D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[pemerton]

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

<snip>

I don't really care about the underlying rules of physics describing how things work. All I care about is what is experienced, what is perceived and how. Do atoms exist? It doesn't matter because the PCs will never see an atom.

In this thread, I'm making what I think is a simple point. Some of your posts seem to more-or-less agree, but also present themselves as if they disagree.

My point is that I do not think that D&D worlds treat the physics of the real world as a default. That is, I don't think they assume universal gravitation (they do assume that unsupported bodies fall to earth; but I don't think they assume that the reason for this is also the reason for celestial motion); I don't think they assume relativity; I don't think they assume the atomic theory of matter; I don't think they assume the oxygen theory of combustion (especially given that air and fire are elements); etc.

 

[Derulbaskul]

Show me where I stated that. All I did say is that the Bible very clearly describes a flat Earth. Last I checked it was not written in the middle ages

No it doesn't.

Book, chapter, and verse to prove otherwise.

 

[clearstream]

My point is that I do not think that D&D worlds treat the physics of the real world as a default. That is, I don't think they assume universal gravitation (they do assume that unsupported bodies fall to earth; but I don't think they assume that the reason for this is also the reason for celestial motion); I don't think they assume relativity; I don't think they assume the atomic theory of matter; I don't think they assume the oxygen theory of combustion (especially given that air and fire are elements); etc.

To make sure I have your point right, do you mean thar there are facts about the fiction describing D&D worlds that establish it (much as it is a fact about the fiction of Doyle’s London that a consulting detective lives at 221B Baker Street.) Including in that reasonable inferences from extant fiction.

Or do you mean that as to what groups playing and developing the fiction of their D&D world imagine, they don't ordinarily include such things (relativity etc.) due to lack of knowledge (including misapprehensions) or lack of interest (and perhaps both.)

I think you are not asserting anything externally true of D&D worlds beyond the extant and imagined fiction... but are the above accurate or do you have in mind something else?

 

[mamba]

No it doesn't.

Book, chapter, and verse to prove otherwise.

not going to argue established facts or the Bible, google it if you want to, there are several clear references.

Start with Genesis, the firmament, the waters above and below, and Job 9:6 for the pillars the Earth is resting on. It is common knowledge that the Bible depicts a flat Earth with a firmament from which the stars are hung above it. With Matthew 24 having Jesus say that the stars will fall to Earth at the end of times and Revelations 6 repeating that, so not much progress over the 1500 years the Bible books were written in

They had basically the same worldview as their neighbors at the time, and that is what they described, namely

Firmament - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Given that this is clearly outside of the context of the site, I am not going to discuss it any further

 

[AlViking]

In this thread, I'm making what I think is a simple point. Some of your posts seem to more-or-less agree, but also present themselves as if they disagree.

My point is that I do not think that D&D worlds treat the physics of the real world as a default. That is, I don't think they assume universal gravitation (they do assume that unsupported bodies fall to earth; but I don't think they assume that the reason for this is also the reason for celestial motion); I don't think they assume relativity; I don't think they assume the atomic theory of matter; I don't think they assume the oxygen theory of combustion (especially given that air and fire are elements); etc.

I don't think universal gravity, relativity, the atomic theory of matter ever come up in most fiction so it doesn't matter. The worlds aren't real so neither are the underlying principles that govern it. I accept dragons because I accept magical creatures of all sorts in fantasy, it's fantasy because it does break some rules. Otherwise it would be historical fiction or an alternate history.

Lots of fiction like Star Wars get a lot wrong because it's more cinematic to have spacecraft making zooming noise and having massive explosions. Others just use technobabble and technology so advanced it might as well be magic like Star Trek's warp drive and teleporters. We also accept excuses like universal translators in Star Trek because it makes it easier to tell the stories. Just like we accept hit points and armor class in DnD.

Yet if they go too far or change too many in ways that are not necessary to support the target genre I feel less connected to the fiction. If a character is in a small space where they are slowly suffocating, starting a fire is only going to make things worse. I accept zombies in The Walking Dead not because they came up with some scientific explanation, but because they carved out one exception from the way the way the real world works. On the other hand Rick isn't going to walk off a cliff and not fall until he looks down because they haven't established that the show is a loony toons cartoon.

 

[Autumnal]

Some recommended reading for this part of the thread: Celestial Matters, by Richard Garfinkle. It’s a hard sf technothriller…in a universe that runs on Aristotelian physics. The protagonists are on a secret mission, making their way through the crystal spheres to retrieve some of the matter of the sun to make a super-weapon. Garfinkle was ruthlessly meticulous in his attention to detail, and the end result is very cool and satisfying and seems like it’d be very gameable. (He’s another roleplaying veteran.)

 

[AlViking]

Some recommended reading for this part of the thread: Celestial Matters, by Richard Garfinkle. It’s a hard sf technothriller…in a universe that runs on Aristotelian physics. The protagonists are on a secret mission, making their way through the crystal spheres to retrieve some of the matter of the sun to make a super-weapon. Garfinkle was ruthlessly meticulous in his attention to detail, and the end result is very cool and satisfying and seems like it’d be very gameable. (He’s another roleplaying veteran.)

I assume they establish early on the assumption of Aristotelian physics or at least make it clear to those that understand it? Carving out exceptions is not the issue, making it fairly clear what the exceptions are is. For me anyway.

 

[Autumnal]

Yes. Things like objects falling faster when they’re heavier are woven into the activities of the mission, and commented on in ways that make sense. The reader learns what they need as the stories goes. Complex points become part of mission planning, for officers and crew to prepare for.

 

[clearstream]

I don't think universal gravity, relativity, the atomic theory of matter ever come up in most fiction so it doesn't matter. The worlds aren't real so neither are the underlying principles that govern it. I accept dragons because I accept magical creatures of all sorts in fantasy, it's fantasy because it does break some rules. Otherwise it would be historical fiction or an alternate history.

Yet if they go too far or change too many in ways that are not necessary to support the target genre I feel less connected to the fiction. If a character is in a small space where they are slowly suffocating, starting a fire is only going to make things worse. I accept zombies in The Walking Dead not because they came up with some scientific explanation, but because they carved out one exception from the way the way the real world works. On the other hand Rick isn't going to walk off a cliff and not fall until he looks down because they haven't established that the show is a loony toons cartoon.

The principle you're outlining seems to be that intentional exceptions are accepted, but the baseline is grounded in reality even if not rigorously or scientifically.

Potentially @pemerton is excluding "scientifically" from that grounding, so I suppose the question is whether -- when it comes to changes not needed for genre or otherwise intentional -- are you also excluding their being grounded in science?

 

[AlViking]

The principle you're outlining seems to be that intentional exceptions are accepted, but the baseline is grounded in reality even if not rigorously or scientifically.

Potentially @pemerton is excluding "scientifically" from that grounding, so I suppose the question is whether -- when it comes to changes not needed for genre or otherwise intentional -- are you also excluding their being grounded in science?

Saying it's grounded in science doesn't really change anything. Science is just used to define underlying reality. Newtonian physics was the scientific explanation up until Einsten's theory of relativity. That doesn't change reality, just our understanding of it. For that matter Newton'a definition of physics works just fine 99% of the time for people that live in a world with DnD level of technology.

If we lived in Loony Tunes universe we would just have different scientific theories explaining it.

Hope that makes sense.