Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3573674" data-attributes="member: 18280">Newtonian physics supplies a model that is close enough, and is useful in its own right.  The same with Relativity and QM.  All three systems cannot be true, but there might be a potential model that successfully explains the observations that led to all three being formulated.Similarly, while both magic and selected portions of modern physics (those not done away with by game rules) seem to work within the game environment, that doesn't mean that either theory is actually correct within that universe.Observations can be factual.  Insofar as our observations match the predictions of our model, our model can be said to be a good predictive tool.  Other than this, we have no way to determine how factual any model is from within the confines of the system being modelled.Routine observations that violate the predictions of a model are contraindicative of that model's accuracy.   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> This doesn't preclude elements of that model from being useful when creating a new model, but it certainly means that your model isn't applicable as-is.The terms "magical" is used in more than one way in the RAW.  For example, does detect magic detect a magical beast?  If not, the D&D universe clearly has "magic" that is not "magical" in nature....certainly a question for the game world philosophers!   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Why is this a problem?If we assume that the players can know that water flows downhill, air is thinner atop a mountain, and you can make a fire with wood, what difference does it make whether or not the world works using a physics different than our own?  Especially since, as opposed to the real world, there is a set of books that can tell you what model is correct, which we certainly don't have.The RAW uses a different set of physical rules for the purpose of playability.  It makes the changes in rules explicit in many cases.  Thereafter, how the DM frames the world determines the remaining laws.  In any event, the players know more about the physics of the world than 90% of its inhabitants......in many cases, more about D&D physics than about their real life counterpart.When Spelljammer appeared in 2nd Edition, alternate rules appeared for all sorts of physical problems, including gravity, atmosphere, and the presence/qualities of celestial bodies.  These rules were based off of older theories about the universe, and were determined by taking what occurs in D&D already and playing "what if?".  Gravity planes not only meant that ships in space have gravity, they were invoked to explain flying dragons and hollow worlds.  The darkness of the night sky was really a crystal sphere, and those glittering lights might be billions of lanterns or holes to the phlogiston.I take it you were not a fan.   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> The same as any other inhabitant of the world?  Except that you can check the rulebooks, which the NPCs presumably cannot do?RC</blockquote>

Verification