D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Micah Sweet]

I rather feel that at some point these exceptions become so common that different underlying metaphysics is more parsimonious explanation.

Maybe. Like I said, the setting absolutely doesn't have to follow scientific principles (with exceptions). Most of the time, however, that is my preference. There's no problem either way, and thus no reason to argue.

 

[pemerton]

I remember when I started wondering whether my characters had cells. It seemed safe to assume they have tissues and organs - people see such things in the course of injury and death, and battlefield anatomical knowledge accumulates. But cells? Microscopes don’t seem to be much of a thing in most fantasy RPG worlds, either mundane or magical.

This is 100% what I'm getting at!

I mean, how can biochemistry even be a thing in a world in which the fundamental elements are air, earth, fire, water, positive energy and negative energy? It seems like a world in which vitalism is true - given the existence of positive energy - and that's before we get to the fact that souls seem like an important part of the explanation for at least some of the behaviour of some living beings.

A ghost can have no body, hence no biochemistry, yet have all the memories of the person of whom it is the ghost. This seems to tell us straight away that the way thought, perception etc all work is pretty different from how it is in the real world.

 

[pemerton]

Dragons flying and breathing fire have fantastical reasons for their abilities but they are supernatural creatures.

I don't know of any canonical D&D text that treats dragon flight as supernatural.

The same is true for giant terrestrial arthropods.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know of any canonical D&D text that treats dragon flight as supernatural.

The same is true for giant terrestrial arthropods.

I don't know of any canonical D&D text that explicitly claims the world runs on fantasy physics and eschews science as a baseline with fantastical exceptions. So it can go either way based on preference. No one is "right".

Well, maybe Planescape.

 

[pemerton]

I don't know of any canonical D&D text that explicitly claims the world runs on fantasy physics and eschews science as a baseline with fantastical exceptions.

There are innumerable canonical texts that tell us that the elements are air, earth, fire and water. And that life is fuelled by positive energy, while death (and undeath) are the result of negative energy.

This is fantastic stuff, which utterly contradicts all scientific knowledge.

 

[clearstream]

I rather feel that at some point these exceptions become so common that different underlying metaphysics is more parsimonious explanation.

Would it not be even more parsimonious to leave it unexplained?

An example I was thinking of today was supposing I plant an acorn, will it grow into an oak; and do oak trees need acorns to grow from?

In considering this one sees how played fantasy worlds differ from linearly traversed fictions (e.g. books) in that they are open to examination of any particular. Players amidst a grove of oaks can ask "can I find any acorns?" And they can go on to plant them. A fantasy book might well contain a grove of oaks but unless the events related go into it, acorns and their possible planting, sprouting and growth are by the by.

One catch with positing an alternative metaphysics is that we can play to find out more about the world. A general principle of fiction could be verisimilitude... what exists and occurs isn't hopelessly at odds with common experience. Which could be complemented in the fantasy subcategory with a principle like acceptance... asserted exceptions are simply accepted (it's magic). I don’t think either of these principles require an alternative metaphysics beyond common-sensical descriptions of the world modified by asserted exceptions... but perhaps you refer to systemizing the latter for the sake of consistency and thus foreseeability for players?

 

[AlViking]

I don't know of any canonical D&D text that treats dragon flight as supernatural.

The same is true for giant terrestrial arthropods.

Supernatural just means they aren't natural, typically they cannot exist. I just accept that some fiction creates loopholes for story purposes. I'm reading a novel categorized as Urban Fiction, there's magic and beasties but otherwise everything works like the modern world.

It's just my basic assumption when thinking about world design when I GM or play. That way I only have to worry about the exceptions and assume everything else is normal. If the characters go to a different plane, then I may throw real world out the window.

It's just how I think about it. Not telling anyone else how to think about their fiction.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Supernatural just means they aren't natural, typically they cannot exist. I just accept that some fiction creates loopholes for story purposes. I'm reading a novel categorized as Urban Fiction, there's magic and beasties but otherwise everything works like the modern world.

It's just my basic assumption when thinking about world design when I GM or play. That way I only have to worry about the exceptions and assume everything else is normal. If the characters go to a different plane, then I may throw real world out the window.

It's just how I think about it. Not telling anyone else how to think about their fiction.

To me, the earth-normal part can be explained by scientific principles, or not. What I am pushing back against is the idea that it cannot be explained by science. Maybe D&D leans on the fantasy-side, but it doesn't have to; you can use science-with-exceptions instead, and generally that's what I want. What if magic is a fundamental force that allows the supernatural (like flying dragons and other breaches in the laws of physics) to exist, but otherwise science holds sway? How much would a typical D&D setting suffer if the magic went away, even for a little while? I can imagine a world that suffered a calamity that removed all magic for just a very short while, then turned it (mostly) back on. How much paranoia would magical creatures and spellcasters suffer, knowing their world could just be turned off like a lightbulb, without knowing how or why (it's more fun I think for it to be a mystery)?

 

[AlViking]

To me, the earth-normal part can be explained by scientific principles, or not. What I am pushing back against is the idea that it cannot be explained by science. Maybe D&D leans on the fantasy-side, but it doesn't have to; you can use science-with-exceptions instead, and generally that's what I want. What if magic is a fundamental force that allows the supernatural (like flying dragons and other breaches in the laws of physics) to exist, but otherwise science holds sway? How much would a typical D&D setting suffer if the magic went away, even for a little while? I can imagine a world that suffered a calamity that removed all magic for just a very short while, then turned it (mostly) back on. How much paranoia would magical creatures and spellcasters suffer, knowing their world could just be turned off like a lightbulb, without knowing how or why (it's more fun I think for it to be a mystery)?

That works for me. I see no reason to reinvent how everything works and I have no issues with a fictional world having exceptions. I can watch Godzilla Minus One without assuming everything else must somehow be fundamentally be rethought. You can do that if you want, I'm just too lazy.

 

[pemerton]

What if magic is a fundamental force that allows the supernatural (like flying dragons and other breaches in the laws of physics) to exist, but otherwise science holds sway?

I don't really know what this is supposed to be describing. It's like saying, what if a triangle is still a triangle, except that it has four sides.