So that's why you like it

[Rechan]

I suspect, FS, is that it's two fold:

1) It's just not something that folks think about. Tech and science and all advancing is A) a peripheral thing, something that happens in the background, and thus, is glossed over, adn B) easily forgotten about. When you're spending time working on "What is next week's adventure?" you don't worry about "What's going on in the rest of the world that doesn't relate to my plot(s) whatsoever?"

2) Keeping the status quo, and keeping the medieval feel. Folks don't want to change the setting from medieval to Renaissance/Industrial Age. They don't want gunpowder. They don't want to get away from knights on horseback in platemail. They want to keep it where it is so they can play what they want. Unless the PCs cause the changes in the world, then they don't want the world to change, period.

I've seen a few settings that advance things ahead. But that, I suspect, are the two reasons why campaign settings don't advance.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

See that is the part I can get. What I don't get is when people quite literally say, "no, no in a fantasy setting you can't have science since magic is there." I have seen this a surprising amount of the time, which becomes even odder with my comment about why technology then would progress to the medieval period then stop.

So it isn't even that it isn't a focus or simply the setting time-wise doesn't progress. That I can get perfectly well. But the idea that magic somehow magically... *silly use of the term *... stops advancement at the medieval period, I don't get.

 

[Rechan]

See that is the part I can get. What I don't get is when people quite literally say, "no, no in a fantasy setting you can't have science since magic is there."

Ah.

Well one possibility is that the speaker assumes that science would halt because magic can DO what science is needed to do. Observational science developed because there was no answer beyond superstition, and technology developed because a better way was sought to address the issue.

As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. But if magic answers the necessity, then why push past it? Why bother with mundane answers when there's an easy magical fix? Would man have bothered to burn coal if there was nuclear power back then? That addresses tech.

A lot of science was created due to the scientists not believing in the superstitious answers. Storms weren't caused by God's punishment, or whatever explanation was given. But in a world where the supernatural exists, and they DO cause things to happen, then there would be less of a reason to doubt the given explanations. With less doubt, you get fewer questions. Fewer questions, fewer desire for answers.

Also, there's issues of logistics. You have fewer people pursuing science because those smart and curious people are likely becoming wizards. The person who wants to heal the sick will likely become someone who uses healing magic. Those wizards and healers are busy exploring and asking questions about the nature of magic. So the number of people who do NOT use those available routes are fewer and far between, thus slowing down the progression of science.

Another point is that in fantasy, you often do have some level of science. Alchemy is basically one part chemistry, one part magic. Everyone excepts Dwarves as engineers and architects, so I imagine they do have some engineering and physics training existing. I imagine that, in a fantasy world, mathematics and physics do exist and are taught/studied.

Finally, some people simply do not want science in their fantasy. For instance, I want no part of genes, germs or atoms in my fantasy. An eclipse is not the shadow of one planet passing over the sun or the moon, it's literally an ill omen or a God causing it. Diseases are caused by curses, proximity to evil things, evil forces at work, karma, or other "fantasy" causes for scientific things. Don't get me started on "fighting above a pit of lava". So it's an issue of taste in terms of the Real World in fantasy.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yeah primarily I think it is a taste thing. I just always find it odd that with that viewpoint all previous advancements are fine, except for anything beyond medieval period. I understand the reasoning, just sounds odd you know.

Though like I said I think too it is thanks to my own tastes. Where magic may influence and maybe even counter the laws of science but scientific theory and such still goes on and advancement still happens. Heck they may go hand-in-hand, to understand how your magic works you need to understand how the properties of atoms work, or electromagnetism, or whatever. Same with science say to understand gravity you need to see how levitation spells affect it.

Like the current campaign I am building the big plot-point is beings who are musicians who manipulate strings (from string theory) to change their resonance to create music and doing so change the universe. Completely fantastical but I like that base in science. Plus it has airships, firearms, industrial revolution and all that jazz.

And finally, there got my question out there NOW! Come on people (including you Rechan) ask questions I can answer, I have fun with that, more then thinking up questions (why it took me so long, plus hard time thinking one up). I find it actually helps myself collect my thoughts as to why I DO like certain things.

 

[Rechan]

Yeah primarily I think it is a taste thing. I just always find it odd that with that viewpoint all previous advancements are fine, except for anything beyond medieval period. I understand the reasoning, just sounds odd you know.

It can also be ignorance of periods beyond the medieval, in terms of science. If you asked me what scientific breakthroughs were common of the Renaissance or the Industrial age, I could probably name two or three and that's about it. Everyone is more familiar and comfortable with medieval level of tech. Not to mention that you have to ask yourself "What would the results be of advancing in my world?" It's a really scary headachy issue, at least for me.

Not to mention "How do I implement these in the rules?" Here's a simple one: Water is a conductor of electricity. So, do you have to change the rules for lightning-based powers whenever they're used in the water? If so, what's balanced?

But yes, I think that theory would be existing and advancing. There are disciplines beyond science that would be continuing (Philosophy, for instance) which would be advancing unencumbered by magic (or enhanced; magic should add a new element to the issue of "What is a man?" and the idea of life and the soul. Add planes to existentialists! Yikes!).

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Hell just having more then one sentient race will throw things for a loop. We have enough issues with stuff with different cultures imagine when we get to truly bizarre races that are sentient. I want to debate a sentient growing fungi damn it!

 

[Rechan]

I can get over it, but it still makes my head hurt that if I move in a straight line, I move 30 feet but if I move in a diagonal line, I move 60 feet. Why would I ever run straight again?

Well, you only move 60 feet in relation to other squares; you still moved 30 feet because you moved 6 squares of 5 feet.

It's just one of those quirks of a square grid. If you switched over to hexes, you probably wouldn't come to that, but then you'd have hexes cut in half by walls, and that raises other issues. Not to mention drawing things on hexes and measuring, and some think hexes are the devil, etc.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. But if magic answers the necessity, then why push past it? Why bother with mundane answers when there's an easy magical fix? Would man have bothered to burn coal if there was nuclear power back then? That addresses tech.

That's only true if:

1) Everyone can do magic well enough to make tech unnecessary. If everyone can Move Earth, you don't need shovels.

or

2) Magic items are easy enough to make that its practitioners can create magical solution to all of the problems that tech addresses.

AND

3) Magic is as dependable as tech and as easy to use.

The advantage that tech has over magic is that once you can manufacture something, you can sell it, etc., and what you created can be used by someone without any understanding of the tech.

Or, to put it a different way, its a lot easier to make millions of feather dusters than it is to teach millions of people how to do prestidigitation...and you can use that feather duster as often as you like, and virtually anywhere.

A lot of science was created due to the scientists not believing in the superstitious answers. Storms weren't caused by God's punishment, or whatever explanation was given. But in a world where the supernatural exists, and they DO cause things to happen, then there would be less of a reason to doubt the given explanations. With less doubt, you get fewer questions. Fewer questions, fewer desire for answers.

While true, it still runs into the ubiquity problem- as stated above, there simply aren't enough mages and magic is too complicated to do everything that tech does at the same scale as tech.

Also, there's issues of logistics. You have fewer people pursuing science because those smart and curious people are likely becoming wizards. The person who wants to heal the sick will likely become someone who uses healing magic. Those wizards and healers are busy exploring and asking questions about the nature of magic. So the number of people who do NOT use those available routes are fewer and far between, thus slowing down the progression of science.

This would slow tech down, but not completely. The numbers of people who just don't "get' arcane magic, or who are not pious enough to be granted divine magic are still going to need tech.

Heck, even in D&D- a setting with healing magic powerful enough to bring back the dead- you have healing kits and skills, after all.

Another point is that in fantasy, you often do have some level of science. Alchemy is basically one part chemistry, one part magic. Everyone excepts Dwarves as engineers and architects, so I imagine they do have some engineering and physics training existing. I imagine that, in a fantasy world, mathematics and physics do exist and are taught/studied.

No argument there!

Finally, some people simply do not want science in their fantasy.

That is both an unassailable answer...and the best reason overall.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, you only move 60 feet in relation to other squares; you still moved 30 feet because you moved 6 squares of 5 feet.

It's just one of those quirks of a square grid. If you switched over to hexes, you probably wouldn't come to that, but then you'd have hexes cut in half by walls, and that raises other issues. Not to mention drawing things on hexes and measuring, and some think hexes are the devil, etc.

I loves me some hex grids- they're my preferred gaming grid. Never had an issue with chopped hexes and so forth.

 

[kenmarable]

Just ran across this one in another thread, and I wanted to ask about this:

Pet Diagonal movement rules.

Some people can be adamant about 1-2-1-2 or diagonal movement is 2. I really don't understand how someone can be so attached to such a small rule.

It just makes me scratch my head and say, "Really? You care about that?"

I actually prefer the 1 square diagonal movement rules, but the example that at least made me pause is:

My friend and I are in a 100' square room and the door out is directly across from us. He moves straight across the room, but I move diagonally all the way to side wall and then all the way back and we both get to the door at the same time even though I obviously moved much farther than him (it gets more absurd the larger the area we walk).

Or, alternatively, have my friend and I walk the exact same paths, but rotate the grid 45 degrees and see how many squares we cover. The grid is arbitrary anyway.

It makes a simulationist's head explode.

Personally I sleep at night just realizing that a specific situation like that is rare, and for the most part movement is all over the place. It's easier to fudge knowing that when it's important to count squares, you are rarely just moving in a straight line and doing nothing else. But I can entirely sympathize with someone who thinks 1 square diagonals go too far in suspending disbelief (it's one thing to accept magic, it's another to accept the laws of geometry changing when you walk in a different direction). And to their credit, 1-2-1-2 is relatively accurate and not very difficult in play.

But my groups have been using 1 square diagonals and just didn't realize we were doing it wrong until it became such at debate with 4e.