Fantasy world maps and real world geology

[Turanil]

On number one, a really great place to start reading is wikipedia's entry on Geography. It has a lot of cool branches to go down for both physical and human geography. Just pick and read and eventually things will start to stick and you'll find something that interests you particularly.

On number two that's A Magical Society: Ecology and Culture. There's also the free chapter on mapping called A Magical Society: Guide to Mapping. They're both available at www.yourgamesnow.com.

joe b.

Thanks for the answer! I will check these immediately!

 

[S'mon]

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.

No - the rules are there to aid player interaction with the game world, not to define the game world. In the game world things 'off stage' operate much like the real world - young fit Rangers run faster than 90 year old great-grandmothers, weapons can break bones and cause crippling injuries, wound infection and mortal injuries that cause drawn-out painful death over days - those things don't happen to PCs within the rules framework, doesn't mean they don't happen at all. Indeed I've used various different rulesets for games in the same game world, doesn't mean that the physics of the world itself have changed.

 

[S'mon]

The rules apply to playing the game. It is not an attempt to model the reality in which the game is plaed.

QFT. Really I think you have to be some kind of nerdism-fundamentalist to insist that a bunch of fairly arbitrary game rules designed to facilitate PCs monster hacking in dungeons can be applied as the encompassing physics of the entire reality in which that monster-hacking takes place.

 

[Hussar]

The DMG has clear demographics rules that say that this is not the case. There are specific rules in the book that contradict your assertion.

Take a look at those demographics bits again. Those are guidelines at best and are certainly not hard and fast rules that must be adhered to.

Here's the problem. If you argue that one set of physical laws applies when the characters are present and a completely different set of physical laws applies when they are not there, you don't have a very coherent or sensible universe.

Exactly. As a player, I can use diplomacy and change the attitude of any NPC. I may not get what I want, but, I can change his attitude. No matter how high the diplomacy skill of the NPC, he cannot influence a PC's attitude. Ever.

The rules inherently apply to one group and not to another. The xp rules as well. If you apply the xp rules, then the demographics guidelines go straight out the window. In other words, one part of the rules contradicts another.

Why? Because the xp rules apply to PC's and not to NPC's. Usually. Unless they do.

 

[S'mon]

If you argue that one set of physical laws applies when the characters are present and a completely different set of physical laws applies when they are not there, you don't have a very coherent or sensible universe.

I wonder how you manage to watch an Action movie set in the 'real world'! The rules that apply within the framework of the movie are clearly different from the background rules of the universe in which the movie takes place.

Re Elements - the 4 D&D elements are more like metaphysical forces, not scientific elements. IMC they exist on a metaphysical level because they're believed to exist, not because they define reality.

 

[hong]

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

Why should the reality of the D&D universe be one where 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, and being asleep doesn't affect your chances of dodging a fireball?

The answer: because it's convenient for gaming purposes. Which, in the end, is what Doug McCrae is talking about.

 

[jgbrowning]

Yes it does. I'm sorry but it's just that simple. Real world physics predicts that you will be unable to transform a ball of bat guano into 33510.32 cubic feet of pure fire using only words. D&D physics predicts that you can. When a wizard attempts to cast fireball, one of these systems will be validated but not both.

A bad analogy of how both can exist is how Newtonian physics doesn't work once you get small, or big, enough. Magic breaks the "standard" but still follows it's own laws.

I don't understand this paragraph. I'm not disagreeing with it. I just don't understand it.

I'm trying to say that because there is magic, you believe that real-world physics isn't applicable in a D&D world. You then decide that, because D&D uses elements, to apply a real world system of elemental physics (Aristotle, et al) to use in the D&D universe. I don't think using elemental physics to model a D&D universe is any better as so much of the D&D universe is not magical, and elemental physics models are utterly magical.

I was thinking about this as I went to sleep, trying to figure out what was bothering me most with viewing a D&D world through any predictive system except modern physics: the PCs won't know why something happens. Why does water flow downhill? Why is the air thinner a top a mountain? All of the everyday effects that we, as modern players, understand (be that intuitively or just because we were educated about it so long ago that it seems intuitively to us) suddenly occur for reasons we don't understand and the simple idea that fire is released from wood during combustion as opposed to effects of real combustion means that every little thing in the world is magical.

When that's the case, you also get into predictive problems. Can I now as a player drop a heavier object and have it drop faster than a lighter one? What else has changed that I as a player, because my knowledge of non-scientific predictive systems is partial (at best), will have to find out that the world I'm playing in doesn't work the way the real-world works?

When dealing with magic in a modern-physics world as given in the rules, that easy. Each breach of reality is explicitly described in its cause and effect. I'm effectively given a new set of predictive rules that changes the universe my PC is interacting with- but I, as a player, know most of the rules and know the general parameters in which those magical rules work. I have knowledge again.

Kinda a long tangent, but I think it's fairly important.

joe b.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Take a look at those demographics bits again. Those are guidelines at best and are certainly not hard and fast rules that must be adhered to.

Same for XP and levelling, though.

I would certainly agree, however, that a D&D world scientist would potentially discover that there was a class of people to whom the rules applied differently than to the majority of the population. For example, this group of people would never encounter a situation where monsters could capture them and hold them for ransom until the heroes showed up. Much like the earth of our mythologies, some people would simply possess extraordinary gifts of luck....and very strange turns of phrase.

Exactly. As a player, I can use diplomacy and change the attitude of any NPC. I may not get what I want, but, I can change his attitude. No matter how high the diplomacy skill of the NPC, he cannot influence a PC's attitude. Ever.

The rules inherently apply to one group and not to another. The xp rules as well. If you apply the xp rules, then the demographics guidelines go straight out the window. In other words, one part of the rules contradicts another.

Which means that, in all likelihood, "PC" and "NPC" are quantifiable states in the D&D universe, and are therefore open to study by the D&D scientist (should such a being exist).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why should the reality of the D&D universe be one where 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, and being asleep doesn't affect your chances of dodging a fireball?

The answer: because it's convenient for gaming purposes. Which, in the end, is what Doug McCrae is talking about.

I'm not arguing about the reason that the game universe is this way; I am arguing that the game universe is this way. The laws of physics aren't a "why are they?" proposition but a "what are they, and how do they interrelate?" proposition.

 

[RFisher]

Really I think you have to be some kind of nerdism-fundamentalist to insist that a bunch of fairly arbitrary game rules designed to facilitate PCs monster hacking in dungeons can be applied as the encompassing physics of the entire reality in which that monster-hacking takes place.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. (^_^)

Actually, it's kind of interesting to think about what a game might be like in which everything in the game-world has to be justified by text in the books. Kind of like the Church's arguments against Galileo based on Biblical statements that were trying to tell people how to be better people rather than communicate truths about cosmology.

Heck, that doesn't really sound all that different from the attitudes my old AD&D group (myself included) seemed to hold at times. It just sort of extends that attitude to its logical conclusion. No wonder it took me so long to form a true appreciation for the older game!

The real fundies probably wouldn't hang with fusangite, though, since he relies on a source (Aristotle) they wouldn't consider canon despite any similarity between it & canon. (^_^)