Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 1979123" data-attributes="member: 2205">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?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.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.</blockquote>

Verification