D&D General Introducing a Scientific Mindset to Dungeons and Dragons

[Yaarel]

Something like gravity works.
DNA?
<Looks at the Owlbear, and dragon breeding capabilities>
Since when does DNA work?

Gene splicing, via ether magic.

 

[Corinnguard]

Something like gravity works.
DNA?
<Looks at the Owlbear, and dragon breeding capabilities>
Since when does DNA work?

Magic-induced plasticity of the Hox genes.

 

[Umbran]

Gene splicing, via ether magic.

You understand that you don't just have a couple of genes for your head that you can splice onto, say, a fish, right? That's not how real-world genetics works.

If we are just going to wave "gene splicing" at it, just say "magic", 'cuz it is the same thing at that point.

 

[Corinnguard]

If we are just going to wave "gene splicing" at it, just say "magic", 'cuz it is the same thing at that point.

Okay, Biomancy then. Time to make a new Wizard subclass.

A wizard with a touch of Druid.

 

[Umbran]

Okay, Biomancy then. Time to make a new Wizard subclass.

A wizard with a touch of Druid.

Fine, but then you're not in a "scientific mindset" any more.

Which is fine by me. You see, the issue is that all the cool lore around our fantasy-world biology was developed without the smallest whit of a thought to real-world biology. So trying to retroactively explain it with real-world biology will fail.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Fine, but then you're not in a "scientific mindset" any more.

Which is fine by me. You see, the issue is that all the cool lore around our fantasy-world biology was developed without the smallest whit of a thought to real-world biology. So trying to retroactively explain it with real-world biology will fail.

When you say, "our" I assume you mean your own table?

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

A lot of is are talking about DNA and evolution over millions of years, but this is a fantasy, we don't need that. We can have it if we want it, and a lot of people apparently do, but the world can actually be 10,000 year old.

I think we often think we need scientific thinking to "make things consistent" but I don't think we do. Indeed, a fantasy world that is not based on scientific thinking feels better and more immersive to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A lot of is are talking about DNA and evolution over millions of years, but this is a fantasy, we don't need that. We can have it if we want it, and a lot of people apparently do, but the world can actually be 10,000 year old.

I think we often think we need scientific thinking to "make things consistent" but I don't think we do. Indeed, a fantasy world that is not based on scientific thinking feels better and more immersive to me.

For me it's the opposite. I want exceptions from the real world to be obvious and, when practical, explicit.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

When you say, "our" I assume you mean your own table?

No, the point is, real world science does not work. There is absolutely no way you could create an owlbear using real world science. There is no way a dragon can fly and breathe fire using real world science. If you invent "alternative science" such as Biomancy, that's magic. You can try and dress it up using scientific-style language, but it's still magic.

 

[Aldarc]

Fine, but then you're not in a "scientific mindset" any more.

Which is fine by me. You see, the issue is that all the cool lore around our fantasy-world biology was developed without the smallest whit of a thought to real-world biology. So trying to retroactively explain it with real-world biology will fail.

The idea of categorizing things according to being a "vegetable, animal, or mineral" was the endeavor of a "scientific mindset." It obviously doesn't match our current understanding of the science. However, this is why I think that a "scientific mindset" does not necessarily mean that it would reflect actual science or real world understandings of phenomena. I don't think that a "scientific mindset" in a D&D setting would look like real-world biology.