Keep your Science out of my Fantasy!

[Vaxalon]

If I read one more thread where someone tries to use modern science ... to defeat a monster ... I'm going to be tempted to scream.

But on the other hand a certain amount of science needs to apply for a player to be able to imagine the world. ...

I find that the best balance is achieved when a fairly recognizable world is caused due to entirely unfamiliar means.

For example, in a fantasy world, smoke from a fire might not rise because the hot air expands and becomes lighter than the air around it; it might rise because the little fire spirits being released from the wood are flying up to their home in the sun.

 

[The_Gneech]

Best solution: Prove the players wrong!

For example, in one of the Lankhmar stories, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser argued at length about the nature of the sun, moon, and stars; they eventually came up with an idea that the world was like the inside of a great ball, and the things they saw in the sky were floating around the ocean on the other side -- so they got in their ship and went to check it out.

At this point, the players would be thinking, "Okay we're going to sail around the world and find another continent or something."

Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, on the other hand, nearly had a fatal collision with the sun.

-The Gneech

 

[Raven Crowking]

But on the other hand a certain amount of science needs to apply for a player to be able to imagine the world. If in your ice didn't melt when exposed to fire, there is no gravity on a world bigger then earth, living creatures needed breath in solid iron to survive and so on then you've gone to far away from science.

Hmmm....

First off, there is a difference between observable phenomena and science. Science is a method of examining rules from observable phenomena and extrapolating from those rules what other (hitherto unobserved) phenomena there might be. In fact, making extrapolations like this are the only ways in which the initial perceived rule can be determined to be accurate or not.

"Wood burns" is an observation; it is not science. "As the chemical makeup of wood is broken down through heat, more heat energy is released in a phenomenon that we call fire" is science (at least, insofar as I recall).

"Wood burns because, being of composite elements, it is broken down into fire, air (smoke), and earth (ash)" is an alchemical explanation of the same phenomenon. Your world does not have to work using "scientific" principles in order to have the same observable principles (generally) that the real world does.

In the Middle World, diseases are widely known to be caused by disease spirits. No problems there; it changes the flavor, but not the general observable mechanics. It is, however, possible to encounter a stronger disease spirit in the form of a "monster encounter" rather than a Fort save. Also, those who gain immunity to disease as a class ability actually gain this ability because they are protected from the spirits who cause disease.

In Spelljammer, the stars were seldom hot balls of gas unimaginable distances away. From a character's homeworld, the observable phenomenon didn't change (unless good telescopes had been invented), but it sure changed what was possible in a campaign world in a good way. Read the Forgotten Realms cosmology, and you'll note that Spelljammer still has a real effect on that world.

Consistancy to a baseline of observable versimilitude has nothing to do with the causes of said baseline. In a fantasy world, the principles can change, so long as they make sense and the players (and characters) can relate to the world around them in a meaningful way.

Daniel

 

[diaglo]

what is the meaning of life? why are we here? who shot JR? which came first the chicken or the egg? what if cat was spelled Dog instead?


there are many questions that you can ask in a game. and just b/c you don't have the answers to them in game or out of game doesn't mean you still can't have fun.

some things need to be "normal"... gravity, the need for food, the need for reproduction, the need for death, the need for taxes/an economy.

however, you can still play with the concepts as long as you make them understandable in terms of the game.

start building on them as the players learn/build more...

or build the whole first and fill the players in as they game.

just yet another which came first question...

 

[Knight Otu]

which came first the chicken or the egg?

Surprisingly, this question has an answer in the real world - the egg was first! There were egg-laying creatures long before the first chicken came to be. Of course, that only shifts the quetion to that first egg-laying creature... (this answer does not necessarily work in a fictional world, of course)

there are many questions that you can ask in a game. and just b/c you don't have the answers to them in game or out of game doesn't mean you still can't have fun.

Very, very true.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

What do you all think?

Plausibility enhances versimilitude.

 

[Deadguy]

I just wanted to say that Raven Crowking has stated the position I share very lucidly! Thanks.

Internal consistency =/= Modern science!

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Plausibility enhances versimilitude.

Very true but their are many means of establishing plausibility, and sometimes it is good and right to stretch or flex the means you commonly use.

Someone mentioned gravity as a constant, but I imagine that most people would be more than content to work in a world with different gravitational rules or, rather, norms.

I mean what's not cool about a world where increased virtue, in some sense, gave you the ability to float and conserve inertia?

Certainly, Peter Pan's 'happy thoughts' theory of aerodynamics has not proven unpopular as a fantasy trope.

Very plausible to a child, and sometimes part of role-playing is adopting another's sense of the plausible.

I do, however, believe that simply saying, "'cause it's magic," is all too often just as bad or worse an answer than, "'cause it's science."

Detail and causality enhance verisimilitude.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I just wanted to say that Raven Crowking has stated the position I share very lucidly! Thanks.

Internal consistency =/= Modern science!

You're welcome. It comes from having studied philosophy of science and theory of knowledge.

In the real world, science is the best means of finding things out. In a D&D world, for example, there are numerous spells that allow "revealed knowledge" to be almost (or just as) accurate. The philosophy of science would still apply to any fantasy world (based on what we know, what can we extrapolate, and can we prove that we are or are not correct?) but the laws and rules that govern physical interactions need not be the same.

On a side note, the game rules are literally the "physical laws" of the campaign world in a very real sense. Dragons can fly as an exceptional, but natural ability. How? We don't know. The natural law that governs what can and cannot fly seems to be based upon form/symbolism rather than energy/mass...this suggests that the rules governing flying are controlled by an intelligence, perhaps a deity. Or a DM.

Daniel

 

[Raven Crowking]

I do, however, believe that simply saying, "'cause it's magic," is all too often just as bad or worse an answer than, "'cause it's science."

Detail and causality enhance verisimilitude.

Agreed.

"Because it's magic" all too often means "Because I'm lazy."

That said, as long as the setting operates under rules that are, at least in theory, knowable, and the players have access to all the rules that their characters should reasonably know (can't breath underwater, wood burns, etc.), it shouldn't matter whether those rules are based upon current scientific knowledge or the teachings of the medieval Catholic church.

The DM is not asking PCs to believe that, say half-elves or fireballs are possibilities using real-world physics. The DM is stating that the rules in this particular campaign diverge from real-world physics. You may not know what all the rules are. As long as there are rules, and as long as the DM has thought out the new rules, there shouldn't be any real problem.

If the DM makes an error (unless its a whopper), so long as it matches the general rules of the setting, players should be a little lenient. After all, science doesn't allow for absolute knowledge, either. :\

If little the DM says makes sense within the world portrayed, then switch DMs!

Daniel