The Implications of Biology in D&D

[Dannyalcatraz]

Re: Dragonbewbs.

We know some kind of "genes" or mutation are at work- even if they're entirely magical- due to the nature of the various crossbreeds we know about. They have characteristics of both sides of their lineage. (Note: the fantasy genome, as evidenced by those crossbreeds, is a LOT more flexible than the RW one, to be sure.)

Some combinations, in past editions, have even been noted as being "sterile" crossbreeds. Other potential combinations (Orc/Elf, for instance) have been noted as being unlikely or impossible due to the creatures incompatibility. (Note: this incompatibility dovetails nicely with the Uruk-Hai/Elf conflict.)

So, unless the Dragonborn like their girls curvy, there's no reason for them to be selected for. And if they're inconvenient/unattractive, they'll be selected against.

 

[catsclaw227]

.... the fantasy genome...

Ha!

I hear what you are saying, and I agree (mostly), but the idea of a fantasy genome in a "world" with beholders, displacer beasts, slaad, gith, dragons, demons and devils totally cracks me up.

 

[Hussar]

Re: Dragonbewbs.

We know some kind of "genes" or mutation are at work- even if they're entirely magical- due to the nature of the various crossbreeds we know about. They have characteristics of both sides of their lineage. (Note: the fantasy genome, as evidenced by those crossbreeds, is a LOT more flexible than the RW one, to be sure.)

Some combinations, in past editions, have even been noted as being "sterile" crossbreeds. Other potential combinations (Orc/Elf, for instance) have been noted as being unlikely or impossible due to the creatures incompatibility. (Note: this incompatibility dovetails nicely with the Uruk-Hai/Elf conflict.)

So, unless the Dragonborn like their girls curvy, there's no reason for them to be selected for. And if they're inconvenient/unattractive, they'll be selected against.

Why? Again, just because two species can cross breed doesn't really prove anything. It could just as easily be "A god declares this to be true" as any sort of science.

This gets back to my point. When you start down this road that magic must follow rules, it becomes science.

 

[korjik]

Any sufficiently quantified magic is indistinguishable from technology.

The thing about any fantasy setting is that you cannot even prove that the laws of physics work the same way, or are even the same laws at all. As a result, any science is whatever you want it to be.

Biology, ecology, physics, geology, all work however the game designer wants them to. They dont have to make sense.

It is only when we want to impress our own desires on how things should be that any problem occurs.

 

[LostSoul]

Where does player choice factor into this?

If we posit a fantasy world that makes no sense, how are players supposed to make choices in that world as a game?

I guess the answer is that those players need to learn the rules of the world. Strange as they may be.

Personally, I'd rather play the setting "dumb" and let smart players raise an army of horse-hungry hippogriffs if they somehow figure out a way to do it. That may change the campaign setting - other nations may spy and learn their techniques - and that could be very cool.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Re: Dragonbewbs.

We know some kind of "genes" or mutation are at work- even if they're entirely magical- due to the nature of the various crossbreeds we know about. They have characteristics of both sides of their lineage. (Note: the fantasy genome, as evidenced by those crossbreeds, is a LOT more flexible than the RW one, to be sure.)

Some combinations, in past editions, have even been noted as being "sterile" crossbreeds. Other potential combinations (Orc/Elf, for instance) have been noted as being unlikely or impossible due to the creatures incompatibility. (Note: this incompatibility dovetails nicely with the Uruk-Hai/Elf conflict.)

So, unless the Dragonborn like their girls curvy, there's no reason for them to be selected for. And if they're inconvenient/unattractive, they'll be selected against.

Evolutionary changes require that mutation can occur in the reproduction process, my argument is that there is no reason to believe that this is so. That does not preclude corssbreeding but it stops evolution cold. A being is what it is within certain parameters and its essestial characteristics are passed on to the next generation unchanged except by the influnce of the characteristics of its mate. The species is eternal as long as a member exists. There is no possibility of kobolds evolving to become dragonborn nor do they share a common ancestor. Each thing is of itself and not decended from any other.

Take creationsim as a startpoint, add in some fantasy creatures and play D&D there for a while.

Magic as a science is a separate issue, though imho D&D magic has not passes beyond stamp collecting yet.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

This gets back to my point. When you start down this road that magic must follow rules, it becomes science.

But if magic doesn't follow rules, you don't really have a structure you can build a game around. Heck, the rules of D&D imply that magic is, indeed, something of a science: spells are split into levels, schools and domains; items require special knowledge, substances and components to make; and so on.

To refer back to the OP, regardless of whether dwarves evolve or whether they are carved from stone, as long as it's the same origin for the dwarves in question, it's still a rule either way. Regardless of whether a world operates according to some naturalistic "science" or some supernatural "bio-alchemy" or simple divine fiat, that world still ought to be largely consistent; otherwise how can you expect players to operate in it?

To my mind, there needs to be a little of each: the consistent part structures the world, so the players have a baseline they can refer to to make decisions. The inconsistent parts often form the mystery and conflict. In fact, I think a lot of lower level exploration and adventuring is to allow the players to discern the illogical parts from the rest of the world so they can.

From the OP:

In my view, taking a very naturalistic approach to monsters makes them less fantastic. They are predictable, in the way that natural animals aren't really fantastic, but a part of the natural processes of the world. Not that that's a bad thing, necessarily, but, I think it becomes very limiting. Kobolds, to use the original example from the other thread, are just short scaley humanoids. They aren't really all that different than a smart kind of ape. They lack ... magic.

Monsters, IMO, should be fantastic. They shouldn't be consistent, since consistency breeds predictability.

Maybe I'm not getting the objection here. Is it that a specifically naturalistic approach is distasteful, or that a merely consistent and logical approach is? If that's the objection, I'd think it's simply a matter of what the campaign demands.

 

[DMH]

"Magic explains" is banned.

That is a cop out. I don't want to go hunting for the link, but I have a thread at rpg.net about variation in spellcaster created creatures. The main example is the owlbear- there are many bears and owls that can go into making them so why should they be identical? Heck if the different species can hybridize, then there can be thousands to millions of fairly unique owlbears in a setting.

What I don't like is the idea of everything can breed with everything else. If that were so and the world has been around for a while, every creature would have lots of species in its background.

 

[The Shaman]

If we posit a fantasy world that makes no sense, how are players supposed to make choices in that world as a game?

Yup, I like players to be able to make inferences like these . . .

If it's a man then it must sleep. If it sleeps then it has a lair.

. . . even if sometimes they're dead wrong.

Yes, you can have your unimaginable Far Realms abominations and you can have monsters that function by basic ecological rules, and it's all good.

 

[Hussar]

Where does player choice factor into this?

If we posit a fantasy world that makes no sense, how are players supposed to make choices in that world as a game?

I guess the answer is that those players need to learn the rules of the world. Strange as they may be.

Personally, I'd rather play the setting "dumb" and let smart players raise an army of horse-hungry hippogriffs if they somehow figure out a way to do it. That may change the campaign setting - other nations may spy and learn their techniques - and that could be very cool.

Just a point here that has cropped up a couple of times. Hippogriff's don't eat horses, griffons do. At least, that's always been my understanding. Even going back to B/E D&D, it was griffons that eat horses on sight, not hippogriff's.

My point is, in this example, why on earth would the players be the first to figure out that having mobile, flying armies would absolutely dominate your neighbours? That makes little sense to me. Breeding hippogriffs, even only a half dozen or so, would drastically change warfare and economics. Even if they were only used as spotters on the battlefield, much the way balloons were during Napoleonic times, the advantage would be massive.

Anything that gives you that much of an advantage would be exploited or there needs to be a damn good reason why not.

Maybe I'm not getting the objection here. Is it that a specifically naturalistic approach is distasteful, or that a merely consistent and logical approach is? If that's the objection, I'd think it's simply a matter of what the campaign demands.

Naturalistic I would say. Reducing fantastic creatures to just another animal, totally understandable from a modern Animal Planet point of view.

Heck, I would even argue with the consistent approach as well. Why are all hippogriff's the same?

I guess my problem is, as The Shaman points out, "you can have your unimaginable Far Realms abominations and you can have monsters that function by basic ecological rules", all creatures that are non-planar creatures must conform to basic ecological rules.

Why is it only Far Realms creatures that have inconsistent "ecologies"? Why does every non-planar creature have to be reduced to following basic ecological rules? Orcs are just another hominid. Giants are big hominids. Hippogriffs are horses with eagle heads and wings that lay eggs.

I think that reducing fantastic creatures to basic ecologies makes them a lot more boring. They become resources to be exploited. If the creatures have a basic ecology, then why aren't they being exploited in your setting? By these creatures having basic ecologies, they make the whole setting far higher fantasy than I like.

Or, it makes the setting very inconsistent. Yup, hippogriff eggs can be sold for 2000 gp, trainers charge 1000 gp to train one, but, for some reason, no city/nation states actually take advantage of them.