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

[Oofta]

You cannot make a platypus by "genetic tinkering". That's not how genetics works. That's the issue, really - so many people want to apply "science" to D&D without actually understanding the science. Causing those of us who actually have science backgrounds to throw up our hands in dismay.

I see no reason we couldn't build platypus. Obviously it wouldn't be "toss DNA of a duck and a muskrat into a blender". But it is how evolution works, by "tinkering" with DNA. It's how we have a chicken that's descended from long extinct therapods like T-Rex. We don't have the technology or understanding of how DNA works but there's nothing stopping us from building a very good copy of a T-Rex (apologies to Jurassic Park but DNA doesn't last millions of years even in amber) if we had better understanding.

There's nothing stopping someone with advanced enough technology from building something very much like an owlbear. Dragons, giants, oversized arthropods and whatnot obviously require some inherent magic. Owlbears? Owlbears are just animals about the size of a large bear.

P.S. Nice appeal to authority while being insulting by declaration that you know better and that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.

 

[Umbran]

However, this is why I think that a "scientific mindset" does not necessarily mean that it would reflect actual science or real world understandings of phenomena. I don't think that a "scientific mindset" in a D&D setting would look like real-world biology.

So, the problem is this:
A GM, working science into their fantasy world, but leaning into real science, will run into inconsistencies because the fantasy doesn't match reality.

A GM, working the scientific method into their fantasy world, but not leaning into real-world science is going to have to make up all that "science" information out of whole cloth. How quickly do you figure the GM, spewing pseudoscientific gobbledigook, will create inconsistencies within their fantasy world's system?

And what's the point of it if the "science" isn't going to be self-consistent?

 

[Umbran]

When you say, "our" I assume you mean your own table?

I mean the published Dungeons and Dragons material that we have as a shared baseline. Including, but not limited to, the Monster Manual.

 

[Oofta]

So, the problem is this:
A GM, working science into their fantasy world, but leaning into real science, will run into inconsistencies because the fantasy doesn't match reality.

A GM, working the scientific method into their fantasy world, but not leaning into real-world science is going to have to make up all that "science" information out of whole cloth. How quickly do you figure the GM, spewing pseudoscientific gobbledigook, will create inconsistencies within their fantasy world's system?

And what's the point of it if the "science" isn't going to be self-consistent?

How in-depth do you need to go? As GMs we aren't writing a textbook. For me it's easier to assume real world physics as a starting point because I don't need to worry about how a magic based universe works unless magic causes an exception. Since magic causing an exception is relatively rare, it makes my life easier.

How does gravity work? Just like the real world, mass sucks. I don't need a magical excuse for it. Basing a fantasy world on the real world for me makes it more consistent and more relatable. Not that it matters all that often.

 

[Aldarc]

So, the problem is this:
A GM, working science into their fantasy world, but leaning into real science, will run into inconsistencies because the fantasy doesn't match reality.

A GM, working the scientific method into their fantasy world, but not leaning into real-world science is going to have to make up all that "science" information out of whole cloth. How quickly do you figure the GM, spewing pseudoscientific gobbledigook, will create inconsistencies within their fantasy world's system?

And what's the point of it if the "science" isn't going to be self-consistent?

Spewing pseudoscientific gobbledigook is a staple of the science-fiction and science-fantasy genres. Is there a reason why that works there but not in fantasy?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I see no reason we couldn't build platypus. Obviously it wouldn't be "toss DNA of a duck and a muskrat into a blender". But it is how evolution works, by "tinkering" with DNA.

No, it isn't. And DNA is NOT a program to produce an organism. That's why "it doesn't work like that" (i.e. like Jurassic Park). There are a whole bunch of factors that go into the production of an organism, DNA is just one amongst many.

 

[Distracted DM]

Another scientific idea I see come up is planets. Round, spherical planets governed by gravity.

It's a fantasy, so the world can actually be flat. I can't say that i see this much in official products, but I do see it come up within the community.

I always liked the planes as a metaphor for real world planets. Each one different and strange, and traveling to them required substantial effort.

I can't say I like the astral plane as metaphor for space travel.

As far as official products KP's Midgard is flat, with a world serpent ringing the outside to keep the ocean in.

But you're right about the round world thing... For some reason I definitely default to "of course it's round, that's how planets work!" I never really thought about why I default to that, and why don't I consider other options. And yet the planes of fire etc in my mind are NOT round- probably because they're already a very magical idea.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

mass sucks

No, it doesn't. Energy distorts space-time - or at least that's a better explanation, the truth is no one knows how gravity works.

 

[Corinnguard]

No, it isn't. And DNA is NOT a program to produce an organism. That's why "it doesn't work like that" (i.e. like Jurassic Park). There are a whole bunch of factors that go into the production of an organism, DNA is just one amongst many.

More like a shoddy blueprint with a lot of faulty math.

 

[Distracted DM]

Definitely a tangent here, but this conversation makes one consider magic being "a science" vs.. well, magic- weird and/or unpredictable.

As DnD has progressed it's moved further from weird, leaving Vancian casting behind where the spells are semi-living things burned into your mind and released when you cast them, towards spell points/mana/spell slots and predictable results for castings. The only unpredictable stuff is "wild magic" now... But I love the "roll to cast and maybe weird stuff will happen because it's magic" that you get from Dungeon Crawl Classics and even Shadowdark.

I guess Magic as Science is more player friendly.