D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: You Got Science in My Fantasy!

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I'm failing to see where James Wyatt is saying that Science in a Fantasy game is bad. Or where he says the two shouldn't be mixed. Or where he says that Fantasy is the only "right" way. Or where he's trying to determine *the* answer. Maybe someone who's hackles have been raised can quote the sections of his article or the poll they believe say any of these things, because I just don't see where he's saying any of this. It seems more like he's raising a discussion.

Edit: Even the article is a reference to Reese's PB Cups. And taking that to its conclusion, like Peanut Butter and Chocolate, Science and Fantasy are two great tastes that go great together.

 

[delericho]

Sometimes (like, "That's not D&D!") I'll tend to agree with you. But let's be clear: Words mean things.

"Science fiction" and "fantasy" are terms for genres. They are loosely defined, but they are defined.

True, but they're defined in such a way that the boundaries between the two aren't clear, and there's significant overlap.

Moreover, there is no good reason I can see to insist on the matter. "Science fiction" and "fantasy" are not judgmental terms. It isn't like it is *bad* that there's sci-fi there. It isn't like there's value in purity, so why reject the notion that it is more of a science element than a fantasy one?

I don't object to him saying it's a science element; I object to him saying that it's not fantasy.

 

[TerraDave]

He is strongly implying things...that are wrong.

D&D draws on Tolkien...and it draws on pulp fantasy where the line between sci-fi and fantasy was not really there. This is a good thing.

People like the tolkienesque elements of D&D. But in play, they head for the pulp. Thats where the fun is.

 

[Dausuul]

The very first D&D setting ever featured a crashed spaceship with laser guns and robots! I agree with those who feel there's a lot of "one true way-ism" going on here, and the One True Way seems to be "as much like Middle-Earth as possible." Come on, Wyatt. You know perfectly well why elves, dwarves, and halflings are popular, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with "mythic resonance," it's because those are the protagonist races of "The Lord of the Rings." Middle-Earth is one of very few big-name fantasy settings to feature nonhuman protagonists, so it's no surprise that when people go to play nonhumans, LotR is what they turn to.

But just because Tolkien did it doesn't mean that's how it's gotta be. Contra Wyatt, D&D owes at least as much to Robert E. Howard as it does to Tolkien, and a setting modeled on Howard's Hyboria would incorporate evolution as a matter of course. There were many references to evolution in the Conan stories, and while beings called gods showed up from time to time, there was nothing to suggest they had created the world. A "god" was just a very powerful entity, often implied or outright stated to be an alien intruder in the vein of H.P. Lovecraft. I would not be at all surprised to find dragons that had evolved from dinosaurs in such a setting. Science is not anti-fantasy, nor incompatible with fantasy. You just have to decide which parts of science you're keeping and which you're not, and that will vary from one setting to another.

(And I couldn't vote on the dragon question, because I disagree with all of the options given. Personally, I'm not a big fan of dragons evolving from dinosaurs, but I'm also not a fan of Io. If Wyatt wants us to get science out of his fantasy, he can get his stupid dragon patron deity out of mine.)

 

[Kinak]

I don't much care about orc babies or the endowments of dragonborn. Those are campaign-issues, really.

But I do think James overextended his hand on science. Modern scientific understanding may not apply to a fantasy setting, but the roots of that understanding are just common sense things.

It's all well and good to say "a mad wizard created owlbears, who then escaped and became a self-sustaining species." But that leaves several common sense questions -- How could he do that? Why would he do that? How have they survived since then?

You don't need to apply evolutionary science to things to wonder why they haven't all starved or been killed off. You also don't need a psychology degree to ask why someone thought it was a good idea to add a totally useless beak to the front of their bears. And it doesn't somehow diminish magic to ask when all these species were created and if it's still possible.

You can wandwave away evolutionary biology, no argument there, but you can't expect a creature to feel like part of a living world unless there are valid answers to common sense questions.

It's an open question whether those questions should be answers or just posed in the MM, but where a monster came from is only the first common sense question and generally the least important. Leaving those questions unasked just leaves you a pile of stats, while the answers to those questions are what hook it into a wider world.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[I'm A Banana]

Moreover, there is no good reason I can see to insist on the matter. "Science fiction" and "fantasy" are not judgmental terms. It isn't like it is *bad* that there's sci-fi there. It isn't like there's value in purity, so why reject the notion that it is more of a science element than a fantasy one?

I'm failing to see where James Wyatt is saying that Science in a Fantasy game is bad.

In a discussion about what will be in D&D, which is a fantasy game, it becomes a judgmental term. If D&D is a fantasy game, and orc babies aren't fantasy fare, then orc babies don't belong in D&D. If you like orc babies and the questions they introduce and the world they imply, well, D&D isn't for you since that isn't what D&D's developers have arbitrarily declared to be fantasy.

When you read "It's not fantasy!" it's not really an extreme leap to "It's not supposed to be part of a fantasy RPG!", and that is absolutely about keeping the boundaries well-policed from the taboo taint of the sin of not being some arbitrary definition of "fantasy."

Genres have fluid borders, open borders, borders that change and that are malleable and that flex and flow. The moment anyone starts separating things into artificial camps like this, it's all wagon-circling and witch-hunts, in-group and out-group, sacred and profane, self-doubt and accusation. It's...not fun times, it's usually more useful in revealing the anxieties of the gatekeepers than in actually maintaining a division.

I'm willing to believe he over-stated his case either intentionally (to create a conversation) or not (because he's written things like this before), and that's not really what he's trying to imply, but in the words as they are written, that's the meaning I derive, and I don't think it's un-tethered from reality.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

When you read "It's not fantasy!" it's not really an extreme leap to "It's not supposed to be part of a fantasy RPG!", and that is absolutely about keeping the boundaries well-policed from the taboo taint of the sin of not being some arbitrary definition of "fantasy."

Whether extreme or not you're still jumping to conclusions and putting words in the mouth of the author.

Genres have fluid borders, open borders, borders that change and that are malleable and that flex and flow. The moment anyone starts separating things into artificial camps like this, it's all wagon-circling and witch-hunts, in-group and out-group, sacred and profane, self-doubt and accusation. It's...not fun times, it's usually more useful in revealing the anxieties of the gatekeepers than in actually maintaining a division.

And he gave many examples from D&D's history of these fluid borders. And the poll questions didn't draw battle lines. I chose "depends on the campaign" each time it was a choice. And I still fail to see where Wyatt stated a preference for either "camp." I infer from his article that he's feeling out whether the majority of players like science-ish explanations, mythological explanations, or a mix of the two. If they headed down any of those paths without opening it for discussion I could see your point, but he is opening it for discussion.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Whether extreme or not you're still jumping to conclusions and putting words in the mouth of the author.

It's more an inference. If D&D is a fantasy RPG (an assumed point that James is undoubtedly aware of), and these things are not fantasy (James's argument), why should they be part of D&D? Because either D&D is not a fantasy RPG, and it has these things, or it is a fantasy RPG, and it does not have these things.

The answer, as far as I can see, is that James and the rest of the D&D devs don't get to define what is or isn't fantasy for millions of people -- his argument is flawed. D&D is a fantasy RPG that has these things, because James's attempt to draw a line in the sand is gatekeeping.

And he gave many examples from D&D's history of these fluid borders. And the poll questions didn't draw battle lines. I chose "depends on the campaign" each time it was a choice. And I still fail to see where Wyatt stated a preference for either "camp." I infer from his article that he's feeling out whether the majority of players like science-ish explanations, mythological explanations, or a mix of the two. If they headed down any of those paths without opening it for discussion I could see your point, but he is opening it for discussion.

He doesn't seem to be opening it up for discussion as much as making a declaration about what is and isn't "fantasy." Like here:

That's not fantasy, frankly, at least not in its classic sense.

And here:

Again, this is not so much fantasy as it is paleontology and evolutionary biology

And here:

Fantasy worlds, including almost every D&D world, have active, present gods who are perfectly capable of creating life in whatever form they desire—often their own image.

And here:

It's easy to equate fantasy races with science-fiction alien species, but I don't think they're the same thing.

And here:

Fantasy isn't always that, and D&D might only rarely hit that level of mythic resonance. But at its core, our game aspires to a mythic grandeur like that of the Lord of the Rings.

Naturally, this is going to create some hostility in those who disagree with his battle-lines. That may even be the intent (God knows the D&D designers have to be really aware that truefans love them a good tribal spear-rattling), or it could also just be one of the Wyatt-isms that sometimes come out of the guy (a la "talking to guards isn't fun!"). That tribal refrain, I think, is kind of obscuring his more salient points on the very real virtues of a mythic game. Mythic games are awesome. It's just that "fantasy" isn't automatically "mythic" in that way. I think [MENTION=779]Kobold Avenger[/MENTION] gets at how sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, really well. He seems to cede that there a bit at the end, and allows a "none of the above" option in the polls, but the tone overall is "This. Is. Fantasy!" and then he kicks everyone who loves dinosaur-dragons down the well.

 

[Minigiant]

The article kinda feels like it's giving a vibe that any origin for any major aspect that is not supernatural in nature is not fantasy. Like the creation of any iconic being must be not just be magical, but supermagical. And if you can't think of the crazy thing that created X or don't like the default crazy creation of Xs, well Xs live way over there where you can't see them. Fantasy orcs can't just be aggressive strong savages who can easily nudged to evil. No, they spawn from dark and evil places from out of nothing with twisted evil minds, elf hatred, and sharp teeth.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The article kinda feels like it's giving a vibe that any origin for any major aspect that is not supernatural in nature is not fantasy. Like the creation of any iconic being must be not just be magical, but supermagical. And if you can't think of the crazy thing that created X or don't like the default crazy creation of Xs, well Xs live way over there where you can't see them. Fantasy orcs can't just be aggressive strong savages who can easily nudged to evil. No, they spawn from dark and evil places from out of nothing with twisted evil minds, elf hatred, and sharp teeth.

I disagree. The science he mentions regarding Orc Babies is anthropology and psychology. In other words, standard fanatasy fare is that adventures go kill orcs, because that's what adventurers do. It shouldn't be too shocking to anyone that that is the main meme. It's the thought put towards "nature vs. nurture" and the morality of killing baby orcs that treads into anthropology and psychology. Then he gave a specific (erroneus?) example of a fantasy setting where they didn't even have babies. You can still have the basic meme even if orcs reproduce like any other race.