D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[pemerton]

I think that we at the table care about the game world conforming to reality mainly so as to make it comprehensible to the people at the table.

But for many if not most people, the fiction is more comprehensible if it doesn't adhere to universal gravitation or to relativity - the former to an extent, and the latter to a great extent, being counter-intuitive relative to common sense. And adhering to common sense is what underpins comprehensibility.

This is why dragons and giant terrestrial arthropods are fine: because there it doesn't contradict common sense to have giant flying lizards - the impossibility of their flight has to be inferred from a non-common sensical, technical understanding of how wings generate lift, and how much lift they can generate; and nor are the features of arthropod respiration that make giant terrestrial arthropods impossible evident to common sense.

I assume the observable world in any fiction is the same as ours unless it's stated otherwise.

I guess I'm just not seeing what the argument is about. Fictional universes make fictional alterations to the accepted reality. I just want a basic understanding of how the world works and what alterations have been made to our perceptions of reality so I don't have to constantly second guess what reality is in the fiction.

When you say "perceptions" and "observable world" I don't know if you mean that literally - in which case neither universal gravitation nor relativity nor arthropod respiration nor the nature of winged flight are perceptible phenomena; or whether you mean reality as the scientifically educated believe it to be.

And that is what I am talking about. It seems to me obvious that scientific truth, in so far as that is not just a reiteration of common sense but a body of knowledge that includes the various principles and explanations I have identified (universal gravitation, relativity, the biological details of respiratory systems, the biomechanical and fluid mechanical nature of winged flight, etc) is not an assumed part of D&D worlds, which - like the fantasy worlds of fiction (JRRT's, REH's, Le Guin's, etc) - deliberately eschew science in favour of making up fantastic stuff.

I mean, just as one more example: in the Earthsea books Ged can sail to the edge of the world. His world clearly does not have the physical properties of our own. But unsupported objects nevertheless fall to earth. The world conforms to common sense; but it would be silly to describe it as a world in which physics - the body of knowledge that we have of our real world - is true.

 

[prabe]

But for many if not most people, the fiction is more comprehensible if it doesn't adhere to universal gravitation or to relativity - the former to an extent, and the latter to a great extent, being counter-intuitive relative to common sense. And adhering to common sense is what underpins comprehensibility.

This is why dragons and giant terrestrial arthropods are fine: because there it doesn't contradict common sense to have giant flying lizards - the impossibility of their flight has to be inferred from a non-common sensical, technical understanding of how wings generate lift, and how much lift they can generate; and nor are the features of arthropod respiration that make giant terrestrial arthropods impossible evident to common sense.

I don't think we're disagreeing much, just maybe talking from different angles? The game world needs to be comprehensible and consistent so the people at the TRPG table can make reasonable decisions based on their understanding of it, I think we agree on that? So for example, if at one table, most diseases work by something consistent with germ theory and at another table they're all the will of the gawds, that's fine so long as the people at both tables can make reasonable in-game decisions in re diseases?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What I would say that what seems to be "common sensical" is somewhat subjective. Personally I find that more I know about something, harder weirdness and inconsistency in depictions of that thing are to overlook.

 

[AlViking]

But for many if not most people, the fiction is more comprehensible if it doesn't adhere to universal gravitation or to relativity - the former to an extent, and the latter to a great extent, being counter-intuitive relative to common sense. And adhering to common sense is what underpins comprehensibility.

This is why dragons and giant terrestrial arthropods are fine: because there it doesn't contradict common sense to have giant flying lizards - the impossibility of their flight has to be inferred from a non-common sensical, technical understanding of how wings generate lift, and how much lift they can generate; and nor are the features of arthropod respiration that make giant terrestrial arthropods impossible evident to common sense.

When you say "perceptions" and "observable world" I don't know if you mean that literally - in which case neither universal gravitation nor relativity nor arthropod respiration nor the nature of winged flight are perceptible phenomena; or whether you mean reality as the scientifically educated believe it to be.

And that is what I am talking about. It seems to me obvious that scientific truth, in so far as that is not just a reiteration of common sense but a body of knowledge that includes the various principles and explanations I have identified (universal gravitation, relativity, the biological details of respiratory systems, the biomechanical and fluid mechanical nature of winged flight, etc) is not an assumed part of D&D worlds, which - like the fantasy worlds of fiction (JRRT's, REH's, Le Guin's, etc) - deliberately eschew science in favour of making up fantastic stuff.

I mean, just as one more example: in the Earthsea books Ged can sail to the edge of the world. His world clearly does not have the physical properties of our own. But unsupported objects nevertheless fall to earth. The world conforms to common sense; but it would be silly to describe it as a world in which physics - the body of knowledge that we have of our real world is true.

All I care about is whether the world my character is going to interface with works the same as the real world. I have never built a microscope in DnD and don't see how it would matter. If a person can sail to the edge of the world, I would mention that when setting up the fictional world. Even in the real world we don't really understand how everything works even if we have a lot of theories and math that seems to work. We still cannot untangle the difference between the macro level and the quantum level. We don't know if there is really dark matter or dark energy, they just make calculations work until they don't. You could still use the scientific method to determine physics and explanations of the world even if it doesn't result in the same answers as our world.

I don't care if the world works differently at a level my character can't see. If the world is flat, let me know but otherwise I'm going to assume the world is a sphere. Dragons fly because they're magical beasties, ghosts are real because in that fiction they are. Beyond that I don't see why it matters.

 

[Maxperson]

If a fictional world doesn't fully follow the known laws of physics, I don't see how that automatically means physics no longer describes the world. Physics isn't why we have gravity, physics is how we describe how we think gravity works. But we aren't really sure that we're right because we can't figure out the relationship between the macro and quantum level effects of gravity. Pretty obvious that something modifies our observation of physics in many forms of fiction. Harry Potter shouldn't be able to fly around on a broom but we assume the rest of the world still works like ours does unless told otherwise. I've always assumed the same for DnD worlds.

So did Gygax. He explicitly said that if it doesn't interfere with the running of the game, the game uses the highest possible level of realism. That would include things like universal gravitation, arthropod breathing, and more.

 

[Maxperson]

But you're not surprised if Buffy can lift a car, despite that being a physical impossibility for an adult who weighs maybe 110 lb with relatively little muscle mass.

The only expectation for what physics rules might be broken is genre logic; that's the point I'm making.

Buffy was a slayer, imparted with mystical powers to do what she does, which includes physically matching supernaturally strong vampires. So I would not be surprised if Buffy did that. I WOULD be surprised if Cersei from Game of Thrones did something like that.

 

[TwoSix]

Buffy was a slayer, imparted with mystical powers to do what she does, which includes physically matching supernaturally strong vampires. So I would not be surprised if Buffy did that. I WOULD be surprised if Cersei from Game of Thrones did something like that.

Exactly. What matters is genre logic, not how the physics of the setting are known to us.

 

[prabe]

Exactly. What matters is genre logic, not how the physics of the setting are known to us.

What matters is that the people at the table are able to anticipate how the world will behave. At some tables, in some games, that will be mostly genre logic; that's not necessarily universal (though I think I agree it's more common than a lot of people realize).

 

[Maxperson]

Exactly. What matters is genre logic, not how the physics of the setting are known to us.

My point is that the default is normal world physics unless something calls it out as different. Nothing in Game of Thrones gives Cersei the ability to lift something the weight of a car. However, if supernatural, semi-undead Mountainstein did it, I wouldn't bat an eye. The same goes if I saw a dragon sized bird flying in Game of Thrones, rather than a supernatural dragon flying.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer calls Buffy out as being different supernaturally. Game of Thrones does not call Cersei out as being different supernaturally. Both have real world physics other than those specially called out differences. D&D is the same. Exceptions to real world physics are generally called out.

 

[FrozenNorth]

What I would say that what seems to be "common sensical" is somewhat subjective. Personally I find that more I know about something, harder weirdness and inconsistency in depictions of that thing are to overlook.

I have found that it is harder to run games set in modern times for this reason. My players know quite a bit about modern life, so stuff like movie hacking, secure facilities not having elementary security precautions and unlimited mooks that are willing to die for nebulous evil organizations will stand out whereas they probably won’t notice that there’s no way anybody in a 500 person village has any need to buy looted armor and weapons.