Fantasy world maps and real world geology

[jolt]

Well, I think a lot would depend on how large and active a pantheon exists in the world in question. If you have a deity of rivers, for example, then rivers presumabley behave in whatever manner the diety in charge of them has dictated. Why do volcanoes exist? Is it the same reason they exist on Earth or is it because the diety of [whatever] said so? I think both are valid explanations. A deity may choose to have things work the same way it does on Earth but in a fantasy world that's hardly a given.

Now, some things are always going to be assumed (like gravity; at least at it's most basic observational level) because it would be too wonky not to.

In some worlds/settings, you have both magic and science but in others magic has effectively replaced science (the world was created by magic, magic is the reason things work the way they do, and the world would fall apart if not maintained by magic). In the latter world a scientist, as we think of one, would more than likely go nuts unless there was a deity of science and/or technology. Deities of knowledge (the closest general equivalent) are more often associated with magic than science (when they're associated with anything else at all).

A world needs to be internally consistent, but it only needs to be externally consistent enough to provide us with a framework we can understand. After that, anything goes; it's your world after all. It's a groups decision what viewpoint(s) they're going to follow but one isn't inherently superior to the other. I would find any such claims (either way) to be rather elitist.

jolt

 

[Doug McCrae]

At which points do the rules fail to simulate the reality of the D&D universe? Perhaps if you provided some examples that would help.

All non-barbarian humans have the exact same overland movement rate. A 25-year old ranger with an 18 con can cover as many miles in a day as a 90-year old wizard with a 3 con.

Being asleep doesn't affect your chances of dodging a fireball.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. Our disagreement is very straightforward imo, about what the game rules are supposed to be. Game or simulation of a strange reality?

Either way, the rules are the laws by which the game universe functions. Physics as a science is the pursuit of knowledge of the laws by which the universe functions. When one refers to "physics" in the sense of "how matter and energy behave" then the game rules tell you how matter and energy behave within the game universe.

If you lived in a D&D universe, and you were a scientist, the physical laws that you would discover would be different from those of our real universe, and would cleave very closely to the RAW, regardless of whether or not this was the intention of the game designers.

Indeed, because they are quantifiable, the D&D scientist could refer to XP, levels, hit points, alignment, and classes in scientific terms.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

All non-barbarian humans have the exact same overland movement rate. A 25-year old ranger with an 18 con can cover as many miles in a day as a 90-year old wizard with a 3 con.

Being asleep doesn't affect your chances of dodging a fireball.

Again, how does this fail to simulate the reality of the D&D universe?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Either way, the rules are the laws by which the game universe functions.

Well that's where we disagree. In my view, the rules are the laws by which the game functions, not the game universe.

regardless of whether or not this was the intention of the game designers.

I see the intention of the designers as having a great deal of bearing on the status of the game rules.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Again, how does this fail to simulate the reality of the D&D universe?

If those things are literally true of the D&D universe then that universe is ridiculous. It doesn't make sense to the players.

Imperfect rules, fine. Mad reality, less fine.

Are you telling me that you have gone through the D&D rules in all their mad, beautiful glory and come up with an in-world reason for all the weirdness? For why aged wizards are as speedy as young, fit rangers, and why housecats are so deadly? That you have thought through the consequences of most people being ignorant of horses?

I have a feeling the answer to those questions may be yes (at which point I will fall off my chair) but if it is...

Don't you think that's rather a lot of unnecessary work?

 

[fusangite]

Well that's where we disagree. In my view, the rules are the laws by which the game functions, not the game universe.

Can you explain how these are operationally different? Are there ever moments in your game when the rules say that one thing will happen but what happens is different than what the rules say? Because if not, like it or not, the rules of the game are the rules of your game world.

I see the intention of the designers as having a great deal of bearing on the status of the game rules.

I think that the rules should be evaluated on their own terms. Einstein thought quantum uncertainty was wrong and tried to disprove it. Newton thought his discoveries about the universe were part of a greater alchemical truth he worked his whole life to uncover.

Gary, as inventor of the game, is a very important guy. But, like any other great inventor, he got some things wrong and sometimes used language that was imprecise, confusing or downright wrong.

I am, however, happy to concede that I misread his quotation in my first response to it. Sorry about that.

 

[fusangite]

Are you telling me that you have gone through the D&D rules in all their mad, beautiful glory and come up with an in-world reason for all the weirdness?

No. You come up with it as you go, as necessary

For why aged wizards are as speedy as young, fit rangers,

Same reason ancient martial arts masters catch flies with chopsticks in Chinese movies: because they have lived a disciplined life that has kept their senses and mental acuity in perfect form.

and why housecats are so deadly?

Because they're tougher than the housecats we're used to? Or at least the ones who attack the players are.

That you have thought through the consequences of most people being ignorant of horses?

Huh? There has never been a time in our civilization that most people have known how to train (or even ride!) horses so I'm not seeing the problem.

I have a feeling the answer to those questions may be yes (at which point I will fall* off my chair) but if it is...

Don't you think that's rather a lot of unnecessary work?

I do it on the fly. And it's not that hard. I think you are imagining it to be a harder job than it is because you don't enjoy doing it and haven't tried.

In part, that's because different GMs find different things easy. I might spend 10 hours prepping for a battle that might take another GM 30 minutes. On the other hand, if somebody asks me whether their Shocking Burst longsword will work underwater, based on the D&D element system, I know the answer in 5 seconds. And that's where I get a lot of my fun.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Are you telling me that you have gone through the D&D rules in all their mad, beautiful glory and come up with an in-world reason for all the weirdness?

No....I change rules that don't reflect the reality I am trying to portray.

But, again, fusangite is correct:

Can you explain how these are operationally different? Are there ever moments in your game when the rules say that one thing will happen but what happens is different than what the rules say? Because if not, like it or not, the rules of the game are the rules of your game world.

I certainly believe that "setting trumps RAW", but in that case we are dealing with new rules, and the same still applies. If falling works this way today, the odds are good (but not completely certain, thank you Mr. Hume) that falling works the same way tomorrow.

RC

 

[fusangite]

No....I change rules that don't reflect the reality I am trying to portray.

But, again, fusangite is correct:



I certainly believe that "setting trumps RAW", but in that case we are dealing with new rules, and the same still applies. If falling works this way today, the odds are good (but not completely certain, thank you Mr. Hume) that falling works the same way tomorrow.

RC

Quite so. I mean the rules in effect, not the RAW, if there is a discrepancy between the two.