Are there scientists in D&D? Should there be.....???

[Voadam]

In genre I sometimes think of D&D wizards as a scientific tradition. Arcane magic exists and is subject to study and manipulation and responds according to determined laws to result in repeatable phenomena. Wizards do this. They study, manipulate and research magic.

 

[Morrus]

In genre I sometimes think of D&D wizards as a scientific tradition. Arcane magic exists and is subject to study and manipulation and responds according to determined laws to result in repeatable phenomena. Wizards do this. They study, manipulate and research magic.

I do like the idea of magic working like that. Then again, the other side of me says "then it's not magic, it's science". I guess magic, by definition, is non-scientific.

 

[pemerton]

"Scientists" as we currently understand them, are a modern, post-Renaissance development. They don't really fit into a pseudo-Medieval setting.

<snip>

scientists are not about adventuring, they are about finding out what makes the world operate. If "how the world operates" is not a plot element for your campaign, a scientist is apt to be very frustrated.

And how many GMs are prepared to create a game-world physics that is solid and self-consistent enough to meet scrutiny? When "it is magic" is an alternative, you never have to worry about that, but with scientists, you do.

I think what you say makes sense for a game focused on scientific inquiry as a core story element.

But I think you can have a scientist in a game without that being the focus, much as pulp games might feature "archaeologists" although actually discovering about past material cultures via painstaking excavation is not a feature of gameplay.

Superhero games feature scientists like Reed Richards, Victor Von Doom, Professor X etc, and you can run a game with these scientists without settling on a solid, self-consistent gameworld physics. Call of Cthulhu games have scientists, too. I think a D&D campaign might take some sort of loose inspiration from Name of the Rose, for instance.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Not as PCs. Too weak, too boring, not suited for adventuring.

 

[Morrus]

Not as PCs. Too weak, too boring, not suited for adventuring.

Only if you have a weak, boring class. So have a non-weak, non-boring, adventure-suitable scientist. The lovechild of Indiana Jones, The Doctor, and Spock.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I've never played D&D without scientists in it, so I'm not sure I understand the question.

 

[nijineko]

I mean, as a character class.


Please discuss.



Thanks!!!

historically, yes there were. both as npc and as pcs. this is because the original campaign setting for D&D when it was first officially published included wrecked starships, robots, sentient AI computers, and more as a (small) part of the world in a certain location. as previously mentioned, "modern-day" scientists in D&D are alchemists, wizards, and artificers. early D&D included crossovers including doctor who (time travel), star frontiers & star trek (sci-fi), alpha dawn (post-apocolyptic) , boot hill (western), present day earth (modern), greyhawk (high-fantasy), blackmoor (mixed genre) and more.

D&D has always been a mixed genre game from its beginnings with fantasy being the non-exclusive 'primary' setting.

 

[Umbran]

I think what you say makes sense for a game focused on scientific inquiry as a core story element.

With respect, scientific inquiry is the defining raison d'etre for a scientist. Without the inquiry, they aren't really a scientist, they are a person who has knowledge of science, which falls somewhat sort of the archetype. IMHO, anyway.

But I think you can have a scientist in a game without that being the focus, much as pulp games might feature "archaeologists" although actually discovering about past material cultures via painstaking excavation is not a feature of gameplay.

Yeah, but Indiana Jones isn't really much of an archaeologist. Sorry. He's a roguish adventurer with knowledge of history. The *science* of archaeology, which has a lot of similarities to forensics, plays very little part in his adventures. The Staff of Ra is about it.

Superhero games feature scientists like Reed Richards, Victor Von Doom, Professor X etc, and you can run a game with these scientists without settling on a solid, self-consistent gameworld physics.

I think you'll generally find such characters expounding, sometimes at length, on their world's physical (or psychological, or biological) laws in a fairly consistent manner, especially when they're using science to solve a problem. So much so, that it is kind of a trope. The laws differ from those of our world, so that if we try to decode them into real-world science it is gobbledigook, but there is some internal consistency there enough that Marvel instituted the No-Prize in part for those who managed to patch holes for them

Call of Cthulhu games have scientists, too.

Yes, and their "science" generally doesn't matter or impact play, and they fall over gibbering sooner than most. Yippee. At least they come from a culture with a history of scientific inquiry, which D&D worlds generally don't.

 

[Raith5]

I like the idea of a class that uses knowledge rather than magic. Not sure if I use the term scientist. But I think you could build a robust class which has a mix abilities drawn from the artificer, the alchemist and the sage (who buffs allies and debuffs enemies).

 

[pemerton]

With respect, scientific inquiry is the defining raison d'etre for a scientist. Without the inquiry, they aren't really a scientist, they are a person who has knowledge of science, which falls somewhat sort of the archetype. IMHO, anyway.

By that standard, most D&D games don't have priests or paladins either!

(In the sense that there are very few D&D games and very little published D&D material in which actual theological inquiry or religious experience is the focus of play.)