Science in Dungeons and Dragons

[Ydars]

Hi Jack7!

I wasn't really thinking of the total genius when I wrote the above; just the way that science was taught in that time as a model for one way of introducing science into the skills system.

That isn't to say that this is the only way to use science in D&D, I just wanted to put some meat on the bones so that those less familiar with ancient ideas have some keywords to plug into wikipedia to stimulate their own imaginations to think about how to approach this subject.

Myself, I like my games as science free as possible; I prefer magic to science in D&D mostly or else I fuse the two to amuse myself when I am DMing. I guess if I wanted some hard science, I would play Sci-Fi and oddly I rarely do even though I love reading it

 

[Jack7]

Myself, I like my games as science free as possible; I prefer magic to science in D&D mostly or else I fuse the two to amuse myself when I am DMing. I guess if I wanted some hard science, I would play Sci-Fi and oddly I rarely do even though I love reading it

Me too. I don't mind, even like proto-science in fantasy games, just not modern science, cause that way of looking at the world didn't really exist. Science back then and in fantasy games should to me be more the sport and interest of a few select individuals way ahead of their time, maybe a class like the Wizard, and of the individual genius. People back then just weren't geared towards the worldview of wholesale technological and scientific infiltration of life, like our modern societies. If anything many considered it scary, supernatural, or dangerous. (Of course particular settings might alter that approach, but generally speaking fantasy is not science. It's a different world view.)

I'm also not a real big fan of fantasy games adopting scientific terms for things in-game. Like psionic for psychic powers. Language consistency matters to me.

If you have scientific knowledge or ability then that kind of thing in-game should be called Lore, or Craft, rather than data or manufacturing capability.

 

[howandwhy99]

The key thing about role playing is, it's the actual "acting out" of the role, not the abstracted elements. By definition, if you abstract something in the game, you aren't role playing it. If someone swings a sword and hits you, they acted it out. If they just say they did, then they didn't role play it. In traditional "role playing" games very little, if anything, is acted out. They are all simulation. But within the simulation the elements that are not abstracted are addressed and this addressing is what is historically termed "role playing" within the hobby (ignoring character characterization role playing, which most games don't have rules for).

All of which is to say, if you want Behavioral Sciences, Earth and Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Technology in the your role playing game - define them within the simulation. Address them by giving them absolute definitions. And when you define other things in the game, make sure you include definitions of all 4 in relation to those other things (i.e. people, places, things, etc.).

As traditional "role playing" games are incomplete manual simulations, you'll need to continually expand these definitions to new things as new things are addressed (new categories beyond your 4 too, but things and categories all add up to the same result: definitions in a simulation). This breaks down to how there is no difference between crunch and fluff in a traditional RPG, but for the sake of consistency just define whatever is important (folks want addressed in the game simulation) and stick with definitions already used.

To clarify with an example, Physical Sciences include rocks, wood, flesh, shell, etc. Hardness might be important to address separately from Combat Defense, so each element is given a definition. It can be numerical or it can be text, but it needs to define Hardness in each case in relation to the action addresssed. In the case of Hardness it's probably "breaking".

 

[Mallus]

So what do you think?

I think the best way to go about this is to start with the action-adventure game applications of certain scientific disciplines, rather than on representing the disciplines themselves, which, frankly, will probably never come up it play.

For instance, an engineer magic might fashion clockwork automata, a divine healer who's also a medical doctor would get bonuses healing, an arcanist MD might be Dr. Frankenstein.

Again, I'd focus on practical-yet-colorful character shticks and leave the question of how to represent certain systems of knowledge alone.

 

[moritheil]

Physical science is really, really weird in DnD. For example, fireballs explode with light, heat, and sound but cause no pressure changes. The fact that this is at all possible means the laws of thermodynamics are dramatically different. Chemistry is unrecognizable, as there are only the four classical elements rather than the 100+ of the periodic table. It might not be very different from the perspective of one who isn't accustomed to looking at physical laws very precisely, but it's different enough that systematic logic (which is what makes it science) might not really apply. Biology is weird because of the existence of all sorts of fantastic creatures that defy normal evolutionary principles. All the shapeshifters and alternate forms also really confound the "form follows function" principle of biology as well - and that's not even counting the undead.

Skill-wise, Chemistry has the problem that Craft (Alchemy) is what is used, not a Knowledge skill. Biology is split between Knowledge (nature/dungeoneering/planes/religion/arcana.) Physics is largely in knowledge (planes) but arcana is probably relevant.

 

[Mallus]

What you could do with them would be quite limited because most of the theories of the time were only descriptive (they seemed to explain why things were the way they were) not predictive (modern theories allow us to make predictions about the future behaviour of any system at study and hence are useful).

If you're going to put science (or proto-science) in the game, then the players should be able to do something meaningful with it. Otherwise, why include it in the skill/task/conflict resolution system? If it's essentially just colorful detail or plot device ("St. Leibnitz of the Order of the Calculus has been kidnapped! You must rescue him!") then you don't need mechanics/mechanical description of it.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Me too. I don't mind, even like proto-science in fantasy games, just not modern science, cause that way of looking at the world didn't really exist. Science back then and in fantasy games should to me be more the sport and interest of a few select individuals way ahead of their time, maybe a class like the Wizard, and of the individual genius. People back then just weren't geared towards the worldview of wholesale technological and scientific infiltration of life, like our modern societies. If anything many considered it scary, supernatural, or dangerous. (Of course particular settings might alter that approach, but generally speaking fantasy is not science. It's a different world view.)

I'm also not a real big fan of fantasy games adopting scientific terms for things in-game. Like psionic for psychic powers. Language consistency matters to me.

If you have scientific knowledge or ability then that kind of thing in-game should be called Lore, or Craft, rather than data or manufacturing capability.

Just to add a bit more to this part of the discussion, which probably isn't relevant to the OP anyway, what the people who delt with certain 'specialities' (combat medics, guides, poachers, etc.) on a day-to-day basis knew was light years ahead of what the profs were teaching in the universities. In practical terms of the way things really worked. So if one were to go the medieval route, that should be kept in mind.

 

[arscott]

Not a perfect match, but:

Physics = knowledge (planes)
Chemistry = knowledge (arcana)
Geology = knowledge (dungeoneering)
zoology/botany = knowledge (nature)
microbiology = heal
psychology = sense motive