The Laws of Physics

[Vrecknidj]

Just think Star Wars. There are tons of planets, moons, space stations, all kinds of things in that weird galaxy, and, people are pretty much able to walk around on all of them. So, just ignore the physics and details and build what's fun to play.

Dave

 

[Travinkel]

Thanks for the comments, I'll definitely bear this in mind.

I forgot all about this thread, hence why my reply is so delayed.

 

[Agent Oracle]

Easy, i involve the unmentioned sub-atomic particle: Naritivum.

Nartivum is found in copious amounts in fantasy worlds. First explained in The Science of Discword (a very real book), Naritivum (as a sub-atomic particle) creates to stories. Naritivum tends to be at it's highest concentrations in organic molecules, and has the following properties:

1.) diffusion of the square / cubed law.
A molecule which is rich in Naritivum is not suceptable to the advancement of mass based on it's volume displaced, this is because naritivum creates a semi-porus state which generates artifical additional surface area, or reduces additional internal volume.

2.) Suspention of Disbelief
Living underground makes most normal creatures hairless and blind. Creatures with Naritivum that live underground actually gain the ability to function better in absolute darkness, without loosing any of their senses. Colossal creatures could not possibly generate sufficient lift to get off the ground without rediculously sized wings. However, naritivum provides additional lift-generating surfaces in surface molecules, permitting a dragon-sized creature (and beyond) the ability to fly without posessing a compromising body shape.

3.) It stores tremendous reserves of energy, which may be dispersed through proper alignment. That's how people chuck lightning bolts around, those somatic components? Jostling the narritivum into place. The words? Providing a base energy for narritivum to being it's reaction. The materials? Catylists.

 

[ledded]

I agree, except that I'd add that the laws of physics in the D&D game break down even without magic. The same is true for the laws of many other sciences, such as chemistry or biology. So seeking to apply real-world science to one aspect is generally an exercise in arbitrariness.

While that is a very valid viewpoint, there are those (myself included) who have found that by applying "real world" physics to our fantastical places, in whatever degrees of accuracy you are comfortable with, lends a better sense of verisimilitude (there's that darn word again). Not that in itself that is a good thing, but what I've found is that it makes the magical feel more, well, "magical", and the fantastic just more "fantastic" when they occur. If the campaign or game is supposed to have the magical and fantastic feel more mundane, then, well, forget all the physics and have at it . But to each their own.

 

[shilsen]

While that is a very valid viewpoint, there are those (myself included) who have found that by applying "real world" physics to our fantastical places, in whatever degrees of accuracy you are comfortable with, lends a better sense of verisimilitude (there's that darn word again). Not that in itself that is a good thing, but what I've found is that it makes the magical feel more, well, "magical", and the fantastic just more "fantastic" when they occur. If the campaign or game is supposed to have the magical and fantastic feel more mundane, then, well, forget all the physics and have at it . But to each their own.

True. And I don't think we're actually in disagreement here. I'm all for verisimilitude too, and we probably just differ in what factors create that for us (and our respective groups) and what factors create problems in suspending our disbelief. I'm sure your game has certain non-magical elements that completely contravene the laws of science (dragons that can fly without magical aid, for example), while mine has certain areas where I do follow the laws of science simply because not following it in that area would lower verisimilitude for my group. It's just a matter of finding the balance that works for each of us. Or more succinctly, as you say, to each their own. Game on!

 

[Staffan]

How do you handle this particuliar when you're building a world? According to the Newton's law of gravity (that an object of extreme mass will have lower mass objects orbiting it)?

I tend to prefer Spelljammer's treatment of gravity: it's either 1g, or off. On planets, it's 1g up to the edge of the atmosphere, at which point it turns off. Things also generate their own gravity, which allows them to bring a small "air envelope" with them into space. For some reason, this gravity field tends to conform to the shape of these things, so a ship entering space would have a "gravity plane" aligned with the ship's deck.

In other words, gravity works in the way it's convenient.

Let's say a campaign world is 4 times as large as earth. We'll just assume the mass is 4 times larger as well, which means their gravitation would be 4 times the power of earth's.

Assuming similar density as Earth and that you by "large" means the diameter, the planet would have a mass that's 64 times that of Earth's. However, since the surface would be 4 times as far away from the center of gravity, you'd divide that 64 by 4^2 to get the gravity relative to Earth's: 4.

Basically, Newton's law means that the gravity of a planet is proportional to its density and diameter.