Keep your Science out of my Fantasy!

[wingsandsword]

This isn't a rant against Science Fantasy (I love Star Wars and the SW-RPG), but I do have one thing about the mixing of the two that I don't like.

I don't like introducing, or forcing modern scientific concepts into a medieval fantasy game, especially one where the DM isn't trying to be "scientifically accurate", but the PC's cannot get out of a scientific mindset (which destroys a lot of the fantasy, IMO).

People get upset at the idea of half-orcs and half-elves, because humans and orcs and elves are different species, and thus shouldn't be able to produce a fertile offspring. That's modern biology, modern definition of species. Yes, farmers have known for millenia that you can't crossbreed a goat and a horse, but you can't crossbreed a Human and a Bugbear either. You can crossbreed wolves and dogs, yes dogs are just domesticated wolves. Maybe a secret elves have is that humans are just "domesticated" elves, with shorter ears, shorter lives, and generally "inferior" to their original "wild" cousins. Not that they would ever let humans know they are so close to Elves, but it's one reason Elves are so interested in (and feel superior to) Humans.

Gods may have created all these races, perhaps the creator of humans really wanted them to be able to breed with almost anything that walks on two legs. Maybe the deity that created elves only trusted his offspring to enter into unions with humans (barely), and the jealous patron of the Dwarves wanted them to keep to themselves, so they cannot mate with anyone.

I remember one person I know going ballistic at the mention in the 2nd Edition AD&D Complete Book of Elves saying that an Elven pregnancy was 2 years long. She ranted at length about how lifespan does not determine the length of a pregnancy. Never mind that Elves were created whole-cloth in that setting by the god Corellon Larethian of blood spilled in an epic battle with Grummsh. Never mind that they were created in his image as beings of a long, contemplative lifespan of many centuries on the material plane (and an eternity in Arvainaith in the outer planes). Never mind that their creator god decreed that they will have 2 year pregnancies. Modern biology says that a human-like being with a 500 year lifespan and pointy ears wouldn't neccesarily have a 2 year pregnancy, so it's so very wrong to do so in a fantasy game.

I remember the same mentality with geography of fantasy worlds. If a PC looks at the map and says "there is no logical reason for there to be a mountain range there" or "natural weathering wouldn't produce a coastline like that", I think they are forgetting the world they are in. A world created by a deity who actively intervenes in the world (sending avatars, granting spells), isn't likely (IMO) to be so "hands off" that there are absolutely no signs of divine presence . Also, a world is not automatically millions or billions of years old, maybe it was created by the gods only a few centuries or millenia before. When recorded histories go back a few thousand years to "the gods came down and gave us civlization" it isn't quaint legends of a primitive people, it's very possibly the literal truth. Palentology has little place in many fantasy worlds.

Cosmology is affected too, I've seen PC's in a renaissancel setting (where Copernican astronomy is supposed to be a new and controversial theory, and lots of commoners think the world is flat and the sun goes around the world) talk about modern astronomical concepts, talking about stars as distant suns, the planets as potentially habitable other worlds, and generally thinking in terms of modern astronomy. The idea of the sun as a flaming chariot of the gods, or as the body of a god itself is laughable, since "everyone" knows it's a ball of fusing hydrogen and helium.

Why is it that gods, divine interventions, magic and wishes, psionics, alternate planes of existence, undead, golems, fiends, celestials and such are all perfectly believable, but people just can't accept the idea of "the gods made it that way" or "just because, and nobody's ever questioned it before". It's a very 20th/21st century attitude, and as modern day gamers, we come to the table with modern ideas, philosophies and concepts, but if we're making a game to represent high fantasy, we should (IMHO) realize that sometimes all that magic and divinity can override rules of geology, biology and other modern sciences.

What do you all think?

 

[DonaldRumsfeldsTofu]

I'm of the exact oppiste opinion. Although I like the concept of gods in campaigns, I like modern science to have at least some bearing of how things are. Just because the average person in a D&D setting thinks the earth is flat doesn't make it so If something seems too mythical, it starts to give me a headache. People who claim everything can be explained with magic give me a headache. I'm tired of every other entry in monster books being the result of a mad wizard. Can't trolls just be large humanoids that regenerated, and can't owlbears just be giant birds that evolved to the way they are? Why would anyone waste their time magically breeding an owl and a bear? How come none of these spells that magically breed two species exist in the Player's Handbook? Sorry, I'm getting on a rant.

 

[Telperion]

Lovely rant =). I enjoyed reading it.

I agree that inexperienced players usually have a difficult time getting into the right mind-set when faced with worlds with different laws, technologies, levels of superstition and so forth. However, if the DM takes the time to explain these things at start of a campaign a whole lot of fuss can be eliminated.

If you leave it to the players, then everyone is going to have their own opinion on how the world works and how it is seen by your average farmer.

 

[jollyninja]

i agree completely with this rant. most fantasy settings are not based on reality and therefore any and all rules of science can be discarded at will. they are based on a mythological setting where the sun might not be a ball of gas but in fact a god riding his chariot through the sky. but it's mostly a matter of campaign style. if you want a game where the imagined power of the gods far supercedes their actual abilities, and the peasants are ignorant rubes that's your choice. in my games if someone killed apollo, there would be no daylight until either he was released from the underworld or someone else took the job of driving the sun, and everyone knows it, that's why they don't go hunting for apollo. a 12-16 hr/day job sucks any way you look at it, but i guess you'd get a great tan.

 

[Turanil]

Ditto as above: It's essentially a matter of the GM making it clear to the players what his world is. If it is pure fantasy with gods intervening everywhere, the players must know it. If it is a "realistic world" where magic do functions, the players must also know it. Thereafter it's a matter of the GM remaining consistent with the world he stated in the first place.

For instance, I like to have a pseudo-scientific (and I really mean pseudo) explanation for my own campaign setting. For example: magic tends to pollute as much as several energy sources pollute in our real world. As such, magic in fact has some long term effects akin to radiation on living things. This explain aberration creatures; so owlbear may not be the result of a wizard's experiment, but bears (or owls) whose DNA were eventually altered so a totally weird new creature did appeared and thrived. Of course, the common man cannot understand anything about DNA, so rumor has it that "a wizard created them". Likewise, arcane magic-users will never aknowledge that their magic could have some bad effects upon nature. Do not tell to the druids!!!

 

[Krellic]

For example: magic tends to pollute as much as several energy sources pollute in our real world. As such, magic in fact has some long term effects akin to radiation on living things. This explain aberration creatures; so owlbear may not be the result of a wizard's experiment, but bears (or owls) whose DNA were eventually altered so a totally weird new creature did appeared and thrived. Of course, the common man cannot understand anything about DNA, so rumor has it that "a wizard created them". Likewise, arcane magic-users will never aknowledge that their magic could have some bad effects upon nature.

Good idea, I've stolen it.

Do not tell to the druids!!!

Your secret is safe with me...

 

[arscott]

As long as the rules governing the campaign setting are consistant, I don't care. If you don't want gunpowder in your campaign, fine. If you do, cool with me. But if you have gunpowder for guns but don't allow me to make grenades or fireworks, I'll be annoyed.

There's also a minimum. It's all well and good to say outlaw gunpowder, but when you nix burning wood or freezing water, I'll be (justifiably) peeved.

But remember that science can be an inspiration, as easily as it can be a hinderance. For instance, Cross-species offspring are almost always sterile. so what might it mean for a campaing setting if half-elves and half-orcs couldn't have children? Or, if the ocean is constantly cascading off the edge of the world, might that imply a mystical spring that replentishes the oceans?

 

[Snoweel]

so rumor has it that "a wizard created them".

This is the crux of the solution.

When building a campaign world, it's helpful to keep in mind that more important than "Why is X so?" is "Why do the inhabitants of the setting think X is so?"

There are events from Earth's history that nobody knows the truth of, and it's quite possible that the same holds true for a fantasy campaign setting.

This is certainly true of my own homebrew, where even most of the Gods don't know the whole truth about prehistory. To paraphrase that dude from that movie: "Those that know... won't tell. And those that'll tell... don't know."

Oh yeah, and my setting features a vaguely (ie. not) scientific reality, such that sterile offspring result from unions between humans, orcs and ogres (ouch), as well as between humans and elves, though elves produce no offspring when mated with orcs or ogres.

Anyway, a rule of thumb I use for setting design is: Try to follow the laws of science, but if it's more interesting to break these laws then attribute the resulting reality to supernature.

And why aren't these species-creating spells in the PHB?

Because magic used to be more powerful in the olden days (or whatever).

 

[Thanee]

I remember the same mentality with geography of fantasy worlds. If a PC looks at the map and says "there is no logical reason for there to be a mountain range there" or "natural weathering wouldn't produce a coastline like that", I think they are forgetting the world they are in. A world created by a deity who actively intervenes in the world (sending avatars, granting spells), isn't likely (IMO) to be so "hands off" that there are absolutely no signs of divine presence . Also, a world is not automatically millions or billions of years old, maybe it was created by the gods only a few centuries or millenia before. When recorded histories go back a few thousand years to "the gods came down and gave us civlization" it isn't quaint legends of a primitive people, it's very possibly the literal truth. Palentology has little place in many fantasy worlds.

And don't forget magic. Magic can have quite some inpact on climate and weather.

What do you all think?

One half of me agrees with you, which is, that players/characters often use their own judgement (not that they have any other) in terms of science, which is certainly influenced by modern day science.

The other half of me disagrees with you, since scientific believability (this includes gods, magic and everything else) is a good thing.

The explanation “It just is!” doesn't fit me well. There should be some explanation, which is based on modern science (not necessarily scientific formal or accurate). I absolutely like it, if a world is based on something like that (must not resemble our own world, but at least the knowledge we have can be applied to world-building...) instead of just presented without further explanation. These kind of things make a world more believable.

It's absolutely believable in that context, that a god came down to the world and changed it, of course.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Psion]

Why is it that gods, divine interventions, magic and wishes, psionics, alternate planes of existence, undead, golems, fiends, celestials and such are all perfectly believable, but people just can't accept the idea of "the gods made it that way" or "just because, and nobody's ever questioned it before". It's a very 20th/21st century attitude, and as modern day gamers, we come to the table with modern ideas, philosophies and concepts, but if we're making a game to represent high fantasy, we should (IMHO) realize that sometimes all that magic and divinity can override rules of geology, biology and other modern sciences.

What do you all think?

Answers like the Gods (or ancient wizards) made it that way may well be appropriate for some phenomena in a game. But when you use such explanations too often, it becomes too obvious that the DM (or designer) is just handwaving. Too much of this and it reminds me too blatantly that this is just a game and shatters suspension of disbeleif for me.

To me, a Fantasy RPG is just a world in which alternate rules of reality apply. It's not a "tall tale" RPG. It takes the rub of the real for me to have fun and suspend disbeleif in a fantasy game. Though reality works slightly different, I expert certain things (like cause and effect and human behavior) to still hold.