When objects fall

[diaglo]

Element and energy are synonym. They are the building blocks of the universe. They are countless. The most well-known are:

1. Air
2. Chaos
3. Corrosion
4. Darkness
5. Earth
6. Electricity
7. Entropy (aka negative energy, or decay)
8. Evil
9. Fauna
10. Fire
11. Flora
12. Force
13. Frost
14. Goodness
15. Law
16. Light
17. Magic (aka lei)
18. Vitality (aka positive energy, or lifeforce)
19. Sentience (aka Soul, or Mind)
20. Silence
21. Sound
22. Water

The list is debated, of course. People think every duality (light/darkness, death/life, good/evil, male/female, etc.) should be excluded, other that every one should be included. Some sages lump together darkness, cold, and silence on one side, and light, fire, and sound on the other.

Some argue that the perfect number of element is 256 -- 4 to the power of 4, as 4 is a magic number.

It's believed there are elementals and energons for each of these elements, elemental corresponding to the material aspect, and energons, to the energetic aspect, of the element. Everything has matter and energy, including themselves -- matter has energy, and energy has matter.

Combined with wonky planar anomalies, this leads to interesting things. The elemental planes, for example, are dimensions, not full-fledged planes. They are merely another way to look at the universe, ignoring normal spatial dimensions (so the "geography" of elemental planes do not match with the material plane) and everything that's not the concerned element. But this technique can be used for non-elemental planes as well -- Caleor the Elder, in his time, was famous for his discovery of the "coloural planes", where instead of phasing yourself with only a particular kind of matter, you phased you in a particular shade of color, and found yourself floating in a sea of things of the same color.



Who knows?

don't forget time as an element or space or whatever bruce willis was doing in that awful movie.

 

[Desdichado]

When I run a game, I want my campaign universe to exhibit the same internal consistency that pre-modern people would have demanded of it, first, because it helps to give my campaign worlds a pre-modern feel and second, because when I build a world, a build a consistent whole.

Have you made changes to the rules to reflect this, though? I mean, for objects falling (presumably a character or monster), the only real effect is damage. Since hit points are so abstract as it is, it seems a bit Quixotic to try and improve on the physics of falling and leaving hit points as an abstraction. For firing arcs, sure, I'd rule that in a low-ceilinged room, the range would be significantly reduced as you can't get a good arc on your shot. I'd make common sense rulings like that that reflect observable physics. What the stars are is anybody's guess; it's not like any of the PCs will be going to one.

So essentially, yes, I could say that physics work as they do in the real world for the most part. But I certainly don't make it something that I calculate, and I certainly don't worry if my physics are Aristotlean or Newtonian, or Einsteinian, or anything else like that. I guess the thrust of my question is; is this all just philosophical background for your campaign world, or is that an immediate effect on the game itself to work out the answers to this question?

Also, on a more practical level, my players are sufficiently creative that they throw me genuine curve balls where I have to figure out what happens when a magic spell or item interacts with something the rules haven't planned for it to interact with. I don't trust myself to wing it every time that happens because if I do, I'll likely end up with a very inconsistent world.

Other than, like, trying to fire an arrow 300 feet in a corridor with an 8 ft. ceiling, I'm curious if you have an example. I'm trying to think of a situation in which the rather hazy modeling of the rules completely is at odds with any version of physics. I mean, even pre-Aristotle, folks had a pretty good idea of things like firing arcs with bows and arrows, spears, etc. because the effects are easily observable. I think the rules model observable physics well enough; sure, it's an abstraction, but it's also not the only abstraction in the rules, so I don't know that it makes much difference. And certainly, I don't know what I would do differently if I wanted to introduce hard physics into my game (I don't) but it would probably involve switching from d20 altogether.

Finally, and most importantly, in a game where there is magic, I want the magic to actually fit in with the rest of the world's properties. I'm no enamoured of the idea that magic should function as some kind of trump card that temporarily suspends or invalidates the system of physics by which everything else runs. I prefer worlds where magic is a consistent part of a single overarching system of physics rather than a series of isolated yet incredibly frequent moments where the laws of the universe go into retreat. Every culture in which magic has been practiced (or believed to be practiced) has understood magic as part of its system of physics not a separate principle that periodically shuts physics down.

I get this as well. I don't like the fact that many folks handwave away magic in a rather blasé fashion. I prefer magic to be more like a science of sorts; a thaumatergical science, not a suspension of it.

Then again, magic in my setting is also a bit Lovecraftian; it reflects using knowledge of the "true nature" of the universe, as opposed to what human science tells us is the true nature of the universe. Personally, I'm always a bit sceptical of science when it says something is absolute. Certainly, I use scientific models, because they're the best we have, but I am not closed to the idea that there may be some crucial missing piece of information from our understanding of reality that invalidates our models drastically.

 

[Liolel]

My view on physics in D&D as a whole is that everyone works mostly as it does in the real world except if special conditions (magic and the likes) dictate otherwise.

However if players start trying to exploit knowledge of advanced physics that the characters could have no way of knowing to create powerful effects I wouldn't let it happen (an example of what I wouldn't allow would be creating gunpowder through real world knoweldge of its components). Not that such a thing has ever occured in a game I'm in, but I've hearda few stories of people trying to do such things.

 

[fusangite]

Have you made changes to the rules to reflect this, though?

Actually, the reason I make D&D physics Aristotelian is because the rules already mostly are that way. I wouldn't use D&D as my base system if I really needed the physics to be something other than Aristotelian. Basically, because I play D&D, my worlds' physics tend to be Aristotelian because I don't really feel up to creating a Platonic, Taoist or whatever rule set.

For firing arcs, sure, I'd rule that in a low-ceilinged room, the range would be significantly reduced as you can't get a good arc on your shot.

Actually, again, the fact that Aristotelian physics requires less of an arc (or no arc at all) means that I can use the rules as written without worrying about ceiling heights and various other things not modeled in the system. Using Newtonian physics would require a bunch of new rules for indoor archery but Aristotelian physics allows you to use the rules as written, unmodified.

I'd make common sense rulings like that that reflect observable physics.

Again, that's what the Aristotelian physics of the high medieval period largely was -- because of the importance placed on observation, again, I think this actually suggests a system more consistent with Aristotle than Newton.

But I certainly don't make it something that I calculate,

Again, I think you perceive bigger differences between our GMing styles than there actually are. Another attraction of Aristotelian physics for me is that it is a system generally hostile to quanitification. So, no -- for me what matters about a physics is not whether it enables precise calculations of outcome but whether it gives the world a consistency and predictability.

I guess the thrust of my question is; is this all just philosophical background for your campaign world, or is that an immediate effect on the game itself to work out the answers to this question?

People seem to like this idea that "flavour" and "system" are independent variables; I do not. For me there is a pretty close correlation between this divide and the present-day divide between metaphysics and physics. The kind of game world I like to GM or play in is one which does not have this post-Enlightenment division. Philosophy, physics and theology are all closely linked in worlds I enjoy; so I am reluctant to accept your either-or proposition here.

Then again, magic in my setting is also a bit Lovecraftian; it reflects using knowledge of the "true nature" of the universe, as opposed to what human science tells us is the true nature of the universe.

Same here. That's why knowing the actual nature of the universe I run matters to me. That's why I need to know what the stars and other such pieces of information.

 

[Gez]

Using Newtonian physics would require a bunch of new rules for indoor archery

I do not think so, because the typical indoor archery doesn't involve distances long enough for a high ceiling to be necessary. Firing an arrow to a 20-meter (65 ft.) distance is pretty much a direct shot, you don't need to aim that much higher than the target.

(Waiting to be proven wrong by people who actually practice archery.)

On the other hand, it would be very weird if a thrown object would not, eventually, fall down on the ground.

 

[Desdichado]

Actually, again, the fact that Aristotelian physics requires less of an arc (or no arc at all) means that I can use the rules as written without worrying about ceiling heights and various other things not modeled in the system. Using Newtonian physics would require a bunch of new rules for indoor archery but Aristotelian physics allows you to use the rules as written, unmodified.

Again, that's what the Aristotelian physics of the high medieval period largely was -- because of the importance placed on observation, again, I think this actually suggests a system more consistent with Aristotle than Newton.

I'm not expert on the intricacies of Aristotlean physics (although I could tell you a bit more about his cosmology with all the spheres and whatnot; although I don't like that model for my campaigns either) but that seems wrong to me. If Aristotlean physics is all about observation, how is it that it can ignore trajectories? Ever since the first caveman threw a rock at something trajectories have been an observable aspect of the physics of moving objects.

Again, I think you perceive bigger differences between our GMing styles than there actually are. Another attraction of Aristotelian physics for me is that it is a system generally hostile to quanitification. So, no -- for me what matters about a physics is not whether it enables precise calculations of outcome but whether it gives the world a consistency and predictability.

No, probably not. Maybe I'm just not trying to label my game physics. I find that the rules adequately reflect observational physics for my purposes; i.e., the practical kinds of physics that affect day to day life, regardless of the label. Since you asked, I'd say that for the most part, Newtonian, or even Einsteinian physics are the default on my gameworld, as they are on ours, but that there's no effect of the differences. Regardless of which theoretical model you use to describe our world, that caveman's rock still does the same thing when thrown, and always has done so. Since I think the rules adequately (if not perfectly) portray real world physics, I suppose it's immaterial what the more complex physical models are.

People seem to like this idea that "flavour" and "system" are independent variables; I do not. For me there is a pretty close correlation between this divide and the present-day divide between metaphysics and physics. The kind of game world I like to GM or play in is one which does not have this post-Enlightenment division. Philosophy, physics and theology are all closely linked in worlds I enjoy; so I am reluctant to accept your either-or proposition here.

I've picked that up from other posts of yours as well, but I'm still intrigued and curious as to exactly how that is done. OK, so you've looked at the rules, decided that they more closely reflect Aristotlean rather than Newtonian physics, fine. But what impact does that actually have in your game? I know you said the following:

Same here. That's why knowing the actual nature of the universe I run matters to me. That's why I need to know what the stars and other such pieces of information.

But I'm still curious as to what that means. I mean, even Lovecraft didn't really posit any alternate models, he just essentially told us indirectly that we were hubristic (if that's a word) by our dogmatic approval of current scientific models. Personally, I think he's got a point in a way; if there's anything the history of science teaches us it's that we can have a model that seems to work just fine for years and years, and then we find some missing piece of evidence that turns it completely on its head. But that's maybe a subject for another off-topic and likely inappropriate thread. From a game perspective, I guess I do as Lovecraft; I don't exactly present the alternative model.

 

[barsoomcore]

I prefer worlds where magic is a consistent part of a single overarching system of physics rather than a series of isolated yet incredibly frequent moments where the laws of the universe go into retreat.

Now you're talking! This is why I pretty much design an entirely new magic system for every campaign I run; because the campaign is usually based around some particular metaphysical model (I find magic has greater corelation with metaphysics rather than straight physics -- the metaphysics (planar structure or what have you) determines the possibilities among the physics).

Barsoom has particular truths about the nature of the soul and consciousness that are translated directly into a cosmological model of reality. The various magic systems are more or less derived from that model.

One of the things that drives me crazy about D&D magic is that there's no definition of the "soul". I mean, aren't demons trying to steal your soul? How do they do that if there isn't any soul in the game?

Hm, D&D has no soul. Is that a T-Shirt waiting to be born?

 

[JackGiantkiller]

Fusangite...I must say, your idea of how complete worlds background should be somehwat mirrors mine. Although my physics change froms eeting to setting, as i build a *lot* of worlds...and some of them work however the gods feel like they should at the time. i have some worlds where the gods are micromanaging things, so they tend to be more unpredictable. For instance: if you have somehow offended the God of War, you can expect your arrows to arc however the heck he wants, making aiming a real chore. If you are a favored individual, on the other hand, stright line all the way. That sort of thing changes from world to world. But yes...I do tend to have the physics of my worlds closely tied to the religion and philosophy thereof, as it should be in a place where the Gods are verifiably real.

 

[fusangite]

If Aristotlean physics is all about observation, how is it that it can ignore trajectories? Ever since the first caveman threw a rock at something trajectories have been an observable aspect of the physics of moving objects.

Many scholars continue to debate that very question -- many have taken note and offer different theoretical frameworks to explain this. I think you're doing some whole-part rhetorical sleight of hand here, though. Relative to other physical/philosophical systems, Aristotelianism emphasized the importance of observation far more than any other system did in its rhetoric and its practice. My claim that the general spirit of Aristotelian physics was one that endorsed observation as the main way one learns about the universe is not invalidated by your observation that Aristotelians often got things wrong. But the fact is that Aristotelian physics saw itself and was seen by advocates of other physical systems as the most observation-based, common sense physics on the market. That's not to say that theory played no role and never messed up empirical observations but rather to say that generally Aristotelianism was an ideology that valued observation -- in sharp contrast to Platonism and other philosophies.

I've picked that up from other posts of yours as well, but I'm still intrigued and curious as to exactly how that is done. OK, so you've looked at the rules, decided that they more closely reflect Aristotlean rather than Newtonian physics, fine. But what impact does that actually have in your game?

Okay, three examples:
1. Characters have obtained Shocking weapons or cast Lightning Bolt from time to time and attempted to take advantage of possible secondary effects from the electricity being grounded through water, metal or the like. Aristotelian physics allows me to rule that lightning/electricity is a type of fire mixed with air and that therefore such things as electrical conduction are non-issues.
2. People have fired arrows down long, narrow hallways underground with low ceilings. They hit their targets without be ever having to do a single kinematics equation to determine how far the arrow falls as it travels through the air.
3. Inflation isn't real. I don't have to fiddle with item creation rules if the characters accidentally glut the local economy with gold. Having a coherent framework that explains why the values of things don't change regardless of the money available eliminates a bunch of disputes and eliminates the need to adapt the rules to post-medieval economics.

But really, the main impacts on the game are the fact that things make sense. Fire elementals only make sense if fire is an element. In Newtonian-Einsteinian physics, fire isn't. Alchemy, as distinguished from chemistry, makes sense.

Most importantly, it gives me a shorthand for the assumptions the characters should have about the world. If the world is generally Aristotelian, one can have a rough idea of the basic political, scientific and theological premises of a society. The last time I ran a D&D that didn't use Aristotelian physics, I had to produce 65 pages of background material and even then it wasn't enough. Designing societies that are not modern, from the ground up, is a huge undertaking for me. People have different premises about how things work in every conceivable facet of human life; the fact that D&D is so amenable to importing the Aristotelian framework is one of the reasons I keep it around. If D&D weren't compatible with any pre-existing worldview, I would be less likely to use the game because I would then have to create a worldview that actually fit with the D&D rules.

I mean, even Lovecraft didn't really posit any alternate models, he just essentially told us indirectly that we were hubristic (if that's a word) by our dogmatic approval of current scientific models.

Agreed. But an RPG run by H P Lovecraft wouldn't involve any predictable or consistent system of physics at all. The whole spirit of the Lovecraftian universe was one of chaos and arbitrariness which makes for good storytelling and bad gaming -- this is why Chaosium had to change the principles of his magic system in order to adapt Cthulu to gaming.

If I were to hazard a guess as to the underlying system of physics Lovecraft's worlds were based on, it appears to have been a version of Renaissance demonic magic: a magic of true names and celestial powers. But true-name magic is very problematic in an RPG setting so I can see why it was dropped.

Anyway, I'm not sure I can answer your questions to your satisfaction. For the kind of play I like to do to work, I need to build worlds in a particular way and present them in a particular way. I recognize that it is not the way most people can play D&D; but it is a way that some people can play D&D without doing violence to the core system.

 

[Agback]

6. How many elements are there in your D&D world? Are there four or are there the 100+ that we have? If there are not 4 or 5, how do you make elementals work in your game?

There are eighty-nine chemical elements and four spiritual elements. The spiritual elements are white, black, cyan, and scarlet. White is hot and wet, black is cold and dry, cyan is cold and wet, scarlet is hot and dry.