The Implications of Biology in D&D

[Mallus]

Except other people; we demonize or dehumanize them.

Well said, Cel.

(But as to other point, of course we --and by we I mean fiction writers of all stripes-- anthropomorphize mythical creatures, space aliens, and brave little toasters, we have to. Anything that serves as a character needs to be a person, a human being, beneath it's funny suit or crinkly nose-prosthesis. The minute you decide a dragon or an angel is going to be character, it, perforce, becomes a person, different in scope perhaps as you or I are from Achilles, but a person nonetheless).

 

[Derren]

The original question doesn't look to me like a biological, but like an economical one.

And in the end, it comes down to how "realistic" you want the setting to be. And frankly, most people don't want it to be "realistic" at all.

They want the setting to look like in the fantasy books. Heroes with swords and castles and monsters who do nothing except being killed by heroes. No matter if that makes sense or not, thats what most people want.

Things like breeding Hippogriffs so that they are common are simply not wanted by the players. They don't want (3E example) iron to be dirty cheap (Wall of Iron), Raise Dead common and diamonds being more of a military ressource than jewelery. They don't want cities connected by teleportation circles, armies to dig trenches instead of building fortifications or (4E) rust monster farms for more efficient magic item recycling.
Those things make sense, but most people rather want a world which looks like in the books they read instead of things which make sense.

Eberron tried to incorporate the effects of magic a bit better than the other settings, but in the end only copied the modern world and said "its magic". And even that was criticised heavily. Imagine what would happen when a world really takes all the things magic can do into account. Hardly anyone would play it because its so different than fantasy book #42152.

 

[Mallus]

Imagine what would happen when a world really takes all the things magic can do into account. Hardly anyone would play it because its so different than fantasy book #42152.

More importantly, hardly anyone could create a counter-factual world like that -- trying to run a 'rigorous simulation' of an entire planet with different biology/history/metaphysics/cultural evolution(s) isn't possible on our rather limited human hard wetware.

The best we can come up with is cheap knockoffs of real-world places annd events coupled with some half-assed extrapolation. And mind you, I'm not knocking those, they're mightily entertaining.

 

[Derren]

More importantly, hardly anyone could create a counter-factual world like that -- trying to run a 'rigorous simulation' of an entire planet with different biology/history/metaphysics/cultural evolution(s) isn't possible on our rather limited human hard wetware.

The best we can come up with is cheap knockoffs of real-world places annd events coupled with some half-assed extrapolation. And mind you, I'm not knocking those, they're mightily entertaining.

It doesn't have to be a rip off of a historic society or event. Imo designers are, when they want, smart enough to craft a new society instead or relable a existing (past or present) one (works in science fiction at least).

But that takes time and hardly anyone wants it anyway. So why do it?
Its a hobby of mine to try to craft a world which takes the actual possibilities of D&D magic into account (3E). Is my interpretation the one "most likely to happen"? Certainly not. But imo there isn't a "most right" answer to this anyway.
Still, the worlds I craft don't look like anything encountered in any fantasy book and I don't think anyone is interested in them as they are too "alien" compared to the common fantasy settings.

 

[Umbran]

(But as to other point, of course we --and by we I mean fiction writers of all stripes-- anthropomorphize mythical creatures, space aliens, and brave little toasters, we have to. Anything that serves as a character needs to be a person, a human being, beneath it's funny suit or crinkly nose-prosthesis. ....).

Yah. See Orson Scott Card's Hierarchy of Exclusion - you have to understand the critter in order to have some sympathy/empathy for it. Really alien aliens, or monstrous monsters (or monstrous aliens - see Alien) are just forces of nature, and there's only so far you can go in characterizing faces of nature.

 

[Aeolius]

In my view, taking a very naturalistic approach to monsters makes them less fantastic.

Hags breed...

This should frighten the dickens out of anyone. Especially my players.

 

[Barastrondo]

Still, the worlds I craft don't look like anything encountered in any fantasy book and I don't think anyone is interested in them as they are too "alien" compared to the common fantasy settings.

Whenever the topic comes up I tend to ask "So, why are the common fantasy settings popular in the first place?"

It's my belief that to a certain point, the unique qualities of a world, however plausible in accordance to its own rules, are at odds with emotional immersion. The more exposition you have to read to truly understand a setting that's really, truly different from what you're expecting, the less likely you are to feel like you're part of that setting, to be able to just casually picture yourself there. This is something that the creator is exempt from, of course: nobody knows the details of my campaign like I do, so naturally I have an easier time knowing what "makes sense" than my players do.

The really logical worlds where you try to extrapolate something very different instead of relying on familiar tropes are, I think, largely attractive as an intellectual exercise. They're good workouts for the brain. But you have to a heavy-duty genius at characterization and communication to make them also emotionally immersive enough that people can slide into the world over the big old hump of scientific (or pseudo-scientific, if you're treating magic in a scientific method) exposition that's required to understand the place.

It's a serious puzzle and no mistake. I like my games with immersion, but I also like them to have sufficient internal logic that they hold up when you're talking about them the morning after. Thankfully, myth is a definite framework for internal logic... though even it varies notably from place to place.

 

[Derren]

Thankfully, myth is a definite framework for internal logic... though even it varies notably from place to place.

Replace "Myth" with "Pulp Fantasy LOTR Clone".

What most people see as "normal" for fantasy isn't all that related to an actual myth. Myth gets more and more replaced by what happens in fantasy books/movies which are nearly always LOTR clones (except for certain topics like Vampires).

How many people do you think associate vampires with the myth instead of what Bram Stoker, Interview with a vampire or (recently) what Buffy and Twilight "taught" them?
Same with other fantasy creatures. Orks are green, stupid and evil, most gamers associate elves with how they appeared in LOTR and not with either small pixies or the nordic originals from the myth. Same with dwarves and them being short, axe or hammer wielding, bearded drunkards instead of small sprites with jelly bag caps.

I would really like to witness an experiment when 3 people, one who has only read old folk tales, one who has only read LOTR & Clones and one grew up only with Conan books are tasked to create a fantasy world.

LOTR became a big hit, many people copied it, and because so many sources are so similar, LOTR became the default for most people when it comes to "fantasy". What LOTR didn't cover people got from other books/movies.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Hags breed...
[... image snipped ...]
This should frighten the dickens out of anyone. Especially my players.

So that's why hags are always the most popular cheerleaders on the squad!

 

[Jack7]

It's my belief that to a certain point, the unique qualities of a world, however plausible in accordance to its own rules, are at odds with emotional immersion. The more exposition you have to read to truly understand a setting that's really, truly different from what you're expecting, the less likely you are to feel like you're part of that setting, to be able to just casually picture yourself there. This is something that the creator is exempt from, of course: nobody knows the details of my campaign like I do, so naturally I have an easier time knowing what "makes sense" than my players do.

The really logical worlds where you try to extrapolate something very different instead of relying on familiar tropes are, I think, largely attractive as an intellectual exercise. They're good workouts for the brain. But you have to a heavy-duty genius at characterization and communication to make them also emotionally immersive enough that people can slide into the world over the big old hump of scientific (or pseudo-scientific, if you're treating magic in a scientific method) exposition that's required to understand the place.

And it's my belief that to a certain point you're really on to something here.

There is an "natural artificiality" in the composition of fiction that must nevertheless at least appear more real the less real it becomes, or it will be characteristically perceived as increasingly insubstantial the more substantially you present the case.

When your truth is a fiction, your fiction must be true.
And that's especially true of the imagination.
And of what we imagine, and want to be true.

Otherwise the improbable never gives birth to her doubt.
And without doubt the impossible is all you have left.