Fantasy world maps and real world geology

[Raven Crowking]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?