How much science can you get in a game?

[Nerdynick]

Hello forums,

I have a player that wants to play an Alchemist. I'm all for this, since I've been longing to see one in action for a while. However, in talking over his concept, we began to discuss how much real-life science you can cling to in the d20 system, especially with magic involved. I.E. is it really possible to work with the physics of a Lightning Bolt spell, or does analyzing it too much beyond "It's magic!" cause too many problems? In the same vein, would something like Adamantium or Mithral destroy applied chemistry (and if not, where would they fit in the Periodic Table)?

I understand it ultimately boils down to DM discretion and such, and that many modern scientific principles rely on out-of-character knowledge, but I'm still interested in your answers.

[Phelix-Mu]

Magic is a mechanic, as is Craft(alchemy). Science is not. You can fluff up some science-ish to cover some of the gaps, but it really isn't going to resemble real-life science. The spells do what they say, and often in blatant contravention of logic, much less physics or chemistry.

As DM, the way you spin things, either as mystical traditions, or some kind of faux science of magic, is totally up to you. But it really impacts the actual game very little.

A more complicated issue is what happens when the player asks the DM to homebrew stuff about using Craft(alchemy) to duplicate stuff that real-life chemistry can do, but that the rather spotty rules don't cover. Deciding where to draw the line on exothermic reactions, adding water to acid, and other stuff that is based irl chemistry can get tricky, especially if you are trying to preserve the usefulness of mundane skills (as opposed to the god-like power of magic).

[NeoPhoenix0]

I'm sorry for being vague and relatively unhelpful, but all I have to say is science and d&d 3/3.5/PF do not mix. Weird things happen like peasant rail-guns and incinerating the atmosphere by firing a normal arrow from a normal bow. Besides physics can't work right in d&d simply because of the geometry grid system they define. That last one isn't a problem if you drop the grid, but then the game gets either more complicated or there is more burden on the DM.

[unseenmage]

I'm sorry for being vague and relatively unhelpful, but all I have to say is science and d&d 3/3.5/PF do not mix. Weird things happen like peasant rail-guns and incinerating the atmosphere by firing a normal arrow from a normal bow. Besides physics can't work right in d&d simply because of the geometry grid system they define. That last one isn't a problem if you drop the grid, but then the game gets either more complicated or there is more burden on the DM.

Seconding this. That in D&D Pi isn't Pi is the worst. From there things just get all wonky. Ovoid spheres and hollow empty polygons of void in between every non-square form.

Seriously, this is a game the real world doesn not belong here. Now finding yourself a confluence of systems and subsystems that overcomplicate the D&D experience just like knowing real science does to real life? Sure do that.

TLDR: Don't mix real world science into the gaming experience. Instead enrich that experience with more gaming materials, be they 3rd party or homebrew.
This way you get all the fun of experimentation and discovery but none of the disappointment of D&D utterly failing to simulate the real world.

[JusticeZero]

Arguably you are best with the least possible. Start by saying "This is an alien universe". Then sit down and read your game rules as if it was a grade school physics primer. Work your way up from there.

[JoshuaZ]

I think most people are exaggerating the difficulties involved. If one treats the combat and specific mechanics as an approximation to what is happening then things are substantially easier to handle. How much detail one wants matters. For example, in the 3.5/PF campaign I'm currently running, the printing press with moveable type was invented about 100 years ago and a lot of early Renaissance techs and discoveries are starting to show up. For example, there's a bunch of wizards and natural philosophers who are starting to use telescopes to systematically understand space around them. And there was a recent project that some the PCs were incidentally involved in to try to measure stellar parallax.

The major empire in the campaign originally came to power about 1000 years ago due to advanced in military technology (they had stirrups), and one upcoming plot issue will be that one of the other kingdoms is about to make a bid for naval supremacy since they've developed the gundeck.

And there are other ways one can do this. For example, at one point the players had the idea of blowing up an enemy tower using gunpowder. So we sat down and roughly estimated how much gunpowder would be need. It turned out to be way too much to be practical for what they wanted to do. But if it had been doable, we would have sat down and thought out how to mechanically approximate it.

You can get a fair bit of science in the game if you are willing to put in the effort.

[NeoPhoenix0]

*snip*

Of course your fine with this. This is technology you are talking about and can be easily abstracted into dnd. The DMG even gives some rules for advanced weapons if I remember correctly.

You need to understand the difference between stand alone technology and science, such as physics and chemistry. technology can function because it is basically just 3rd party material for independent tools. weapons, and other such items. Physics can't work in dnd because it just doesn't play well with the rules.