Fantasy world maps and real world geology

[Raven Crowking]

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".

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.