Fantasy world maps and real world geology

[prosfilaes]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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."

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.

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?"

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.