"I think Hydrogen is a rare element" and other science facts.

[Ruin Explorer]

It is subjective, but not necessarily aesthetic exclusively.

Maybe I'm being dumb but I don't really see a difference except in the exact wording being used.

Indeed, I like to call that the « because dragons! fallacy ».

If you're claiming the difference between having a +0 and a -1 modifier in D&D is on that level, then frankly, there's no end to the minor issues you could claim were gigantic mountains. You're really helping to support my point about how this is "special pleading" the basic solely applies to halflings (because nobody has ever played a gnome!), and how ridiculous it is that a halfling which can bench, say, 140lbs is fine, but 180lbs? LOGICAL FALLACY!!!!

* 5e14 struck the best balance there IMHO

Wait how does 2024 differ on halflings?

 

[Micah Sweet]

D&D's worlds are based on exceptions. Where one draws the line is subjective as what one can accept. Some people can accept child-sized adventurers, others cannot. Some people can accept Dwarves being able to swim, others cannot. Some people can accept giant-sized ants, bees, and other creatures existing in the game, others cannot. Some people can accept that something as large as a dragon can fly about at great speeds without the necessary wingspan, others cannot.

I could go on, but the fact is, even if we assume "D&D worlds are like Earth, save for exceptions", there's a lot of exceptions, many grandfathered in since the earliest days of the game, and not all are noted as being such.

To argue that "this is unrealistic but this other thing is acceptable" when both exist in the same game is not going to be very persuasive. Some will want citation to know precisely what is simply the way things are meant to be, and what is a mistake- but games are notoriously inconsistent with providing citations. Sometimes a Wizard (God) did it is all you get.

Now this thread was intended to talk about when the DM gets the science wrong, not the game designers! And of course, it goes without saying that the DM (or the designer) is only wrong if they make the statement that "we follow the science".

D&D is not a reality simulator. Gary Gygax makes a point of this back in the AD&D 1e DMG and I've never read any D&D book that tells me it's meant to simulate reality- quite the opposite, in fact. Any relationship to real-world physics in a D&D world is coincidental, as the physics involved with magic ships sailing between crystal spheres through the phlogiston or disc-shaped worlds (the tenth planet in Oerth's star system for example) exist because we're told that they do- nobody is claiming that Greyspace is intended to simulate our universe's physics, so the fact that The Wink exists doesn't necessarily make it an anomaly or mistake- only by claiming it isn't an anomaly or mistake would make it one.

Assuming you care what Gygax thinks about this, it's always worth noting that he was inconsistent on this issue throughout his career.

 

[James Gasik]

Assuming you care what Gygax thinks about this, it's always worth noting that he was inconsistent on this issue throughout his career.

I suppose, but if you can't believe the guy writing the DMG when they say D&D isn't a reality sim, then who would you believe?

Also, when has anyone gone on record saying D&D is a reality simulator?*

*Maybe somebody has, if so, I'd love to be enlightened!

 

[Bohandas]

* = Also questionable, given they can interbreed with humans, kind of strongly implies they are "humans", actually, if we're going to science-y...

That's not in the same category because it's part of the premise of the setting that neat symmetircal "a mates with b and b mates with c so a mates with c" relationships. That's already a little bit true in the real world, but in the fantasy world dragons and fiends and celestials throw it totally out the window.

Also they're cladistically seperate in the standard settings that have creator gods

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So what the modifier did was to represent a thing that would be a bigger difference in the fiction with a smaller difference in the game.

I don't think that's really true though - I can't think of an examples of halflings being like, "large toddler strength" in D&D (or general fantasy) fiction and a lot of examples where they're clearly much stronger than that (including Tolkien, Tad Williams, etc).

This is the sort of "broad strokes simulationism" I prefer. I am not interested in getting bogged down to exact details, but I want the overall picture to be simulationistic in general sense.

I mean, there's nothing genuinely "simulationist" about what you're describing. It's tokenist, not simulationist. You're describing token modifiers that arguably "represent" things, but don't actually impact the game much. This is actually kind of more of a "gamist" position than a simulationist one, because you're prioritizing the game functioning well. D&D is one of the least "simulationist" RPGs ever designed anyway (in any edition). Every single WoD game, probably every White Wolf game is more "simulationist" than D&D is.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

D&D's worlds are based on exceptions. Where one draws the line is subjective as what one can accept. Some people can accept child-sized adventurers, others cannot. Some people can accept Dwarves being able to swim, others cannot. Some people can accept giant-sized ants, bees, and other creatures existing in the game, others cannot. Some people can accept that something as large as a dragon can fly about at great speeds without the necessary wingspan, others cannot.

I could go on, but the fact is, even if we assume "D&D worlds are like Earth, save for exceptions", there's a lot of exceptions, many grandfathered in since the earliest days of the game, and not all are noted as being such.

To argue that "this is unrealistic but this other thing is acceptable" when both exist in the same game is not going to be very persuasive. Some will want citation to know precisely what is simply the way things are meant to be, and what is a mistake- but games are notoriously inconsistent with providing citations. Sometimes a Wizard (God) did it is all you get.

Now this thread was intended to talk about when the DM gets the science wrong, not the game designers! And of course, it goes without saying that the DM (or the designer) is only wrong if they make the statement that "we follow the science".

D&D is not a reality simulator. Gary Gygax makes a point of this back in the AD&D 1e DMG and I've never read any D&D book that tells me it's meant to simulate reality- quite the opposite, in fact. Any relationship to real-world physics in a D&D world is coincidental, as the physics involved with magic ships sailing between crystal spheres through the phlogiston or disc-shaped worlds (the tenth planet in Oerth's star system for example) exist because we're told that they do- nobody is claiming that Greyspace is intended to simulate our universe's physics, so the fact that The Wink exists doesn't necessarily make it an anomaly or mistake- only by claiming it isn't an anomaly or mistake would make it one.

So what I want in a fantasy game where all sort of weird and implausible stuff exists is not any precise scientifically accurate realism, I just want broad strokes WYSIWYG verisimilitude. And I don't really want to harp the halfling issue, but to me it is a pretty common sense assumption that humans would be physically stronger than halflings just like it would be to assume that giants are stronger than humans. Now you can break such common sense assumptions and invent explanations, but more you do so, more unrelatable and unpredictable your fantasy milieu becomes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

WYSIWYG verisimilitude

Verisimilitude to what though? Fantasy fiction in general?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think that's really true though - I can't think of an examples of halflings being like, "large toddler strength" in D&D (or general fantasy) fiction and a lot of examples where they're clearly much stronger than that (including Tolkien, Tad Williams, etc).

Yet much weaker than humans.

I mean, there's nothing genuinely "simulationist" about what you're describing. It's tokenist, not simulationist. You're describing token modifiers that arguably "represent" things, but don't actually impact the game much. This is actually kind of more of a "gamist" position than a simulationist one, because you're prioritizing the game functioning well. D&D is one of the least "simulationist" RPGs ever designed anyway (in any edition). Every single WoD game, probably every White Wolf game is more "simulationist" than D&D is.

I agree that D&D is not very simulationistic, but also most games make some concessions to gameability in this department. So it is not either or, you can have a compromise, and doing so doesn't make it completely non-simulationistic, but merely less simulationistic. Also, you cannot argue the two points do not impact the game much. If it didn't why it was such a huge deal for so many people and they could not play a species without an ASI to the class' main stat? It obviously was a massive deal to a lot of people, so you cannot say it had little impact.

 

[Bohandas]

It is very fun to read these anecdotals in the thread, however in my games I use the best physics in the world: Cinematic physics aka. if it would seem plausible in a blockbuster movie, it is possible in my game. It certainly is not realistic physics simulation, but who needs that in their game.

A lot of things in blockbuster movies don't even feel plausible in the movie. Like the Naboo thing from earlier. (And physics in Star Wars in in general now that I think of it, like the tiny star in episode 7, or how long it took Jedha to explode)

 

[Laurefindel]

D&D is not a reality simulator.

I agree with most of your post but here’s where I disagree: D&D is not a simulator that aims to accurately reflect reality but it IS a reality simulator. All rulesets are. It takes a position on a scale, its not a yes/no question.

People usually don’t go for ‘reality’, they go for ‘relatability’. But otherwise you’re right. People have a different preferred position on that relatability scale. D&D has a position on that scale too, and sometimes it doesn’t match.