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

[Blue Orange]

One of the ironies has always been that D&D, because of its complicated and (by the rest of the world's standards) mathematical ruleset, tends to attract a lot of scientifically minded people, as well as the artsy types who like to tell stories.

So there's this tendency to systematize and balance and ask "what if?" attached to a genre that is more descended from the anti-scientific Romantic era (via Tolkien) or fantasies of physical power (via Howard) than anything else, and gameplay that's basically a combination of improvisational theater, gambling, and basic arithmetic. The game is, itself, an owlbear, or perhaps a chimera or opinicus.

I actually think it's an interesting creative tension that helps attract different sorts of people, but you do get inconsistencies sometimes.

 

[Oofta]

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.

You are pedantically correct. So? Do you want me to go into a textbook explanation of all the proteins, RNA, building blocks involved in gestation for a casual internet discussion? I look at all the varieties of creatures that have roamed the earth. An owlbear would not by any stretch of the imagination be one of the strangest creatures to ever exist.

Yes, DNA is just one of many factors. If we understood all the factors and how they worked together to create something very close to a T-Rex or an owlbear we could do it. It may require an artificial egg for the first generation or two (assuming you want sufficient genetic diversity). It wouldn't be an exact copy of a T-Rex and of course an owlbear is a fantasy creature so that's impossible, but it could be so close that we wouldn't know the difference from the skeletal structure and likely musculature, etc..

We still don't understand how it all works any more than we understand how the human brain works. Doesn't mean we can't understand it, or that once we do understand it that we couldn't create something that looked, and hooted, like an owlbear. Even if DNA isn't the sole component we would need.

 

[Oofta]

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.

And an attempt at humor falls flat because you have to be correct.

 

[Cadence]

Emission theory of vision is one of my favorites that was around for quite awhile IRL.

 

[Corinnguard]

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.

And yet no one seems to have an issue with science fiction coming up with a fictional particle known as a graviton.

 

[Corinnguard]

It appears that there is something of a double standard when it comes to introducing a scientific mindset into a setting. If the setting is science fantasy or even urban fantasy, there is no problem with magic being seen through a scientific lens. But if a fantasy setting tries to have a scientific mindset present in it, some people get a little bent out of shape. Even when the scientific mindset in a fantasy setting differs from the scientific mindset seen in RL or in settings close to RL, such as a science fantasy or an urban fantasy.

The best D&D setting to have something of a scientific mindset in it is the Eberron setting. And that world back in 3e was just entering its' Industrial Age.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

I have a lot of sympathy for the standpoint of wanting general physical reality/everyday observable physics to work like our world as the default, but there are definitely a lot of exceptions. D&D Giants make a mockery of the square/cube law, and our knowledge of how mass and gravity work in the real world, for example.

Emission theory of vision is one of my favorites that was around for quite awhile IRL.

And in AD&D 1E the longer-ranged superior infravision of creatures like Drow explicitly worked by emission!

DMG p59 wrote:
Creatures with infravisual capability of unusual nature, such as those which see infravisually to 90', are actually emitting infrared radiation from their eyes and seeing what is within this visual range by receiving the reflected radiation. Such creatures can easily distinguish floor, ceiling,wall, and other areas, as well as furnishings within an area. The eyes of all such creatures will appear as very brightly glowing red when observed by any other creature with standard infravision. Most monsters inhabiting underground areas will have this form of infravision.

It appears that there is something of a double standard when it comes to introducing a scientific mindset into a setting. If the setting is science fantasy or even urban fantasy, there is no problem with magic being seen through a scientific lens. But if a fantasy setting tries to have a scientific mindset present in it, some people get a little bent out of shape. Even when the scientific mindset in a fantasy setting differs from the scientific mindset seen in RL or in settings close to RL, such as a science fantasy or an urban fantasy.

The best D&D setting to have something of a scientific mindset in it is the Eberron setting. And that world back in 3e was just entering its' Industrial Age.

I don't think it's necessarily always "bent out of shape", but frequently an aesthetic objection. And a separate objection from some of the scientifically-trained that pseudoscientific explanations bother them even more than just admitting it's magic.

Definitely agreed that a lot of the old pulps co-mingled science and fantasy quite a bit, but post-Tolkien and the Del Reys carving Fantasy off from Sci-Fi into its own book genre in the 70s, the distinction became more important to a lot of folks.

 

[Corinnguard]

And a separate objection from some of the scientifically-trained that pseudoscientific explanations bother them even more than just admitting it's magic.

Truth. We all want to know and understand the world around us. The scientific minded strive harder, more than anyone else, to figure these things out.

 

[Oofta]

I have a lot of sympathy for the standpoint of wanting general physical reality/everyday observable physics to work like our world as the default, but there are definitely a lot of exceptions. D&D Giants make a mockery of the square/cube law, and our knowledge of how mass and gravity work in the real world, for example.

Yeah, in my campaign if a giant ever found a location where magic simply didn't work they'd collapse. As would any kaiju, things like giant spiders would suffocate, and so on. It's not limited to just the obvious ones like zombies, beholders, dragons. I simply say that some creatures have incorporated magic into their very nature, which is different from tapping into magical energies in order to cast a spell. So an anti-magic zone can block access to the source of magic for spells, but a giant has magic in their very bones.

And in AD&D 1E the longer-ranged superior infravision of creatures like Drow explicitly worked by emission!




I don't think it's necessarily always "bent out of shape", but frequently an aesthetic objection. And a separate objection from some of the scientifically-trained that pseudoscientific explanations bother them even more than just admitting it's magic.

Definitely agreed that a lot of the old pulps co-mingled science and fantasy quite a bit, but post-Tolkien and the Del Reys carving Fantasy off from Sci-Fi into its own book genre in the 70s, the distinction became more important to a lot of folks.

Thing is we accept exceptions in all sorts of fiction, even in sci-fi like the xenomorphs from the Alien movies. Of course Star Wars takes it into science-fantasy with not only force users but ships that go "zoom" in the vacuum of space or any number of ridiculously large creatures shown in TV series.

 

[Yaarel]

You understand that you don't just have a couple of genes for your head that you can splice onto, say, a fish, right? That's not how real-world genetics works.

If we are just going to wave "gene splicing" at it, just say "magic", 'cuz it is the same thing at that point.

Gene splicing can grow a human ear on a mouse.

While there isnt "one gene" for a head, various genes are responsible for shaping various parts of the body and their characters, as part of a holistic approach.


Also, with magical creatures, the organic tissue includes ethereal structures. Compare genesplicing with organically integrating nanobots, and so on.