Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Eldritch_Lord 02-09-08, 11:06 PM	Greetings all. I have seen many posts recently about how trying to come up with scientific and/or logical reasons for the way things work in a setting is bad, that you "shouldn't put science in your fantasy." I strongly disagree with this, as I'm OCD about the little details and try to come up with explanations for everything. I suspect most fall somewhere between, and I want to know where. So, an informal poll with a few questions to answer. Feel free to answer any or all of them. ----------------------- Monsters Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? Cosmology Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? Magic Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? Metagame How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? ----------------------- Thanks for indulging my curiosity. :D If I get a bunch of answers I'll share my views on the subject(s).
pigknight 02-09-08, 11:12 PM	It is impossible to explain everything in DnD with science.
Space_Dragon 02-10-08, 12:36 AM	Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? These questions all boil down to "are you a good DM?" I try to be one. Sometimes, I end up shooting myself in the foot with an internal inconsistency, but overall I like to think I'm fairly good with all of the above. Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? My homebrew is just one planet that exists in its own dimensional bubble, with planes attached to it in bubbles of their own (every plane is of finite size). There are all accessible via the astral plane, which is the adhesive that they are attached to. Beyond the astral plane is the Far Realms, where you don't want to go. I know there are plenty of DM's whose settings are planets within a solar system. There is even a published metasetting called Spelljammer that is all about travelling from planet to planet via magitech spaceships. I am not at all against this, but it just didn't feel right for my homebrew. Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? Not wanting to drive myself insane with half-baked theoretical physics, I generally assume a spherical, earthlike world. I posted a joke thread a while ago about making a setting based on TimeCube, but yeah, that was a joke. How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? Positive energy is used to stick things together. Negative energy is used to take them apart. To use a physics metaphore, positive energy=gluons, negative energy=muons (aka "strong" and "weak" forces). The souls of most creatures are made up of positive energy, which enables them to maintain a physical body. Upon death, the soul breaks apart from its physical shell, converting itself to negative energy. Outsiders and undead are both evolved from dead souls, and are therefore negative energy based (and lack natural bodies for that reason). Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? Everything that exists is made up of extracosmic matter called nui. Nui would be the equivalent of strings, as in string theory. Magic works by stimulating nui particals, allowing one to temporarily alter reality within a small area. Some creatures have a natural affinity for this (sorcerers). Others must learn a mystic discipline, similar to meditation, to exert control over nui (wizards). Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? Answered above with nui manipulation. Basically, you can make the space/time continuum do whatever you want, even break its own rules, by playing with nui particle formations. Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? Using magic is like an advanced martial art, regardless of whether you know it inherently or learned it through study. It involves energy realignment within the caster's body, as well as some complex mental head games. Pulling this off with acceptable rapidity requires a lot of zen-esque posturing and and body movements. Some people can learn how to do it without the body movements, just by doing it all in their heads (Silent Spell, Still Spell, etc). [list=1]How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? "You'll have to make a Knowledge (insert relevant topic here) check before I can answer that question." Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? Meh. Wrong flavor for my setting.
Arco Versipellis 02-10-08, 02:16 AM	I like to think back to the mesozoic era, where dinosaurs and mammals and plants were evolving over all that time. There was a lot of complex science going on without really being noticed. I always assume the science is there, but most people don't notice it. After all, in my games, scienctific analysis is not critical to most encounters. Wizards actually study magic as a science, though their insights are only theories. Greetings all. Monsters Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick"? Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where? Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc.?list] Yeah, those books are a good resource. I don't really think it is necessary to explain, but maybe hint. Animal Planet runs a documentary of sorts on dragons; I recall the suggested something about dragons eating some metal (platinum?). Their lungs has sacs for some gas (helium?) and when the mixed they turns to flame. You could include the metal at a feeding ground near a lair. Should the PCs befriend the dragon, perhaps they see him feasting one day. He could explain further, but his entire biology probably won't come up. Cosmology [list=1] Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like? Interestingly enough, I found this to be the perfect place to bring science and religion together. I always liked the idea of reading the stars and astrology, and tmany religions acknowledge the sun and moon as gods, while they actually do have scientific effects on the earth. The gods and demigods exist in the cosmos, each tied to a demiplane which cannot be accessed by mortal (we don't do much epic) magic. These Heavenly Bodies influence the world, but they wax an wan because of various factors. Magic Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc)? Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work? Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic)? There is an explanation for all of these things. Unfortunately, magic itself predates even the world known only as Former Prime, as it is part of the cosmos (including all planes and demplanes, far and near). Thus, mostly there are just theories. Wizards try to figure these things out, but few others eally care. Metagame How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions? Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology? If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? A character without knowledge doesn't really understand any of the science stuff, and even those may not exactly understand the science of their knowledge. I have used the renaissance period weapons in a pirate campaign twice and a used a western period set as well (with alchemy being a science), my players liked this more than any other aspect.
Dan Hemmens 02-10-08, 04:01 AM	Go on then, I'll bite. I tend not to run D&D, mind, so this is only tangentially relevant. Monsters Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? I never try to give monsters "biologies", since none of them would make sense. I certainly never try to give them "ecologies", although I do try to limit the number of monsters in an area for thematic reasons. At the end of the day I view fantasy elements as primarily metaphorical, not ecological. Hell, I don't even like giving non-human races a culture. Cosmology Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? The "Material plane" is just the world. I'd never use the concept of a "solar system" in a fantasy setting. For that matter I don't really use the concept of "planets". A world is a collection of story elements, not a huge lump of rock. In my last setting "positive" and "negative" energy came from the Heavens and the Abyss respectively. Magic Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? I think you're making a mistake here, you seem to be saying that anything that isn't a "scientific" description for magic is "handwaving". I'd say the exact opposite. "Magic is the exercise of the mage's will over the world" is a perfectly consistent explanation, whereas "magic works by quantum mechanics" is a total handwave as far as I'm concerned (possibly because I actually know quite a lot about quantum mechanics). Metagame How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? I've not used a 20th Century level of technology, I tend to stick pre-steam. I also tend not to use D&D magic, because it kind of wrecks a lot of things.
Naderion 02-10-08, 04:35 AM	Since I'm creating a Dark Ages like setting, there isn't much of technology in the world. Water mills, draw-bridges, and hand pumps are probably fairly common and the wodden cog is the pinacle of current technology. Beside arcane magic, the sciences of that world are alchemy, herbalism, history, and the lore about the mysterious spirits of nature. But still, these dark ages aren't really that dark when it comes to knowledge, since polytheism never encouraged people to "not ask questions" and just serve their lords and priests. Druids and herbalists face no danger when they educate people about diseases and medicines and so most people are well aware that people or things can become contagious and that sanitary is most important to prevent infection. So though technology levels are fairly low, people are still quite civilized. I place a great deal of importance into the fact, that the whole world has to make sense in itself. To that, the laws of nature don't neccessarily have to be like in the real world. Just adding a fantastic element to the world isn't even half as rewarding without considering how this element interacts with the rest of the world and influences it. I have no idea how the brain of an aboleth has to be composed to create all those psionic effects, but in this world there are certain physical and biological rules that make it possible. I don't know the physical formula why a stone falls toward earth when I drop it and becomes increasingly faster (though I'm fairly sure we had that in school back then), but I know that there is something like gravitation and that a stone will cause more damage when I let it drop from a greater hight. You don't have to create new computations and adjust all the real world calculations of how physics work, but I think there at least should be a reason why things are possible and it's not fun to say "it just is". I think the most work went into how magic works: In this world magic is like an energy or insubstinal fluid that perverdes everything. Much like the Force. :D Nobody can affect this magical medium by any mundane means. Sounds and movements don't do anything. The only way to affect the everpresent magic is by magic, but fortunately people can learn by a form of very complex training how to store magical energy inside their mind by a special form of meditation (reading the spellbook, praying to the god, ...). Once a spellcaster has accumulated enough megical essence, he can release it and cause a surge in the surrounding magical medium and these surges are spells. By this way, spellcasters can also store magical essence inside enchanted items that will then release the surge at command. Verbal and somatic components are not really a part of the magic involved in spellcasting. They are much more methods to help the spellcaster concentrate on what his mind is currently doing. Just like many people tend to say out aloud what they are doing when it gets really complicated or to put their finger on parts of a complex diagram they've not completely understood yet. Because of that, Silent Spell and Still Spell work. They are just training about how to cast without these aids, but it makes casting a spell more chalanging. Though shouting and waving doesn't do anything to create a spell, the material world and magical essence are still in tough with each other. When a stone breaks or flames consume wood, there are also tiny swirls in the magical medium, just like sound waves or ripples in water. Interestingly, this connection works both ways. If you can cause the corresponding ripple in the magical medium, it will create the acompaning effect in the material world. Create the ripple that goes with fire in the magic around an object and the object will immolate. And when casting a fireball spell, a wizard does nothing but release a surge from his mind that will cause this ripple at the point the fireball hits. Wizards make complex computations how the surge has to be created to cause a desired effect, so they can research almost every possible spell. Druids learn spells by studying the world around them and see what the magical essence does when certain things happen. Because of that, druids can only cast spells that emulate natural events.
Eldritch_Lord 02-10-08, 01:35 PM	Great responses, guys, keep 'em coming! :D I particularly like the fluid and string theories of magic, and might use one of those some time. Before I contribute my own thoughts, I'd just like to respond to 2 things: It is impossible to explain everything in DnD with science. I don't think it's possible to explain everything with science, nor do I think you should try. However, there are some things that are easier than others to explain scientifically (like monsters, magic, and the cosmos), which I usually try to explain. I think coming up with a rational explanation for these things is a part of world-building, and I just wanted to know how these explanations are done by boards folks. I think you're making a mistake here, you seem to be saying that anything that isn't a "scientific" description for magic is "handwaving". I'd say the exact opposite. "Magic is the exercise of the mage's will over the world" is a perfectly consistent explanation, whereas "magic works by quantum mechanics" is a total handwave as far as I'm concerned (possibly because I actually know quite a lot about quantum mechanics). Well, I know a bit about quantum mechanics myself, but it looks like I haven't gotten across what I consider "scientific" explanations. You'll note that under the "magic" questions I mentioned a Greek theory of magic, that is, everything is based on the 4 elements. From my point of view, saying "everything is based on a manipulation of the elements" or "magic is a fluid" or "magic is a particle" or another rational/pseudoscientific explanation is good enough. What I consider handwaving is the (what I have found to be somewhat common) attitude of some DMs who don't try to explain things. For instance, saying "wizards manipulate air, earth, fire, water, and the ether" is a scientific explanation, but "wizards can just cast bunches of unrelated spells" with no thought to the relation between them is not, or worse, "wizards can cast them because they're in the PHB." Likewise, if "monsters don't eat each other because in the past wizards trained them not to" (basically, "a wizard did it") is at least a somewhat rational reason for why an ecology works, but "a beholder, 2 dinosaurs, and 2389 goblins all live within a mile of one another, find enough food, and magically don't kill each other because it would be cool to fight them all at the same time" is not. See where I'm coming from with this?
adgramaine 02-11-08, 10:46 PM	Monsters Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? Some of my monsters receive in-depth details (animals and magical beasts mostly), while some defy normal logic. Many of my aberrations are Lovecraftian in nature, so for a character to try and understand it is to play Roulette with their own sanity. But since most within the world have a passingly scientific familiarity, the rpinciples are there to discover "in-game". Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? Realism is impossible to pull off in high fantasy; I shoot for plausibility. Creatures are where they are either because it makes sense (it eats plants, so it tries to stay away from wastelands sort of thing) or it is plot-specific. Most of my creatures are native to specific regions (aberrations exceptive of course) and a "scientific" explanation is often available. Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? Due to the nature, size, and scope of the setting, each continent on the planet is its own territory. Each has one specific "national" power, so to speak, but monsters are always present to throw the cogs out of whack for civilization. I can't just hand-wave this one though... having a hill giant live on the outskirts of a town in a swamp just ticks me off.... Cosmology Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? My cosmology is pretty unique - based off of a cube model. Each corner of the cube has "currents", where upon inner and outer sphere realms dwell. The rest of the cosmology gets... complicated. But the planet is indeed round.... *ahem*... and there are many planets as well. Wrap your head around THAT one.... Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? Many of my realms are unique in shape and design, specifically tailored to the cosmic entity/deity that resides there. Normal physics almost never apply, except where the entity in power is somewhat "human" in thought or respect. How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? All of the above. Every culture within the game is unique with its own understanding of the world around them. Some are scientific, many are shamanistic, and a few just don't care. Throw back the curtain though, and everything is very scientific. Biology breaks down and will eventually die. Magic and psionics may prolong or cause exceptions... Magic Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? My cosmology says that each planet is a very large dragon sleeping in indefinite torpor, with the world itself upon the creature's back. Using magical energy siphons the dragon's life force and creates magical effects. Yes, an important thematic element is the eventuality of waking up said sleeping dragon and what happens from there.... Point is, magic is for the most part a learned process, and that understanding has to come from somewhere. So though magic comes from sleeping dragons (itself a magical creature that defies science), logic dictates the way it interacts with the world. Ergo, the phrase "science of magic" within the setting. Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? Everything magical has an explanation, a reason for happening the way it does. Whereas magic comes from the life force of ancient and powerful dragons otherwise extinct in the setting, psionics comes from the mind of the True Fae, which are equally powerful as the antediluvian dragons... and a lot less predicable. Psionics are thus unstable, impossible to understand, and simply put - more chaotic. A psonic heal may work once by speeding the metabolism and next time it could replace your character's body with an alternate version of the character from an alternate reality where the injury was never suffered. Mechanically, neither makes a difference and the power has the exact same effect, but the reasoning behind it is frightening. Magic works the same way when the same caster casts the same spell successive times, unless something warps that rule (anti-magic or wild magic zones and effects and the like) Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? Of course! Seeking knowledge is a primary motivator in my stories! Now, it isn't common knowledge as far as the science behind the magic goes, but it is there to be learned. Again, this is a thematic element. "I am doing what?" questions the mage who learns he is slowly killing the planet by casting spells. Psionics also have a reason they work the way they do. Back in the days primordial, those from the Far Realms warred against those of the Aetherial (the True Fae), and the war cause what is known as the Dreaming (literally, the dreams of fae that keep the monsters of the "everdark" at bay). Humanoid minds can channel tremendous power from the Dreaming, and this is known as psionic power... 'Course, finding this out is nigh-impossible, because most powerful psionics are quite insane (go figure) and too in touch with the Dreaming to be rationally dealt with. Metagame How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? Depends on the culture/race in question. I have a few races who have their fingers on the magical or psionic pulse of the world and hence have a bit more knowledge than others. But no one has all the answers, and communication across the war-torn lands is kinda hard. Some of the nations are in centuries long war, and others are still recovering from wars of their own. So again, default answer becomes "depends".... Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? Those that make guns do so because they do not understand the science of magic, and they are blind to psionics. And they want to be able to fight back. Technology is quickly advancing in the setting of my game, in effort to keep magical threats at bay. Endless wicked cycles upon spike studded wheels, it really is.... If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? I literally had a player of a wizard character break down in tears when she found out she was killing the planet. Granted, the concept of the character was an environmentalist to begin with, and the chosen race was shamanistic to boot. In truth, I kinda set her up for it - I knew she was a method actor and would get really involved with the character, and I knew what she like to play so I simply nudged her in that direction. The result was one of the best RP experiences of my long gamer career. Thanks for indulging my curiosity.... You're welcome. It's kinda hard to answer these things without giving away metaplot secrets... I mean, I am shooting to publish this setting at some point this year so I guess this serves as a sort of teaser! :D
Tsochar 02-11-08, 11:22 PM	* Monsters 1. Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? Generally, I make them pieces of flavor which are there, but not in the foreground. 2. Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? Most biomes in my campaign are teeming with pretty tame wildlife (low-level campaign). Generally, this is because all the stronger creatures are driven out of civilized regions. Stronger wildlife is usually rather rare, and quite avoidable when present. 3. Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? I keep that stuff strictly in the background. Generally, random encounters never go above 6th level or so, and once my players get past there there'll likely be a drop-off in random wildlife encounters. * Cosmology 1. Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? It's part of a larger solar system, though I haven't developed any planets besides the one my players are on. There are two stars which the main planet orbits around that represent the positive/negative energy planes; every year the orbit of the planet takes it close to each one 2. Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? I keep things to one world. 3. How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? Positive and negative energy are two extremes that oppose one another, each one representing a type of life. Positive energy is dominant in the universe, therefore most life is positive life. Undead are negative life. A void of such energy is the death of both sides * Magic 1. Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? Magic is treated as a science, and appears to be an extension of the latent properties of the world. Psionics is a more esoteric practice, and deals with the latent properties of the mind. 2. Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? If one of my players ever asks, I'll be sure to answer this question. 3. Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? Not necessarily. There are a number of people who attempt to find the source of all magic, but such a pursuit is considered frivolous and unimportant to magiology as a whole. * Metagame 1. How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? My players aren't scientists, so there isn't much to answer with here... Most people in the world have some idea of outer planes, but they're not familiar with the actual names. Most info is in a book somewhere, if one has the patience to find it. 2. Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? In my opinion, to create magic items and not use them to make more complicated magic items is like being in the stone ages, making intricate knives and tools but being hard-pressed to know how two cogs mesh. There are a number of machines that do 'modern' things, but these are toys of the nobility. 3. If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? I haven't tried, but they probably wouldn't.
squidyak 02-12-08, 08:01 PM	It depends on the campaign I'm running at the time. My two most common campaign types are medieval and renaissance. Greetings all. Monsters Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? I don't address the topic until a player brings it up. Medieval is usually a hand-wave. Sometimes I'll explain it for Renaissance. Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? I don't build ecologies, but I take realism into account and cherry pick far more than the MM assumes. Just because one marsh contains shocker lizards doesn't mean that all marshes do. Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? That's something I definitely take into account. Only so many large predators in one area. Cosmology Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? Medieval: The world is the center of all things, and the heavens revolve around it. Renaissance: Approximates real world. How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? Positive energy is life, negative energy is anti-life (different than death.) Outside of that, little is known and it all depends on religion/cultural viewpoints. Magic Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? Magic simply is. I see it as being similar to the force, in that it connects all things and is in all places. How magic works depends upon how you access it. Sorcerers channel raw magic energy intuitively, wizards kind of reach out and shape magic to their will almost as if it was tangible, runecasters draw magical energy into their runes, etc. Priests seek the favor of their gods and all divine spells in effect are kind of "cast" by their god. Metagame How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? I try to put out information to try to put home the fact that their characters don't know what their players know. Medieval characters know almost nothing of physics, and most renaissance characters will be in a similar boat. Anything that flat out clashes with the way the world really works I inform my players of, preferably in hand-outs. Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? Very rarely. Guns are useful because magic is rare in my world. Most people will never meet a wizard. If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? Some do. Some just want to smash stuff.
Dan Hemmens 02-13-08, 03:07 PM	Well, I know a bit about quantum mechanics myself, but it looks like I haven't gotten across what I consider "scientific" explanations. You'll note that under the "magic" questions I mentioned a Greek theory of magic, that is, everything is based on the 4 elements. From my point of view, saying "everything is based on a manipulation of the elements" or "magic is a fluid" or "magic is a particle" or another rational/pseudoscientific explanation is good enough. My problem with "scientific" explanations for magic is that they tend to be badly thought through. If magic is based on manipulating the elements, I want to know which elements can be manipulated in which ways, and I want to know why *exactly* it's harder to create a fireball (essentially a wild, uncontrolled burst of elemental fire, a relatively unsophisticated manipulation) than to - say manipulate another person's mind with Charm Person (which clearly involves a complex and subtle manipulation of the individual's humours). I was once very rude to somebody who suggested that quantum mechanics could be used to explain why magic weapons were always categorised in terms of plusses. My reply went something like "oh I see, it's a Fermi gas is it? With the energy eigenstates of the spin-1/2 magicons determining the final level of the enchantment? That explains the preponderance of +hc swords in the world then." Same goes for fantasy ecologies. If somebody tells me that "a wizard did it" I immediately want to grab said wizard by the throat and say "for the love of the Gods *why* **why!!**". What I consider handwaving is the (what I have found to be somewhat common) attitude of some DMs who don't try to explain things. For instance, saying "wizards manipulate air, earth, fire, water, and the ether" is a scientific explanation, but "wizards can just cast bunches of unrelated spells" with no thought to the relation between them is not, or worse, "wizards can cast them because they're in the PHB." Likewise, if "monsters don't eat each other because in the past wizards trained them not to" (basically, "a wizard did it") is at least a somewhat rational reason for why an ecology works, but "a beholder, 2 dinosaurs, and 2389 goblins all live within a mile of one another, find enough food, and magically don't kill each other because it would be cool to fight them all at the same time" is not. See where I'm coming from with this? I see where you're coming from, I'm just coming from precisely the opposite direction. I think "because it's cool" is a much better reason than "because of this totally ludicrous IC rationale I just made up".
Rhojin 02-13-08, 03:50 PM	Greetings all. Monsters Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? Well if someone has the knowledge or asks an NPC about the habbits of said creature I will disclose as much as I can without giving away too much on the creature. Obviously your average player will no know how a dragon ticks unless they have studied them or under someone with said knowledge. Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area?[/list] I consider the MM to be just an example on how to base monsters in an area, of course a different terrain that is far from normal for said creature may have caused them to adapt or develop differently from their kin. Cosmology Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? I do mostly a normal planet with DnD physics worked into it. I find that most of my players don't really care about the planet they are on unless it somehow effect them. Though I have done a water world campaign before. How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? Two sides of the same coin, without one the other cannot exist. Magic Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? My explanation is, those who use arcane magic are born with the talent to draw upon the raw energy of the planes to help aim them in life. Wizards are born with the talent, but must train to be able to use it. Sorcerers have an exotic blood trait or mutation that allows them to tap into the power without preparation. Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? Depending on what I am trying to explain, in the means of Teleportation I claim it is a small rip in the material fabric that pulls the caster through the astral plane and allows them to exit to a chosen location. Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? Honestly it never comes up, the players just accept that magic is able to be wielded by some and not others. Metagame How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? They know very little of the world around them, usually they will only have knowledge of their surrounding area unless stated otherwise in backgrounds. Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? I use flint locks in my games though they are very rare to come buy and ammo is expensive to purchase since it is so rare. If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? I believe they do. I feel that an explanation on why something works or why a certain creature is acting that way can add flavor to a game, which makes it fun for everyone.
Eldritch_Lord 02-13-08, 06:14 PM	Wow, lots more responses. I find it particularly interesting how many have set their worlds at a more Renaissance level of technology and science than the basic assumptions would. And adgramaine, I'd like to see some of the interesting geometric constructions you've come up with. I want to know how your "cosmic entities" think. ;) My problem with "scientific" explanations for magic is that they tend to be badly thought through. If magic is based on manipulating the elements, I want to know which elements can be manipulated in which ways, and I want to know why *exactly* it's harder to create a fireball (essentially a wild, uncontrolled burst of elemental fire, a relatively unsophisticated manipulation) than to - say manipulate another person's mind with Charm Person (which clearly involves a complex and subtle manipulation of the individual's humours). I agree completely; I don't expect to see perfectly internally consistent systems, just ones that hit the high points and are logical so far as they are needed. However, my systems usually are that nitpicky and detailed, or as close as I can get in the time available. For instance, I did a heavily Greco-Roman world where the magic was based on the 4 elements, the 4 humors, and so on. My explanation for that particular issue, fireball vs. charm, was that (A) it's easy to manipulate fire, but that making it move as fast as it does, to a certain radius, at a certain temperature, was the difficult part, and (B) because you're creating what didn't already exist rather than manipulating what was already there, you have to expend more effort and energy. Granted, with this schema in mind I had to adjust some spells up or down levels, but it worked pretty well. I was once very rude to somebody who suggested that quantum mechanics could be used to explain why magic weapons were always categorised in terms of plusses. My reply went something like "oh I see, it's a Fermi gas is it? With the energy eigenstates of the spin-1/2 magicons determining the final level of the enchantment? That explains the preponderance of +hc swords in the world then." Actually, weapons-as-ideal-gas would be a good idea.... I don't think many see quantum mechanics as anything more than "physics dealing with quantified stuff," so that's understandable; even with my understanding of it (such as it is) I try to avoid quantum-mechanical explanations. However, there was someone either on this forum or the OotS forum who came up with a quantum-mechanical theory of magic, which explained everything from stat booster items to Vancian magic, and it seemed like he really knew what he was talking about. I lost the link, unfortunately, but I might look for it again. Same goes for fantasy ecologies. If somebody tells me that "a wizard did it" I immediately want to grab said wizard by the throat and say "for the love of the Gods *why* **why!!**". Heh. What else do you do with Phenomenal Cosmic PowerTM? I see where you're coming from, I'm just coming from precisely the opposite direction. I think "because it's cool" is a much better reason than "because of this totally ludicrous IC rationale I just made up". Granted; that's equally valid. However, in some cases, if you take the time to make sense of everything beforehand, it can be even cooler because not only is it cool, but because it is more realistic and logical you can explain it as well; it isn't just cool for the sake of being cool. Though that could be my (and my group's) "science geek" preferences talking. ;)
Drackthor 02-13-08, 09:04 PM	These questions all boil down to "are you a good DM?" I actually let my players decide that, rather then my world.
M-bark 02-15-08, 10:58 AM	Greetings all. Greetings. I have seen many posts recently about how trying to come up with scientific and/or logical reasons for the way things work in a setting is bad, that you "shouldn't put science in your fantasy." I strongly disagree with this, as I'm OCD about the little details and try to come up with explanations for everything. I suspect most fall somewhere between, and I want to know where. So, an informal poll with a few questions to answer. Feel free to answer any or all of them. Alright! Monsters Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? Yes, I explain how abilities "tick". But only when asked or in a circumstance where the PCs could find such things out. I try to make realistic ecologies, but that isn't always possible. That depends. I usually do consider such things, but sometimes things can be made more interesting if I don't pay attention to such things. Cosmology Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? Solar system. Most often, they work as normal, but there are always some worlds or planes where things go all up the whammy. No, I don't know what "up the whammy" means. Yes, I explain how it works. Mostly like "Positive Energy is like Love, it puts things together, and heals the body as Love heals the spirit" and "Negative Energy is like Hate, which tears things apart, and just like Hate tears apart the spirit, Negative Energy tears apart the body". Even though I hate defining Love and Hate that way. Magic Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? Handwave, typically, on the magic. In real life, I often say stuff like "a wizard did it" when asked how something works if I don't want to answer. Otherwise, I typically answer with something like "magic is the physical manifestation of one's mental or spiritual power", mostly for all kinds or just arcane magic, and for divine magic "your god/ess loves you and focuses his/her own mental or spiritual power to have that happen", and add to that that the minds and spirits of deities are so vast they can fuel a lot of clerics' powers at once. "The Force" also works out quite nicely, but then I leave out the insane part about "midi-chlorians" and have it more related to one's soul. (Also explains why outsiders are so good with magic, I suppose, their soul is also their body.) Mostly handwave on the second question there, but I try to think of an explanation whenever possible, like with healing and telprotting. Lastly, nah, not really. Metagame How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? They typically know about practically everything within a day's travel of their hometown, unless they live in a city, and they know a few more obscure facts that relate to their history, race, class and religion. I sometimes put in higher-than-default levels of technology, typically with gnomes who are incapable of magic. Mostly, yeah. Thanks for indulging my curiosity. :D If I get a bunch of answers I'll share my views on the subject(s). You're welcome.
Dan Hemmens 02-16-08, 03:19 PM	Granted; that's equally valid. However, in some cases, if you take the time to make sense of everything beforehand, it can be even cooler because not only is it cool, but because it is more realistic and logical you can explain it as well; it isn't just cool for the sake of being cool. Though that could be my (and my group's) "science geek" preferences talking. ;) Oh absolutely, and for homebrew systems I'll make things a lot more consistent. I just don't think it's worth the headache to try and kick D&D into a consistent metaphysic. Of course making things *too* consistent can cause problems of its own. Our local LARP system (http://www.flrp.anang.com/whitecity) wound up with magic being way, way overpowered because I designed most of the spells by saying "right, what should these guys actually be able to do" instead of thinking "right, what's actually sensible to allow at this level."
Etarnon 02-16-08, 09:19 PM	Really, it depends on the game that I am playing. D&D is what it is. Traveller, is more hard sci fi, Trek is trek Science, Star Wars is Space opera. So to that extent, i follow Genre conventions, pretty much. Monsters Dragons breath fire. You go up close to one, you get burned. Why? Because dragons breathe fire, and everyone knows that. I'll do the color wheel of the dragons, per the TSR Dragon article, such that red = flame plus Blue = electrict = Purple Dragon = Laser beam. That's about it, so i guess "Internally consistent to observed truth sceince, within the world." Ecologies Wolves live in the woods, they eat deer. if the deer get hunted out the wolves come to town. If the wolves get hunted out the deer pop explodes. Etc. That's the extent of it. Monsters don't live everywher,e but they do live as described in the MM, generally. And I like Those Intelligent Lynxes. I don't have dragons all crowded together, each one has a range to feed, roughly, but not calculus'ed out. Orcs need a place, as do dwarves.. etc etc. * Cosmology The Material plane is a plane in the cosmos a dimension. I also do a solar system, planets etc. that the players never get to. I use spherical worlds, generally. Other stuff is not to my taste. I've studied planetology. Positive and negative energy exist, because it was in the 1e DMG, not too many understand it. Both of them kill, unaided. * Magic Magic is the D&D Science, just as Chemistry is the Modern Science. It works, it is repeatable in D&D. Magic doesn't exist in my Traveller, or Battletech. Teleportation just works, the secrets of it, lost in the distant past. I don't explain why it works..it's a process, like wlaking, you put left foot, then right, then you are walking same deal with magic. * Metagame They don't care. they use arrows to kill orcs, and swords when things get too close for arrows. Metaphysics of it consists of, let's go to the temple of Nur to get healed by the Healing nuns. Okay, we go. I only put in higher tech in My Traveller Games, or lostech in Battletech. The races in charge of it give some to the less well off technically, sometimes. D&D, sometimes the old grey elves will share some secrets. That's the extent of it. My players don't care. It's not that kind of game. We don't analyze the setting, we play in it.
Kedami 02-16-08, 10:43 PM	Monsters Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? 1: I try and not to think about it or I'll go off and not finish what I'm actually trying to do. 2: I always make realistic ecologies. If I'm making a cave I'll start with the larger caverns, then make sources of water, then sources of food and then expand the cavern here, here and here where those Kobolds carved into it... And so on... 3: I always find it hard trying to think of how to feed my 20,000 NPCs without cultivating the entire country, which is what I usually do... Cosmology Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? 1: Single Material Plane, but my setting it still being built. 2: I tried a flat world once, but the players never explored it much *mumblemumblemumble* 3: Positive and Negative energy are just two forces that work in different ways. They are opposites and aggresive (thus Positive energy heals the living and harms the undead and the other way around). Magic Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? 1: My explanation is still being made. 2: That'll be what I work on after I finish point 1. 3: Again, once point 1 is finished I'll be able to. Metagame How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? 1: I believe one of the first few replies mentioned Knowledge checks... 2: Yes, but only if I have the Atlantis type thing going. 3: No. I do it because I hate incomplete playing worlds.
yellowdingo 02-17-08, 06:38 AM	I have seen many posts recently about how trying to come up with scientific and/or logical reasons for the way things work in a setting is bad, that you "shouldn't put science in your fantasy." I strongly disagree with this, as I'm OCD about the little details and try to come up with explanations for everything. I suspect most fall somewhere between, and I want to know where. So hammer it over the head and accept the singular fact that string theory invalidates religion and evolution...that means everything is about possibility. The capacity of life to manipulate it, respond to it, and thereby create any perceptable reality, simply by reponding to something that doesnt exist.
Eldritch_Lord 02-17-08, 10:34 AM	Great ideas, guys; keep 'em coming! :thumbsup: ------------------------ Dragons breath fire. You go up close to one, you get burned. Why? Because dragons breathe fire, and everyone knows that. I'll do the color wheel of the dragons, per the TSR Dragon article, such that red = flame plus Blue = electrict = Purple Dragon = Laser beam. That's about it, so i guess "Internally consistent to observed truth sceince, within the world." That sounds interesting--a whole new meaning for "chromatic dragons." Where is that article? 1: I try and not to think about it or I'll go off and not finish what I'm actually trying to do. 2: I always make realistic ecologies. If I'm making a cave I'll start with the larger caverns, then make sources of water, then sources of food and then expand the cavern here, here and here where those Kobolds carved into it... And so on... 3: I always find it hard trying to think of how to feed my 20,000 NPCs without cultivating the entire country, which is what I usually do... [...] 3: No. I do it because I hate incomplete playing worlds. Me too; that's why this thread is here. :D So hammer it over the head and accept the singular fact that string theory invalidates religion and evolution...that means everything is about possibility. The capacity of life to manipulate it, respond to it, and thereby create any perceptable reality, simply by reponding to something that doesnt exist. Um...would you mind explaining? I'm not sure what I should be hammering over the head and why.
Firaeki 02-17-08, 11:37 AM	---------------------- Monsters Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? To an extent. Creatures native to the mortal world will have physiologies and function that mainly are realistic, and forsaking it to magic when I can't think of a way to put it that would make sense. However, most of the time it doesn't come up, so I don't bother detailing. Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? Monsters in my game are like animals in RL; They have their reasons for being there, and live where the food is at. Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? Unless placed by a higher power, animals and unintelligent monsters act how I would assume, and are in groups I consider accurate. Cosmology Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? It is its own world, the stars are magic emblems in the sky, and the moons and suns are portals to the other major worlds, like the energy and elemental. Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? The world is Earthlike in shape, size, and other such things, but the universe is geocentric. How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? Positive: Life, Law, and Light. Negative: Death, Chaos, and Shadow. Neither good nor evil in either case, and true to all beings. Magic Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? Magic is a tool created by the gods when they built the world; it remains, even though they have died. Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? Explained as needed. Teleportation takes you to a netherworld where time has no hold and you walk in a land static of all things and unchangeable until you decide to exit. Healing is rapid cellular reproduction creating new tissue, etc. Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? Magic works because the ancient "passwords" of the Gods' Tongue was written inb the sky by them for mortals to learn and use, and a mage's words, actions, and thoughts act to use the magic in a desired way. Metagame How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? The players know whatever they ask, the characters know what they learn. The basics of how the universe works are a mystery, but the language of magic, as well as other things, are able to be known from the start. Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? Magic is not as common in my world, because after the Gods died a millenium ago, the history of the universe was sealed away from memory. Those few who grasped magic brought it back slowly. In addition, not everyone is smart enough to be a wizard or pious in the forces of the universe to be a divine caster, and very few are ever born with natural sorcerous talent. To fill the gap in metagame terms, I added some steampunk-grade technology, and in game it was merely the way that people adapted to their world without magic. If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? My group usually consists of roleplayers, and thus it is normal for them to appreciate there being reasons and explanations for things and letting them know what their players would probably know. -----------------------
Dan Hemmens 02-17-08, 03:21 PM	Um...would you mind explaining? I'm not sure what I should be hammering over the head and why. I think this might be a "back away and don't make eye contact" moment...
sblaxman 02-18-08, 04:33 PM	Monsters Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? I've always placed it in a quasi dark ages setting tech wise. The Science is all there, just no one knows about it. Biology works as normal in the setting, but it's not a known science. I don't ever go into it w/ the players (since they are unaware of it) but it's there. I do go way out of my way to create ecologies. If there are monsters in said dungeon, they better have access to food or the players will find nothing but corpses. I don't assume that all things work the same. I.E. magic beasts are not as dependent on food as a natural one, they can go longer w/o food, or have slower metabolisms. I try to never just "throw" things together unless I am very unprepared for the session. Cosmology Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? It's a planet, around a star. Other planets are out there (just as IRL), but are not within the concept of the denizens of said planet. Never even (nor plan to) try a non-sphere normal world. How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? Magic Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? Magic and the like are outside of science in my campaign. Science is the way the physical world works, magic is from outside the physical world. They can manipulate each other, but are not directly connected Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? Astral is a parallel dimension, when traveling you simply (by way of magic) pass from one to the other. Healing magic, for me, does not heal physical wounds at all. You still are bleeding after clw, it simply raised your HP. HP are arbitrary and do not indicate exact wounds. To stop bleeding, you make a heal check and use a medical kit. for cure serious wounds and greater spells, I consider the wounds themselves healed (cuts close, bleeding stops). Metagame How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? I always make a write up of my home brew of what they should know. It's a normal world, real world physics, etc. I work with them to know their background (farmer, slave, trader, noble, etc) and from there tell them what they would know about the geography, local creatures, etc. If trolls are common, I let them know, and they know of the fire weakness. I give a short mythos on the gods, and what history they would know.... if dragons are real or just legends, if undead are common, etc. I've always run VERY low tech... Catapults, ships (no cannons), etc. Maybe high-roman level of tech (or lower in some instances).
Patrick Draken-Korin 03-30-08, 09:38 PM	nevermind.
steenan 03-31-08, 02:51 PM	Monsters 1. Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? I do not explain how monsters' biology affects their abilities. To do so consistently I would have to make up the precise science for the world, from the equivalent of RL physics to chemistry to biology and I don't think it's possible to do so during single person's life... Anyway, I assume that there is a working science in game (different that the RL one) that the educated characters know and use. 2. Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? I definitely try to construct consistent ecologies. I don't like to use the word "realistic" in this context, because it suggests similarity to the real world. Monstrous ecologies are, in most cases, drastically unlike the real ones, but they exist and may be a base for both IC and OOC reasoning. 3. Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? I take the resources into account, but I don't try to track every little thing. I just avoid major inconsistencies that would be spotted by my players ("Wait a moment! Where did they get steel weaponry from living in a desert with no contact with anybody?"). I also consider reasons for my monsters to be whwre they are and do what they do. They may be sometimes quite compilcated and confusing for the players, though - at least until they get this information from said monsters somehow. Cosmology 1. Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? As this is a Planescape/Spelljammer campaign, I have multiple material worlds (crystal spheres) with different properties. Some of them are heliocentric systems, with one or more planets (but not necessarily realistic in other aspects - for example, some of them have breathable air in the space between the planets). Some are geocentric systems, with sun(s), moon(s) and possibly planets orbiting the main world. Some are flat. One is inverted, with the "livable surface" on the inside of a great sphere. One is shattered, with thousands of rocky islands moveing in space. And so on... 2. Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? I have many worlds with nontrivial geometry. But, in a world with magic, that's the smallest difference with respect to the "normal" physics... 3. How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? Positive energy is the force of structure, growth and complication. It organizes - not in simple, regular structures, but in complex systems, being more than the sum of the parts. It's in every living organism, but also in nearly every society, in some (al)chemical processes and more of this kind. Negative energy is the force of entropy, decomposition and simplicity. It consumes, it disassembles into the simpliest components. It's in corpses, in ruined buildings, in wars and revolutions. And when there is a lot of it, it starts to mimoc some of the characteristics of positive energy - but only some. It has no potential of growth and creativity, but it may fuel movement. That's how undead "work". Neither of the energies is good or evil. They are both inherent parts of natural cycle. Negative energy is, in most cases, easier to put to evil use, but chaneling it isn't by itself aligned in any way. 1. Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it?[quote] As I wrote before, I think it's impossible to make up a complete scientifical system that would explain how the game world functions. Thus, every explanation given is - more or less - handwaving. The only difference being if the language used is more mystic-like or scientific-like. Similar as with the biology, I assume there is a resonably complete magical science in the game world and the educated characters know it. [quote]2. Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? Most of the effects I explain quite precisely, but not using a pseudo-modern-scientical language that you suggest. I prefer using explanations that fit the "physics" of the setting. There are no elementary particles, there are elements. There are no viruses, there is negative energy. There are no tectonic stresses, there are angry earth elementals. 3. Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? No, but my NPCs do. That's because it's philosophy. Explaining why the magic works is like why the gravity works IRL. You may observe and describe how it works - and that's what the science does - but asking why is a question of a goal or purpose. "The God wanted it this way" is probably the best answer you may give, but, as I run Planescape, it can't be used here. So I just live it to different factions' and cults' philosophies. Metagame 1. How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? All information is available to the characters with appropriate knowledge skills. As I described above, there are many things that the characters know better than players, as I cannot explain them precisely enough. 2. Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? In many cases technology and magic go hand in hand. Together they may do much more than any of them separately. And the main reason for making guns is that it takes a few days to train someone to use one, while it takes a few years to train a first-level wizard. And you may shoot more than twice or thrice a day. Cannons and handguns are no match for a high-level character, but for a low-level ones they are extremely useful. 3. If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? Some of them do. Some of them just ignore it.
elondir 03-31-08, 03:16 PM	Greetings all. I have seen many posts recently about how trying to come up with scientific and/or logical reasons for the way things work in a setting is bad, that you "shouldn't put science in your fantasy." I strongly disagree with this, as I'm OCD about the little details and try to come up with explanations for everything. I suspect most fall somewhere between, and I want to know where. So, an informal poll with a few questions to answer. Feel free to answer any or all of them. ----------------------- Monsters Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? Cosmology Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? Magic Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? Metagame How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? ----------------------- Thanks for indulging my curiosity. :D If I get a bunch of answers I'll share my views on the subject(s). Monsters. Here is where I'm lazy and take it the Final Fantasy I way. 1. Hand wave it away. But most monsters stem from evolution from the survivors of a gamma ray burst 24000 years ago. 2. Monsters are all over the place. I try to assign them to regions by EL. 3. Bunches of monsters in the same area. Cosmology. I'm very sci-fi oriented due to my interest in astronomy. 1. I have the whole darn universe, galaxies and all be the prime material plane. My cosmology is a combination of all the planes ever thought up in a big mishmash, usually connected to either the astral or the deep ethereal. They ebb and flow like Eberron's planes do. They're less about heaven and hell and more about plane hopping, so I don't use the great wheel outer planes much. I also use tempral prime, Dol Quor, faerie, elemental wood, Neth, the observatory, Union, and the far realm. 2. I always wanted to toy with a ringworld, infinite plane, or a Dyson sphere, but all my games have been on normal spheres. 3. Transference of spiritual energy. Magic. My physics background comes in here; I fold it into M-theory. Note that PCs don't view magic this way; they just know that it works when they "do this". 1. Magic and psionics are fundamental forces of nature that our world has lumped in with "dark energy". Maxwell's equations can be applied substituting electricity with psionics (point charges) and magnetism with arcane magic (field lines). Spells per day come from the effort producing the work energy required to manipulate these forces to achieve the desired effects. 2. Teleportation works just like modern physics experiments have worked. However, in my D&D world it successfully violates the uncertainty principal through an as-yet undiscovered physical phenomena. 3. Magic and psionics are applied M-theory. It is the applied science of using the unification of all physical forces to convert dark energy into other forms of energy, with fine precision and sufficient efficiency. Metagame. 1. It depends on how many ranks in knowledge (geography, history, the planes, etc) they have. The DC for the info on the next answer is around DC 60 or 70 (or just too darn high for anyone to figure out). 2. Yes, via a progress level 9 civilization that simply disappeared 24,000 years ago fleeing a gamma ray burst from a nearby wolf-rayet hypernova that irradiated the planet (and also attempts to explain the presence of monsters in the world). Unless I want something to work, getting one to work requires a DC 54 repair check and 1d3-1 duplicate devices for parts. 3. Not sure, I showed one player with enough ranks in geography the world map (my "how to fit every continent on one world" map) but they never visited anywhere except the local adventure area.
OleOneEye 03-31-08, 07:18 PM	Greetings all. I have seen many posts recently about how trying to come up with scientific and/or logical reasons for the way things work in a setting is bad, that you "shouldn't put science in your fantasy." I strongly disagree with this, as I'm OCD about the little details and try to come up with explanations for everything. I suspect most fall somewhere between, and I want to know where. So, an informal poll with a few questions to answer. Feel free to answer any or all of them. ----------------------- Monsters Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? Cosmology Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? Magic Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? Metagame How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? ----------------------- Thanks for indulging my curiosity. :D If I get a bunch of answers I'll share my views on the subject(s). With many different hemebrew settings, each would have different answers. As I am currently updating my original world from high school, I’ll base answers off it in particular. Monsters: 1. Yes, but I do not use biological reasons, but rather use mythological reasons. 2. I attempt to, however, how realistic they are is a matter of debate. Spontaneous generation, even of higher level beings, is of incredible importance. 3. When I get to that stage, I will go through every monster in the 4E Monster Manual and determine its origin, pertinent history, territorial extent, relations to other monster, etc. Cosmology: 1. The world is by itself. The sun is literally the sun god raising a mountain of molten rock into the sky each day. The two moons are goddesses chasing each other across the sky. The stars are the spirits of dragons retaining the same hue the dragon had in life. 2. It is a flat world. Physics do not operate normally, however, the end result is basically the same. For instance, rain is caused by the giants in their cloud castles rather than evaporation-condensation. 3. I do not use positive/negative energy and try to avoid other such dualisms. Magic: 1. Magic has mythical origins rather than scientific. 2. Handwave. 3. As magic is an indivisible part of the natural world, creating magical effects by waiving one’s hands and saying stuff is no more fantastical than walking by placing one foot in front of the other. Metagame: 1. They know all manner of general information about the world similar to how I basically understand how an internal combustion engine works without any specific training. 2. Not in this world. 3. No.
thecommabandit 04-02-08, 06:53 AM	When I started creating my world (which wasn't for the purpose of D&D but has adapted nicely) I intended to make it very scientific, so everything works under real-world physics as far as my knowledge of it goes. Monsters: 1) I'm using the idea of convergent evolution; i.e. since conditions on Earth and this world are very similar (gravity, atmosphere, hydrosphere, etc.) then life won't be really fantastic and unrecognisable. There are creatures that are like cows built like deer, pig-sized arachnids that can be farmed for silk, large kommodo dragon type things etc. Nothing in nature particularly magical or fantastic because of the explanation of magic I'm using. 2) Realistic ecologies. For example, the afore-mentioned spiders live in that certain area because they are omnivorous and eat the flowers of a certain tree along with small mammals and birds. 3) See above. Cosmology Everything works like it does here; there's no planes, no positive or negative energy nor elemental energy. The inhabitants have a rather detailed particle theory based on the four classical elements and this forms the foundation of their sciences and magic. But importantly, this theory is wrong. The world is just an earth-sized chunk of rock orbiting around a big gas giant orbiting around an average sun. Nothing horribly special. Magic 1) It's a combination between quantum mechanics and handwaving. It's deeply related to sentience and also the fact that effective room-temperature conductors are difficult to find in decent quantities on this world (most notably, copper is incredibly rare and prized beyond value). 2) It's more sort of just telekinesis of varying types but people's beliefs limit what they can actually use it on. For example, the necromancers can manipulate flesh (so they can heal by forcing it back together) but not much else only because of how they've been taught the world works. 3) There are incredibly detailed descriptions of how the magic works based on the world's particle theory which is generally very consistent, but the fact that I wrote these as if their theories were correct means I haven't yet rationalised them to proper physics. It might come later =)
aotrscommander 04-02-08, 09:56 AM	Overall, quite "scientific", but then I have both an engineering background and a driven obsession with gettings things consistant and "right". This is especially true of my most recent campign world, Dreemaenhyll, wherein I through out the cosmology and the MM (and Vancian casting) and started from first principles. Monsters Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? I don't usually go down quite all the way to the level in the afore-mentioned books, but I do try and pay some lipservice where required to biology; anything with supernatural abilities is usually artifically created or a magical mutation (in the same manner as say, the X Men magical mutations.) I do try and classify everything zoologically into families and orders; a brief description of the orders usually contains some biological data in my bestiary. Where possible, everything will have evolved rather than been created. I try and minimise the amount of created things, preferring to explain around mythical misconceptions. For example, my Cockatrices are actually Deinonychasaurids (which are of course feathered but slightly reptilian, explaning the old half-lizard half cockrel misconception; they just happen to have a colouration broadly similar to domenstic fowl.) My Leucrota are animals; specificall Mesonyxid predators (i.e. hoofed carnivores). Simurgh are actually Pterodactyloid pterasaurs (dervived from the mythological from bird with lion head and lion claws) And so on. Things like Pegasi sort of have to fall into the magical category, but I try and avoid gesault creatures where I can. I make a concerted effort to make my ecologies viable; Dreemaenhyll, for example is based around North America circa 1 mya ago (Dreemaenhyll has no polar ice caps - becuase there's no land near the poles - and so had no recent ice age). I went to the point of posting up on the boards some time ago, asking the American posters what sort of stuff lives stateside to fill the ecology out. I consider global resources (iron, gold and the like), but not usually on a local level unless something requires it (the plot for example). Cosmology Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? All my world are planets in a solar system and part of the wider universe (all my quests, wargames et al take place within the frame work of a single grand universe, even if most of the time they don't ever touch except peripherally.) Physics works as normal, save for the work-around used by supernatural forces (see ansers on magic) and high technology. Positive and Negative energy are just that; energy forms. No different to any other energy type; they have their planes (as does the elements; in my case Light, Electricity, Heat (including fire in the main, oxygenated regions), Air (gas), Water (liquid), Earth (solid, including Stone, Metal and Crystal), Cold (ice), Darkning (shadowy electricity) and Gloom (shadow energy). The latter three do not exists as energy forms in the material universe except when created by supernatural or technolgoical means.) Positive an negative energy are 'above' light and 'below' gloom technically. A side note is that 'naturally' occuring Undead are explained, for example, by the fact that negative energy is is released by all creatures on death; in highly emotional states, this can sometimes become trapped, forming Undead. (By the same token, that's why you sacrfice people; you're actually tapping the reserve of negative energy when they die as well as whatever else.) Magic Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? This is an area I've spent some time on. Magic is treated (along with psionics) as another form of energy, like the energy elements, gravity, time etc, not aligned or controlled in i's purest form, and like fire or electricity, dangerous in used carelessly. All supernatural abilities are powered by what is loosely termed background magical radiation - magical or otherwise. This is essentially the place (like subspace or something) that is the catch-all category that things which generally violate the laws of physics and do not have a direct magical/psionic/technological input; where most superheroes would pull the extra energy to do all their crap, for example. Beyond that specifics are explained as needed (and the explanations stored for future reference). Magic is channelled into spells via the various means as a way of the mortal mind being able to manipulate their own mana reserves into creating specific effects. Magic can theoretically be used without spells in a pure form; but while this gives you more felxibility, it's much less stable and can easily go Horribly Wrong. Also, it is vastly, vastly less efficient to do so. (All this is a very condenced explantion; if anyone wants to brave the full thing, I'd be happy to post it up...but it's quite long!) Metagame How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? The information is usually nominally available to characters (although perhaps only to the learned or the wise); the players usually though have some idea. Where possible, I try to explain things in a sort of pseudo-in-character, written like a history book (perhaps with a slighlty anachornistic bend). I have included gunpower in one or two campaign worlds; it's usually cutting edge, though, as well as uncommon. Usually, the availability of magic is such that it's generally more reliable or effective the blackpowder (as the technology levels is quite primative). On my world of Caranda, however, the Western Orc Empire had access to flintlock weapons (that was their schtick) whereas the Carandese only had got as far as black powder. Dreemaenhyll has not quite reached that far yet (perhaps it might come sometime in the next 20 years or so.) As a corollary to this, I take great care with my world's timescales such that they are realistic. My biggest campaign world bugbear (and this applies to most fiction as well as RPGs) is that they have large empty periods of history hich sound impressive but are completely illogical. Thousands of years do not pass when technology does not advance. So, in general and for Dreemaenhyll in particular, I use a strongly real-world based technological advancement. The entire history of that woirld is only 10,000 years starting from pre-history; the 'present' roughly corrolates to about AD 1300 (ish) and the other major time period adventured in is some 300 years prior; which was a Dark Age of sorts (but even that was interspersed with regular wars). A glance at the world shows there's a war somewhere abotu every 5 years or so, lasting for approimately that long in solid conflict (interspaced with operiods of inactivity) so I do my best to go for about that magnitude of activity. This does create so fairly large amount of work, though! (Detailing the Dark Wars, prior to the present, which lasted for about 80 years is a long and arduous process; I've got a few thousand words and only about 15 years in! It started to get hard when I realised I'd actually have work out how the wars was actually fought; though that was made easier by the fact I'd placed all the major cities on rivers and trade routes and knew where all the resources were.) It's part of the fun, though. I think my players do appreciate it; though sometimes not all of them read everything, and a lot goes into the background (sometimes because it's only half-finished or just a framework), I think overall they appreciate the amount of time and effort I put in, because in the end, it's a more vibrant and consistant world. I'd still do it even if they didn't, though, because world-building is as much fun as quest writing and playing itself. Edit: Since one person aske me about the magic fluff and it's too big to fit in a PM (!), I'll post it here, Sblocked for the interested: The fluff is below. The actual modified mechanics are already up on the boards (see the second link in my sig). The fluff pretty much applies to any magic system; for vancian, you can just assume that Mana equates to spell slots and that Vancian magic naturally falls into certain valences like electron orbits, hense the discrete slots. (I can't take credit for spell-level to valence, I read about it somewhere on ENworld.) The rest, though, pretty much applies as is. THE NATURE OF MAGIC The best analogy for magic is to imagine a fire. Fire requires three things; fuel, air and heat. Without all three it will fail to work. For magic, the ‘fuel’ is provided by the magic-user, either from themselves or their immediate environment, the form of Mana (from the caster’s Mana Pool). The ‘heat’ is the catalyst to start a fire; in the case of magic, this is provided by training and activation. Finally, in order to work, all magical and even supernatural or psionic effects require ‘air’ or in this case, background magic. Background magic is generally prevalent almost everywhere, like background radiation, even if the area itself has not sufficient normal magic energy to perform spells or anything else. Only in very rare Null Magic areas to these abilities stop working. Dreemaenhyll is unusual in that is possesses a number of these areas. The amount of background magic sets the level of Mana generated, and thus the magic level. Anywhere in the universe is divided into one of several categories of magic. Null Magic: As described above, there is no magical radiation; there is nothing for the applied magical energy to work on; it’s like trying to light a fire in a vacuum. Magic items cease to work, powers become unavailable. No Mana is generated, and in addition, if a creature or object does not naturally generate Mana, their reserves will gradually evaporate, like a tank of water. Minimal Magic: There is background magic functioning, but there is no or very little Mana being produced. Low-level magical powers function, because they only require very little Mana to work; thus Magic items with constant abilities (like a magic weapon’s bonus) function. Other spells and abilities do work, but their recharge time in vastly increased or even negated. Low Magic: All magical abilities function as normal, but Mana recharge rates are halved. Low (V) Magic: Some low magic areas instead limit the power level of magic spells or effects; they are usually designated (V) for Variable effects. High Magic: All magical abilities function as normal. This is the default setting for magic throughout the universe, the setting of a typical campaign world. High (V) Magic: Some High Magic areas have unusual effects. They are designated (V) for variable effects. Very High Magic: This is a very wide category, covering above High Magic and up. A Very High Magic area has a great deal of Mana; Mana recharge rates are increased by 50% or more. Very High (V) Magic: The area has some unusual variances to normal magic. A great deal of Very High Magic areas are designated (V), because the nature of magic tends to have odd effects when concentrated. Anti-Magic: This suppresses magical abilities as stops spells and magical effects, but has no effect on Mana regeneration or rate; indeed some powerful effects can ignore Anti-Magic (Epic spells for example). Though anachronistic, it helps to envision casting a spell as akin to running an internal combustion engine. The spell itself is like the engine, made via the caster’s incantations; this is the bulk of what casting a spell is, creating the magical engine with which the Mana will provide the desired effect. The spell is fuelled by Mana, which acts like petrol, being used up as the spell continues. The amount of Mana used in the casting of the spell is like filling the tank; the duration represents the ‘fuel economy’ if you will, with more powerful spell caster getting more ‘mileage’ from each point of Mana. So the first stage of casting a spell is to create the ‘engine’ (weave the spell itself), followed by ‘fuelling it’ (spending the Mana points). Finally, the spell is initiated by the caster (like turning the ignition key) which starts the spell running and it takes effect. Most of this happens so fast the stages are not noticed, however. The spell will work fine as long as it is in ‘air’ (i.e. there is background magic present), but if it enters a Null Magic zone, the ‘engine’ loses it’s ‘oxygen’ to burn and will stop. In the case of a constant effect, like a magic item, there is a very long initial set-up phase (the item enchantment), but very low Mana cost as constant magic items have a infinitesimal Mana requirement. They will run out of ‘fuel’ eventually, but it is measured in terms of centuries, like material half-lives. For example, a magic sword might take 1000 years/ caster level to burn up it’s initial Mana (which is put in during the creation process and in the spells cast into the item if any). It would be possible to ‘recharge’ such and item using the standard rules for recharging a wand, but the Mana cost would be very low. The spell, the ‘engine’ itself would be intact as long as the form it was enchanted remained. This is why potions and scrolls tend to age and fail most quickly; potions tend to spoil or evaporate long before the magic would fade; however the change of composition or lack thereof runs the magic within, and the same is true for books or scrolls, and eventually other magic items made of corrodeable materials as well. Again, magic items still need background magic to function, though it’s lack does not usually do them much harm. Constant items have so little Mana that when brought into an area with low Mana, they will receive enough in a few seconds to start ticking over again. Those with more Mana hungry abilities (i.e. use/day powers) require their own micro Mana Pools to recharge. The initiation of a magical effect often comes from wilful thought, but can happen in the right circumstances in nature as a causal event. Without training, a person with a magical talent may trigger a magical effect inadvertently, even unknowingly, usually under duress. The form the effect takes may be sculpted unconsciously and triggered by some stimulus, usually an emotional need in a crisis situation. While it may be possible than non-magic users do the same, without a Mana input, no effects can occur (obviously). Mana itself, the raw stuff of magic, (call it whatever you may) is generated via several means. Firstly, it is produced by living creatures and the stuff of life itself, in minute quantities, but continuously in areas with a suitable level of background magic. To a lesser extent, some is produced by solar radiation and other natural phenomena. Creatures who have the genetic ability, the talent, for magic can channel Mana from their environs into storage, called Mana Pools. Some of these actually generate their own Mana internally to a lesser or greater extent; fey creatures and deities generate in large amounts. Mana itself is often compared to water as it flows, following the path of least resistance and it fades (‘evaporates’) if left alone; however, it is more accurate to envision it as pure chemical (liquid) alcohol or petrol; it acts as water does, but it is also flammable! Using raw magic or Mana (i.e. without the structure of a spell) is like starting a petrol fire; without a spell to guide it, it is very erratic and prone to get everywhere. There are several types of spell caster, Divine, Arcane and Natural spell casters, all of which derive their powers is slightly different ways. There are two types of Arcane user; Emotive and Erudite casters. Arcane spells, as a rule, require more complicated gestures and sometimes the manipulation of spell-specific components. As a rule, Arcane spells do not mix well with armour (especially wizards), as it impedes the movements required to cast the spell. Emotive Arcane spell casters are born, not made, and only those who have it in their blood will become powerful spell casters. They comprise Sorcerers, Bards and similar spell users. They tend to discover their powers through accident at an early age when they make things happen in a moment of heated emotion. Emotive spell casters use their passion and will to focus their power into the desired effect. Thus, most Emotive Arcane spell users, even the more learned, tend to cast their spells intuitively. Emotive spell casters do not have to understand how magic works, only how to channel it. Magic to them is instinctive, something they do. Because of this method of spell casting, Emotive spell casters typically learn only a fairly limited number of different spells. Emotive casters tend to learn as they go, and though some have mentors, they do not tend to form large groups. Wizards typify Erudite spell casters. Though young wizards often discover their magical affinity when they cause odd events to happen, they do not usually have the sheer power at their disposal that a sorcerer or bard may have. Wizards home their skills through training and learning, rather than practise or intuition. They must understand the underlying concepts of a spell before they can cast it, and their spells are more complicated formulae. In essence, where as Emotive spell users are driven by emotion and instinct, wizard spells are a science. Because it takes so much effort to cast a spell in this fashion, Wizards do not have the same power reserve as a Sorcerer or Warmage; while the net Mana expended is the same, the wizard has to burn more to get the same result, as wizardry is less efficent. However, Wizards have the capability to learn hundreds of spells, in theory even more than even Divine or Nature casters. Wizard and other Erudite casters often learn at academies or from a mentor; very few learn on their own. Divine Magic works slightly differently. The first stage is a request (prayer) to the god for the spell (basically asking the deity to fulfil a very specific recipe). The caster still provides the Mana, but the weaving and initiation of the spell is actually undertaken by the god itself. This is why Divine magic has much less stringent requirements on casting, as the spell caster is essentially providing a focal point for the deities’ spells. Note that the deity is aware on some level of the spells being cast, and could consciously choose to block if he or she wished, but the deity does not have to consciously aware (nor would want to be) of every spell she is granting. This is why Divine Spell casters have a much wider access to spells then arcane users typically do; all they have to do is remember prayers, rather than the more complicated arcane spells. Thus, they are more reliant on training and learning. It should be noted that the prayer for a spell, like any other prayer, is not a magical effect; it only becomes one when the prayer is granted. Favoured Souls and their ilk form their own subset of Divine magic. They originate from Divine beings, be they actual deities or very powerful celetials or demons. Because of their innate connection to their deity, they do not pray for their spell like a Divine caster, they merely emote it into existance like a Sorcerer would. Divine spells require little in the way of intricate gestures of an Arcane spell; they are usually simple motions, if they are needed at all, and thus Divine spellcasters do not have the same armour restrictions that Arcane users do. Natural spell casters are closely related to Divine Spell casters (and are often thought of as such). There are subtle differences, however. The power of a Natural spell caster comes from the magic of life around them. Whereas an Arcane caster draws their power from their own body, and a Divine caster channels it from their diety, a Natural spell casters draws it from the surronding animals, plants, rivers, streams and mountains. Natural magic is the magic of the Fey. Natural spell casters are in tune with the natural world, and usually the first to notice something is amiss. Virtually all believe in some balance in nature, since the death of nature would result in the death of their power, even if they are concerned with nothing else. Many Nature casters dislike cities, thinking them devoid of natural power, but this is not strictly true. A city has far more life in it than a desert, and these do not generally impede Natural spells. Like Emotive spell casters of both Divine and Arcane, most Nature users learn their powers through trial and error, rather than study and training. They are almost always solitary souls. Natural spells are not generally impeded by armour. Druids are an exception, but this is not due to the magical effects; it is because wearing metal armour is a violation of their druidic oaths. Rangers, for example, have no such issues. The various levels of background magic also apply to psionics; the latter doesn't really need such an in depth explanation as essentially psionics follow a similar pattern, just using a slightly different (and slightly more stable) energy form.
Catzilla 04-02-08, 04:58 PM	Very interesting thread. It's nice to see how D&D can be approached from so many angles and still work. I guess the old adage holds true. There is no single 'right' way to play D&D. I don't have a science background (left the role of family physicist to my sister) and haven't felt compelled to explain the how and why behind everything in my world. I'm the artsy type instead, so my focus is much more on imagery and collaborative storytelling. My world is an evolving canvas that we create our stories on, rather than a well defined land with many cold hard facts. The players and I work together in it to make enjoyable adventures. That's what works for my group, but YMMV. However, if a player really wants an in depth explanation of why something is the way it is, I'll come up with something that's at least plausible sounding. We do tend to do a lot with God's. In our world, they're quite the meddlesome lot, and they drag mortals into their affairs on a regular basis. Very Greek. Monsters: 1. I only explain the why behind how they work if it's pertinent to the story. 2. For the sake of realism, I do have ecologies. The world is a big place. Each region is suited to the monsters that live there. 3. I make sure that the area with the monsters has a plausible way of supporting them. Unless; of course, we're running an old AD&D dungeon where the monsters are assumed to be in stasis until the adventurers show up (I'll have to check on which page in the 1e DMG that's stated. Trust me. It's in there.). Cosmology: 1. The material plane is the world itself. Everything spins around it. Just like the good old days. 2. Physics work as normal, unless the players travel to a plane with no gravity. 3. Positive energy equals life and good. Negative energy equals death and evil. As long as the positive and negative are in balance, the world is a happy place. But this is D&D, so balance is rarely achieved. Magic: 1. I don't have any science behind it. Instead, it's tied into the actions of our rather invasive deities. The Gods introduced arcane magic into the world by imparting their knowledge to mortals (Not the best idea, as it turned out). Divine magic is passed to a God's followers through prayers and deeds. 2. I'll explain why certain spells work the way they do if it's integral to the story. 3. Only on a very basic level. Magic is part and parcel of fantasy settings. We're playing in a fantasy setting, therefore there is magic (sorry if that came off sounding a bit condescending). Metagame: 1. The players know how the world works, but they don't have a map that shows them where everything is. They are very aware of what goes on in their corner of the world. The rest of the world is unknown to them. 2. I never use higher than default, but do a lot with lower than default. I bring in lots of imagery from the bronze age and before. 3. The players do appreciate the explanations. Especially since they have a hand in steering the ship.
Half_Dragon_Infernal 04-02-08, 07:12 PM	Greetings all. I have seen many posts recently about how trying to come up with scientific and/or logical reasons for the way things work in a setting is bad, that you "shouldn't put science in your fantasy." I strongly disagree with this, as I'm OCD about the little details and try to come up with explanations for everything. I suspect most fall somewhere between, and I want to know where. So, an informal poll with a few questions to answer. Feel free to answer any or all of them. Hi, I think I'll walk you through my campaign setting, which is a work in progress described here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1006870). Monsters Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? I try to keep it rational, but I prefer to partially hand-wave it. EX abilities are biological, SU abilities are manipulation of ingrained magic, and SP abilities are manipulation of outside magic. I try to make realistic ecologies, but I have a tendency to make dungeons that were abandoned, then settled by intelligent creatures. In the wilderness, it's easier to make a decent ecology. I try to include something that they can export, a place to get food, a place for fresh water, and a place for them to easily travel. I use waterways as they were used in the real world Cosmology Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? I generally make the material plane one planet out of something like 3 orbiting a single sun. No, but it would be pretty fun. I hadn't really thought about it before, but I like it the way another poster described it, as the forces that try to stick things together/seperate things. Magic Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? I prefer to explain it as manipulating the primal force through elemental conduits. Divine magic is using your faith as filters to channel it yourself, and psionics as using the primal material, which they also convert to energy. I prefer that you are creating amazing effects through the primal force, that can bend reality. Same with psionics, primal material has no real "rules". Waving your hands and saying stuff helps create filters so that you are not destroyed by the power of the primal force. Still/Silent Spell, you learn to be able to make certain filters more powerful, at the cost of others. This task is difficult, explaining the increased spell level. Metagame How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existence of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? In my world, there is a sect called the pure manipulators, who know a decent amount of this knowledge. Players never really know more than there characters, to minimize Metagaming. Yes, and it is considered easier and more lethal than low-level magic, since high-level magic is rare. Gun stats are in the thread linked above :shifty:
Tacitus_Acheros 04-04-08, 01:14 AM	Monsters Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? Frankly, the players seem less interested in how the dragon is breathing fire on them than they are in making it stop and relieving it of unnecessary possessions. Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? Yep. Each critter has certain traits that allowed it to survive in a given niche in each particular area while driving out the competition. Evolution (magical and natural) just seems to have turned out predator-heavy… Cosmology Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? The Material Plane is an entire universe. The world the player’s happen to inhabit is just one in many solar systems. Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? Generally, such unorthodox designs pop up on the Outer Planes, where there’re more unnatural forces shaping things. The Material Plane is pretty well balanced between the elemental forces and the philosophical axes like Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, not to mention magically stable, so such weirdness is very uncommon. How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? It’s all the same—life is an attempt to create, preserve, and perpetuate order, while death is a descent into decay and entropy. Each needs the other in order to find meaning, and without this system Time itself wouldn’t function right, making the world static and very boring. They operate much like the other elemental forces as the building blocks of all existence. Magic Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? Nope. Scientific explanations tend to fall apart when trying to work out how someone just flipped the laws of physics upside down and painted them green. For my world there’re the Natural Science—physics, chemistry, and the rest of the boring classes from high school—and the Arcane Sciences, which are pseudo-scientific approaches to things that can’t be readily explained. Wizards “research” a new spell through an “(arcane) scientific method,” there are “laws” and “theories” about magic, but at the end of the day they’re all about how to perform it, but do little to explain how the stupid thing works. We all know a pinch of bat guano, a certain hand gesture, and a phrase of Old Draconic lets off a fireball, but we don’t know why. Something in its very nature makes it very difficult to apply causality. Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? Wizards may talk about how they’re harnessing fundamental elemental forces or reshaping the universe through their sheer force of will, but that’s just to feed their egos. They have no idea either. Metagame How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? Depends how closely they’re paying attention and whether or not they’re just whining and asking hypothetical questions as the enemy mage blasts them. Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existence of magic? Just because magic can make water flow uphill doesn’t mean that water won’t flow downhill if left unattended—magic “bends the rules” governing the universe momentarily, but mundane technology still operates just fine. Magic will always be popular because it is “cheap” in terms of labor (not counting any years of study) and “clean” in that it doesn’t often produce any long-term consequences (wizards hotly deny any rumors of “magical radiation”), but technology tends to be more reliable and is much more accessible—you don’t need a special something to use it. Remember, any sufficiently advanced technology is a viable alternative to magic, which is why the gnomish railway system is facing sabotage by the global teleportation guild. If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? They certainly appreciated the firearms, especially once the cleric/inquisitor enchanted her flintlock pistols to fire holy, flaming bullets. Why make guns if you have magic missiles? Because maybe one individual out of 100 can hope to cast magic missile, but the other 99 can easily use a musket. Or, if you are one of the Techno-Magi of Dhumavar, City of Smoke and Steel: place captive sorcerer, magical beast, dragon, fey, elemental, outsider, or magical artifact into the Thaumic Extractor, being sure to secure bindings as necessary. Activate Thaumic Extractor. Use hose to remove waste material, and recover the thaumium deposits in the filter. Process and purify the arcanite in the Magicite Forge. Cast the desired spell into the refined thaumium, provided the sample is strong enough to contain it. Insert the arcanite battery into a weapon. Repeat 99 times. Congratulations, you can now equip 100 soldiers with guns that fire magic missiles.
Cuindless 04-04-08, 02:48 AM	Greetings all. I have seen many posts recently about how trying to come up with scientific and/or logical reasons for the way things work in a setting is bad, that you "shouldn't put science in your fantasy." I strongly disagree with this, as I'm OCD about the little details and try to come up with explanations for everything. I suspect most fall somewhere between, and I want to know where. So, an informal poll with a few questions to answer. Feel free to answer any or all of them. Awesome, intriguing thread, EL. As a scientist, I find this kind of thing fascinating. Without further ado: Monsters 1. Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? 2. Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? 3. Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? 1. I try to get as in depth into monster biology as possible, but I include a fair amount of "magical" explanation. That doesn't mean that it's hand-waved, though. For my games, magic is a very rational thing. It behaves in a specific way and is represented by the rules. Beholders, for example, consume magical energy through their central eye and convert that raw magical energy into specific effects with their eye stalks. 2. I don't make "realistic" ecologies in the terrestrial sense, but I do try to group monsters according to type and environment. It doesn't make sense for non-furred monsters without Cold Resistance to live in a tundra, for example. 3. Likewise, large mammalian predators had better live in a flora and fauna rich environment. Cosmology 1. Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? 2. Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? 3. How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? 1. I've experimented with several different types of solar systems and cosmologies, though I've found that often players won't explore that aspect of the game. I'm currently working with the Eberron model of having different "planes" actually be planets with different environments that become closer and further away during their orbit around the sun. 2. I have occasionally, but have found that a spherical world works best. I've tried a ringworld, a Dyson sphere and a torus with varying degrees of success. 3. Positive and negative energy are most easily explained as the four fundamental forces vs. the natural tendency to entropy. Clerics have an inate ability to manipulate the energy of these to various effect. Magic 1. Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? 2. Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? 3. Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? 1. I variously use psychic energy or the "unseen connections" theory of magical phenomena. I absolutely deplore the corruption of QP to explain mysticism, however. 2. Once again, I usually have an understanding of how the power works from a semi-scientific perspective, but I've found that my players care less about that and more about the flavor text and authentic feel of the world. Still, the occasional wizards player has asked me to expound on magic theory, much to my joy. 3. Again, this is largely dependent upon the player. One player with a Knowledge (Arcana) of 18 asked me to explain what his character understands about magic. I started laying out the intricacies of the Vancian system and what those rules meant as far as fundamental Laws of Magic, et cetera. He was interested to a point. Metagame 1. How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? 2. Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? 3. If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it?[/list] 1. That's entirely dependent upon the character. High ranks in knowledge skills insure that the character knows quite a bit about the above, while an Int 6 barbarian with no ranks in any knowledge skills has no idea. 2. Yes, though this is usually the result of plane shifting. Sometimes a group of interlopers will arrive from a low-magic world where they were forced to develop technology instead. In my current campaign (Eberron based), magic has largely supplanted technology, creating a system of "magitech". There's "magenetics" (the study of the interaction of magical species), "magarchitecture", "magiphysics" and many many more. 3. Completely dependent upon the player. By and large, no, though I've found the occasional player willing to ask questions and discuss it. Usually, those are the ones playing wizards and artificers, which is nice.
Eldritch_Lord 04-06-08, 10:12 PM	Wow, I'm amazed this is still going--I thought it died around January. Not that I'm complaining, of course. An interesting trend I've noticed in the responses is that more attention seems to be paid to make magic "work" than to make monster ecologies or cosmologies "work." Why is that? Would you say this is because magic is more fantastic, so making it more consistent is more important than making dragons and humans coexist? Or perhaps that there is more room to make a unique magic theory so more effort is spent on it?
sblaxman 04-07-08, 03:05 PM	I'm actually suprised at that as well, maybe because I'm more focused on making the ecology work than magic... magic to me was just magic... it worked. The ecology had to make sense. There had to be a reason the illithid aren't running the world, or that the red dragons hadn't wiped out all humans century's ago, or that the Chimaera in the bottom of the dungeon hasn't starved to death. It's fun reading all the different views though, thats for sure
Eldritch_Lord 04-07-08, 06:33 PM	I'm actually suprised at that as well, maybe because I'm more focused on making the ecology work than magic... magic to me was just magic... it worked. The ecology had to make sense. There had to be a reason the illithid aren't running the world, or that the red dragons hadn't wiped out all humans century's ago, or that the Chimaera in the bottom of the dungeon hasn't starved to death. It's fun reading all the different views though, thats for sure Well, I've know lots of people think dungeon crawls don't have to make that much sense--"Who cares what it eats? It's there for me to kill!"--but want to wring every bit of power out of the spell research rules. Maybe it's better to have a consistent theory of magic, since you can always come up with opponents to stop illithids or dragons or come up with some new food source for dungeons but players can just claim "it's magic" in regards to spells and such to justify anything.
Half_Dragon_Infernal 04-08-08, 10:48 PM	As I stated, I solved most of the ecology problems by saying that most dungeons are not abandoned and left to wandering creatures, and usually have organized inhabitants. Organized inhabitants can solve a lot of things, like lack of food. Dragons do not rule the world because they are carefully watched by an organization dedicated to preventing monsters from massacring innocents. Its an organization called the fist of the silver flame.
sblaxman 04-09-08, 09:53 AM	As I stated, I solved most of the ecology problems by saying that most dungeons are not abandoned and left to wandering creatures, and usually have organized inhabitants. Organized inhabitants can solve a lot of things, like lack of food. Dragons do not rule the world because they are carefully watched by an organization dedicated to preventing monsters from massacring innocents. Its an organization called the fist of the silver flame. Random question (don't want to dethread this if it's still alive), but what need is there for PCs if there is all ready a group that keeps monsters at bay? Or, are your players part of that group? (just curious)
JulesCARV 04-09-08, 07:46 PM	In general, my instinct is to approach things scientifically, but for D&D, I try to -- or at least want to -- avoid that. I don't want to just handwave it, but I want to approach it from a completely different, mystical perspective that is well thought-out, consistent, and completely contrary to scientific principles. For instance, I don't want my wizards to be scientific: I want them to be more superstitious, ritualistic, and mystical than a typical fighter, rogue, commoner etc, but they live in a world where superstition, ritual, and mysticism are all very important. They're scholarly and well-informed in their superstitions and rituals, and make it work for them. However, in practice, I find it very hard to adopt that sort of mindset. I find a scientific mentality creeps into my thinking very easily.
Shiftkitty 04-11-08, 08:22 PM	Monsters Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? I don't explain it if my players don't ask, but if they do ask I have some precedent in the natural world or in science in general to explain things, provided they make their rolls. Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? I try to keep my ecologies consistent and logical. You won;t find a swamp dragon in the desert. Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? I keep it logical and based on RW zoological knowledge. Cosmology Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? It's a solar system, a galaxy, etc. It is the physical world that you can reach out and touch every day. Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal? Physics as usual unless there's a good explanation for it. How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? Quantum physics and dimensions yet undiscovered. Magic Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? Scientific explanations regarding the maniuplation of subatomic particles. Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? I keep explanations handy, some of which are wild interpretations of string theory. Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? To an extent, but it's beyond the current knowledge and wisdom of the PCs. Metagame How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? If the PCs have studied it, they may know some of it. My players know I'll try to keep things somewhat based in the RW as far as science goes, so they get really worried when they see things like "The Search for Schroedinger's Cat" by my easy-chair. Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? Higher technology is an anomaly in my game. When it does show up, it's a trick to figure out how it works, how it got there, how to keep it working, etc. One party found an anomalous hand grenade. They pulled the pin hoping to open this odd container. When the spoon flew off, they set the grenade on the table and went to look for the spoon. It was the only thing that saved them. If you try to explain these things, do your players appreciate it? Yes. ----------------------- Thanks for indulging my curiosity. :D If I get a bunch of answers I'll share my views on the subject(s).[/QUOTE]
Half_Dragon_Infernal 04-12-08, 10:54 PM	Random question (don't want to dethread this if it's still alive), but what need is there for PCs if there is all ready a group that keeps monsters at bay? Or, are your players part of that group? (just curious) I don't have any PC's yet, but I'm going to a new school next year and I'm hoping some people there will do D&D. My PC's will most likely be part of the organization or hired by it to take out various threats. Corruption is a good part of my planning though, so I'm thinking that any other problems will be caused by bribery to look the other way.
JulesCARV 04-13-08, 07:53 PM	NOTE: In my previous statements about trying to keep science out of the D&D supernatural and adopt a mystical, occult mindset, I should note that I'm a huge hypocrite considering I created a whole thread devoted to arcane pseudoscientific paper titles. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=840989)
Khadmus 04-16-08, 04:42 PM	Do you try to explain how monsters and their abilities "tick" (Ex: dragon biology from Draconomicon, demon biology from FC1), or do you hand-wave it away? Not really, although I commend efforts to do so. Do you make realistic ecologies and/or try to reason why monsters live where and how they do, or do you use the MM assumption that monsters are all over the place? If possible, I try. Do you consider things like resources, territoriality, etc. or do you just throw bunches of monsters in the same area? If possible, I try; but unfortunately a good deal of the time I'm too lazy to cover it in sufficient depth. Do you have the Material Plane be a solar system or the like, or is it just the world itself? This has never come up; although I suppose that it is in fact infinite and ought to be a solar system. Have you ever used any interesting worlds (flat planes, toroidal "donuts", cubic worlds, etc.), or do physics work as normal?I haven't progressed far enough to try this. How do you explain positive and/or negative energy--order/entropy, life/death, or something else? Why bother? It's like explaining atoms or math - possible, but not something I care to do. Do you have a scientific explanation for magic (whether ancient Greek science, pseudoscience, quantum mechanics, etc.), or do you handwave it? I tend to gloss over it. Do you have a set explanation/favored explanation of how different effects work (teleportation = wormholes through the Astral Plane, warping space; healing = instant re-knitting of skin, temporarily increased metabolism; etc.), or handwave them? There has to be some explanation, even if the cause is obscure. I don't usually set or favor an explanation, but I try to provide one for curious players. Do you try to explain why magic works (ie, why waving your hands and saying stuff makes magic) or not? Not really, unless it's central to the storyline. How much do the characters in the game know of their world, that is, do they know about your answers to the previous questions or is the info just for you and your players? I tend to give a decent deal of information. Recently, though, I've been tending towards "generic fantasy", where there are few idiosyncracies of note. Do you ever put in higher-than-default levels of technology, and if so, how do you reconcile it with the existance of magic (ie, why make guns if you have magic missiles)? No. However, if I did (I've been toying with the idea), guns would be obscure items, generally discarded in favor of magic and developed only casually by a select few worldwide.