A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

[Maxperson]

Would you care to elaborate on this? They seem to be synonyms to me, and when I Google a definition of magic I get "the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." I don't know what dictionary that is from, but it is the sort of thing I would have expected.

A synonym is just a word that is similar to another word, not a word that is exactly the same as another word. Supernatural doesn't equate to magic. Just the unknowable or beyond the current understanding of the laws of nature.

I don't understand your point. The fact that certain beings (but not elves? who nevertheless can have children with humans) have to eat and sleep doesn't tell us anything meaningful about the physics of that world, if by "physcsc" we mean that discipline taught in schools and universities.

I think the failure to understand is deliberate on your end. It's pretty easy to see that falling is caused by gravity, and that the farther you fall, the faster your fall and you take more damage. Then you hit terminal velocity at 20d6. It doesn't have to mirror reality exactly to represent real world physics.

 

[Lanefan]

I have a difficulty picturing a universal force that's also localized, but more power to you if it makes your cosmology feel cohesive.

It's localized only in that the presence of (a) certain element(s)* suppresses it. On a world where such are not present, and in (most of) outer space and the other planes, it works just fine.

* - I've never quite nailed down exactly which one(s), though I've long thought uranium could be a good option.

 

[Lanefan]

This doesn't seem very simple to me. I mean, I'm told that quantum gravity is quite hard (I haven't studied physics mysefl beyond high school); presumably it's no easier to explain how the notion of "lifeform" and "accessing a fifth universal force" are to be reconciled and integratd with existing knowledge of physics.

I'm not expecting this to pass the test of hard science, just the test of does it give me enough of a foundation on which to build a coherent universal fantasy-physics that includes magic and can, if needed, include and explain the real non-magical world we live on. To that my answer is yes.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't understand your point. The fact that certain beings (but not elves? who nevertheless can have children with humans) have to eat and sleep doesn't tell us anything meaningful about the physics of that world, if by "physcsc" we mean that discipline taught in schools and universities.

Human being since time immemorial have known that dropped objects fall; likewise those in the gameworld. But that tells us nothing about whether or not the gameworld is governed by universal gravitation, let alone the strong and weak nuclear forces that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] has referred to. Newton's first law of motion is not self-evident. Einsteinian physics even moreso is not. And the existence of those nuclear forces is self-evidently not self-evident!

Baseline assumption: real-world physics are the same as game-world physics except where it is noted they are not (e.g most magic effects, most non-prime-material planes, etc.).

Without this baseline assumption, the PH and-or DMG for any RPG system would be twice the size it is now with the added pagecount being a game-world physics textbook. Why? Because even for the simplest of things we need to know how (or if!) this stuff works, the most obvious example being gravity.

Lan-"founding member of the Friends of Gravity"-efan

 

[pemerton]

It's pretty easy to see that falling is caused by gravity, and that the farther you fall, the faster your fall and you take more damage. Then you hit terminal velocity at 20d6. It doesn't have to mirror reality exactly to represent real world physics.

Huh?a

That falling is caused by gravity - ie a universal force that all masses exert on all other masses - isn't easy to see at all. No human being knew it as recently as 400 years ago! It's hardly obvious that falling, in the gameworld, is an expression of universal gravitation.

And as far as terminal velocity is concerned: a 200' fall inflicts 20d6 damage in AD&D, but few falling persons will reach terminal velocity in a 200' fall. That's just a figure that someone settled on for some reason or other, and it's become tradttional.

 

[pemerton]

Baseline assumption: real-world physics are the same as game-world physics except where it is noted they are not (e.g most magic effects, most non-prime-material planes, etc.).

What about flying dragons, giant arthropods, fireball spells that exert no pressure, etc?

Without this baseline assumption, the PH and-or DMG for any RPG system would be twice the size it is now with the added pagecount being a game-world physics textbook. Why? Because even for the simplest of things we need to know how (or if!) this stuff works, the most obvious example being gravity.

Nonsense. You don't need to assume that actual physics is true in order to understand the basic physical behaviour of dropped objects, running people, etc. Most human beings have understood the basics of these things for most of human history without access to either real or imagined knowledge of physics.

As far as gravity is concerned, do planets in AD&D orbit the sun, or vice versa? What is the relatoinship between the earth and its moon, or the moon and the tides? In the real world, these are all manifestation of universal gravitation, but there is no reason to think this is so in D&D. Gygax suggests quite different possibilities in his DMG, and Spelljammer likewise does not describe a universe governed by universal gravitation.

 

[Maxperson]

Huh?a

That falling is caused by gravity - ie a universal force that all masses exert on all other masses - isn't easy to see at all. No human being knew it as recently as 400 years ago! It's hardly obvious that falling, in the gameworld, is an expression of universal gravitation.

And as far as terminal velocity is concerned: a 200' fall inflicts 20d6 damage in AD&D, but few falling persons will reach terminal velocity in a 200' fall. That's just a figure that someone settled on for some reason or other, and it's become tradttional.

Again with the deliberate refusal to see that D&D is just engaging a loose approximation of real world physics. So what if "terminal velocity" occurs at 200', rather than 450'. It's a game. It doesn't need to match real life exactly. Simulating physics in a loose manner is just fine.

 

[pemerton]

Again with the deliberate refusal to see that D&D is just engaging a loose approximation of real world physics. So what if "terminal velocity" occurs at 200', rather than 450'. It's a game. It doesn't need to match real life exactly. Simulating physics in a loose manner is just fine.

What does ".a loose approxiation . . . simulating in a loose manner" mean? You and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] are saying that D&D uses real world physics. But it's measure of terminal velocity is different. So either G is different, or the way friction works is different, or . . . it's not physics at all, just common sense tropes!

 

[Maxperson]

What does ".a loose approxiation . . . simulating in a loose manner" mean? You and @Lanefan are saying that D&D uses real world physics. But it's measure of terminal velocity is different. So either G is different, or the way friction works is different, or . . . it's not physics at all, just common sense tropes!

OR it's D&D physics, which loosely approximates real world physics. D&D physics loosely approximates real world physics all over the place. Hell, during 1e Dragon put in articles on how to make D&D physics more like real world physics.

 

[Lanefan]

What about flying dragons, giant arthropods, fireball spells that exert no pressure, etc?

"Except where it is noted they are not", I wrote, under which all of these qualify.

As an extension of my magic-physics theory (which gets kinda detailed) creatures like raccoons and humans can live on a non-magic world but "fantastic" creatures cannot - they need magic in order to exist. As an extension of this, magic-based creatures such as elves and dragons will weaken, sicken, and die if stuck too long in a null-magic zone.

Nonsense. You don't need to assume that actual physics is true in order to understand the basic physical behaviour of dropped objects, running people, etc. Most human beings have understood the basics of these things for most of human history without access to either real or imagined knowledge of physics.

From the point of view of a PC or any other inhabitant of the game world, I agree.

From the point of view of the DM trying to design all this, however, I need to have it figured out.

As far as gravity is concerned, do planets in AD&D orbit the sun, or vice versa? What is the relatoinship between the earth and its moon, or the moon and the tides? In the real world, these are all manifestation of universal gravitation, but there is no reason to think this is so in D&D.

One could, if one wanted, redesign gravity so it works differently than what we're used to - but one would need a serious grasp of the physics and interrelations one has in mind in order to do this and have it come out working consistently. Far easier to just use what we already have, which already (for these purposes) works consistently and halfway predictably.

In other words, it's way easier to take what we already have and just bolt on what we don't have (magic, mostly) than it would be to start over from nothing.

Gygax suggests quite different possibilities in his DMG, and Spelljammer likewise does not describe a universe governed by universal gravitation.

For some non-prime-material planes things do work differently, no doubt there (says he who just finished running an adventure in the Astral, where gravity is a near-myth and time runs on chaos theory!). I'm 99% talking about the prime material with what I'm saying elsewhere in here, though.

Lan-"for some reason Spelljammer as a setting/system never appealed to me, even though the base concept is very interesting"-efan