D&D General Introducing a Scientific Mindset to Dungeons and Dragons

[Blue]

In a game emulating heroic fantasy, I don't want to be inconsistent and encourage a scientific mindset in some places, and then have things like a lightning bolt that doesn't go to the nearest ground.

Games emulating other genres may or may not want to lean into the science.

 

[Lanefan]

In a game emulating heroic fantasy, I don't want to be inconsistent and encourage a scientific mindset in some places, and then have things like a lightning bolt that doesn't go to the nearest ground.

I (tried my best to) solve those inconsistencies by taking a scientific mindset and applying it to magic at a fundamental level such that magic (ideally seamlessly) fits into the fantasy's science. So far, so good-ish.

Lightning bolt (the spell) doesn't go to the nearest ground because the caster shaped the magic energy such that it would not; and instead will ricochet off solid obstacles until reaching its full length.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I (tried my best to) solve those inconsistencies by taking a scientific mindset and applying it to magic at a fundamental level such that magic (ideally seamlessly) fits into the fantasy's science. So far, so good-ish.

Lightning bolt (the spell) doesn't go to the nearest ground because the caster shaped the magic energy such that it would not; and instead will ricochet off solid obstacles until reaching its full length.

So you're answer is..."magic".

 

[Yaarel]

The fantasy world is scientific. Gravity works. DNA works.

The only difference is, the fantasy world includes a dreamlike quality as part of its fundamental forces.

So things that happen in a dream, but dont really in reallife, can happen in a fantasy setting.

The reallife scientific qualities are still operational during the dreamy phenomenon.

An ethereal Fey spirit can become a material creature of flesh and blood, and if so, that flesh and that blood has DNA.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you're answer is..."magic".

Nice to know the "all or nothing" train is still full steam ahead...

 

[Oofta]

I always assume that my D&D world works like the real world unless modified by magic. At least on the prime material plane. So in general I take what I would consider a scientific approach but giants have innate magic that means they can walk around without breaking their own legs.

I also assume that since magic is innate to the world, people would have evolved at least some ability to use that magic without even realizing it but that's kind of off topic.

As far as what label should replace race? Species is as good as any. Might as well use terminology people are familiar with that doesn't really need explanation. Even then, species is a bit of a fuzzy made up construct by out desire to classify everything. We consider Neanderthal a separate hominid species but we know now that we interbred with them, at least for a period of time.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think there's nothing wrong with basing your setting on the real world and based on science. Gravity based on mass, DNA, and so on.

It gives the players a solid basis from which to understand the setting. Although, depending on the players and how much meta the DM permits, this might be abusable (from a certain perspective). For example, a player might have their high intelligence character invent firearms. Depending on the campaign and group, this might or might not be a problem.

Equally, there's nothing wrong in having a setting based on something different. An idea I've toyed with is a setting where everything is based on essences. Gravity would be an effect of earth essence, for example. A tiny asteroid could have the same gravity as a planet, provided it contains sufficient earth essence. Dwarves would be stable not because of their low center of mass, but rather due to their higher than average earth essence. Massive creatures, like dragons, are capable of flight because their air essence is strong. With sufficient air essence, even a rock could float. Various potions could be created by distilling and combining these essences.

I think this approach can help the campaign feel more fantastical, although it may also be confusing for the players. The DM arguably has more control using this approach, since they constructed the rules. For example, firearms might be impossible or impractical to construct using essences.

With a fantasy setting, as long as your setting is internally consistent, the rules of the setting don't need to be based on RW science.

 

[Marandahir]

I think there's nothing wrong with basing your setting on the real world and based on science. Gravity based on mass, DNA, and so on.

It gives the players a solid basis from which to understand the setting. Although, depending on the players and how much meta the DM permits, this might be abusable (from a certain perspective). For example, a player might have their high intelligence character invent firearms. Depending on the campaign and group, this might or might not be a problem.

Equally, there's nothing wrong in having a setting based on something different. An idea I've toyed with is a setting where everything is based on essences. Gravity would be an effect of earth essence, for example. A tiny asteroid could have the same gravity as a planet, provided it contains sufficient earth essence. Dwarves would be stable not because of their low center of mass, but rather due to their higher than average earth essence. Massive creatures, like dragons, are capable of flight because their air essence is strong. With sufficient air essence, even a rock could float. Various potions could be created by distilling and combining these essences.

I think this approach can help the campaign feel more fantastical, although it may also be confusing for the players. The DM arguably has more control using this approach, since they constructed the rules. For example, firearms might be impossible or impractical to construct using essences.

With a fantasy setting, as long as your setting is internally consistent, the rules of the setting don't need to be based on RW science.

It also doesn't need to be internally consistent! "A Wizard Did It!" is a perfectly reasonable excuse for just about anything in fantasy, as long as it stays fun.

 

[Lanefan]

I always assume that my D&D world works like the real world unless modified by magic. At least on the prime material plane. So in general I take what I would consider a scientific approach but giants have innate magic that means they can walk around without breaking their own legs.

I have it that any non-Earth creature (past or present) requires at least some magic be present in the environment in order to survive. I also have it that there's a specific element, not present on fantasy worlds but present here on Earth (simple uranium), that scrambles, then inhibits, and eventually negates magic.

This means any non-Human character or "fantastic" creature stuck in a null-magic zone will become "magic sick" and, if not re-exposed to magic, eventually die. This process takes different lengths of time based on species: Elves notice problems almost immediately, for example, while Dwarves might not notice for a while.

Conveniently, this also explains why such creatures aren't found here on Earth - there's no magic here.

I had to give this a whole lot of thought a long time ago as my first big campaign largely revolved around just this issue: magic on that world was steadily becoming less and less stable due to a centuries-ago meteor strike where the meteor contained a fair bit of uranium. Near the strike site, magic no longer worked at all.

 

[Blue]

I (tried my best to) solve those inconsistencies by taking a scientific mindset and applying it to magic at a fundamental level such that magic (ideally seamlessly) fits into the fantasy's science. So far, so good-ish.

Lightning bolt (the spell) doesn't go to the nearest ground because the caster shaped the magic energy such that it would not; and instead will ricochet off solid obstacles until reaching its full length.

What are the scientific properties of "magic energy".

Because if it's not scientific, then it's just a bit of slight of hand to insert another level of indirection. Again, unless "magic energy" follow scientific principles, we're back to me not wanting to push the scientific mindset. Even if it's Clark's "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", because if it's indistinguishable to the player then pushing science at the player is inconsistent.