Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Coredump" data-source="post: 2309707" data-attributes="member: 6939">But that is my point. It isn't about being 'dumb', it is about misinterpreting observations, incorrect premises, and having a *very* different take on 'scientific discovery'.&nbsp; You assume that their version of 'logic' is the same as our version of logic, and it wasn't always that way. We take it so naturally that the 'scientific method' is the only way of learning, that students are bored by it in school. &quot;of course&quot; we experiment that way...duh.....&nbsp; But that careful methodology has only been the case for a few hundred years. I agree, which is why I said that certain issues were campaign issues, and certian ones were not. In my opinon, the fantasy setting makes it *less* likely that topics like 'advanced math' would be discovered. (It may even indicate different laws of physics/math exist) When such easy answers exist (arcane and divine magic) why spend all that time learning math? Would people even 'believe' in it enough to try and learn it? They barely believed in it on Earth, and we don't have nearly as much magic.And remember folks, the DnD game is based on being a *game*, which means it has rules for game balance. Part of that is making important things harder to get and unimportant things easier. Do you *really* think that a high Int makes it that much easier to learn all of those different skills? (spot?, climbing?, etc?) Do you really think that it is the same 'difficulty' to&nbsp; master how to read *and* write Chinese, as get one rank in Perform(piano)? Just like CR is designed to work for *1* encounter (as opposed to a player race) the game is balanced for players, not to explain the entire population.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Coredump, post: 2309707, member: 6939"] But that is my point. It isn't about being 'dumb', it is about misinterpreting observations, incorrect premises, and having a *very* different take on 'scientific discovery'. You assume that their version of 'logic' is the same as our version of logic, and it wasn't always that way. We take it so naturally that the 'scientific method' is the only way of learning, that students are bored by it in school. "of course" we experiment that way...duh..... But that careful methodology has only been the case for a few hundred years. I agree, which is why I said that certain issues were campaign issues, and certian ones were not. In my opinon, the fantasy setting makes it *less* likely that topics like 'advanced math' would be discovered. (It may even indicate different laws of physics/math exist) When such easy answers exist (arcane and divine magic) why spend all that time learning math? Would people even 'believe' in it enough to try and learn it? They barely believed in it on Earth, and we don't have nearly as much magic. And remember folks, the DnD game is based on being a *game*, which means it has rules for game balance. Part of that is making important things harder to get and unimportant things easier. Do you *really* think that a high Int makes it that much easier to learn all of those different skills? (spot?, climbing?, etc?) Do you really think that it is the same 'difficulty' to master how to read *and* write Chinese, as get one rank in Perform(piano)? Just like CR is designed to work for *1* encounter (as opposed to a player race) the game is balanced for players, not to explain the entire population. [/QUOTE]

Verification