D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[pemerton]

I don't see important differences between the two.

Only one creates a fiction where no explanation is possible.

Playing my MHRP Fantasy game, it is not possible for the characters to learn how dragons fly, because there is no explanation.

Playing a regular MHRPG game, it is not possible for the characters to learn how "unstable molecules", "Pym particles" and "mutant abilities" work, because they are all nonsense.

In all these cases, if play turns its attention to these questions, the fiction yields, and can yield, no answer.

Whereas when attention in play turns to the history of the runes, answers are feasible (as is demonstrated by the fact that they were generated via the standard procedure of play). And can continue to be provided if attention continues to be paid.

in constructing a fictional world, we create both fictional laws (this spell requires a more skilled wizard than that spell) and fictional history (Melvaunt lies along the Moonsea). Both of these have opportunities for contradictions; e.g., the previously established climate of the Moonsea may not support the population of Melvaunt. In that case, the only solution for the players is to not look too closely about the details--to not worry about things like "how many people can this farmland support". That is a similar suspension of disbelief to not worrying about "how exactly does hyperspace work".

Sure? You're now giving an example of contradiction of a known natural law, or at least generalisation of tendency, in the domain of human geography.

As I said, I don't see how this relates to the rune example, in which there was no actual, or threatened, contradiction of any known natural law or generalisation of tendency. Any more than, for example, the GM mentioning a NPC but not having decided yet what their name is, or who their parents are, or whether they sleep in a bed or on the floor, creates a need to suspend disbelief.

 

[Faolyn]

There were no problems in my MHRP/Cortex+ Fantasy game. The players interacted with the runes, and the process of play led us to answers.

But what answers are going to be offered in the case of Star Trek and special relativity?

This is why I don't see any resemblance. There is no contradiction or even tension in a dungeon having strange runes that, when properly deciphered, indicate or explain a way out. No law of nature or physical principle is violated.

Star Trek doesn't use relativity to travel at FTL speeds. They wrap their ships in warp bubbles. So the only reason to discussion relativity would be if they encountered a species that had FTL drive that didn't rely on warp bubbles--and so far, every FTL-capable species they've come across (AFAIK) uses warp bubbles. It's the way FTL works in the Trekniverse. In the DS9 episode "Explorers", a primitive solar sail-powered ship created a warp bubble simply by catching a tachyon eddy and managed to travel to a different system in just a few minutes.

While a few other methods of FTL travel have been used in Trek (soliton waves, transwarp, mycelial travel, etc.), they also don't cause time dilation. From what I can tell, all FTL simply goes from 0 to faster than c without ever having to speed up to get to c.

I have read that traveling for long enough via full impulse drive can cause some dilation, but Stardates are used instead of regular dates because they somehow take that into consideration. However, that's beta canon, not alpha canon.

Thus, special relativity simply doesn't exist in the Trekniverse as a serious issue. And having a discussion about it would be kinda like having a serious discussion about ornithopters. Yeah, OK, they can work in reality, but the only reason to really get into them would be if you're writing fiction.

 

[The Firebird]

Only one creates a fiction where no explanation is possible.

Playing my MHRP Fantasy game, it is not possible for the characters to learn how dragons fly, because there is no explanation.

Playing a regular MHRPG game, it is not possible for the characters to learn how "unstable molecules", "Pym particles" and "mutant abilities" work, because they are all nonsense.

In all these cases, if play turns its attention to these questions, the fiction yields, and can yield, no answer.

They both create such explanations. It is just a question of how deep. At the surface level, explanations like "the computer has to make hyperdrive calculations" or "the runes were placed there as a map" are sufficient to guide play.

If you start peeling back the layers, eventually hyperspace will contradict reality. But so will the runes. The GM doesn't have a perfect understanding of how cultures evolve; they likely can't explain why the writing system developed that way; they may struggle to explain why that culture settled in that particular area, or what event caused them to need a map out. There is a finite level of detail, and if the players investigate the story eventually will falter. The fiction can yield no answer--at least not a sensible one, because the GM doesn't have such answers.

Sure? You're now giving an example of contradiction of a known natural law, or at least generalisation of tendency, in the domain of human geography.

Yes...details such as "why are there runes here" are downstream of physical reality, and facts like "there is good rainfall in this area because of the weather patterns". You can paper over this as long as the players don't investigate too closely. If you're building your world by making the weather patterns first you can make it more plausible and hold out for longer.

Any constructed fiction will not be faithful to physical reality in some ways. And if you are creating new fiction in response to the PCs hopes rather than a simulation of the world, these violations will be easier to spot.

 

[Faolyn]

I don't think the difference is so profound. Imagine a scenario like you outlined for the runes:

"As a GM, I decided to place hyperspace travel in the game. I didn't think about it too much, I just thought it would be interesting. When it become important, because the players were trying to escape some imperial star destroyers, the player declared their PC's hope that they could jump instantly. They rolled a 7-9, and so it turned out they could jump but it would take some time. We justified that by adding the color that hyperspace calculations have to be performed carefully, else we could fly through a star or bounce too close to a supernova."

I don't see important differences between the two.

--

Another way to look at it: in constructing a fictional world, we create both fictional laws (this spell requires a more skilled wizard than that spell) and fictional history (Melvaunt lies along the Moonsea). Both of these have opportunities for contradictions; e.g., the previously established climate of the Moonsea may not support the population of Melvaunt. In that case, the only solution for the players is to not look too closely about the details--to not worry about things like "how many people can this farmland support". That is a similar suspension of disbelief to not worrying about "how exactly does hyperspace work".

Well, here the difference is that hyperspace travel is a long-established part of the setting. If the players wanted to jump instantly, they would either know they can (along with knowing if and how it's risky), or they are creating a brand new way to jump to hyperspace.

Whereas the runes are brand new to the players and, technically, to the world because they haven't been part of the setting before. There were no rumors or tales or pictures of these runes that were spoken about before hand. It doesn't even seem that the players encountered the runes and had the GM say "Oh, you've heard about these runes before."

 

[AlViking]

Referring to @AlViking's link: 'Warp drives' may actually be possible someday, new study suggests:

In 1994, Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre published a groundbreaking paper that laid out how a real-life warp drive could work. This exciting development came with a major caveat, however: The proposed "Alcubierre drive" required negative energy, an exotic substance that may or may not exist (or, perhaps, the harnessing of dark energy, The proposed "Alcubierre drive" required negative energy, an exotic substance that may or may not exist (or, perhaps, the harnessing of dark energy, the mysterious force that seems to be causing the universe's accelerated expansion). . . .​

​

Now, a new paper in the same journal suggests that a warp drive may not require exotic negative energy after all. . . .​

​

The proposed engine could not achieve faster-than-light travel, though it could come close; the statement mentions "high but subluminal speeds."​

So before 1994, there was no postulated answer to the character on the Enterprise explaining how the drive works. After 1994 there is a postulate

If we take it to be the case that A knows that p entails p - and this is a generally accepted truth - then write what you know entails that no one can write confidently about FTL travel. I think it's more like write what your audience knows (or doesn't). This is the principle that Doyle followed in writing about the climbing snake, as per @clearstream's post upthread. And it is the principle that most FRPG settings rely on for their history and sociology.

A variant on my suggested principle, in RPGing, is to pool what the group knows and to work within that - I posted a couple of examples upthread. As one of those examples illustrated, this can still require a player with expertise to set aside their qualms and just concede the inconsistent fiction.

There are cases of deliberate departure from the principle. JRRT, in LotR, deliberately writes a history and sociology that he (given his academic training) would have known makes no sense. He had artistic reasons for doing that. But it does mean that it really makes no sense, in playing a LotR/MERP-y game, for any character in the fiction to try and understand the society they live in, or its history. We could perhaps put flying dragons etc in this category, too, and the same limitation would then apply: no science of biomechanics in this imagined world.

I think this still works best cooperatively, rather than via GM assertions of authorial right. The players need to be on board that some parts of the fiction are not amenable to explanation.

The postulated answer to how Star Trek works is that they warped space in order to move from point A to B faster than light. It's not something we know how to do but sci-fi where people are travelling the stars has always come up with different loop holes. If it's established in fiction that warp drive works, then it does. You can either accept it and enjoy the fiction or you can find something else to do. I accept that dragons can fly and breath fire, that giant insects don't suffocate, that giants don't collapse under their own weight along with many other things because I just want to enjoy the fiction of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Nah, it doesn't follow the laws of physics as we understand them. But it has a neat trick to avoid the popular special relativity issue, tough. It still require a causality chain that propagates information faster than the speed of light (the space contraction) - as their trajectory is not predetermined but is clearly decided on initiation. (I am here going to assume space command has not preemptively set up the required physical condition for thousands of possible warp paths in advance, and that the enterprise is simply selecting one of them to latch onto)

Seeing as they are supposed* to be going where no man has gone before, I doubt they have paths already set up.

*They keep running into humans that got there first somehow.

 

[Enrahim]

I think this talk about these things that shouldn't be investigated to deeply opens up another interesting question: How to flag things that could be investigated deeply?

A common problem GMs of a certain type of game complain about is how the players are not engaging with the setting. They might have done world building with a deep history, intricate relationship maps and cultural traits that could reveal important information if examined further. But instead of digging into the interesting and convoluted history of the people at the mansion, the players instead took a particular interest in how the tavern keep manage to find and hold such wonderful serving staff - a thing just thrown in as color.

This seem like such a common problem that there should be some solution to it - but I cannot remember actually seeing any. The same technique for indicating nothing interesting is (likely) going to come out of nesting up the staff CV could be used to flag hyperspace or runes or dragon flight as not worth pursuing?

 

[Faolyn]

I think this talk about these things that shouldn't be investigated to deeply opens up another interesting question: How to flag things that could be investigated deeply?

A common problem GMs of a certain type of game complain about is how the players are not engaging with the setting. They might have done world building with a deep history, intricate relationship maps and cultural traits that could reveal important information if examined further. But instead of digging into the interesting and convoluted history of the people at the mansion, the players instead took a particular interest in how the tavern keep manage to find and hold such wonderful serving staff - a thing just thrown in as color.

This seem like such a common problem that there should be some solution to it - but I cannot remember actually seeing any. The same technique for indicating nothing interesting is (likely) going to come out of nesting up the staff CV could be used to flag hyperspace or runes or dragon flight as not worth pursuing?

Option 1 - GM: "I haven't figured this out yet. I'll get back to you."

Option 2 - GM: "How do you think it should work?"

 

[Enrahim]

Option 1 - GM: "I haven't figured this out yet. I'll get back to you."

Option 2 - GM: "How do you think it should work?"

Is the idea that these are subtly trying to hint that this is not prepared, while still giving the players an opening to pursue it if they so want. That is, a valid and prefered response to these GM sentences are "never mind, we'll try something else"?

In that case guess that could work, though a bit subtle and underhanded for my tastes. I think I would have prefered something more direct. However going full timeout and meta seem a bit heavy handed as well, so maybe this approach might be better..

 

[AlViking]

I think this talk about these things that shouldn't be investigated to deeply opens up another interesting question: How to flag things that could be investigated deeply?

A common problem GMs of a certain type of game complain about is how the players are not engaging with the setting. They might have done world building with a deep history, intricate relationship maps and cultural traits that could reveal important information if examined further. But instead of digging into the interesting and convoluted history of the people at the mansion, the players instead took a particular interest in how the tavern keep manage to find and hold such wonderful serving staff - a thing just thrown in as color.

This seem like such a common problem that there should be some solution to it - but I cannot remember actually seeing any. The same technique for indicating nothing interesting is (likely) going to come out of nesting up the staff CV could be used to flag hyperspace or runes or dragon flight as not worth pursuing?

The <object of inquiry> looks interesting, you've heard rumors about it.

Basically I'll give hints that there might be something more to investigate whether that's that they recall a rumor or overhear something, perhaps an excited NPC tries to pique their interest. It's up to the players what they pursue, sometimes my noodling is all for naught but that's okay. Maybe I'll be able to introduce the lore later, maybe I'll build on it, maybe it was just a fun exercise in creativity that no one else will ever know about. I'll add it to my notes and maybe come back to it later.