A question about a world idea I have.

[Umbran]

With that, maybe a thousand years is too long...I want this to be a fantasy world, and I am leaning towards a period where steam technology was discovered, developed, and has become the mainstream form of high technology in this world. I am also leaning towards, but this isn't set in stone yet, the fact that steam tech has been around for at least a century or two.

Well, let's remember something - this is a fantasy world. It doesn't necessarily follow the social development or science rules of our world. Just because we did something in 1000 years does not at all imply what others might do in that same time. Technological advance isn't inevitable, nor is the rate it advances set into stone.

You want 1000 years to pass, and they only get to steam power, then say that they just haven't figured out how to go farther. Or, perhaps higher technology simply isn't easy or possible by the physics of the world.

 

[Rel]

This:

I have this idea of a setting, and for roughly the last thousand years the races have gotten relatively along, without any major wars, for this time period.

is what jumped out at me. War and conflict are huge motivators for technological leaps ahead. It's one thing to sit around during peace time letting apples bonk you on the head and pondering the rules of the universe. But if you think the enemy might get Nuclear Weapons before you, you're gonna hurry.

Even though our world is populated by a single race, our cultural differences combined with good old fashioned greed have conspired to make peace (and the technological breather that often comes with it) a rare thing. I have difficulty immagining an extended peace on a world populated by the various D&D races.

That may be more my limitation than yours though.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Steamtech seems to work, but when combined with magic (espec non low-powered magic) problems arise. Why wouldn't everyone trap a water and fire elemental together to create the ultimate steam everything? Create water and create flame are much more primitive versions of the same thing, but still need to be considered.

One would probably kill the other.

And I don't see any reason why Create Water/Create Flame being used to create and power steam engines is particularly a problem at all in magical technology settings, which is what this sounds like it might be. Now, it might not be exactly common, given how many people become spellcasters due to the star, but it is certainly a viable approach.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

...I reckon that in standard D&D, either physics just don't work, or it is assumed that all truly intelligent and research-minded people will just become wizards.

Alternatively, arcanists could essentially be a mafia. They control all the whiz-bang powers, and they tend to stomp *hard* on any kooky Gnomes who cobble together a clockwork force that isn't powered by magic. And those Dwarves who are experimenting with black powder keep mysteriously blowing up even when they take procautions (in a way shockingly reminiescent of a Fireball).

If you're a wizard (or a sorceror, or what-have-you) you personally control vast power, and tech would be a threat because it puts tremendous power in the hands of *anyone*.

Heck, even gods and clerics would probably get in on the act. If that guy who's been developing simple surgery techniques suddenly has a house fall on him, I imagine you would be hard-pressed to find a cleric in the area to cast some healing magic. Or if you could, his god might very well find the "heretic" to be unworthy of healing magic.

 

[Acid_crash]

This:



is what jumped out at me. War and conflict are huge motivators for technological leaps ahead.

Even though our world is populated by a single race, our cultural differences combined with good old fashioned greed have conspired to make peace (and the technological breather that often comes with it) a rare thing. I have difficulty immagining an extended peace on a world populated by the various D&D races.

This isn't something I noticed before, so thank you for making me notice this. I guess it will be safe to assume that skirmishes and maybe minor wars have occurred, but nothing on a really massive scale, and these smaller clashes could cause at least a couple, maybe three, kingdoms to focus on technological advances.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

The concepts of critical thinking, experimentation, and questioning established knowledge are absolutely essential to scientific progress and yet surprisingly rare in human history. Check out Cosmos, by Carl Sagan. He makes some good points about how close the Greeks were to the Industrial Revolution and how they turned from that path.
Many civilizations throughout history have had a mindset that encourages doing things the way they've always been done. This is true even for those with an interest in some aspects of science, especially if they revere their predecessors overly much. For 2,000 years, people accepted Aristotle's laws of motion because they seemed like "logic" or "common sense"! They simply didn't conduct some fairly simple experiments because common sense said that of course a heavy object would fall faster than a lighter one.
At least as far as Europe goes, the key to the rapid advance in science after the Renaissance was that it became okay to say "Aristotle was wrong" or "Galileo had it almost right, but I can do better." The advance in science over the past 500 years is not the norm for all periods or for all cultures. It's quite conceivable that a fantasy world could remain in the Middle Ages or Bronze Ages for 10,000 years if they don't have events that lead to a lasting change of mindset. And the Greek experience shows that you can have a questioning mindset and then lose it, so progress is by no means inevitable.
Of course, once one of the civilizations makes that mental switch and really begins to advance, the rest remain behind at their peril.
Turmoil can be a benefit to science and creativity (witness the Italian Renaissance) or a detriment (Babylon in 700 BC was probably not all that different than it was in 2700 BC, due in part to repeated disruption of progress).

 

[Acid_crash]

That's true. The chinese culture was ruled by Confuscius and his way of life for 2500 years and their culture didn't change during that time at all until the early 1900's when communism took over.

 

[Umbran]

The chinese culture was ruled by Confuscius and his way of life for 2500 years and their culture didn't change during that time at all until the early 1900's when communism took over.

While perhaps the "didn't change during that time" is a bit of an overstatement, China does sit as a good example.

Let us note that China had a solid reason for stasis - for most of that time, China was a nation with a population it could just barely feed. Disruption of the social order would mean disruption of the normal chains of production and supply, and people would starve.