things? How can plate tectonics, for instance, operate in a world in which earth is an element, as opposed to a highly variable amalgam of compounds made up for 50+ elements?That's great for you. As I said above, I'm always glad to see people being able to integrate their professional and recreational lives. But I do not see how this makes your worlds any more realistic than those of someone who uses different, but equally consistent design principles.




Last I checked, pal, this thread was a poll asking for MY OPINION.  So yes, it is great for me.

As for your example, my inner planes work the same as the outer planes - they exist due to belief.  People of the world believe that there are four elements, in addition tot he nine alignments; hence, four elemental planes and the great wheel cosmology.  The presence of efreet etc does not change the fact that subducting oceanic plates allow my world's continents to collide or rip apart, or that upwelling mantle in rift basins form volcano swarms.

Thanks for that,
-Matt


----------



## fusangite (Jun 9, 2007)

Argus Decimus Mokira said:
			
		

> Last I checked, pal, this thread was a poll asking for MY OPINION.  So yes, it is great for me.



Um... so because this thread is a poll, people can't have a discussion about how different GMs handle the same issue?







> As for your example, my inner planes work the same as the outer planes - they exist due to belief.



Okay. So, can people's beliefs affect things on the Prime Material Plane in your system or just things on other planes?







> People of the world believe that there are four elements, in addition tot he nine alignments; hence, four elemental planes and the great wheel cosmology.



Do illusions become real in your world if nobody saves against them?







> subducting oceanic plates allow my world's continents to collide or rip apart, or that upwelling mantle in rift basins form volcano swarms.



What if your world's inhabitants began to believe that plate tectonics didn't happen? Would the plates cease to exist?


----------



## fusangite (Jun 9, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Imo physics is a better fit for falling than it is for most of the stuff in rulebooks.



Doug, could you do me a favour: could you explain what you mean by "physics" when you use it in a sentence. I think we could probably clear up a lot of our disagreements if we meant the same, or at least similar things, by the word.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Alrighty then.  What do you think determines aerodynamics in D&D worlds?




Extraordinarily little?  Considering what we allow to fly under its own power.

I mean, what physics laws could we determine by comparing the flight speed and maneuverability of various flying creatures that fly as a natural ability?

If a hippogriff can fly, I should be able to flap my arms pretty fast and fly too.  I'm just as aerodynamic as a horse (and probably resemble one as well - at least one end. )  Slapping a couple of wings on a horse is all we need to achieve flight?

Or could it be the rules that govern aerodynamics are pretty much absent from the game since we don't need them?


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 9, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> My big fuss about geography was Eberron. I look at the world map, and it looks nothing like any world map I've seen; no isthmuses, no peninsulas, just five blobs surrounded by random islands.  It just doesn't work for me.



Yeah, but . . . the planet is believed to *literally* be the body of the progenitor dragon Eberron itself.

See, magic.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jun 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> A force in the physics of their universe (often called the DM or GM) prevents them from doing so.




Is that a serious argument? It makes no sense to me to simulate a world where brilliant people spend their lives figuring out how things fall, with the first approximation being 9.8 m/s^2, but the real answer is the one in the PHB. It's much easier for me to think that they are entirely correct, but the simplifications involved in gaming are just that, simplifications of the game-world to make it playable. 

Since there's no correct answer, the answer chosen is arbitrary and going to be the one that people accept, so sophistic answers are pointless and merely argumentative.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jun 9, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> I'm having a  moment. I'm looking at the map of the world and I'm seeing peninsulas all over the place. And how big does an ithsmus need to be before you call it that? Because you could easily lable the sliver of land that connects the portion of Xendrik that stradles the equator with the bulk of the continent an ithsmus.




I wouldn't label that an ithsmus. And there doesn't seem to be any sharp peninsulas, like Florida or Baja California.

Really, it's the shape and feel of things, in a way that I'm having a hard time describing, that annoys me. Every continent feels the same; is about the same size, has the same islands around it. That ithsmus you're talking about on Xen'drik is right next to a freaking huge river, unlike any seen on Earth, but relatively common on Ebberon. The fundamental problem for me, I think, is that the fractal dimension is all wrong.



			
				mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Yeah, but . . . the planet is believed to literally be the body of the progenitor dragon Eberron itself.
> 
> See, magic.




But that misses the real reason for my objection. It's not wrong for pedantic, technical reasons, it's wrong because I look at the map and it offends me. I look at the map, and it jumps out at me as being wrong.

I've read that a problem with robots that look like humans is that people reject things that look a lot like humans, but not quite close enough to fool the human mind. People rarely seriously object to Oz, or other worlds that are clearly fantastic. But if you lay out something that looks like a real world, but not really, then things are going to get judged as if it were a real world. And frankly, invoking magic feels like a cop-out here, since there's nothing overtly magic that we're talking about.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 9, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Extraordinarily little?  Considering what we allow to fly under its own power.
> 
> I mean, what physics laws could we determine by comparing the flight speed and maneuverability of various flying creatures that fly as a natural ability?
> 
> ...




In other words, if the rules say it can fly, it can fly.  If the rules do not say it can fly, it cannot.

Now, what in D&D determines whether or not matter or energy follow conservation laws?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 9, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> Is that a serious argument?




Yes.



> It makes no sense to me to simulate a world where brilliant people spend their lives figuring out how things fall, with the first approximation being 9.8 m/s^2, but the real answer is the one in the PHB.




But, regardless of whether it makes sense to you or not, if within the world you game in, you use the rules for the PHB instead of that first approximation, that is what you are doing.



> It's much easier for me to think that they are entirely correct, but the simplifications involved in gaming are just that, simplifications of the game-world to make it playable.




Which is fine for you to think.  At the end of the day, though, the PHB rules are the "laws" that anyone in that world will take into account when deciding what actions will, or will not, work.  Unless, of course, you houserule something else.

IOW, if I was to play in a D&D game with no houserules, what should I take as my predictive model?  A real life physics model, or the RAW?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Now, what in D&D determines whether or not matter or energy follow conservation laws?



The imagination of the GM.


----------



## JustinA (Jun 9, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> When looking at a fantasy world map, do you know or care anything about real world geology?




I have a simple rule about fantasy: It should be realistic unless you give me a specific reason why it isn't.

If you show me two rivers a dozen miles apart, running parallel to each other but in opposite directions for a thousand miles... well, that doesn't make a lot of sense. But if you tell me those rivers are the remnants of an ancient system of magical canals... well, now it's _awesome_.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jun 10, 2007)

Even real world geography can be pretty spectacular - I created an RPGNet thread asking for the most spectacular environments on Earth, and got some rather good examples...


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 10, 2007)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> Even real world geography can be pretty spectacular - I created an RPGNet thread asking for the most spectacular environments on Earth, and got some rather good examples...



I'm pretty sure that there are many places that would have just been fantasy to the ears of foreigners until they actually saw them.

The trees of the Redwood Forest (they're how tall did you say?)
The Grand Canyon (how deep and how wide?)

Those easily come to mind.


----------



## skinnydwarf (Jun 10, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> When looking at a fantasy world map, do you know or care anything about real world geology?
> 
> Quasqueton




I voted don't know, don't care.  I don't think "we have magic we we don't need real world geology" (not that there's anything wrong with that).  I just don't care- I have more important things to worry about in my game.  "Real world" geology in my game goes about as far as rivers originating in mountains and flowing downhill, and hills being near mountains.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jun 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Fusangite said that the RAW provides the physics of the universe.  But, the RAW contradicts itself frequently when dealing with PC's and with everyone else.  Either the RAW XP rules are universal or the Demographics are, because both cannot be.



The xp rules apply only to PC's and NPC's that are adventuring with them.  ALL other NPC's otherwise have their levels and abilities assigned by the DM, and not even because they are assumed to have "earned" xp in the same manner as PC's but because those levels and abilities simply meet the current needs and desires of the DM for representing NPC allies and opponents.  Similarly, demographics of any campaign are set as the DM desires, not by the RAW (remembering that the demographics tables in the DMG are for IMPROMPTU generation of information, NOT for creation of accurate, broadly useful demographic models.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 10, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> The imagination of the GM.




So, for instance, the DM can alter the spell rules to take conservation laws into effect.  Sure, that's Rule 0 by the RAW.  But, if you are running a game using RAW, what determines conservation laws?

The same thing that determines the physics of falling.

The same thing that determines aerodynamics.

The same thing that determines how much time is required to complete a task.

RC


----------



## Emirikol (Jun 10, 2007)

I live in Colorado so there's a "touch" of geology out here and one can't live here without learning something  

Some irony though:  when the RPGA divied up regions for Living Greyhawk, we (the MOUNTAIN STATES REGION) were handed the COUNTY OF URNST!!!!  A plains state with zippo external geological factors (lakeside and rivers is about it).  

We had to make some changes to Greyhawk canon to give ourselves something to play with other than what most people who dont' live on the plains, think of the plains 

It all worked out well.  When you don't use terrain as a crutch for your plots (about as cliche as using "deities & cults" as a plot), you can really stretch your noggin.

jh


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> But, if you are running a game using RAW, what determines conservation laws?



I don't think there is any acknowledgement of conservation laws in the rules. The RAW are full of physics violating phenomenon. If there is anything the rule shoot for it is a cinematic action feel.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 11, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> The RAW are full of physics violating phenomenon.





So, if I am playing in a game using the RAW, what should I assume for my predictive model?  The RAW or real-world physics?


----------



## fusangite (Jun 11, 2007)

"Physics" means the rules of cause and effect governing *a* world; many people on this thread are defining "physics" as the rules of cause and effect governing *our* world.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 11, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, if I am playing in a game using the RAW, what should I assume for my predictive model?  The RAW or real-world physics?



I disagree that there are two options for most people, much less those two. It may be with you however.

Good or bad, consider movies. They don't often hire a consultant to tell the director whether some stunt violates conservation laws (bullets making mooks fly back when they get hit). They go for "cool" and "fun" tempered by observation of reality.

Bringing this back to geography/geology and fantasy maps. I need my maps founded in some acknowledgement of reality, I can't help it, I have a B.S in geography. But I'm okay with handwavyness when I get an explanation for why something doesn't work when I should expect it to. Author/designer/cartographer ignorance doesn't much count with me. 

However, with the scale of the combat rules I'm fine with certain bits of real-world reality being tossed out the window for the sake of rules simplicity. I don't need the rules to accurately simulate the real world for combat to be "fun" or "cool", but they should be close _enough_ to how I would expect to see it work. In most cases, the arbiter of "close enough"—when the RAW don't give an answer—I leave to the DM's imagination.


----------



## hong (Jun 11, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, if I am playing in a game using the RAW, what should I assume for my predictive model?




I do not think this word means what you think it means.


----------



## airwalkrr (Jun 11, 2007)

I know a bit about geology as a result of some university classes on the subject. It matters a bit to me, but if fantasy maps don't really make sense in a geological sense, they can often make sense in a magical sense. Perhaps some magical cataclysm caused that sea in the middle of the continent. Maybe the mountains are lined in precise vertical and horizontal angles because they were magically designed to ward the area within (I'm looking at you Tolkien). Anyway, point is, I expect fantasy maps to adhere to broad geological principles, but I rarely take offense at minor issues. I'm not particularly interested in roleplaying a scientist.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 11, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> I disagree that there are two options for most people, much less those two. It may be with you however.




So, then, in your opinion, what should my predictive model be?



> Good or bad, consider movies. They don't often hire a consultant to tell the director whether some stunt violates conservation laws (bullets making mooks fly back when they get hit). They go for "cool" and "fun" tempered by observation of reality.




It is easily arguable that different movies (and certainly different movie genres) rewrite physical laws within their particular milieu.  I don't mean that they hire consultants.  If you decide that the Force can move objects at a distance, you have rewritten the model of physics for your trilogy, even without deciding (as you later might) that midichlorians do all the work.  Likewise, there is a nice bit in one _Star Trek:  Enterprise_ episode where T'Pol tells Archer that a positive outlook doesn't alter the laws of physics.  Within the confines of the Trek universe, one might wonder if T'Pol is right.    

_Doctor Who_, although initially built with a semblence of real-world physics, decided long ago that within the confines of the Who universe, our physical model is not only incomplete, but simply wrong.  This was made explicit in _Shada_, an episode written by Douglas Adams.  Unfortunately, _Shada_ never aired due to a labour dispute, but the episode was reconstructed with bridging narration by Tom Baker, and has been available on both VHS & DVD.

Certainly, one would like the game world (as with movies) to cleave to RW physics where there are not compelling reasons not to.  I would say that the RAW assumes that the DM will generally fall back on the much dreaded "common sense" and personal experience/knowledge where the RAW is silent.

The changes to the way the world works, btw, are not simply to simplify things (as some might suggest), but also to specifically allow things to be & work differently than they would in real life.  The combat system, going back at least to Mr. Gygax's comments in the 1e DMG, is _intentionally_ designed to _not_ simulate realistic combat in favour of something more heroic (and fun to play).  Likewise, if the game clove to current models of real world physics, there would be no darkvision, no supernatural powers, no spells, and the elves would be doomed.

The RAW attempts to create a world where the rules work as, perhaps, we might _wish_ them to work.  As does _Doctor Who_.  As does _Star Trek_.  As do, I strongly suspect, most of those movies you mentioned earlier.  In some cases, of course, films and rpgs create worlds where the rules work as we might fear them to, such as in a horror movies.

I feel certain that the makers of _Armageddon_ didn't hire a consultant on physics (or, at least, not a competent one -- or, if so, they certainly didn't listen), but I would be hard pressed to accept that the physics in _Armageddon_ and real-world models are the same thing.  

YMMV, and obviously does.

RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 11, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Doug, could you do me a favour: could you explain what you mean by "physics" when you use it in a sentence. I think we could probably clear up a lot of our disagreements if we meant the same, or at least similar things, by the word.



I probably haven't been totally consistent in the way I've used the word. Mostly I was thinking of the subject as it is taught in schools and universities today. When I studied it at school we covered kinetics (objects in motion, including falling), particle physics, heat, electricity and radiation. The subject at a higher level would also include relativity and quantum theory.

The wikipedia entry says:


> Physics (Greek: φύσις (phúsis), "nature" and φυσικῆ (phusiké), "knowledge of nature") is the branch of science concerned with the discovery and characterization of universal laws which govern matter, energy, space, and time. The role of physics, then, is to provide a logically ordered picture of nature in agreement with experience.



With a few exceptions such as falling, the D&D rules aren't 'deep' enough to count as physics. What if I came up with rules for how tables work? Would those rules be the physics of tables or would it just be a carpentry sim?


----------



## fusangite (Jun 11, 2007)

Doug, you have offered two different definitions just in your reply.

I'm working with the wikipedia definition here and not the second definition.







			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> Physics (Greek: φύσις (phúsis), "nature" and φυσικῆ (phusiké), "knowledge of nature") is the branch of science concerned with the discovery and characterization of universal laws which govern matter, energy, space, and time. The role of physics, then, is to provide a logically ordered picture of nature in agreement with experience.



What RC and I are stating is that if one "discovered and characterized the universal laws" of a D&D world, these laws would be different from the physical laws governing our world. 

If you tried to discover and characterize the laws of a D&D world, the "ordered picture of nature _in agreement with experience_," would not be the same as the physics of our world. If "nature" is different in a D&D world, it therefore follows that the physics of that world cannot be the same as the physics of our world. 

A "logically ordered picture of nature in agreement with experience" would need to agree with the following experiences in a D&D world, for example:

dragons' breath weapon attacks
spells
elementals
psionics
multiple gods who answer prayers
magic items
Because both nature and experience are different in D&D worlds because they must include those things, the physics of a D&D world cannot be the same as the physics of our world.







> Mostly I was thinking of the subject as it is taught in schools and universities today. When I studied it at school we covered kinetics (objects in motion, including falling), particle physics, heat, electricity and radiation. The subject at a higher level would also include relativity and quantum theory.



You see: this model of physics is consistent with the nature of our world and people's experiences in it. But it is not consistent with the nature of a D&D world or people's experiences therein. Would you have been taught exactly the same model if people were able to cast _Fireball_ in this world? No. The rules of heat would be amended based on empirical investigation of how people cast Fireball. 

"Physics" is not inflexible and universe-spanning. The local definition of "physics" is dependent on what phenomena it is seeking to explain. If local definitions did not vary by universe, the global definition that requires physics to be in accord with nature and experience would not hold true because nature and experience are not identical in all fantasy universes.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 11, 2007)

If the rules are a completely true account of the way a D&D universe works then they cannot be physics. Physics is a branch of human knowledge. It is an imperfect understanding of reality.

I believe you should be saying that the D&D rules are not physics but physical laws. They are, in your view, the physical laws of another reality. Not the physical laws as understood by the inhabitants of those worlds, but the true physical laws.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 11, 2007)

When I started making maps and designing fantasy worlds, I actively searched out books to make the world as real as possible.  It has been a while since I read it, but when I get home I'll see if I can find it.  It did a great job of explaining why a forest would be on one side of a mountain and a dessert on the other, as an example.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 11, 2007)

Even the rules for magic, psionics etc don't tell us what those different physical laws might be. They merely *imply* different physical laws. They are mostly concerned with practical stuff like the damage of a fireball.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 11, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> If the rules are a completely true account of the way a D&D universe works then they cannot be physics.



Why not? 

Physics is the rules of a world not of our world. 

Physics means physical laws. That's all it means. The definition you presented from wikipedia says exactly that. 







> I believe you should be saying that the D&D rules are not physics but physical laws. They are, in your view, the physical laws of another reality.



I see that I was right in my suspicions. You believe "physics" means something other than "physical laws" (or our best approximation/model thereof). 

But that is what "physics" means. Your remark is akin to someone saying, "You don't mean this guy is disoriented. You mean he is disorientated." "Physics" and "physical laws" are effectively synonyms; they both refer to a working approximate model of reality that is consistent with nature and experience. They mean exactly the same thing. They have the same definition and the same linguistic cognates. 

If you look at the definition of "physics" you posted from wikipedia, you will see that wikipedia is using my definition of physics. When Raven Crowking and I say "physics" in this thread, we mean "physical laws." We have been saying this repeatedly throughout the thread. Now, if you want to say we are using the word "physics" incorrectly, you will need to supply us with a definition of the term that disagrees with, rather than supporting our usage.

Or, and perhaps this is the better option, we can agree to place the word "physics" off-limits in the interests of moving the debate forward and not getting hung up on terminology. Just take out the word "physics" from all of RC's and my past posts and replace it with "physical laws" and then let's re-evaluate how much (if any) disagreement remains.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 11, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Even the rules for magic, psionics etc don't tell us what those different physical laws might be. They merely *imply* different physical laws. They are mostly concerned with practical stuff like the damage of a fireball.



It is clear that, as far as literary genre goes, the RAW are Applied Physics not Theoretical Physics. But Applied Physics, as a discipline, is no less physics than Theoretical Physics. Both are concerned with and describe the rules of cause and effect. But whereas Theoretical Physics is more interested in explaining why its model is true, Applied Physics is concerned with giving people the tools they need to use the rules that have been discovered.

I actually think that, as inconvenient as it is, D&D would hugely benefit from a Theoretical Physics section in its books. I think that its tendency to ignore the theoretical and go exclusively for the applied means that there are more misunderstandings of these fantasy worlds than there need to be.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 11, 2007)

But by physics or physical laws do you mean the world as it really is or the world as it is understood to be?

There is a term from philosophy, noumenon, which means the world as it really is, beyond human perception. It seems inconceivable to me that the noumenon could resemble the D&D rules however as the noumenon is beyond human understanding.

Our debate itself seems to show that physics isn't a good word for what you are describing. 'Physics' as we use the term doesn't cover magic or psionics. Would the inhabitants of a D&D universe describe an expert on magic as a physicist? Or would they call him a wizard?


----------



## fusangite (Jun 11, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 'Physics' as we use the term *as I incorrectly use the term* doesn't cover magic or psionics.



FIFY







> Would the inhabitants of a D&D universe describe an expert on magic as a physicist? Or would they call him a wizard?



In my worlds, wizard means physicist. But yes, if you want to look at the study of magic before the 18th century, alchemists and magi understood themselves to be studying physics and making discoveries about physics. That's, in part, why Newton did so much alchemical work: he saw it as fundamentally part of his job as a physicist.

Furthermore, what people studying physics are called in D&D worlds is irrelevant to whether they are studying physics. People don't cease to be physicists because they give themselves a different name anymore than people who aren't doing physics can turn themselves into physicists simply by calling themselves physicists. 

If you want to know if someone is a physicist, you can use the wikipedia definition to identify them. If somebody is "discover[ing] and characteriz[ing] universal laws which govern matter, energy, space, and time" in order to "provide a logically ordered picture of nature in agreement with experience," then they are doing physics, irrespective of what they call themselves.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 11, 2007)

I'm not even sure applied physics would be the correct term. Again from wikipedia:







> Applied physics is a general term for physics which is intended for a particular technological or practical use. "Applied" is distinguished from "pure" by a subtle combination of factors such as the motivation and attitude of researchers and the nature of the relationship to the technology or science that may be affected by the work.[1] It usually differs from engineering in that an applied physicist may not be designing something in particular, but rather is using physics or conducting physics research with the aim of developing new technologies or solving an engineering problem.



The rules for magic in D&D are more like rules for technology, ie stuff that actually works, rather than a process for creating new technologies. In a D&D world that would be something like creating incarnum magic or truename magic.


----------



## Whisper72 (Jun 11, 2007)

Well, to me it largely depends upon the mood of the game, and it is not a hard/fast rule.
In general, I like even my fantasy worlds to make sense, so yeah, the geological rules should be adhered to (i.e. rivers stream to the sea, generally start in hills/mountains, terrain types flow into eachother logically etc.), but I DO like for there to be those strange  rule bending things, which stress the fact that there is something magical going on:
- a river starting in the desert, f.ex. because a massive decanter of endless water was once lost there or a hole in the fabric of space to the elemental plane of water is tehre
- a glacier in the middle of the jungle, because there is some lingering magic from the time of the Great Ice Age somehow preserving it
etc. etc.

So, no single definitive anser...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 11, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I'm not even sure applied physics would be the correct term. Again from wikipedia:The rules for magic in D&D are more like rules for technology, ie stuff that actually works, rather than a process for creating new technologies. In a D&D world that would be something like creating incarnum magic or truename magic.




How much damage is going to occur if I fall?  What can I do to make myself fly?  How powerful do I need to be to cast _fireball_, and how many enemies can I hope to take out?  How can I create a _wand of move earth_?

To me, these are all use of the rules governing the game world "intended for a particular technological *or practical use*".



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> In other words, applied physics is rooted in the fundamental truths and basic concepts of the physical sciences but is concerned with the *utilization of these scientific principles in practical devices and systems*. Applied physicists can also be interested the use of physics for scientific research.




Again, not seeing where you're finding a problem.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jun 11, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> But, regardless of whether it makes sense to you or not, if within the world you game in, you use the rules for the PHB instead of that first approximation, that is what you are doing.




A simulation of the Earth's weather is a simulation of real-world physics, not a simulation of the rules of that model. When I say that 



> It makes no sense to me to simulate a world where brilliant people spend their lives figuring out how things fall, with the first approximation being 9.8 m/s^2, but the real answer is the one in the PHB.




the simulation is of a world where the first approximation of falling is 9.8 m/s^2, no matter what the rules we're using to simulate it.



> Which is fine for you to think.  At the end of the day, though, the PHB rules are the "laws" that anyone in that world will take into account when deciding what actions will, or will not, work.




Actually, you said above that a physicist in Masque of the Red Death will take Victorian physics into account, not PHB rules. To change the physics of the world is to change the world itself to be non-Victorian, which is not desirable.



> IOW, if I was to play in a D&D game with no houserules, what should I take as my predictive model?  A real life physics model, or the RAW?




If your character runs into a war veteran who lost an arm in a battle, how is he going to respond? There is no way in the PHB to sever an arm, especially not in battle, so going by the RAW, your character has every right to call this person a liar, or insane, since no sane person would try and claim that they lost an arm in battle. Is that how you would respond?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 11, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> A simulation of the Earth's weather is a simulation of real-world physics, not a simulation of the rules of that model.




Excepting that, as fusangite so aptly pointed out, we are _not_ simulating earth in a D&D game.



> Actually, you said above that a physicist in Masque of the Red Death will take Victorian physics into account, not PHB rules. To change the physics of the world is to change the world itself to be non-Victorian, which is not desirable.




If the physicist in a MotRD would use a Victorian model, that doesn't make the physics of the world comply to that model, any more than the real world complied to Victorian models.  In any event, the MotRD physicist would, presumably, use a quasi-Victorian model, as he would potentially have real reason to believe that things outside the real Victorian model were real.



> If your character runs into a war veteran who lost an arm in a battle, how is he going to respond? There is no way in the PHB to sever an arm, especially not in battle, so going by the RAW, your character has every right to call this person a liar, or insane, since no sane person would try and claim that they lost an arm in battle. Is that how you would respond?




Does the RAW _preclude_ severed arms?

Doesn't the RAW imply, through regeneration effects for example, that severed limbs are possible?

The RAW is an _inclusive_, not an _exclusive_ model.


RC


----------



## woodelf (Jun 12, 2007)

Well, i said that i know and care, but that's an oversimplification. I care to the degree that the world cares. So, if it's supposed to be a pretty-much-like-our-world-but-with-some-magic-on-top world, then i expect it to follow the known laws of physics and geology and so on, except where there is a[n explicit] magical explanation for why it doesn't. FR/Toril, frex, drives me batty because it seems to be wanting a basically-realistic world, but that's not what it turns out to be (geologically, culturally, technologically,...). 

But i won't bat an eye at the wackiness in, say, Oz, because it is explicitly fantastical, all-round, and makes no claims to any kind of consistency. And worlds with a consistent, yet non-scientific, basis, such as Glorantha, are fine by me, too.

So, if you want a world that feels basically like the real world, get it right. Otherwise, anything goes.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 13, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> A simulation of the Earth's weather



How fortunate D&D doesn't take place on earth, what with its Tempests, Air Elementals, etc.







> the simulation is of a world where the first approximation of falling is 9.8 m/s^2, no matter what the rules we're using to simulate it.



So the rules of _Toon_ simulate our falling physics? The spell _Feather Fall_ is part of a simulation of our falling physics?







> Actually, you said above that a physicist in Masque of the Red Death will take Victorian physics into account, not PHB rules. To change the physics of the world is to change the world itself to be non-Victorian, which is not desirable.



I haven't followed this part of the argument closely. But I will say that _Masque of the Red Death_ has some of the crappiest post-2000 rules I have seen for anything.







> If your character runs into a war veteran who lost an arm in a battle, how is he going to respond?



In my games, it never happens. It doesn't make sense for certain kinds of injuries to be inflictable only if the characters are not looking. It is flat-out impossible to have non-fatal limb loss in D&D. The rules don't support it. If you like limb loss as a plot point, run Runequest. 

But in my games, limbs only fly when somebody strikes a killing blow. I don't tell my players "it's impossible to lose limbs in this world," but if I'm using D&D damage mechanics, I'm going to portray every single limb loss the characters witness as fatal. And that's not unreasonable because a large portion of limb losses in our world are fatal; all I'm doing is upping that number to 100% in order to reinforce (rather than undermine) suspension of disbelief.

I hate games in which NPCs can suffer or inflict injuries the PCs are incapable of inflicting or suffering. So, when I DM, if a blow takes somebody's HP below -10, I describe their head flying off or a clean cut all the way through the abdomen or some other colourful event. But, unless I want to use a different damage mechanic (as I sometimes do for exactly this reason), I do not describe combat outcomes that the rules can neither cause nor advise the players on how to deal with.







> There is no way in the PHB to sever an arm, especially not in battle, so going by the RAW, your character has every right to call this person a liar, or insane, since no sane person would try and claim that they lost an arm in battle. Is that how you would respond?



No. I wouldn't put the scene in the game. Because it would deliberately undermine my players' suspension of disbelief and my job, as GM, is to reinforce it. 

My cripples are Blinded or Deafened or permanently Sickened or Fatigued -- there are plenty of canonical ways to depict cripples in game. So I use those.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jun 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Excepting that, as fusangite so aptly pointed out, we are _not_ simulating earth in a D&D game.




You many not be, but there's been a number of books on that subject, so apparently someone is. Even so, we are simulating Farun or Oerth or some other place; the point remains, just because we are simulating those worlds, doesn't mean that the rules of our simulation are the rules of the world.



> If the physicist in a MotRD would use a Victorian model, that doesn't make the physics of the world comply to that model, any more than the real world complied to Victorian models.




The real world compiles pretty darn closely to the Victorian models. There's a huge difference between the minor flaws at the huge and tiny ends of the scales that the Victorian models have, and the fact that the RAW doesn't even come close.



> Does the RAW _preclude_ severed arms?




The RAW are extraordinarily specific on the effects of battle. If using the RAW as physics means anything, it means that the material that the RAW carefully and in great detail specifies is true, which means that battle does not sever arms.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 13, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> You many not be, but there's been a number of books on that subject, so apparently someone is. Even so, we are simulating Farun or Oerth or some other place; the point remains, just because we are simulating those worlds, doesn't mean that the rules of our simulation are the rules of the world.



I feel really repetitive at this point. It seems like the people with whom RC and I are arguing, rather than coming up with new arguments, just parrot what the last person in the argument said and we spent two pages refuting.

There is a simple test as to whether the rules of the game are different from the rules of the world: when you are playing the game and the rules of the game say that something happens, does it happen or does something the rules do not say happen? Because unless the answer is "no," then like it or not, the rules of the game are the rules of the world.







> The real world compiles pretty darn closely to the Victorian models.



Which Victorian models? Victorian models of reality that included magic looked nothing like the real world. Astral bodies, animal magnetism, silver cords, summoned spirits, neurasthenia, etc. are part of a different configuration of the world. What is especially appalling about Masque is that it doesn't describe a theory of magic, magnetism, medicine or anything else for that matter that bears any resemblance to Victorian theories of nature.

This game is also fundamentally a bad game because it prohibits the characters from having an empirically-based theory of the world around them. A game whose supposed theme is the characters solving mysteries through deduction loses all credibility when its rules state that the characters are not allowed to make deductions about the physical properties of the world around them. 

The game fundamentally sucks not only because it is ill-conceived in this respect but because it effectively makes Protection From Arrows the greatest spell in the world and nerfs everything else without adjusting any spell levels to compensate.







> The RAW are extraordinarily specific on the effects of battle. If using the RAW as physics means anything, it means that the material that the RAW carefully and in great detail specifies is true, which means that battle does not sever arms.



I've got to side with you here. That's how I play it. He's got you on this one RC.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jun 13, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> But I will say that _Masque of the Red Death_ has some of the crappiest post-2000 rules I have seen for anything.




I think that's moot; whether you're using D&D, GURPS, Hero, Rolemaster, D20 Modern, or whatever, running a Victorian or modern game under the theory that the RAW is physics, you'll run into cases where intelligent people studying the world, who know enough about the world to build extremely complex machines and make complex and correct predictions, are nonetheless completely wrong in some very simple things. I find it impossible to reconcile the RAW as physics and a believable world that actually is the historical (or historical except for hidden ...) world we want to play in.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 13, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> I think that's moot; whether you're using D&D, GURPS, Hero, Rolemaster, D20 Modern, or whatever, running a Victorian or modern game under the theory that the RAW is physics, you'll run into cases where intelligent people studying the world, who know enough about the world to build extremely complex machines and make complex and correct predictions, are nonetheless completely wrong in some very simple things.



I don't see how D20 Modern or Call of Cthulu, the only two I've seen used, have significantly different physics from those Victorians believed in. As long as the GM doesn't let limb-severing come up, we're pretty much good to go. 







> I find it impossible to reconcile the RAW as physics and a believable world that actually is the historical (or historical except for hidden ...) world we want to play in.



Is it easier to reconcile a continuous series of clashes between two incompatible rules for cause and effect? I think it's easier just to be a bit careful about setting design and rules selection so that you don't end up with situations where you have two concurrently-running systems for resolving cause and effect that contradict each other all the time.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jun 13, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I feel really repetitive at this point. It seems like the people with whom RC and I are arguing, rather than coming up with new arguments, just parrot what the last person in the argument said and we spent two pages refuting.




If that's happening, unless there's ulterior reasons for them to hold to that position, then the problem usually isn't that the other people aren't listening, it's that your refutations are missing the point that they are trying to make.



> There is a simple test as to whether the rules of the game are different from the rules of the world: when you are playing the game and the rules of the game say that something happens, does it happen or does something the rules do not say happen? Because unless the answer is "no," then like it or not, the rules of the game are the rules of the world.




No; the simulation is not the world. The Star Wars movies show things changing in quantum jumps one twenty-fourth of second each. That doesn't mean that time is discrete in the Star Wars universe; it means that our simulation on film of the Star Wars universe is discrete. Likewise, the fact that Star Wars d20 doesn't provide a way to cut off a hand doesn't mean that people don't lose hands in battle in the Star Wars universe, which does in fact happen in the Star Wars universe. It means that our simulation does not emulate the underlying physics in that respect.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jun 13, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I don't see how D20 Modern or Call of Cthulu, the only two I've seen used, have significantly different physics from those Victorians believed in. As long as the GM doesn't let limb-severing come up, we're pretty much good to go.




Falling is an example that's come up.



> Is it easier to reconcile a continuous series of clashes between two incompatible rules for cause and effect?




I see this as an concession, from the RAW has to be the rules of the world to it's more convenient for the RAW to be the rules of the world. Fundamentally, I see the latter question as a YMMV.

But it's not really a continuous series of clashes. It mainly comes into play integrating historical events into the campaigns and making it clear that Newton and Galileo had some valid reason for making the statements they do. It gives the DM permission to do things out of play historically instead of trying to figure out how the RAW would apply here.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 13, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> There is a simple test as to whether the rules of the game are different from the rules of the world: when you are playing the game and the rules of the game say that something happens, does it happen or does something the rules do not say happen? Because unless the answer is "no," then like it or not, the rules of the game are the rules of the world.




QFT.

Really, if someone has a good response to that one, I'll entertain it.  Otherwise, I think this is enough threadjacking, don't you?

Except:



> I've got to side with you here. That's how I play it. He's got you on this one RC.




A 600+ page house rule document is my friend.    

Seriously, though, this is simply a difference in the way we see the rules.  For example, if you are running a game in which encounters are tailored for the party, does this imply that _for everyone in the world_ encounters are tailored?  I would say No.

Doug is right when he says that my view of the RAW as physics is more akin to using the RAW as a predictive model that might not be 100% accurate for all events in the world, and where the world takes precedence over RAW (requires the model to change).

In MerricB's thread about 5-foot corridors, for example, the RAW doesn't allow two medium creatures to sqeeze into the same square and fight (as I read it), but if two PCs wanted to do so, I would easily model this into the world on the spot, include a houserule (effectively modifying my RAW), and get on with the game.  

So, I don't see the Rules-As-Written as the underlying real-world physics of the game (i.e., what is true regardless of what is believed) but as the physics model of the game (i.e., requires modifications at time based upon new information).  For me, the underlying real-world physics of the game is the Rules-As-Used.


RC


----------



## fusangite (Jun 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Really, if someone has a good response to that one, I'll entertain it.  Otherwise, I think this is enough threadjacking, don't you?



Sold!


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jun 13, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> There is a simple test as to whether the rules of the game are different from the rules of the world: when you are playing the game and the rules of the game say that something happens, does it happen or does something the rules do not say happen? Because unless the answer is "no," then like it or not, the rules of the game are the rules of the world.




[My attempt at a good response -- may or may not be one.  RC, is your house rule document available?  I'm curious, and I know you're a creative genius with the Faerie Realm work.]

See, the first part of your proposition changes the conclusion.   You've specifically stated that we are considering a situation that happens DURING THE GAME.  That can mean that the rules of the game are just the rules of the game, not the rules of the world.

If we're considering things that happen "off-camera", the rules of the game might NOT be the determinant of reality.  The world may have its own set of physical laws, real-world physics or otherwise, that are simply too complicated to model with a ruleset and so the game rules are used as an abstraction.  Things like "hit points" may not exist in any testable way.  Hit points measure how much *on-screen* punishment you can avoid or withstand.  PCs are always on-screen.  Off-screen, that level-10 samurai may be killed by a single nonmagical bullet if the story calls for it.  It's ultimately up to the DM to determine whether the game rules are the rules of the entire world or just the rules of the on-screen world.  In the latter case, the actual rules of the world are whatever the DM wants them to be.

I consider a D&D game to be like an action movie or certain sci-fi TV series.  The things that happen on-screen are anomalies, not determinants of that world's fundamental reality.  When I watched Highlander, I didn't consider what sort of physical changes to the world would be necessary for effects like The Buzz and The Quickening to exist.  I just assumed that the world is pretty much as we know it for everybody except the Immortals.  When I watched Buffy, I didn't try to ascertain the impact of magic on physics; I assumed that the world was like our with a lot of extra stuff tacked on, because technology seemed to work just as it does in our world.  When I watch a movie or TV show in which a small object stops a bullet (lighter, pack of cards, etc.), or when gunshots routinely make cars explode, I don't assume this is some alternate reality with different physical laws that could be ascertained by that world's scientists... I figure it's just dramatic license.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 13, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> [My attempt at a good response -- may or may not be one.  RC, is your house rule document available?  I'm curious, and I know you're a creative genius with the Faerie Realm work.]




Email me at my hotmail account and we'll talk.    



> If we're considering things that happen "off-camera", the rules of the game might NOT be the determinant of reality.




This is, of course, true of real-world physics as well.  Tests under controlled circumstances are what is "on camera"; arguably, nothing can be said about what happens when you are not looking.  Even in the event that our model of physics was 100% in accord with the underlying reality, we would have no way of knowing that to be the case.  A given model cannot be proven to be correct.  It can, however, be demonstrated to be incorrect.

This is the difference between claiming that the Rules-As-Written is the underlying-reality-type physics of the world and that the Rules-As-Used are.  In the event that the RAW _*is*_ the RAU (as is true for fusangite), then the RAW _*is*_ the underlying-reality-type physics of the world.  In the event that the RAW is not the RAU, then the RAW is a model-type physics whereas the RAU is the underlying-reality-type physics.

Where physics of the underlying-rules-of-reality are concerned, the game is itself a model that relies upon the RAU as the underlying rules of reality, making the claim that "RAU = Underlying-Reality-Type Physics" almost tautological.  Where physics as a predictive model is concerned, the RAW provides the predictive model used by the players (and, presumably, the DM), making "RAW = Predictive Model-Type Physics" almost tautological.

My understanding of fusangite's challenge is to demonstrate a case where this breaks down.  I would extend it thusly:

In the case of underlying-rules-of-reality type physics, demonstrate a case where the events of the game world do not follow the Rules As Used.  Please note how this differs from the Rules As Used.

In the case of predictive model type physics, demonstrate a case where the players should not use the RAW (including house rules) as their predictive model.  Please state the predictive model that should be used instead.

I do believe that the needs of the game world trump the RAW, but I cannot see any instance where DM or player can trump the RAU.  Again, this is almost tautological AFAIK.



> When I watched Highlander, I didn't consider what sort of physical changes to the world would be necessary for effects like The Buzz and The Quickening to exist. I just assumed that the world is pretty much as we know it for everybody except the Immortals.




Yes, but given time to consider it, wouldn't you agree that if The Buzz and The Quickening _do_ exist, they are indicative of an underlying reality that differs from our Standard Model of physics?

And if so, wouldn't you agree that this different underlying reality is there _whether you consider it at the time or not_?

(I do note that there are versions of the anthropic principle that claim that the underlying reality of the universe _is_ dependent upon whether or not you notice it, but I assume you are not espousing that sort of thing.)


RC


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jun 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This is, of course, true of real-world physics as well.  Tests under controlled circumstances are what is "on camera"; arguably, nothing can be said about what happens when you are not looking.



Just to clarify, what I mean by "on-camera" is what happens during the game sessions to the PCs or the beings they are interacting with.  A tiny and typically extraordinarily anomalous subset of "All events that happen in this reality."



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In the case of underlying-rules-of-reality type physics, demonstrate a case where the events of the game world do not follow the Rules As Used.  Please note how this differs from the Rules As Used.



I'll give this a shot.  Bear with me if I misinterpret the distinction.

I'm envisioning that the Rules as Used apply to PCs and their opponents during the combats.  I might not use the insta-kill variant (consecutive 20's confirmed) in the game, but use it for other events of the game world (such as backstory).  A dragon slain by a single arrow in a weak point; a skilled samurai killed by a single musket shot.  If the players were to ask "Well, why can't we insta-kill things?" I could respond "Look, if you want me to use the insta-kill variant, fine, but it'll generally work against you."  The result is that it only applies off-camera, and the Rules as Used are modified from the underlying reality in order to make the game more fun.  Same for crippling injuries, a 3000' fall killing a frost giant, NPCs leveling by fiat, frequency of wandering monster encounters for a typical hamlet, and so on.  The "off-screen" rules aren't the same.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In the case of predictive model type physics, demonstrate a case where the players should not use the RAW (including house rules) as their predictive model.  Please state the predictive model that should be used instead.



From the character perspective, I'd expect PCs to apply a predictive model consistent with whatever I've expressed to be the prevailing "natural philosophies" of their cultures, unless they have enough knowledge to think otherwise.  Suppose it's Dark Ages Europe tech level with rare magic.  Basic mechanics and simple machines are fairly well known, some concepts of aerodynamics, little understanding of disease, etc.  Magic is not the rules, magic is a very rare thing that breaks the rules.  It's always an exception, always an anomaly.  No predictive model accounts for it or explains it.  Now, if I've tried to establish a feel for the world as mostly realistic, the PCs can try to use real-world physics.  I'll house-rule something if the RAW are in egregious and *immediate* disagreement with real-world physics -- not plate tectonics but something like falling damage for a mouse familiar.  But they can only use physics to the degree that their PC would have understood it.  Using a lever to move a heavy rock, sure, that would work (although perhaps not in a dreamscape or the Faerie Realm).  Another PC tries to use Polymorph Any Object to create antimatter, appealing to the RAW for his definition of reality (the DMG has antimatter rifles).  Nope, sorry, doesn't work.  

Many actions involving PCs *do* allow the rules to be used as a predictive model because the PCs are "on-camera."  They have tons of experience with the flukey things that defy every scholar's expectations, and they may come to rely on the game mechanics and actually believe that reality more.  That ends up being like Last Action Hero; he *expects* that cars will blow up when he shoots them because that's the RAW of his world when he's on-camera.   This is the situation in which PCs *know* they can jump off a 3000' cliff and survive.  Some players won't apply that level of metagaming, some will.  That, I think, is a player decision -- however, they certainly can't apply this model to things that happen off-camera.  They should never ask "Why didn't the king just jump off the cliff, take the HP damage, take 10 on his Swim checks, and get away?"



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yes, but given time to consider it, wouldn't you agree that if The Buzz and The Quickening _do_ exist, they are indicative of an underlying reality that differs from our Standard Model of physics?
> 
> And if so, wouldn't you agree that this different underlying reality is there _whether you consider it at the time or not_?



I think it's a few anomalies slapped on.  Everything we know is the same, except for this thing, which is not.  It's not explained, it's not defined, it just exists.  It's a kind of magic.  

Personally, that's how I like to use magic.  Not as part of reality, but as an exception to reality.  That's what makes it magic and not technology in my mind -- and I try very hard to make it seem as unreal as possible.  The spells Solipsism and There/Not There from the 2e Tome of Magic were among the best illustrations of what I think magic should be.

I was at the NC Museum of Art the other day, and there was a Mona Lisa made up of spools of thread hanging on wires.  A black spool here, a brown spool here.  From far enough away, it's the Mona Lisa.  Look real close, zoom in one one spool, and all you see is some black string.  D&D rules, like movie/TV conventions, work fine as long as you don't look real close.  I don't think they hold up under scrutiny or attempts to use them as a predictive model, though I imagine it could be done with a great deal of work.  I'd be very curious to see, say, Fusangite's interpretation of what a world *does* look like when you use the RAW as your underlying rules of reality.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 13, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Just to clarify, what I mean by "on-camera" is what happens during the game sessions to the PCs or the beings they are interacting with.  A tiny and typically extraordinarily anomalous subset of "All events that happen in this reality."




As "under controlled conditions" is a tiny subset of "all events that happen in this reality", and yet is the basis of our understanding of physics.



> I'm envisioning that the Rules as Used apply to PCs and their opponents during the combats.  I might not use the insta-kill variant (consecutive 20's confirmed) in the game, but use it for other events of the game world (such as backstory).




Then, I would say, the RAU are that PCs cannot insta-kill but NPCS can, excepting that said NPC is attacking a PC.  Part of the underlying reality of that world.  But, look at your example here:



> A dragon slain by a single arrow in a weak point; a skilled samurai killed by a single musket shot.  If the players were to ask "Well, why can't we insta-kill things?" I could respond "Look, if you want me to use the insta-kill variant, fine, but it'll generally work against you."




Imagine now that the PCs want to get some idea of how tough the NPCs are on the basis of their deeds.  Normally, you could tell that if someone was slaying ancient red dragons, they were pretty tough.  Suddenly, the PCs cannot tell anything about anyone on the basis of what they were capable of yesterday.

In effect, you have told the players that they do not have the means to create an accurate predictive model on the basis of the RAW.  But this doesn't mean that you are not using RAU.  You just aren't telling the players specifically _why_ X can do Y.  "Because I feel like it" is still RAU.

As I said, it is nearly tautological.



> Most actions involving PCs *do* allow the rules to be used as a predictive model because the PCs are "on-camera."




And you can bet that when those same PCs hear that Bob the Innkeeper took out an ogre by himself, they are estimating his prowess using the RAW as well.



> I think it's a few anomalies slapped on.  Everything we know is the same, except for this thing, which is not.  It's not explained, it's not defined, it just exists.  It's a kind of magic.




So, you are basically saying, if you don't look at it, it isn't there?

Example:  If you dropped a pencil and it just floated in midair for 20 minutes, then turned into a marshmallow and forced itself into your mouth, would it indicate to you that there was something wrong with your previous model of the universe, or would you shrug and say "sometimes those things happen"?


RC


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jun 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, you are basically saying, if you don't look at it, it isn't there?
> 
> Example:  If you dropped a pencil and it just floated in midair for 20 minutes, then turned into a marshmallow and forced itself into your mouth, would it indicate to you that there was something wrong with your previous model of the universe, or would you shrug and say "sometimes those things happen"?



I expect very different things from reality than I do from fiction.  I'm annoyingly over-educated with a background in physics and a skeptical attitude.  I do generally expect that there is a rational explanation for things.  I've never seen or experienced anything that can't be explained by our current understanding of science, and I think James Randi's approach is an exceptional concept for investigating the paranormal.  

But when I'm watching a fictional TV show or movie, I willingly suspend disbelief and leave it at that.  These fictional realities are not internally-consistent universes with a well-defined set of physical laws.  They're entertainment.  Trying to explain how it works (Midichlorians! Ziest!) often just makes it worse.

So why am I still in the camp of "I like my geography realistic"?  Well, take something like Highlander again.  If the concept is "Everything is the same except for these things which are not," fine; don't suddenly say "Oh, and rivers flow uphill and there's a jungle in the Antarctic" unless you have some sort of explanation for it.  "It's magic and there's something special about this place" works, but "Umm, we have guys who live forever, why are you concerned about that?" does not.  I can suspend disbelief on the elements where I am requested to do so.  But where it is not made clear "the world works differently in this way," I don't know to do that.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jun 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Then, I would say, the RAU are that PCs cannot insta-kill but NPCS can, excepting that said NPC is attacking a PC.  Part of the underlying reality of that world.



I also can't conceive of the distinction "PC" and "NPC" being in any way an aspect of underlying reality of a world.  Once you get into that realm, you're talking game rules that exist to make the game fun, not world rules that exist to make a consistent reality.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 13, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> I do generally expect that there is a rational explanation for things.




Me too.



> I've never seen or experienced anything that can't be explained by our current understanding of science




Put the word "well" in from of "explained" and our experiences differ.  I think, for example, that our capacity to experience choice is an indication of something missing from our current Standard Models.    

Likewise, I have some real problems with consciousness as it is currently modelled.  I imagine that, at some future point, we will have better models.



> and I think James Randi's approach is an exceptional concept for investigating the paranormal.




We differ there, then, too.  If I can produce a trick Y that creates the same effect as X, that doesn't mean that Y = X.  At the same time, I believe that Randi is guilty of changing the bar on several of his investigations.  Which isn't to say that he's wrong in his conclusions, only that he doesn't meet my standards in terms of experiment.



> But when I'm watching a fictional TV show or movie, I willingly suspend disbelief and leave it at that.




It may bother you less to think about the underlying rules that make up a fictional reality (and, if the author didn't think much about those rules, it might bother you WAY less   ) but that doesn't mean that there aren't underlying rules (even if one of the major underlying rules is "I'm making it up as I go").

Were I to claim that I had no interest in real-world physics, therefore there were no real world physics, I think the logical fallacy would be apparent to anyone.  

You say "fictional realities are not internally-consistent universes with a well-defined set of physical laws" but that ignores the obvious:  modelling the laws of any reality requires conjecture on the basis of observation.  This is true for fictional realities, and it is true for the real universe.  In many fictional realities, we don't have the luxury of testing our conjectures.  Gaming is different.

This is not to say that you cannot happily ignore the relationship between RAW, RAU, and physics.  You obviously can.  Some people ignore the relationship between observed reality, the philosophy of science, and current models of physics.  Ignoring it doesn't mean it isn't there, though.



> I also can't conceive of the distinction "PC" and "NPC" being in any way an aspect of underlying reality of a world. Once you get into that realm, you're talking game rules that exist to make the game fun, not world rules that exist to make a consistent reality.




.........And between this and the previous, we are back to Square One.    

So, once again, if someone has a good response to fusangite's challenge, I'll entertain it. Otherwise, I'm done.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 13, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> See, the first part of your proposition changes the conclusion.   You've specifically stated that we are considering a situation that happens DURING THE GAME.  That can mean that the rules of the game are just the rules of the game, not the rules of the world.



I think that worlds where the laws of cause and effect are completely different, depending on whether the PCs are watching are worlds of postmodern, solipsistic excess that I want no part of. 

While I agree that a physics is possible that works one way when a special person or special people are watching is possible and differently when they are not, I think that without a substantial justification, such worlds don't hang together or permit suspension of disbelief. For suspension of disbelief to be possible in such a world, there needs to be an explanation of why the PCs are so special that the very laws of cause and effect are altered by their mere presence. If I ran such a game, a big part of it would be about the PCs figuring out or in some way addressing why the universe operated by one set of laws when they were there and a completely different set when they were not. Is the universe the PCs' dream? Are they really minor deities who don't know it? Some kind of explanation along those lines would be necessary for such a universe to be anything other than a pile of incoherent solipsism.







> The world may have its own set of physical laws, real-world physics or otherwise, that are simply too complicated to model with a ruleset and so the game rules are used as an abstraction.



Applied physics is about creating simplified abstractions of more complex rules. We use use Newtonian gravitation in our day-to-day modeling even though we know that it is an approximation, and one inferior to Einstein's approximation at that. We do so out of concern for practicality, speed, etc. Game rules are no different. 

All practical physics, like all game rules, are convenient approximations generally reflective of a model. The question is: what model are they reflecting?







> I consider a D&D game to be like an action movie or certain sci-fi TV series.  The things that happen on-screen are anomalies, not determinants of that world's fundamental reality.



My favourite moments in sci-fi and fantasy are the moments when what is going on on screen is made consistent with an overarching reality rather than being an independent mini-universe operating orthogonally. Buffy is a good example: the characters' job in the show is to investigate what is going on around them and draw conclusions from it and so, over time, they notice their reality is working a little differently. They remark on how Dawn seems to get into trouble on Tuesdays. Minor characters remark on the high fatality rates of their high school sports teams. The school paper published obituaries. 

TV shows where what happens on screen is totally inconsistent with the universe in which it is situated are shows I turn off.







> When I watched Buffy, I didn't try to ascertain the impact of magic on physics; I assumed that the world was like our with a lot of extra stuff tacked on, because technology seemed to work just as it does in our world.



I think it is a mistake to assume that our physics is the only possible system of physics capable of producing our tech.

Anyway, I said I was going to retire from this thread so now I really will this time. Sorry to stomp off but I am feeling very repetitive.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jun 13, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Is the universe the PCs' dream? Are they really minor deities who don't know it?



"Hey Bloodstorm, why is it that of all the crazy monsters in the world, we almost always run into the ones that we can beat after a tough fight, no matter how much more skilled we've gotten?  I mean, what happened to all the goblin raiders that used to attack us when we were riding somewhere?"
"I don't know.  Maybe it's something about us.  Did you know that Moonbow has three times the wealth of any of the wizards that she considers her peers?"
"Huh.  And why do you think it is that we sometimes just know we should trust the new guy who wants to join us.  Is that a sign from the gods?"
"Might be.  But the new guys are always so odd, aren't they?  Weird skills that we've never heard of.  And they're always just as powerful as us, only where were they the last 10 times the kingdom needed saving?"
"And don't you find our luck a little extraordinary?  Aren't there times when you were sure you were done for and then felt like you were given a second chance?"
"Yeah, I wonder if that happens to everybody or just to us."
"How about that time we were shipwrecked and lost everything, only to find a whole hoard of stuff in that abandoned crypt that just happened to be on that island?"
"It's almost like someone's looking out for us, making sure we stay powerful."
"A good thing to, because I was about to kill myself."
"Well, if you had, I'm sure somebody else would have appeared on that island to take your place."

Now THIS, when characters recognize the weirdness and comment on it (like Buffy characters noticing that Dawn gets in trouble on Tuesdays) seems to be postmodernism to me.  Could be funny for a short time, I suppose.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2007)

> While I agree that a physics is possible that works one way when a special person or special people are watching is possible and differently when they are not, I think that without a substantial justification, such worlds don't hang together or permit suspension of disbelief. For suspension of disbelief to be possible in such a world, there needs to be an explanation of why the PCs are so special that the very laws of cause and effect are altered by their mere presence. If I ran such a game, a big part of it would be about the PCs figuring out or in some way addressing why the universe operated by one set of laws when they were there and a completely different set when they were not. Is the universe the PCs' dream? Are they really minor deities who don't know it? Some kind of explanation along those lines would be necessary for such a universe to be anything other than a pile of incoherent solipsism.




But, RAW specifically says this.  XP awards are for PC's and NPC's, not for the general populace.  

Or do your towns level up after every tornado passes through?

There are no rules in RAW requiring PC's to sleep.  Nothing.  Not one rule.  So, do our PC's need to sleep or not?


----------

