Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D1Tremere" data-source="post: 7632776" data-attributes="member: 61148">Speaking to this (and the other questions), it depends on what you mean by science. Generally, science is a methodology or process by which we come to understand our existence. It is not really a specific set of rules to the universe but is instead the way in which we discern those rules. In that everything follows some sort of set rules generally speaking, at least to the players’ perspective, there is a scientific process available for understanding it.My games do not usually cover other planets (at least not yet), but they will follow some form of seemingly consistent rules once it comes to that. I do not think it is important that the rules they follow mimic “real world” rules, so long as there are some sort of rules observable to the players. After all, they are busy adventurers who are unlikely to delve into long term physics observations or chemical analysis. If I hade a lot of physics and/or astrophysics background people in my game I would likely feel compelled to flesh out those rules more, but they are usually just fine in the general sense. As the planes do not appear to exist in the “real World”, I think this is the best question to illustrate my take. There is no way to accurately portray the planes because a “real world” accurate model does not exist. As long as there are generally consistent rules that the players can observe, any of the philosophies of science (Observation, Falsifiability, Bayesian, Etc.) should be inherently available. The only way to have your world not be based on science (so to speak) would be to have a world where there are no rules that govern anything, and everything behaves inconsistently. Keep in mind however that just as in the real world, scientific approaches to understanding reality do not necessarily produce a complete or wholly accurate understanding of reality.</blockquote>

Verification