A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

[Lanefan]

Evolution, in the real world, depends (among other things) upon facts of biochemistry.

But why would anyone suppose that living things in D&D have the sorts of cellular, genetic and biochemical properties they have in the real world?

Because it fits with the baseline assumption that things in the D&D world work the same as in our world unless something says otherwise.

It is possible for people to have very rich common-sense understandings of how living things behave and reproduce without knowing any of those scientific facts: I give you most of human history as proof of that.

Yes, and from the player side that's all that's needed. But from the DM side, I for one want to nail down how it all works, using a combination of my imagination and my limited knowledge of most things scientific.

It's possible for people to tell stories about imaginary and fantastic living things, and their behaviour and reproduction, (i) without asuming any of those scientific facts, and (ii) which would be physically impossible in light of those scientific facts: I give you most myth, legend and fairy story as proof of that.

In the case of the people who originated most myth, legend and fairy story, the reason for (i) is because they can't assume what they don't know. In the case of modern fantasy writers, (i) becomes a literary device.

Once (i) is in play, evolution is out of play as far as the story in question is concerned.

Is D&D intended to be played under fundamentally different assumptions from those that govern most myth, legend and fairy story? Nothing in the rulebooks gives me that impression.

But in our case as RPG DMs, we can assume what we don't know in that we can design our own science to back everything up; and the easiest jumping-off point for that is to just use the science we already have in the real world wherever we can and then add or amend things to suit game-world elements that don't exist in the real world. It's really not that difficult.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

So what did you imagine that these creatures were made out of? I am guessing pure handwavium at this point because I have never come across someone who sincerely believed that a Giant was just like a normal human enlarged to 3x the size.

The problem is, most depictions of basic Giants e.g. Hill Giants show them as pretty much looking like really big Humans; so it's an easy step from there to assume they just more or less are really big Humans.

Lan-"never mind an actual game-world Human who downs a Potion of Growth and suddenly becomes 15' tall"-efan

 

[Maxperson]

Premise: we can't learn scientific truth simply by imagining things, or examining things that we imagine.

Premise: if something is conditioned by, or exemplifies the workings of, scientific laws, then by examining it we can learn scientific truth from it.

Conclusion: the things that we imagine are not, or at least need not be, conditioned by or exmemplifications of the workings of scientific laws.

I don't think anyone has argued that the game needs to be exemplified by scientific laws. Pretty sure the argument has been, "Approximations of physics(and it turns out the other sciences) exist in D&D, but if you don't want it to be that way for your game, cool."

 

[pemerton]

Gygax thought so, which is why he explicitly added in the sciences to D&D.

<snip>

He added them in as an approximation of real world sciences.

Gygax said nothing about "approximation of real world sciences". He indicated some areas of study for sages, which are approximations of real world mediaeval universities and scholarship.

Do sages who study astronomy in D&D engage with contemporary theories of stellar formation, with Ptolemaic theories of spheres around the earth, or with the ideas set out in Spelljammer? Gygax doesn't tell us, but the one astronomical example he provides - of someone flying to the moon on a winged horse - suggests more like the lattermost! It cetainly isn't consistent with the first.

Because it fits with the baseline assumption that things in the D&D world work the same as in our world unless something says otherwise.

But there is no such baseline assumption! There is a baseline assumption that common sense things - eg animal husbandry - work much as they do in our world. But there is no such assumption when it comes to scientific theories that aren't evident to common sense, weren't known to mediaeval or even early modern people, and aren't discussed in the rulebooks.

In D&D, a character can travel to the Elemental Plane of Earth, collect a diamond, and bring it back to earth. Is it distinguishable from an earthly diamond of the same size and shape? I've never seen anything to suggest that it is. Is it made of carbon atoms? Presumably not, given that we're talking about the Elemental Plane of Earth rather than the Elemental Plane of Carbon! But if it is indistinguishable from the earthly one, then presumably that is not made of carbon either!

Any number of similar examples can be given. Eg a vampire can suck the "life force" from a human being! Whatever the hell that is, it's not something that Darwin ever theorised! Or this one: fire is an element, which means that combustion is the release of an element from within the burned thing; which is much closer to the pholgiston theory of combustion than to the true theory that combustion is oxidation.

from the DM side, I for one want to nail down how it all works, using a combination of my imagination and my limited knowledge of most things scientific.

<snip>

as RPG DMs, we can assume what we don't know in that we can design our own science to back everything up; and the easiest jumping-off point for that is to just use the science we already have in the real world wherever we can

OK, that's your prerogative. But I've never read a D&D rulebook that gave that advice (the closest thing I can think of is Gygax's discussion of ecology in his DMG, and that doesn't involve science at all, but pseudo-science about the sun in the gameworld being a diferent colour from that on earth). Nor do I recall any D&D book that suggested that the default is real world science beyond the remit of common sense.

"Approximations of physics(and it turns out the other sciences) exist in D&D

Which ones? We've established that terminal velocity is different; that the only discussion of the earth's atmosphere and moon is different; that the composition of diamonds is different; that the elements are different; that combustion is different; that life is something connected to a supernatural "life force" rather than something that consiss in, or perhaps supervenes on, certain biochemical processes.

What is left besides common sense tropes? - which are an "approximation of physics and other sciences" only in the sense that they are among the observations that are the starting point for scientific enquiry.

 

[Maxperson]

Gygax said nothing about "approximation of real world sciences". He indicated some areas of study for sages, which are approximations of real world mediaeval universities and scholarship.

Do sages who study astronomy in D&D engage with contemporary theories of stellar formation, with Ptolemaic theories of spheres around the earth, or with the ideas set out in Spelljammer? Gygax doesn't tell us, but the one astronomical example he provides - of someone flying to the moon on a winged horse - suggests more like the lattermost! It cetainly isn't consistent with the first.

One astronomical example? He gives 4 right there, including one where stars are suns at a distance. He then says it's the DMs call as to what can be done. Even if you do go with the horse flying to the moon idea, that still doesn't mean that starts aren't balls of burning hydrogen, that planets don't orbit stars, and that moons don't orbit planets. It doesn't mean that meteors don't fly around, crashing into planets. It doesn't mean that there aren't black holes out there, and more. Again, it's an APPROXIMATION of the science, not the science. Enough with your Red Herring that they have to mirror real life exactly.

Which ones? We've established that terminal velocity is different; that the only discussion of the earth's atmosphere and moon is different; that the composition of diamonds is different; that the elements are different; that combustion is different; that life is something connected to a supernatural "life force" rather than something that consiss in, or perhaps supervenes on, certain biochemical processes.

There's nothing to say that diamond is different, or that the atmosphere isn't composed of the same elements as Earth's, or that the elements are different. I don't see anything to indicate that combustion is different, either. It requires fire and a fuel source. Gygax also established that a vacuum exists. Where else would it exist if not in space? As for terminal velocity. So what if it's different. What do you think "approximation" means. You seem to think the "approximation" means "exact."

Heck, he says this, "Even actual sciences can be used - geography, chemistry, physics, and so forth."

 

[pemerton]

From Gygax's DMG, p 21:

Consider also that each and every Dungeon Master worthy of that title is continually at work expanding his or her campaign milieu. The game is not merely a meaningless dungeon and an urban base around which is plopped the dreaded wilderness. Each of you must design a world, piece by piece, as if a jigsaw puzzle were being hand crafted, and each new section must fit perfectly the pattern of the other pieces. Faced with such a task all of us need all of the aid and assistance we can get. Without such help the sheer magnitude of the task would force most of us to throw up our hands in despair.

By having a basis to work from, and a well-developed body of work to draw upon, at least part of this task is handled for us. When history, folk-lore, myth, fable and fiction can be incorporated or used as reference for the campaign, the magnitude of the effort required is reduced by several degrees. Even actual sciences can be used - geography, chemistry, physics, and so forth.​

Can be used does not mean, nor imply, is the assumed baseline. It is put in the same category as folklore, myth, fable and fiction.

Even if you do go with the horse flying to the moon idea, that still doesn't mean that starts aren't balls of burning hydrogen, that planets don't orbit stars, and that moons don't orbit planets.

If moons orbit planets in the vacuum of space, then no horse is flying up to them, is it?

There's nothing to say that diamond is different, or that the atmosphere isn't composed of the same elements as Earth's, or that the elements are different. I don't see anything to indicate that combustion is different, either. It requires fire and a fuel source.

Phlogiston theorists new that fire required fuel. But they thought that combustion meant that something (phlogiston) was being driven out of the burning substance, rather than something (oxygen) being bonded with it.

Given that, in D&D, the elements are air, earth, fire and water then it seems highly unlikely that the atmosphere is composed of oxygen, nitrogen, argon, CO2, etc - as opposed to elemental air. And given that fire is an element, it seems highly unlikely that combustion is a chemcial reaction of the sort it is on earth, as opposed to a process of driving the elemental fire out of substances.

Of is the nsaming of the elements as elements a misnomer like the name of Cure Light Wounds?

 

[Lanefan]

But there is no such baseline assumption! There is a baseline assumption that common sense things - eg animal husbandry - work much as they do in our world. But there is no such assumption when it comes to scientific theories that aren't evident to common sense, weren't known to mediaeval or even early modern people, and aren't discussed in the rulebooks.

They aren't discussed because they are assumed.

Every item in the equipment list in the PH is given a weight. The unwritten assumption behind this is that gravity exists, otherwise "weight" would be a meaningless term and he'd instead use "mass". Ditto for encumbrance rules...they're irrelevant in a gravity-free environment and so their existence assumes the existence of gravity. Ditto for ranges of ranged weapons - in a gravity-free environment they'd just keep going until they hit something or until air resistance slowed them down.

Once we agree that gravity exists in the game world as evidenced by these rules, we-as-DMs are then free to ask ourselves how it works; and to ask whether there's any good reason to have it work differently than in the real world other than where modified by magic*.

* - by the way, whatever system you're running, check the duration on the "Reverse Gravity" spell in that system and then hit one of the sites that do the acceleration calcs for you - you might be a little surprised...

In D&D, a character can travel to the Elemental Plane of Earth, collect a diamond, and bring it back to earth.

Heh - in your D&D, maybe.

In mine a character can travel to the Elemental Plane of Earth and 99.99%-likely immediately die, unless ahead of time it has turned itself into a Xorn or some other creature that can survive in solid earth or rock.

The tiny chance of survival is that there's occasional air pockets and caves, kind of like how open space has occasional solid objects in it (stars, planets, etc.).

Any number of similar examples can be given. Eg a vampire can suck the "life force" from a human being! Whatever the hell that is, it's not something that Darwin ever theorised!

This is ne I've given quite a bit of thought to over the years...I've sort of got a vague theory half-built that covers this, and spirits in general, and how they relate to being alive-dead-undead, and revival from death, and a bunch of other metaphysical stuff; but it's by no means solid enough yet to apply to the game. Which means I still kinda wing a lot of it, for the time being.

Lanefan

 

[Maxperson]

If moons orbit planets in the vacuum of space, then no horse is flying up to them, is it?

A horse(or anything else) can't fly to the moon. He gives that as an alternative that a DM can make up, which means that the baseline is that you can't do it. Nobody is arguing that you can't add something magical or different. Only that the game approximates the sciences.

Phlogiston theorists new that fire required fuel. But they thought that combustion meant that something (phlogiston) was being driven out of the burning substance, rather than something (oxygen) being bonded with it.

Another Red Herring?!?! A made up substance that is campaign specific does not prove you correct.

Given that, in D&D, the elements are air, earth, fire and water then it seems highly unlikely that the atmosphere is composed of oxygen, nitrogen, argon, CO2, etc - as opposed to elemental air. And given that fire is an element, it seems highly unlikely that combustion is a chemcial reaction of the sort it is on earth, as opposed to a process of driving the elemental fire out of substances.

He gives actual elements in the game. The elemental planes are not the actual elements that all things are made up from. He gives us gold, iron, platinum, copper, carbon, sulfur, phosphorus, chlorine, silver, zinc, mercury, and lead. Now, Gygax may have intended that the physical elements be a part of "elemental earth" and the gaseous elements be a part of "elemental air," but the fact is, the elements from the real world exist there in an approximation of the real world sciences that use them.

Of is the nsaming of the elements as elements a misnomer like the name of Cure Light Wounds?

See above. Gygax names them properly just fine.

P.S. Gravity cannot be reversed by the spell if it doesn't exist in the first place.

P.P.S. Molecular Agitation explicitly says that it affects the molecules of an item.

P.P.P.S. the list of herbs and such is incredibly detailed in real world herbs. He then adds fantasy plants to them, making D&D botany an approximation of the real world's.

P.P.P.P.S. He also lists real world gambling games.

If you can't see by now that Gygax drew from the real world as a baseline on top of which he built his fantasy components, I really don't know what else to tell you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's a premise: to learn scientific truth you actually need to investigate stuff in the real world, not just imagine stuff. That's why Galileo's opinions about the nature of the planets are connected to truth, whereas the stuff CS Lewise wrote in his Out of the Silent Planet stories is not.

I guess we'll just have to tell the boys in the theoretical physics department they should just go home; no science to be done.

Also, as an aside, Galileo had no evidence or fact to back up his model. He thought ut was a more elegant solution to astrology [sic]. Also, he thought himself so smart as to be infallible, and so insisted by dint of him being him he was right.

Actual observational science of the time agreed with the Earth centric model because telescope optics were too poor to reveal parallax in stars. Even then, no one could really even imagine the distances involved. It wasn't until optics improved to the point observers could view the parallax enough to overcome the disbelief of the distances involved that the Earth centric model was actually adopted. And then it was Kepler's much better model rsther than "Shut up I'm Galileo"''s one.

 

[Morrus]

It's a premise: to learn scientific truth you actually need to investigate stuff in the real world, not just imagine stuff. That's why Galileo's opinions about the nature of the planets are connected to truth, whereas the stuff CS Lewise wrote in his Out of the Silent Planet stories is not.

Tell that to Albert Einstein.