Forcecages on a plane [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Meph

2013-12-21, 04:23 PM

Forcecage's description (as well as Wall of force's one) says that it cannot move (or that it is immobile, depending on the version).
I've obviously noticed the spot out of the last oots strip, #935. In this strip, appearenly, a Forcecage on a flying ship stay still on and with the deck while the ship moves.
Whether something moves or not depends on our reference system. The spell's description doesn't say anyhting about this, neither does so the Magic chapter of the manual.
I, for me, would have had the Forcecage breaking the ship or getting far from it, remaining still in comparishon with the ground.
The choose is inbetween assuming the theory of relativity for working in a fantasy setting or not. In the first case, "immobile" would be what immobile is for the caster at the time of casting - the ship, in this case. But most of fantasy setting doesn't cope very well with implication of science: for they have dimensions instead of planets. Magic instead of science itself, in the beginning. So, it is not even said that those Earths are round, nor that they orbitate in any way.
Does anybody know if there are references from wotc (or Pathfinder's sources, or else) that clarify this point? If not, what would you do as Dungeon Master?

I've thought whether this thread was good for this section or if it would have been better for the Roleplaying Games' one. In the end I took this for the following reason: in absence of rules stating an answer, what happens in #935 could tell us something on The Giant's way of building oots' world. (and I'm intrested in this also, not only in the d20 rule system situation)

Kish

2013-12-21, 04:26 PM

If not, what would you do as Dungeon Master?
I would have the Forcecage stay with the surface it was sitting on, as depicted in the comic.

The alternative, assuming (generally, though not necessarily always, a pretty safe assumption in one of my games) that the game is in fact set on a round orbiting planet, would be that a Forcecage would appear to move constantly, as it stayed in one place and the planet orbited out from under it.

Jay R

2013-12-21, 04:42 PM

The DM must decide one of two ways:

1. The forcecage is immobile with respect to the surface itr's cast on.

2. Determine if the world itself is immobile. Determine if the universe is immobile. If and only if these are true, then rule that forcecage has just become a perfect tool for attacking moving ships or creatures (in air or on the sea), thus changing what the spell can do tremendously.

As a DM, I would opt for choice one.

ellindsey

2013-12-21, 04:42 PM

As a DM, I rule that a Forcecage, and any other magical effect that is supposed to be stationary, is stationary with respect to the immediate surroundings, whatever those may be. So a Forcecage cast on a ship will move with that ship.

You can either rule that way, or rule that the effect is stationary relative to the planet (or disk, or plane, or whatever). Either way has implications. For example, if you're ruling that the effect can be made stationary relative to a vehicle, you can cast Wall of Force on the front of your ship to use as a nigh-indestructible battering ram. On the other hand, if you use the relative to the planet ruling, a force wall created inside the ship would severely damage the ship as it stayed stationary and ripped a hole through the ship as the ship moved away without it.

Keltest

2013-12-21, 04:43 PM

As a DM, ive always made it so that "immobile" meant "immobile relative to what it currently functioning as the ground"

zimmerwald1915

2013-12-21, 04:56 PM

As a DM, ive always made it so that "immobile" meant "immobile relative to what it currently functioning as the ground"
Which is the only meaning "immobile" can possibly have, since motion is relative.

ellindsey

2013-12-21, 05:06 PM

Which is the only meaning "immobile" can possibly have, since motion is relative.

In our universe, yes. However a GM coming up with his own cosmology might well decide that the world is immobile (and likely at the center of the universe and possibly even flat) in his setting. In that setting immobile really could mean immobile relative to a fixed universal reference frame.

zimmerwald1915

2013-12-21, 05:13 PM

Keltest

2013-12-21, 05:26 PM

That is demonstrably not true, however, of this setting, the setting of The Order of the Stick, since we have seen the planet and it is neither flat nor immobile.

Weve seen that its round, but I cant recall any indication that its moving

ellindsey

2013-12-21, 05:27 PM

That is demonstrably not true, however, of this setting, the setting of The Order of the Stick, since we have seen the planet and it is neither flat nor immobile.

Of course, but very few of us run games set in the OOTS setting. My game is set on an immobile flat disk. And the OP was asking in terms of generic fantasy worlds that other people play in, rather than specifically about the OOTS world.

Also, it isn't really possible to tell from the available evidence if the OOTS world is immobile or not. Sure, it's not flat, but it could be fixed with the rest of the universe revolving around it. Probably isn't, but there isn't decisive evidence to say one way or the other.

Katuko

2013-12-21, 05:48 PM

This feels like the Immovable Rod argument that has been floating around for years. It's a magic object and/or effect, and the intention is obviously for the item to stay stationary relative to the surroundings it was activated in. Even if it was anchored to the air, though, there are rules for how much force the objects can sustain before actually moving/being destroyed. Those who argue that an Immovable Rod can become able to rip through a Star Destroyer just by placing it in front of the ship as it moves are sadly mistaken. It would be pretty cool, but it's not possible. (Pulling a piece of concrete out of a Bag of Holding in mid-air and then casting Sculpted Wall of Stone towards a grounded target, though...)

On board a ship, the rod/cage will stay with the ship. In free fall, the rod/cage will stay in the air, but not fly off into space. In space... it's a fantasy stetting. People don't go to space, and if they do it is up to the DM to decide what the character is allowed to make of it.

For example, aboard the airship I can very well see V being given a choice in how to apply the cage. Once you are aboard, you are "anchored" to the "movement grid" on the ship's deck. Thus I don't think V has to expend any movement actions on keeping up with it either, even while flying.

Vinyadan

2013-12-21, 05:54 PM

I would have it stay on the surface it was built on, and have it move according to the surface; but I also allow the players to research an higher level version of the spell with an actual immobile forcecage which does not orbit with the planet.

Meph

2013-12-21, 06:21 PM

I don't think you "build a Forcecage on a surface". In fact, you could even cast it five meters over the ground you are standing, and it would not fall down as a result.
I don't like the idea that it is immobile in reference of the "biggest nearest system". It would give it too many uses, and I explain why with an example: if I were to be the caster, flying in the air due to my spells and fighting, very far from the ground, against a flying ship (since I'm flying on my own, how do you say if I'm on the ship or not?). They have archers and stuff, I stand in front of them and wish to protect myself. So I cast Wall of force between me and the flying ship, that happens to be moving towards me (maybe they were chasing me). Logic says that my Wall of force is intended to stop the ship and their arrows \ spells, but you are saying that instead it would begin to move towards me as well as the ship does?
So would came the option: the caster (in the moment of casting) can decide what is his reference system for that spell. But this way both Wall of force and Forcecage would become likely attack spells, as well as defensive or caging spells. And way too powerfull ones even, given how hard the Force is.

Bulldog Psion

2013-12-21, 06:23 PM

I would consider that it functioned pretty much like a regular box, just more indestructible. Otherwise, if it's immobile compared to the universe, it would rip a groove or tunnel in the ground, and could be used to demolish any fortress ever built. Want a tunnel through the mountains? Cast a forcecage on the antispinward side, and let it do its work at 700 some-odd mph.

It's far too powerful if it's immobile in absolute terms.

Ellye

2013-12-21, 06:43 PM

ref

2013-12-21, 07:47 PM

Since advanced magic is not distinguishable from Science, relativity applies to Forcecage. GLaD to help.

jere7my

2013-12-21, 09:04 PM

I pity the game designers that wanted to make a simple, straight-forward effect: "a magic cage that stays in place".
I don't think they ever assumed that anyone would be having a debate about how relativity applies to a fantasy world because of it.

So, for me, it is "a magic cage that stays in place", in whatever way it seems more obvious at the time. Even if it's inconsistent inside the same campaign or, heck, the same battle if that's somehow needed.
I mean, one of the advantages that magic has over sci-fi technology is that you don't have to bother trying to make it function in a perfectly scientifically explainable way.

Yes indeed. I'll repost this quote from Skip Williams, the sage of Dragon Magazine's Sage Advice:

The difference between technology and magic is this: technology depends on an understanding of reality. Technology works the way it does because someone has thought through a chain of cause and effect that gives a predictable result. For example, a light bulb lights a room because somebody with an understanding of electricity and metallurgy created a situation in which the light bulb must glow brightly when somebody throws the switch.

Magic, by contrast, does not take advantage of some clever person’s knowledge of reality, it literally changes reality to suit the user’s taste. In the AD&D game, each spell’s ability to change reality is narrowly defined in the spell description. It’s helpful to think of any magical spell as a minor wish with a predetermined effect. If your character wants light, he casts a light spell, and he gets light — but that’s all he gets. Of course, the character can do some clever things with that light, such as blind somebody by making the light appear on the end of his nose, but no character will ever bake a cake or incubate an egg with the waste heat from the light spell as one can with an incandescent light bulb, because there isn’t any waste heat.

Think about "creative" uses of magic spells like this: Does it make the spell a lot more powerful? Does it do something tangential to the intended purpose of the spell? If the answer to either of those questions is "Yes," then it probably doesn't work. When you cast a spell, you're asking something—some essence of magic, given a voice by the DM—to break the rules of reality for you, and that something will decide, e.g., what the forcecage is stationary relative to. It's not a hard-and-fast relativistic rule; it's "Uh, well, you're standing on the deck of the airship, so it's on the deck too" or "You're floating in air, so the forcecage is too, but if the airship bumps into it the forcecage just moves."

Boogastreehouse

2013-12-21, 09:09 PM

I think it looks nice with a little space

I've always ruled that it stays stationary in regards to the actual ground or, to be more precise, it stays stationary in regards to the planet. It maintains its integrity in relation to its position in the planet's "magical fields." I ruled that so that someone couldn't force cage someone else to a boat and then send them over a waterfall, or anchor someone to a boulder and then heave it over a cliff, into the lava below, or whatever.

After reading this thread and thinking about it some more, maybe I'd be inclined to revise that and say that a large enough moving object (a huge boat, for instance) could serve as an anchor... I'm not sure...

If the spell is cast in space, it remains in place relative to its surroundings, or if I went with the revision I'm considering above, I might say that a force cage cast in space stays stationary relative to its position in the local star's "magical area," unless it's cast on a large moving object, like a spelljammer or other space ship.

I feel it's important to have consistent rules for D&D when possible, though, so the players know what they can expect. If you want subjective rules that can be redefined from situation to situation, then perhaps Mage is the game for you. You can literally revise your definition about how the laws of magick work as you go along.

I think it looks nice with a little space

Keltest

2013-12-21, 09:36 PM

Fish

2013-12-21, 10:31 PM

I would rule that it moves with the ship. Whatever battle map is being used, it is motionless relative to that, because that is the intent of the spell: battlefield control. That is the effect.

Consider the ramifications of Forcecage remaining still relative to the ground: Laurin would hit the inside of the Cage with force equal to the ship's speed. That would give the spell damage, which it is not meant to give. Now perhaps you decide that the Cage is absolutely still, and factor in the rotation of the planet (1000 mph at the equator). You've turned a "stay put!" battlefield control spell into a 500d6 crushing damage spell. That's well outside the purpose.

Daywalker1983

2013-12-22, 04:51 AM

Might make an interesting spell though...

Something like "You conjure a block of force completely stationary. Everyone in the rsuelting trjaectory must make a reflex save or be hit something caster lvl etc..." it should be very powerful, considering how it's use was limited by the direction the heavenly body is going and therefore no means to aim it.

But when it hits, it hurts...

Meph

2013-12-22, 05:31 AM

A few years ago I was running a sorcerer whose first attack spell was supposed to be Prysmatic Wall. Since it's static, I had to think to multiple ways he could send his enemies against it (Enchantment spells, Gus of wind \ Hydraulic Push like spells, Bigsby's Hands spells, even casting Invisibility on the Wall itself and then drive the unaware fools through it, etcetera...). Everything revolved around the idea that PW is immobile; it's not the same spell as Forcecage, i Know, but the "immobility" in the description is barely the same.
None of them needs an actual surface to stand on: since they have no mass (Prysmatic Wall is made of light, and Force doesn't have depth), gravity cannot pull them downward to any floor. And the descriptions too don't mention them to need it, unlike for Wall of Iron.
They cannot move, and this is it. Otherwise why does nobody cast them as rostri for flying ships and then use them as siege weapons to tear down castles (since they're clearly harder than rock)? This doesn't happen because the castle's defensors too could cast Wall of Force, and we would have a Forcecrash. That cannot happen: two object supposed (and ruled) to be immobile cannot impact one against the other.

So I would say Forcecage holds still. If a ship moves, that concerns just the ships itself and cannot influence laws of magic.
Some people above mentioned how easily this could be used to break that ship.... yes, this is what a wall is for: preventing something moving to move in a certain direction. Someone else metioned Unamovable Rods and I agree: in their description I remember a line saying they can successfully be used against a charge. Same idea.

Some other people mentioned the fact that a planet itself should be moving, and this would have strong impact in the working of a Forcecage when considered. As I said in the beginning of the thread this is up to the setting and to the dungeon master how to handle it.
I'd like to solve the point in-science. Is it really moving? How can you say something is moving, without a reference? Comments above states that this way the Forcecage should jump away from (or into) the ground, but why? Because they assume the sun as reference, I guess. Still, why should it be the sun? We know that stars aren't immobile too - the whole Universe itself is moving and constantly deforming. The truth is that there is no reference at all, even in-science, for what is immobile and what moves. My answer is philosophical then: the ground and the (little part of the) sky (above that ground) are immobile, at least to everyone living there. A ship that flies is clearly no immobile to me.

We're still debating upon our own ideas still, and that is amusing, but I hoped in any... D&D-like authority coming with or from references.
Thinking again at our strip, it looks like The Giant reads magical immobility to be relative.

Copperdragon

2013-12-22, 06:49 AM

I always consider planes, planets and moons in Fantasy Settings to be stationary for all practical purposes (unless the plot or a cool scene demands otherwise).

Everything else that apparently or obviously makes no sense gets ignored. The moon has changing phases, therefore, must move and that conflicts with our physical view of the world combined with some magic effect? Who cares in a world filled with magic and plot?

While there might be interesting discussions, stuff as "X is scientificly impossible or should have this effect Y" is irrelevant, what matters is the spell's description, as if you think too deep the entire concept of "sit down on a table and imagine stuff" breaks down. LARP only works to the point where you accept that guy over there in green make up and ridiculous plastic ears is supposed to be some evil orc who'll eat you if you do not "kill" (whack three times with your rubber sword) him. It's the same in P&P and especially with questions like this.

Rodin

2013-12-22, 06:55 AM

Ah, but what happens is you put a Forcecage on a plane on a conveyer belt?

Copperdragon

2013-12-22, 08:35 AM

Then it's immovable relative to the plane and the belt runs below it, without friction or issues.

For those inside that is not an issue (as all cases in which the ground moves below the cage), as the forcecage has a force-floor. If it had none you could dig out easily, which is not what the spell does. You need Xykon's Moderatly Escapable Forcecage for that.

The "The Cage has a Floor" verdict solves all issues where it might be possible the creatures in the cage might keep up running or get squished into a wall etc.

halfeye

2013-12-22, 10:32 AM

Ah, but what happens is you put a Forcecage on a plane on a conveyer belt?
Hi Rodin, do you have a name there that you want to publish here?

http://www.yakyak.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=60459

Which is a locked thread, but stupendous.

Then it's immovable relative to the plane and the belt runs below it, without friction or issues.

That could have been 'plane meaning "aeroplane/airplane", not plane as in planet type surface, for an obscure but wonderful joke.

Angel Bob

2013-12-22, 10:55 AM

Dammit guys, I thought I was done with physics for the winter break! :smalltongue:

No, but seriously, since all motion is relative it seems unnecessarily complicated to have Forcecage be truly, universally immobile. Let's just say it adheres to the surface it was cast on and is immobile relative to that surface. Done, who wants pancakes?

Amphiox

2013-12-22, 12:26 PM

In our universe, yes. However a GM coming up with his own cosmology might well decide that the world is immobile (and likely at the center of the universe and possibly even flat) in his setting. In that setting immobile really could mean immobile relative to a fixed universal reference frame.

The implications of such a world would be that Newton's Third Law is invalid in that setting, otherwise the reaction force of anything that moves on the surface of that world, down to the smallest wiggling bacterial flagellum, would impart a small moment of movement to the world.

It would mean a world without tides, day, night, wind, weather....

And no form of combat would work as expected, since they all depend, one way or another, on the transfer of force as mediated by Newton's Third Law.

So the GM would need to imply a miracle exception for EVERYTHING that happens in his immobile world....

jere7my

2013-12-22, 12:38 PM

So the GM would need to imply a miracle exception for EVERYTHING that happens in his immobile world....

It's magic. Why would that be a problem?

Porthos

2013-12-22, 12:55 PM

It's magic. Why would that be a problem?

Exactly.

I mean, who's to say that such things as genetics, the germ theory of disease, or even atoms as we know them exist in those worlds?

Or, to put it another way....

http://pub.ke3vin.org/God%20Kills%20a%20Catgirl.jpg

It's been too long since we were reminded of this sad sad fact. :smallfrown:

Throknor

2013-12-22, 01:01 PM

That is demonstrably not true, however, of this setting, the setting of The Order of the Stick, since we have seen the planet and it is neither flat nor immobile.

It was built from nothing as a cage to contain a sprawl and may now hold another planet. The available evidence makes it more likely that it is stationary.

The main reason we say the earth moves is the math is easier. The math can be done such that it doesn't, it's just way more complicated. Occam's razor dictates the center of the universe, because special relativity says it can be anywhere.

Throknor

2013-12-22, 01:04 PM

... Either way has implications. For example, if you're ruling that the effect can be made stationary relative to a vehicle, you can cast Wall of Force on the front of your ship to use as a nigh-indestructible battering ram. On the other hand, if you use the relative to the planet ruling, a force wall created inside the ship would severely damage the ship as it stayed stationary and ripped a hole through the ship as the ship moved away without it.

If someone tried that I'd say the portions of the ship attached to the wall wouldn't move, but the other portions attached to those probably would give. The net effect is as if the wall wasn't even there as everything in front and behind compress how they would have anyway.

Keltest

2013-12-22, 01:10 PM

Jay R

2013-12-22, 02:52 PM

Dammit guys, I thought I was done with physics for the winter break! :smalltongue:

Not if you move, stop moving, are pulled to the earth by gravity, manipulate energy, conserve momentum, etc.

Avaris

2013-12-22, 03:08 PM

Without wanting to get involved in the discussion over whether forcecages should move in D&D, we have previously seen them be moved in OOTS, when Miko was trapped and then escaped (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0373.html). In that instance, it was quite clear that the forcecage was rooted to the ground on which it was cast.

Megsie

2013-12-22, 03:19 PM

But that was Xykon's Moderately Escapable Forcecage, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0376.html) so it's not something to draw conclusions about normal forcecages in the OotS universe from.

Amphiox

2013-12-22, 04:05 PM

It was built from nothing as a cage to contain a sprawl and may now hold another planet. The available evidence makes it more likely that it is stationary.

The main reason we say the earth moves is the math is easier. The math can be done such that it doesn't, it's just way more complicated. Occam's razor dictates the center of the universe, because special relativity says it can be anywhere.

The world has night and day, a sun and a moon. Which means it either rotates, or the sun and moon are circling IT. Since gravity works in this world, that means tidal forces even if it is just the sun and moon orbiting the world.

That means the world has to be moving.

It's magic. Why would that be a problem?

The problem is internal consistency. The magic of the world is already established to be rules-based. Rules-based means subject to laws, and consistent in application. But the kind of miracle exceptions required to magically make such a world hold still in violation of the laws of motion would have to contradict each other in differing circumstances. You either have to make a NEW UNIQUE rule for every molecule, or you can do the much or reasonable thing and simply say that the rules by which the magic works parallel the rules of physics with only the deviations specific to the magical applications you want to portray.

Meph

2013-12-22, 04:59 PM

A lot of mythological systems had explanations for tides and such other than physic's ones.
Apollo carries the sun is his cart everyday through the sky.
In a setting where lightnings are direct tools of Thor, I would not concern about the necessity for the planet to move in order to keep the gravity working.

Xykon's Moderately Escapable Forcecage is not so tricky to explain to me, but has nothing to do with an actual Forcecage. There are other spells that clearly show that Force effects can move (or be moved), as for Mage Armour.
The only (famous) immobile Force effect I can think to are Wall of Force and Forcecage. But there would be examples enough to create a force effect that is not immobile and shaped as a Forcecage, if a spellcaster would feel like to do it.

Throknor

2013-12-22, 05:01 PM

I fail to see how the universe being used as a prison for anti-creation necessitates that the planet theyre on is stationary. Bags of Holding for example contain extradimensional space and can be mobile.
True. The point I was trying to make it isn't impossible and therefore has to be at least acknowledged. But personally I consider a trap weaves from the fabrics of reality to be a different category from a bag of holding. The snarl isn't in another dimension, it's trapped in this dimension. I'm not arguing it as an absolute that world is stationary, just that it isn't an absolute that it moves.

The world has night and day, a sun and a moon. Which means it either rotates, or the sun and moon are circling IT. Since gravity works in this world, that means tidal forces even if it is just the sun and moon orbiting the world.

That means the world has to be moving.
Sorry, I meant inertial frame of reference. All of what you mention can happen with a stationary world, but the math behind the laws to predict them would be a lot more complex.

Keltest

2013-12-22, 05:29 PM

sleepy

2013-12-22, 05:50 PM

I just searched the SRD for "immobile"... and to me, it looks like when the rules call something "immobile," the implication is "immobile with respect to the movement grid." Given the movement grid's intended rules role as the reference frame for adjuticating movement, this strikes me as a sensible platform to rules-lawyer from.

The intention for "immobile" to be interpreted via the movement grid seems especially clear to me where it appears in rules that don't model spell effects (spell effects have more ambiguous intent). For example:

{1} conditions: entangled
"Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force.
{2} skills: hide
"If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you're moving."
{3} grappling consequences: pinned by an opponent
"When an opponent has pinned you, you are held immobile (but not helpless) for 1 round."

Note that, inside a moving reference frame, rules {2} and {3} share Forcecage's issue: their results, possibilities, and implications differ wildly under the "relative" and "absolute" interpretations of "immobile." However, unlike with Forcecage, what these rules are trying to model and what their results are intended to represent is relatively clear. Only when the movement grid is the adjuticating frame of reference for "immobile" do the results of these rules seem consistent with what they intend to model. Rule {1} seems able to ignore "immobile" (since anchoring down an entangled character fulfills the "opposing force" option every time he tries to move), but it shouldn't have to; it is another example of a rule with clear, understandable intentions but, without adjuticating "immobile" via the movement grid, less clear or understandable useage.

For instance, suppose gameplay moves onto the deck of an airship flying at 120ft/round. Two invisible creatures are aboard: one standing silently against a wall, the other sprinting flat out bow to stern and back. The "relative immobile" interpretation gives the still creature +40 to hide and the running creature +20 to hide, while the "absolute immobile" interpretation grants only +20 to the still creature, and switches the running creature's bonus between +20 and +40 every time he turns around.
Or suppose a half-orc grapples and pins an elf abord the same ship. Assuming "relative immobile", the elf stays in his square and can't move next turn unless he breaks the pin first. But under "absolute immobile", the elf... inexplicably moonwalks 120 feet towards the back of the ship? And maybe also moves the half-orc?

As further evidence, both Control Body and Halt Undead are capable of rendering a character "immobile" simply by preventing the target from moving under its own power. While one might imagine an "immobile" forcecage being left behind by a moving airship, I find it a much greater stretch to picture Halt Undead causing vampire spawn to slide off the back of said airship as it flies out from under their feet.

Considering all this, I think it's worth mentioning that the Immovable Rod, to my knowledge the one thing that CAN explicitely ignore the grid's reference frame in favor of absolute position, completely avoids the term "immobile" within its own rules... perhaps an indication that the "immobile" term is somehow inappropriate for the rod's behaviour.

tl:dr "immobile" should be resolved relative to the movement grid otherwise some rules break

jere7my

2013-12-22, 07:35 PM

The problem is internal consistency. The magic of the world is already established to be rules-based. Rules-based means subject to laws, and consistent in application. But the kind of miracle exceptions required to magically make such a world hold still in violation of the laws of motion would have to contradict each other in differing circumstances. You either have to make a NEW UNIQUE rule for every molecule, or you can do the much or reasonable thing and simply say that the rules by which the magic works parallel the rules of physics with only the deviations specific to the magical applications you want to portray.

I think you're placing too many restraints on magic. There are plenty of ways for magic to get around the limits you propose:

1) One set of rules for the surface of the world, another for the heavens. (Many early cultures believed this.)

2) Wizard magic obeys rules because the wizards, with great mental discipline, bend it to their wills—but that's only one percent of one percent of the magic in the world. Most magic is mysterious and impossible to describe logically, and natural philosophers can only throw up their hands and sigh.

3) The sun and moon and stars are all living beings, following their own predestined paths across the sky.

4) What we perceive as momentum and acceleration due to gravity are actually caused by daemons of motion, which leap into objects as soon as people let go of them. The heavens have very different daemons.

Magic is magic. It can obey natural laws, Brandon Sanderson-style, if you want it to, but it can just as easily violate logic, causality, and the equivalence principle.

Jay R

2013-12-22, 08:00 PM

If a player asked me a question about inertia, frames of reference, or any equivalent physics term, I would respond with, "That's a good question. Who does your character ask?"

If the question is one that a person in a fantasy world would not understand, then they will never find anybody who can answer it.

But the forcecage on the deck of a ship will work fine anyway.

Ridureyu

2013-12-23, 02:13 AM

There is nothing we won't fight about in this comic.

Souhiro

2013-12-23, 03:52 AM

In Pathfinder, the forcecage would remain stationary. Rope Tricks, Mage's Magnificent Mansions, Teleportation Circles and such are stationary in the planet they're cast.

That would mean that you cannot cast spells in the space... but in the other hand, I don't want to GM a "Pathfinders in Space" game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87LihSBjNYo)

Or do I?

Back to the topic. The Giant has his own ruleset, his own story and EVERYTHING. Now, the geekery has determined V's Int Bonus I think that he will be drained, or buffed, just to mess with everybody and keep the mistery.

In truth, I would rather prefer to know if there will be more jokes about V's gender in the future, than V's Int bonus! We all know that he has superhuman int...

Amphiox

2013-12-23, 10:36 AM

I think you're placing too many restraints on magic. There are plenty of ways for magic to get around the limits you propose:

1) One set of rules for the surface of the world, another for the heavens. (Many early cultures believed this.)

2) Wizard magic obeys rules because the wizards, with great mental discipline, bend it to their wills—but that's only one percent of one percent of the magic in the world. Most magic is mysterious and impossible to describe logically, and natural philosophers can only throw up their hands and sigh.

3) The sun and moon and stars are all living beings, following their own predestined paths across the sky.

4) What we perceive as momentum and acceleration due to gravity are actually caused by daemons of motion, which leap into objects as soon as people let go of them. The heavens have very different daemons.

Magic is magic. It can obey natural laws, Brandon Sanderson-style, if you want it to, but it can just as easily violate logic, causality, and the equivalence principle.

It isn't the number of possibilities one has to get around such problems, it is that there are too many, and some contradict each other. As an author/world builder, if you go that route, you have to keep all your magic miracle exceptions straight so they don't end up conflicting and wrecking your narrative construct. It is often far easier to use a single set of rules, ie the laws of physics, which have already proven their ability to run a self-consistent world through a 13 billion year trial run.

It isn't that one can't go that route as an author/world-builder, only that it is often unwise to do so. Some of the biggest narrative errors that ruin plots, where the author accidentally introduces a plot-breaking power/ability, and then has to recon why his characters could not use it, arise from this kind of error.

Amphiox

2013-12-23, 10:58 AM

True. The point I was trying to make it isn't impossible and therefore has to be at least acknowledged. But personally I consider a trap weaves from the fabrics of reality to be a different category from a bag of holding. The snarl isn't in another dimension, it's trapped in this dimension. I'm not arguing it as an absolute that world is stationary, just that it isn't an absolute that it moves.

Sorry, I meant inertial frame of reference. All of what you mention can happen with a stationary world, but the math behind the laws to predict them would be a lot more complex.

Actually, the math itself isn't any more complex. Because what actually happens is that the equations for the one reference frame always reduce to become the equations for the other reference frame (and it was this equivalence in equations that proved there was no privileged reference frame in the universe).

It is like solving the equation 1+1=2 by calculating 1+(9x6)-(3x4)-(11x4)+3=2. The same complexity is inherent in the math in both cases, but you have a choice of an easier way to do the calculation by cancelling out terms before calculating it, whereas forcing a stationary reference frame commits you to actually calculating the canceled terms first.

Basically, the modern physics concept of relative reference frames boils down to this: we have a single set of equations/math for calculating motion, and that equation can be expressed in different ways depending on what we decide beforehand will be our stationary reference frame. Instead of setting any particular reference frame as a privileged stationary reference frame, we decide instead to just use whatever reference frame produces the version of the equation that is easiest to solve, for that particular task.

So if you want to calculate the motion of a baseball, or an airplane, you use the earth as a stationary reference frame. If you want to calculate the path of a Mars probe, you use the sun as a stationary reference frame. If you want to figure out the path of a hyper velocity star, you use the galaxy as a reference frame, and so forth.

But it is inherent in the original equation that everything must be moving relative to everything else. The stationary reference fame is an arbitrary construct used to make the form of the equation easier to solve.

jere7my

2013-12-23, 01:53 PM

It isn't the number of possibilities one has to get around such problems, it is that there are too many, and some contradict each other. As an author/world builder, if you go that route, you have to keep all your magic miracle exceptions straight so they don't end up conflicting and wrecking your narrative construct. It is often far easier to use a single set of rules, ie the laws of physics, which have already proven their ability to run a self-consistent world through a 13 billion year trial run.

1) There aren't a lot of ways for "one set of rules on earth, another in the heavens" to generate inconsistencies, particularly if the characters are going to stay on earth.

2) Consistency is not always desirable when talking about magic. If magic is weird and incomprehensible, contradictions may be part of the point, especially if you like messing with your readers. See M. John Harrison's Viriconium.

3) Insisting on consistency and adherence to physical laws often creates more problems than it solves. See this very discussion: if you want forcecage to obey the laws of physics, all of a sudden the conversation gets very complicated. If you say "It does what makes intuitive sense to the Lords of Magic," it's very short.

4) Ignoring 1-3, if you do want rigid consistency, your argument stands any time you write any kind of speculative fiction. Deviation from reality can always produce unintended consequences, and writers need to be aware of them. It's always easier to leave things the way they are. You're not making an argument against changing the rules; you're making an argument in favor of taking the easy path in worldbuilding.

Copperdragon

2013-12-23, 03:16 PM

Btw, Forcecages are a pretty reliable way to lock snakes up if you transport them via air. Just saying...

Fish

2013-12-23, 03:52 PM

konradknox

2013-12-23, 04:12 PM

I would let the caster decide which point he wants to bind the forcecage to? Duh. Seems obvious to me. The caster is the one in control of weaving the spell's specifics.

Katuko

2013-12-23, 04:32 PM

If force is not affected by gravity, then answer this: a level 1 caster is on the stern of a ship that is 110 feet long. The ship is moving 60 feet per round. He casts Magic Missile at a target on the bow.

His range for the spell is 110 feet. The target is in range when he casts. But the target is also continuously moving at 60 feet per round, with the ship. The instant the spell leaves his fingertips the target has moved out of range. So, do you say "the spell hits, even though this means the missile travels beyond its maximum range," or do you say "the spell misses because force is not affected by inertia?"

It hits. Magic Missile is an instantaneous spell, and goes from the caster's hand and to the target in the same action that it is cast. If the target was to go next in the round but dies from the damage, they cannot act - the Magic Missile event is resolved before anything else gets to occur. Even if the motion of the ship did have an effect on objects atop the game grid, the movement would not be applied to Magic Missile. It would be applied to any objects still hovering above the deck at the end of the round, but not those that resolved their flight within the course of a single round.

Still, I don't think the motion of the grid would have anything to say in practice. A wizard can likely choose to place their forcecage in mid-air (if they ask the DM first), but the in-game rules will pretty much require you to anchor it to a specific section of the grid no matter what sort of terrain that grid symbolizes.

Kish

2013-12-23, 04:38 PM

I would let the caster decide which point he wants to bind the forcecage to? Duh. Seems obvious to me. The caster is the one in control of weaving the spell's specifics.
That powers up the spell a lot, doesn't it?

"I cast Forcecage."
"All right, but you realize the enemy wizard can either disintegrate it or teleport out of it with ease--"
"Not on him. Right to the west of him. And it's stationary as the planet moves."

Fish

2013-12-23, 04:46 PM

So that implies any ranges spell has an effectively infinite upper limit on speed, depending on the number of people acting in a single round — the caster casts fast enough, and the missile travels fast enough, to hit and take effect before the next person takes action. Depending how many combatants there are, the necessary lower limit can vary. And yet that suggests that Reflex bonuses should not apply, since nobody could ever dodge a spell that was cast in a 1/100th of a second and traveled to its destination like a laser.

I don't really think the physics logic of "immobile object" is very useful, as you can see. Applying logic to the gaming system is silly.

The Extinguisher

2013-12-23, 05:43 PM

Whatever makes the game more fun?
Seems like a pretty simple solution to this entire thread.

Meph

2013-12-23, 06:27 PM

So that implies any ranges spell has an effectively infinite upper limit on speed, depending on the number of people acting in a single round — the caster casts fast enough, and the missile travels fast enough, to hit and take effect before the next person takes action. Depending how many combatants there are, the necessary lower limit can vary. And yet that suggests that Reflex bonuses should not apply, since nobody could ever dodge a spell that was cast in a 1/100th of a second and traveled to its destination like a laser.

Well yes, spells actually work that way. If a goblin has his initiative-turn right after my wizard and my wizard happens to kill him with Magic Missile, than the goblin won't play his turn after mine. He will be already dead when he should. He would have a saving throw during my turn right when I cast Magic Missile, if the spell would allow that, not in his turn.

PhallicWarrior

2013-12-24, 12:05 PM

Coming at this as a GM and not a physicist, I'd rule that it's stationary relative to the dominant reference point (as the Giant seems to have ruled it). To deal with the spell being used to (say) destroy airships in flight, I'd just rule "The spell isn't indestructible, because having a spell that can destroy airships and that nonspellcasting classes can't interact with in any way while spellcasters need only cast ONE spell (disintegrate or one of the innumerable variants of teleport) to escape is just poor game design.

Skorj

2013-12-25, 04:19 PM

None of them needs an actual surface to stand on: since they have no mass (Prysmatic Wall is made of light, and Force doesn't have depth), gravity cannot pull them downward to any floor.

They don't have matter, but they do have mass (gravity affects both light and "force"). Fun fact: most of the mass of everyday stuff (95% or so, IIRC) comes from the forces holding particles together, not the particles themselves.

Meanwhile, in a game, "stationary" obviously means stationary relative to the battle map, which is the only frame of reference that really matters. :smalltongue: Otherwise you have to keep shifting stuff across the map every round - what a hassle.

SiuiS

2013-12-25, 05:17 PM

That is demonstrably not true, however, of this setting, the setting of The Order of the Stick, since we have seen the planet and it is neither flat nor immobile.

But it is not demonstrably true of all games, which is what the tangential statement was about. Or at least not the OOTSverse. :)

Copperdragon

2013-12-25, 05:57 PM

That is demonstrably not true, however, of this setting, the setting of The Order of the Stick, since we have seen the planet and it is neither flat nor immobile.

Actually, we do not know about the mobility of the planet. The flatness or roundness of the planet is not an issue here, it makes no difference for the forcecage if we have a flat or round planet.
For all we know the plane the planet is on could consist of not more than the planet, a moon, stars fixed to the sky and the sun, rotating around the planet. Based on the fact that the plane was actually created for the planet it is very likely the OotS planets are the center of it (stationary) and everything else is revolving around that.
That surely makes more sense than creating a fully blown solar system in your plane while you only need the planet (and as god you do not even need that, D&D is full of oddly shaped places where people live on/in planes (e.g. ringworlds, actual plane planes, ...).

orrion

2013-12-25, 06:30 PM

Actually, we do not know about the mobility of the planet. The flatness or roundness of the planet is not an issue here, it makes no difference for the forcecage if we have a flat or round planet.
For all we know the plane the planet is on could consist of not more than the planet, a moon, stars fixed to the sky and the sun, rotating around the planet. Based on the fact that the plane was actually created for the planet it is very likely the OotS planets are the center of it (stationary) and everything else is revolving around that.
That surely makes more sense than creating a fully blown solar system in your plane while you only need the planet (and as god you do not even need that, D&D is full of oddly shaped places where people live on/in planes (e.g. ringworlds, actual plane planes, ...).

Or the solar system is just there and needs no mention or elaboration because it never becomes part of the story.

Happens all the time.

Copperdragon

2013-12-26, 03:39 AM

Yes. But we do not know. What I'm talking about: Just because the current plane is filled with a planet it does not mean it has to work like we are used from planets (like moving and everything).

Keltest

2013-12-26, 09:12 AM

Yes. But we do not know. What I'm talking about: Just because the current plane is filled with a planet it does not mean it has to work like we are used from planets (like moving and everything).

True, but its far easier to operate under the assumption that physics work more or less like normal (albeit with much more weeping in the corner). If they don't, any discussion involving that topic is pointless because there are so many other ways how it could work, and we have no indication of which it is.

Reddish Mage

2013-12-26, 09:29 AM

True, but its far easier to operate under the assumption that physics work more or less like normal (albeit with much more weeping in the corner). If they don't, any discussion involving that topic is pointless because there are so many other ways how it could work, and we have no indication of which it is.

The laws of physics for Stickverse? Hmm start with the player's handbook, get a DMG, make up the rest on the fly, and while you do that realize the Laws of Mechanics are mere suggestions.

orrion

2013-12-26, 11:10 AM

Yes. But we do not know. What I'm talking about: Just because the current plane is filled with a planet it does not mean it has to work like we are used from planets (like moving and everything).

We should assume it does unless told otherwise.

Rather like we assume the comic operates loosely under 3.5 rules, unless shown otherwise.

Snails

2013-12-26, 11:47 AM

The rules as written do not use language that makes sense when dealing with vehicles. If I wanted to be extremely literal minded, when you are standing on a ship you provoke attacks of opportunity every round because you are moving while threatened.

The Forcecage question is just one of a host of issues a DM must deal with non-stupidly to make adventuring on a ship not suck.

Jay R

2013-12-26, 03:41 PM

True, but its far easier to operate under the assumption that physics work more or less like normal (albeit with much more weeping in the corner).

Of course. But since the issue at hand is precisely how much weeping in the corner is going on, and since we know at least one person conversant with the universe files physics books under fiction, this assumption is known to be false, and to be specifically irrelevant to the discussion.

Keltest

2013-12-26, 03:59 PM

Jay R

2013-12-26, 04:17 PM

I think I understood that, but just to make sure, are you or are you not saying that there is evidence that, magic aside, the laws of physics in the OOTS universe are not the same? and if not, what are you saying?

Nothing so weak.

I'm saying that any discussion of physics in the OOTS universe with the disclaimer "magic aside" is wrong, and known to be wrong - as meaningless as trying to understand the physics of our world "thermodynamics aside".

In the OOTS universe, matter is not conserved; energy is not conserved, momentum is not conserved, entropy can be decreased, etc. You have to start with the idea that matter and energy don't work like it does here.

Reddish Mage

2013-12-26, 04:22 PM

Of course. But since the issue at hand is precisely how much weeping in the corner is going on, and since we know at least one person conversant with the universe files physics books under fiction, this assumption is known to be false, and to be specifically irrelevant to the discussion.

In all seriousness, for the purposes of a serious philosophical discussion of the physics of a fantasy universe, there probably is such laws, simply in that it feels much more natural to imagine such laws existing (I would file V's boasts as irrelevant to that determination, V can also break the fourth wall). Prima facie it seems those laws could be radically different, and just because there seems like there has to be such laws, does not mean they need to come together neatly (sure we like it better if we can imagine they do). I do not think there is a problem from a stand point of pure mathematical logic with imagining there are miracles, and exceptions, or a hierarchy of laws of physics, magic, deep magic, or even intelligences that have veto power over the laws.

I think its nicer to imagine more complicated laws of physics and magic and perhaps intelligent control of some forces of nature, rather than just saying some things work continually without making any sense at all in a fantasy world where things don't work by the regular laws of physics.

So different physics + less weeping in corner = more happy universe.

Keltest

2013-12-26, 04:25 PM

Nothing so weak.

I'm saying that any discussion of physics in the OOTS universe with the disclaimer "magic aside" is wrong, and known to be wrong - as meaningless as trying to understand the physics of our world "thermodynamics aside".

In the OOTS universe, matter is not conserved; energy is not conserved, momentum is not conserved, entropy can be decreased, etc. You have to start with the idea that matter and energy don't work like it does here.

Magic doesn't follow the rules, but that doesn't mean that the rules don't exist. If at any point you go "we don't know whats happening here" and there isn't magic involved, the laws of physics from our world are the only fallback we have. If we cant use those, then discussion becomes pointless, because we really don't have anything else that even remotely comes close to possibly filling in the gaps.

Yes, when magic is involved (and story, apparently) things don't work like normal. But that doesn't mean that when magic ISNT involved that things are still crazy and inconsistent.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-12-26, 04:28 PM

Jay R

2013-12-26, 07:32 PM

I agree, it seems weird to say "the rules never apply, throw them out entirely" because they don't apply in specific (that is, explicitly magic) situations. They can't sit down and shut up if they don't exist.

That's a misstatement of my position.

The laws of physics in our universe cannot work unless matter and energy are conserved universally. Since matter and energy are not universally conserved, then the laws of physics of our universe are not the underpinnings of the OotS one.

Keltest

2013-12-26, 07:37 PM

That's a misstatement of my position.

The laws of physics in our universe cannot work unless matter and energy are conserved universally. Since matter and energy are not universally conserved, then the laws of physics of our universe are not the underpinnings of the OotS one.

I don't think youre understanding the concept of "magic breaks the rules"

Magic isn't applied science or anything, it has its own rule set independent of the normal laws of physics.

CapnCoconuts

2013-12-26, 07:49 PM

Forcecages on a plane

Enough is enough! I have had it with these mother****in' forcecages on this mother****in' plane! :smallbiggrin:

Seriously though, I'd have it be immobile relative to the surface it is cast on (or, if it isn't cast on a surface, it would be immobile relative to any object with a significant gravitational pull on it).

rodneyAnonymous

2013-12-26, 08:07 PM

That's a misstatement of my position.

No, but like, the only things that break the laws of physics are magic spells and effects. I have always played "like reality unless otherwise noted" and I am pretty sure that is extremely common.

orrion

2013-12-26, 10:39 PM

That's a misstatement of my position.

The laws of physics in our universe cannot work unless matter and energy are conserved universally. Since matter and energy are not universally conserved, then the laws of physics of our universe are not the underpinnings of the OotS one.

Magic breaks the laws of physics. It doesn't supplant them.

The fact that Feather Fall exists and can negate gravity's influence didn't stop Roy from going splat when he fell.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-12-26, 11:09 PM

The fact that Feather Fall exists and can negate gravity's influence didn't stop Roy from going splat when he fell.

Nor does it stop gravitational force being generated by the planet's mass. (Which is, as far as I know, never contradicted in D&D generally or this strip specifically... "like reality unless otherwise noted" IMO.) Agree: matter and energy are conserved in the OotS world, but magic is capable of breaking those rules.

Stuff like casting wall of force (except not that spell, it must be cast on a flat plane) on a vehicle to make a battering ram seems legit to me, but depending what you hit with it, that seems likely to crush the vehicle. A stationary forcecage in the air to damage a moving ship? Not sure exactly, if it were my game I guess the attempt would work but the ship would smash the cage.

jere7my

2013-12-26, 11:14 PM

Magic breaks the laws of physics. It doesn't supplant them.

Magic can of course supplant the laws of physics, if that's what the author is going for. Maybe gravity functions; maybe people are pulled to the ground by invisible earth-binding daemons. If you want to talk about a world in which various medieval theories for things are actually true, you certainly can.

If what you're talking about is something the characters don't have any direct interaction with—celestial mechanics, atomic structure—then there's even more leeway. There's no reason to assume the stuff in the heavens is anything like the stuff in ours; in fact, that's not the default assumption in some editions of D&D. (It's all crystal spheres and aether.) There's no reason to assume water is made of hydrogen and oxygen; in fact, that's probably not a good assumption, given the existence of the elemental planes.

orrion

2013-12-27, 12:12 AM

Magic can of course supplant the laws of physics, if that's what the author is going for. Maybe gravity functions; maybe people are pulled to the ground by invisible earth-binding daemons. If you want to talk about a world in which various medieval theories for things are actually true, you certainly can.

If what you're talking about is something the characters don't have any direct interaction with—celestial mechanics, atomic structure—then there's even more leeway. There's no reason to assume the stuff in the heavens is anything like the stuff in ours; in fact, that's not the default assumption in some editions of D&D. (It's all crystal spheres and aether.) There's no reason to assume water is made of hydrogen and oxygen; in fact, that's probably not a good assumption, given the existence of the elemental planes.

What I'm talking about is that the physical laws exist on that world except when magic is employed to circumvent them. That is the assumption everyone ought to be going with because the alternative is basically a nitpick war where nobody can be right anyway.

Reddish Mage

2013-12-27, 01:14 AM

What I'm talking about is that the physical laws exist on that world except when magic is employed to circumvent them. That is the assumption everyone ought to be going with because the alternative is basically a nitpick war where nobody can be right anyway.

Except that doesn't work in a D&D universe because extraordinary abilities are explicitly non-magical and explicitly violate the laws of physics. I can't comment on Psionics. Some magics create impossible things that continue to function (forcecages in standard D&D is one example, undead too) in an anti-magic field. And the elemental and positive and negative planes canonically have a role to play in establishing how the natural order functions.

Let's not even get started on deities and whether they might actually control phenomenon. I note that by word of Giant, everyone who dies of old age dies by a process that can't be physics. That isn't a rare exception, it is meant to be a commentary of how the gods are running the place.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-12-27, 01:19 AM

Extraordinary abilities (and magic, and so on) are explicitly noted exceptions. Like reality unless noted. Nothing to do with rarity.

jere7my

2013-12-27, 01:24 AM

Extraordinary abilities (and magic, and so on) are explicitly noted exceptions. Like reality unless noted.

Things like giant animals not obeying the square-cube law aren't explicitly noted exceptions.

Reddish Mage

2013-12-27, 01:28 AM

I've had conversations with philosophers who claim that the laws of physics are logically necessary, or that some other system cannot be conceptually accepted. I've never got an explanation that doesn't sound like simply asserting it.

The alternative to not having the laws of physics is...we don't know. We do know that more or less the same sorts of stuff happen in this other world. If a 1st level child commoner pitches a ball it will move in a pretty realistic. Why do we need to assume the full laws of physics? Why can't we say we get something that looks a lot like them and leave it at that?

rodneyAnonymous

2013-12-27, 01:32 AM

Things like giant animals not obeying the square-cube law aren't explicitly noted exceptions.

Yes they are: impossible animals are explicitly noted to exist in that universe. Everything a dragon can do is potentially an explicitly noted exception to reality. This seems like a strange attitude for approaching many works of fiction; do physics not exist in the Harry Potter universe, because it includes physically impossible (non-magic) elements?

Rodin

2013-12-27, 01:41 AM

Generally speaking, I find that if you're analyzing the physics behind a fantasy story, you're missing the point. The same thing is true of Sci-Fi to a lesser extent. Dragons not being able to exist due to Square Cube Law? Magical field that allows them to ignore that. Fireballs not following Conservation of Energy? A Wizard Did It. The entire universe being merged with a machine intelligence and ascending to a new plane of existence? Space Magic. Space Magic not realistic enough for you? Clarke's Third Law!

Like reality unless noted merely means that you can assume gravity, eating, injuries, etc., happen in a way consistent with real life unless shown otherwise. If the author tells you it works otherwise, it works otherwise. If the author shows you by having a honking great dragon flying around, you assume that the dragon is able to do that. You don't then extrapolate that gravity doesn't work the way it should - it works the way it normally does on everything but the dragon.

And even that is thinking about it way more than the author probably did.

Ridureyu

2013-12-27, 01:46 AM

Personally, I like watching The Lord of the Rings and saying, "That's unrealistic! There's no such thing as elves!"

Reddish Mage

2013-12-27, 01:47 AM

Yes they are: they are noted to exist in that universe. This seems like a strange attitude for approaching most fiction in general; do physics not exist in the A Midsummer Night's Dream universe, because it has faeries?

As far as when we should abandon the laws of physics (or any other science) that is a good question. Does Sherlock Holmes have DNA? How does Superman fly?

D&D universes make it easy in that the books are actually canonically telling us there is a alternative system in place. All life moves by a animating spirit that is connected to the astral plane. Matter is held together by their association with the elemental planes. There iare elemental planes. Except in Rich's world there is usually four main one.

jere7my

2013-12-27, 01:54 AM

Yes they are: they are noted to exist in that universe. This seems like a strange attitude for approaching most fiction in general; do physics not exist in the A Midsummer Night's Dream universe, because it has faeries?

Giant animals exist in D&D, but nobody goes around saying, "Good heavens, Mordenkainen, that giant scorpion doesn't obey the square-cube law!" which is what I thought you meant by "explicitly noted". If someone were to try to formulate the square-cube law in a D&D world, what would they come up with? If people establish laws through observation of the world around them, the "laws of physics" just couldn't be the same as the laws in our world.

If you're approaching a created magical world, I don't see why you would make any assumptions about the laws of physics there. It depends entirely on the author's intent. If you were to make assumptions about Middle-Earth being round, you might be led astray.

Edit: Or if your DM tells you, "There's a large lizardlike creature on the other side of the chasm, which looks like it weighs about (whatever) pounds, with wings, the surface area of which total about (hum de hum) square feet," and you start scribbling on a piece of paper to determine whether it can fly across the chasm, you're not only doing it wrong, you're about to get eaten. If you can't apply the laws of physics to make generally applicable predictions, then they're not the laws of physics. You can say things work the way they do in our world until they don't, but that doesn't get you anywhere, because there's no way to say where "they don't" starts.

Reddish Mage

2013-12-27, 02:06 AM

In the Superman example I would note that Superman is supposed to be flying by regular physics thanks to his species' biological reaction to yellow sun radiation. This is true even though the manner in which Superman flies breaks physical laws in severe ways. A fictional character that happens to break the laws of physics in a universe in which the character's abilities are canonically applications of the same laws of physics, is involved in a contradiction. There is something non-sensical in modern day superhero stories, much worse than a D&D universe which has it's own way of doing things.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-12-27, 02:08 AM

Giant animals exist in D&D, but nobody goes around saying, "Good heavens, Mordenkainen, that giant scorpion doesn't obey the square-cube law!" which is what I thought you meant by "explicitly noted".
No, what I mean is (in the case of D&D) "anything written in any rulebooks you're using".

If someone were to try to formulate the square-cube law in a D&D world, what would they come up with?
I think they'd come up with the square-cube law, but with a bunch of inexplicable exceptions to how it applies. The entire D&D canon isn't that long, it might not be an enormous number.

You know what bugs me? The variable-length seasons in A Song of Ice and Fire. Not only is that totally impossible, agriculture depends on being able to predict the seasons, civilization would never develop if you couldn't do it without one. I have an easier time suspending my disbelief about zombies existing. I don't know exactly what an astronomer investigating the solar system in that universe would come up with, but probably like reality unless noted (in the books, in that case).

jere7my

2013-12-27, 02:17 AM

I think they'd come up with the square-cube law, but with a bunch of inexplicable exceptions to how it applies.

That seems tricky. I can't imagine trying to come up with Snell's Law while surrounded by materials that don't obey it, or the quadratic formula if the numbers five through eight were simultaneously even and odd and couldn't be written down in anything but the blood of a norker.

Edit: In our world, if you find a repeatable exception to a scientific law, the law is deemed wrong and you start digging into why. I don't see why that would be different in a D&D world (assuming they had the scientific method). If their exceptions are different from ours, then their laws would have to be different from ours as well. Ipso facto, QED.

You know what bugs me? The variable-length seasons in A Song of Ice and Fire. Not only is that totally impossible, agriculture depends on being able to predict the seasons, civilization would never develop. I have an easier time suspending my disbelief about zombies existing. I don't know exactly what an astronomer investigating the solar system in that universe would come up with, but probably like reality unless noted (in the books, in that case).

Martin has answered this question. It's magic. Can't imagine why that would bother anyone, but de gustibus.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-12-27, 02:20 AM

Martin has answered this question. It's magic. Can't imagine why that would bother anyone, but de gustibus.

The fact that it's impossible is by far my lesser complaint. It's fine if it's magic, though that's a pretty dramatic departure from reality. The civilization thing is bothersome. But that was just setup for an analogy with the mathematician working out the square-cube law: what would an astronomer see in that solar system? Planets orbiting a sun, perhaps. If it's not mentioned, it's like reality.

D&D is kind of different because all the players are creating scenarios that didn't exist before, and interpreting the rules to figure out how the stuff that's not mentioned works. That's what DMs are for. And conversations like this one.

Wereboar_It

2013-12-27, 04:59 AM

I, for me, would have had the Forcecage breaking the ship or getting far from it, remaining still in comparishon with the ground.

:vaarsuvius: " ...and that would be wrong"

In your assumption, the forcecage would be still compared to the surface of a planet, but the poor psion inside would keep moving.

The planet rotates at different speeds according to latitude: Italy rotates at roughly 1180km/h.

Terminal speed for a falling human body is about 150km/h, so assuming falling from a moving zombie dragon deals you 20d6 damage, being put in a Forcecage would deal you roughly eight times that amount.

Copperdragon

2013-12-27, 08:23 AM

You know what bugs me? The variable-length seasons in A Song of Ice and Fire. Not only is that totally impossible, agriculture depends on being able to predict the seasons, civilization would never develop if you couldn't do it without one. I have an easier time suspending my disbelief about zombies existing. I don't know exactly what an astronomer investigating the solar system in that universe would come up with, but probably like reality unless noted (in the books, in that case).

Sideshow:
That is not a Problem of ASoIaF, but a problem of the TV show which went on to shoot the areas beyond the Wall in Iceland and not like in Scandinavia. That was very stupid. The areas north of the wall look more like the forest Craster lives in and there agriculture and hunting & gathering is very possible. If you see "lots of ice" in the TV show, just imagine they are actually in some colder climate forest.
We're not talking about "Broken physics/science in a fantasy setting", we're talking "TV producers do something silly with the source material because they wanted to go to Iceland".

rodneyAnonymous

2013-12-27, 04:47 PM

You are mistaken.

Copperdragon

2013-12-27, 05:41 PM

You are mistaken.

Awesome contribution? Care to outline whom you answer to and in regard to what?

rodneyAnonymous

2013-12-27, 05:48 PM

Uh the seasons are unpredictable and variable-length in the books, that's a pretty major plot point.

Copperdragon

2013-12-27, 06:28 PM

Err... I somewhat doubt I spoke about that.

Kish

2013-12-27, 06:30 PM

Err... I somewhat doubt I spoke about that.
That was all rodneyAnonymous said in the post you initially responded to, so that post of yours would seem to amount to, "Err... I'm reasonably sure my initial response to you was a complete non-sequitur."

orrion

2013-12-27, 06:45 PM

Err... I somewhat doubt I spoke about that.

That's why you're mistaken. rodney was talking about the BOOKS. You were talking about the tv show.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-12-27, 07:02 PM

That seems tricky. I can't imagine trying to come up with Snell's Law while surrounded by materials that don't obey it, or the quadratic formula if the numbers five through eight were simultaneously even and odd and couldn't be written down in anything but the blood of a norker.

You wouldn't be surrounded by exceptions. The number of D&D animals (etc.) with physiology that obeys the square-cube law is vastly larger than the number of animals with physiology that doesn't obey it. Plus, that's a mathematical principle (if you say double the height of something three dimensional, you square its surface area, and cube its volume), how it applies to animal bodies isn't part of the rule. The exceptions would be to how the rule applies, not to the rule itself. Physicists in this universe derive rules with few or no exceptions to how they apply; physicists in the D&D universe would (IMO) derive the same rules but with many exceptions to how they apply.

An analogy might be Gregor Mendel's study of heredity: there are lots of exceptions to Mendel's laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance#Mendel.27s_laws), and we are lucky that he happened to be looking at traits that don't violate them, or he would never have figured any of it out. The existence of exceptions to a rule doesn't prevent finding out what the rule is. If he hadn't been (by chance!) looking at traits with Mendelian inheritance, somebody else would have discovered them eventually, they'd be called something else, and the field of genetics would probably be set back by however long that took.

In D&D, the number of things that explicitly violate the real-world laws of physics (i.e. a lot of stuff mentioned in rulebooks) is a tiny fraction of the number of things that don't (i.e. everything else). It is worthwhile to discuss how the former might interact with the latter; the counter-claim appears to be that this is all a waste of time because magic, but I don't think so. Those are interesting questions.

jere7my

2013-12-27, 08:03 PM

In D&D, the number of things that explicitly violate the real-world laws of physics (i.e. a lot of stuff mentioned in rulebooks) is a tiny fraction of the number of things that don't (i.e. everything else). It is worthwhile to discuss how the former might interact with the latter; the counter-claim appears to be that this is all a waste of time because magic, but I don't think so. Those are interesting questions.

First of all, a lot more stuff in D&D rulebooks violates real-world physics than you seem to be acknowledging. Very little about the D&D rules models real-world physics. Depending on the edition, even the weight of the money doesn't make a lot of sense.

But that's not really important. You can, of course, discuss whatever you enjoy discussing, but I don't find anything interesting about reconciling magic with physics. I prefer to assume that ordinary events in a D&D world happen more or less as they would in our world, but the unstated underpinnings are entirely different—macro-Newtonian mechanics yes, relativity and QM no. Four elements, crystal spheres, flying dragons—none of it is compatible with physics or chemistry, and all of it is fundamental to the conception of D&D. It just doesn't seem like digging down into the laws will lead anywhere compelling, because magic.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-12-27, 08:39 PM

First of all, a lot more stuff in D&D rulebooks violates real-world physics than you seem to be acknowledging.
That's not true. Even if every single detail in the D&D canon violates real-world physics (and I don't think that), it would only be a few thousand pages.

It just doesn't seem like digging down into the laws will lead anywhere compelling, because magic.

It doesn't interest you? Fine. It shouldn't interest other people? Um...

jere7my

2013-12-27, 08:59 PM

That's not true. Even if every single detail in the D&D canon violates real-world physics (and I don't think that), it would only be a few thousand pages.

But the implications filter through to every aspect of the world. The existence of half-elves implies a lot of weird things about genetics in a D&D world, for instance, if you think genetics should have some kind of relevance. If you put every exception in its own little corral, you're going to end up with more exceptions than agreements.

It doesn't interest you? Fine. It shouldn't interest other people? Um...

Pretty sure I said you could discuss whatever you want to discuss; that should go without saying. I think it's a waste of time, because as soon as you scratch the surface of D&D physics you run into irreconcilable contradictions, and every time I've seen people going down that rabbit hole over the last thirty years that's where they've ended up. I prefer to treat magic like magic, and not try to reconcile it with the real-world laws I'm familiar with. But you keep on discussing it, if it gives you joy; I'll keep on discussing it in the framework I prefer.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-12-27, 09:28 PM

But the implications filter through to every aspect of the world. The existence of half-elves implies a lot of weird things about genetics in a D&D world...

No, they don't. There are way (way) more full humans and elves than there are half-elves. The existence of half-elves means that is an exception to real-world genetics, not that all genetics works differently, unless it says so somewhere authoritative. Even if there are lots of exceptions: For instance Star Trek aliens should not be able to produce offspring with humans, but it is otherwise intelligible to treat that universe as being like this one (especially if the difference is not mentioned anywhere).

Pretty sure I said...

I ignored the "you can discuss whatever you want" comment because adding "...but I think it's nonsense" is extremely patronizing, and has a significant effect on the meaning of the comment.

Please note that no (or not much, anyway) antagonism is meant to be implied by my posts. :)

warrl

2013-12-27, 10:29 PM

How about the "immobile" effect being immobile relative to the frame of reference most relevant (in terms of the action) to its location - with the note that under some circumstances that can change?

Your modified-forcewall is attached to the bow of your ship and immobile relative to your ship, but that mountain is charging straight toward the modified-forcewall and if it hits it's going to become the most relevant frame of reference...

Copperdragon

2013-12-28, 09:31 AM

That's why you're mistaken. rodney was talking about the BOOKS. You were talking about the tv show.

This is leading nowhere and it's OT to begin with, but I also talk about the books (books vs. TV show in specific).
The show has it more icy than the books do, therefore, the odd impression we get from the areas north of the wall where Jon Snow is shown all the time is not at fault of the books' author. What we're seeing in the show resembles more the very harsh parts of the Frostfangs or the Lands of Always Winter, both are not where the majority of Wildlings do live and gather. This leads to silly scenes as the Watch randomly digging around in the snow and unearthing the obsidian shards or the question "What do the Wildlings, a civilisation in the 100.000s, eat all the time and where and how do they actually live?"
If you want to discuss this feel free to PM me or give me a link to a thread outside of the OotS section of this forum.

orrion

2013-12-28, 11:14 AM

This is leading nowhere and it's OT to begin with, but I also talk about the books (books vs. TV show in specific).
The show has it more icy than the books do, therefore, the odd impression we get from the areas north of the wall where Jon Snow is shown all the time is not at fault of the books' author. What we're seeing in the show resembles more the very harsh parts of the Frostfangs or the Lands of Always Winter, both are not where the majority of Wildlings do live and gather. This leads to silly scenes as the Watch randomly digging around in the snow and unearthing the obsidian shards or the question "What do the Wildlings, a civilisation in the 100.000s, eat all the time and where and how do they actually live?"
If you want to discuss this feel free to PM me or give me a link to a thread outside of the OotS section of this forum.

There's no point in discussing it in PMs. Just a) be more clear next time and b) don't wander off into TV show anecdotes when the guy you're addressing isn't talking about the TV show.

Jay R

2013-12-28, 03:14 PM

I don't think youre understanding the concept of "magic breaks the rules"

I do understand that. I don't think you understand the fact that if universal forces aren't universal then their very nature is completely, 100% inconsistent with the laws of physics.

Magic isn't applied science or anything, it has its own rule set independent of the normal laws of physics.

The weird part isn't that magic makes impossible things happen, the weird, inexplicable part is that in a universe in which that is even possible, so much of what happens is nonetheless similar in gross effect to what happens under universal laws.

Consider gravity. Either every particle in the universe exerts the exact same level of force on every other particle, universally at a level that at all times varies inversely with the square of their distance, or they don't, in which case every single gravitational equation is wrong through and through.

No, they don't. There are way (way) more full humans and elves than there are half-elves. The existence of half-elves means that is an exception to real-world genetics, not that all genetics works differently,...

The fact that there could be exceptions at all is the greatest change that throws out everything we know about genetics.

Nor does it stop gravitational force being generated by the planet's mass. (Which is, as far as I know, never contradicted in D&D generally or this strip specifically... "like reality unless otherwise noted" IMO.) Agree: matter and energy are conserved in the OotS world, but magic is capable of breaking those rules.

They are conserved except when they are not is the same thing as saying "they are not conserved".

All physics equations require that universal forces are universal. If a force is not universal, then its cause and effects are not what they are in our world.

You can pretend that they are in your D&D universe, but that doesn't change the fact that it cannot be reconciled with how physical laws are seen to operate. If you haven't had much graduate physics, then you can ignore this and pretend otherwise, but "physical laws act like in our world except when magic makes an exception" is the same as "physical laws act in a way completely irreconcilable to the way they work in our world."

That's why the introduction to a universe I recently ran included the following:

In a game in which stone gargoyles can fly and people can cast magic spells, modern rules of physics and chemistry simply don’t apply. There aren’t 92 natural elements, lightning is not caused by an imbalance of electrical potential, and stars are not gigantic gaseous bodies undergoing nuclear fusion. Cute stunts involving clever use of the laws of thermodynamics simply won’t work. Note that cute stunts involving the gross effects thereof very likely will work. Roll a stone down a mountain, and you could cause an avalanche. But in a world with teleportation, levitation, and fireball spells, Newton’s three laws of motion do not apply, and energy and momentum are not conserved. Accordingly, modern scientific meta-knowledge will do you more harm than good. On the other hand, knowledge of Aristotle, Ptolemy, medieval alchemy, or medieval and classical legends might be useful occasionally.

orrion

2013-12-28, 04:25 PM

In a game in which stone gargoyles can fly and people can cast magic spells, modern rules of physics and chemistry simply don’t apply. There aren’t 92 natural elements, lightning is not caused by an imbalance of electrical potential, and stars are not gigantic gaseous bodies undergoing nuclear fusion. Cute stunts involving clever use of the laws of thermodynamics simply won’t work. Note that cute stunts involving the gross effects thereof very likely will work. Roll a stone down a mountain, and you could cause an avalanche. But in a world with teleportation, levitation, and fireball spells, Newton’s three laws of motion do not apply, and energy and momentum are not conserved. Accordingly, modern scientific meta-knowledge will do you more harm than good. On the other hand, knowledge of Aristotle, Ptolemy, medieval alchemy, or medieval and classical legends might be useful occasionally.

Cool. For starters, I never need to eat or drink. Those were annoying restrictions anyway.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-12-28, 04:31 PM

The fact that there could be exceptions at all is the greatest change that throws out everything we know about genetics.

No there are many exceptions to how genetics is "supposed to work". Physics, not so much, but you are generalizing exceptions to the rules to imply that all of the rules are completely different, which I don't think is the most rational interpretation. It is still simpler to interpret "impossible" phenomena as specific exceptions, even if there are hundreds of them.

jere7my

2013-12-28, 04:44 PM

Cool. For starters, I never need to eat or drink. Those were annoying restrictions anyway.

No, you still need to eat and drink, just as Aristotle did. The reasons why may be different.

Kish

2013-12-28, 04:47 PM

There are no rules for tummyaches!

orrion

2013-12-28, 05:02 PM

No, you still need to eat and drink, just as Aristotle did. The reasons why may be different.

Thermodynamics don't apply, so that means energy is created. I just create my own.

jere7my

2013-12-28, 05:31 PM

Thermodynamics don't apply, so that means energy is created. I just create my own.

You seem sort of frustrated by the idea that a fantasy world might operate under a different set of rules.

People got hungry before they knew about thermodynamics, just as things fell to the earth when they dropped them and the stars appeared to move across the sky. They came up with other explanations for why those things happened. They turned out to be wrong in our world, but in a fantasy world they could well be right. That doesn't mean anything can happen at any time in a fantasy world; it means the rules are different. You can create your own food with a third-level cleric spell, but you probably can't do so just by willing it. (On the other hand, if you're a golem, then yeah, you don't need to eat.)

Seems pretty straightforward to me; where am I losing you?

orrion

2013-12-28, 05:44 PM

You seem sort of frustrated by the idea that a fantasy world might operate under a different set of rules.

People got hungry before they knew about thermodynamics, just as things fell to the earth when they dropped them and the stars appeared to move across the sky. They came up with other explanations for why those things happened. They turned out to be wrong in our world, but in a fantasy world they could well be right. That doesn't mean anything can happen at any time in a fantasy world; it means the rules are different. You can create your own food with a third-level cleric spell, but you probably can't do so just by willing it. (On the other hand, if you're a golem, then yeah, you don't need to eat.)

Seems pretty straightforward to me; where am I losing you?

People got hungry before thermodynamics because the law was still operating even if it wasn't defined by humans yet. Entropy was still happening before humans defined the concept. Gravity still happened before we observed and named it.

You are specifically saying that a law doesn't operate anymore. So I should be able to do things - like create energy - that are impossible because of that law.

jere7my

2013-12-28, 05:48 PM

People got hungry before thermodynamics because the law was still operating even if it wasn't defined by humans yet. Entropy was still happening before humans defined the concept. Gravity still happened before we observed and named it.

You are specifically saying that a law doesn't operate anymore. So I should be able to do things - like create energy - that are impossible because of that law.

As I said, you can—just gain five cleric levels. Or five wizard levels; fireball certainly violates thermo. Heck, just learn a cantrip.

The point is that the rules that don't apply are replaced with rules that do. It's not a free-for-all; if thermo doesn't govern your dietary needs, then some other rule does. You can't create energy just by deciding to; you have to follow the rules that replace thermodynamics.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-12-28, 05:57 PM

Exceptions to a rule do not imply the rule is incorrect. They imply an exception to the rule.

Magic breaks the laws of physics. Some other stuff too. Inexplicably, dragons can fly. Physics equations do not require that the laws of physics are universal, but evidently that is true in this universe, all observations (including those of very distant galaxies) are consistent with what would be expected if physical laws are universal. That doesn't have to be true in a made-up world. It makes sense to assume things work like they do in this world, especially if the thing is not mentioned anywhere.

It is simply not true that "if you find a repeatable exception to a scientific law, the law is deemed wrong and you start digging into why". But a model with more explanatory power (you might say "explains the exceptions") might be favored; that's a big part of why relativity theory replaced Newtonian mechanics.

jere7my

2013-12-28, 06:08 PM

Exceptions to a rule do not imply the rule is incorrect. They imply an exception to the rule.

Nor do they imply that the rule is correct. You can go either way. It's up to the DM. (That said, in the real world, in the sciences, an exception to a physical law does indeed imply that the law needs revision. That's the fundamental basis of all science.)

Magic breaks the laws of physics. Some other stuff too. Inexplicably, dragons can fly.

And humans and elves can interbreed, as can humans and orcs. And forty-foot praying mantises exist. And certain people can repeatably survive falls from arbitrary heights. And certain others can be killed by housecats. And there are four(ish) elements. And the planet sits in the middle of a crystal sphere filled with aether. And gods exist.

It is simply not true that "if you find a repeatable exception to a scientific law, the law is deemed wrong and you start digging into why". But a model with more explanatory power (you might say "explains the exceptions") might be favored; that's a big part of why relativity theory replaced Newtonian mechanics.

It is absolutely, 100% true. No scientist would say that Newtonian mechanics are fundamentally correct; they would say that they approximately explain most of what we observe in our day-to-day lives, but not that they are "right." Finding out where scientific laws are wrong, and correcting them, is what science does.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-12-28, 06:15 PM

...in the real world, in the sciences, an exception to a physical law does indeed imply that the law needs revision. That's the fundamental basis of all science.

Argh no, absolutely not :) An exception to a rule implies that the rule is an incomplete description of reality. No human descriptions of reality are complete. All explanations always need revision, though many explanations are "good enough for now". That kind of implies absolute certainty is possible, which is nearly the antithesis of the basis of modern science.

Please excuse the appeal to authority, but it kind of seems like you are implying I don't know what I'm talking about, and my understanding of philosophy of science is fairly sophisticated.

jere7my

2013-12-28, 06:19 PM

Argh no, absolutely not :) An exception to a rule implies that the rule is an incomplete description of reality. No human descriptions of reality are complete. All explanations always need revision, though many explanations are "good enough for now".

That's true. Even so, once sets of observations have been repeated enough times, theories do become codified as laws: the laws of thermodynamics, e.g. If something were repeatedly observed to violate the laws of thermodynamics, those laws would indeed be deemed "wrong" (after some decades of debate, no doubt), and would indeed need revision.

I'll go to Wikipedia for this one:

A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law (emphasis mine)

rodneyAnonymous

2013-12-28, 06:30 PM

The added emphasis seems to exactly agree with my point and exactly disagree with yours.

jere7my

2013-12-28, 06:36 PM

The added emphasis seems to exactly agree with my point and exactly disagree with yours.

I said "an exception to a physical law does indeed imply that the law needs revision." The quote says "a law...may be found false when extrapolated." Those appear to be compatible. The quote doesn't appear to be compatible with your statement, "Exceptions to a rule do not imply the rule is incorrect." The rule is certainly incorrect ("found false"), though it may still be approximately correct in specific circumstances.

If we were to accept that the scientific method works in a D&D world (which is by no means a given), and we sent some scientists there, they would not watch a fireball and then say, "Oh, hey, the laws of thermodynamics still work here, except I guess there's magic. Time for tea." They would say, "The laws of thermodynamics, which we previously thought were universal, are violated in certain circumstances here, just as Newtonian mechanics are violated in certain circumstances back home. How can we expand and revise the law to account for those circumstances, as Einstein did?"

orrion

2013-12-28, 07:48 PM

As I said, you can—just gain five cleric levels. Or five wizard levels; fireball certainly violates thermo. Heck, just learn a cantrip.

The point is that the rules that don't apply are replaced with rules that do. It's not a free-for-all; if thermo doesn't govern your dietary needs, then some other rule does. You can't create energy just by deciding to; you have to follow the rules that replace thermodynamics.

You haven't told me what those rules are.

(Yes - I would be asking you for a complete explanation of the rules of your universe. Not an outline as in the post you gave.)

jere7my

2013-12-28, 08:33 PM

You haven't told me what those rules are.

(Yes - I would be asking you for a complete explanation of the rules of your universe. Not an outline as in the post you gave.)

One would not be forthcoming. In a game, your PC wouldn't fully understand the rules, and in a book the characters wouldn't. If a particular rule were likely to be important, I would probably explain it beforehand, unless discovering the rules were part of the point.

Sometimes, magic is supposed to be mysterious.

orrion

2013-12-28, 08:50 PM

One would not be forthcoming. In a game, your PC wouldn't fully understand the rules, and in a book the characters wouldn't. If a particular rule were likely to be important, I would probably explain it beforehand, unless discovering the rules were part of the point.

Sometimes, magic is supposed to be mysterious.

That sounds suspiciously like a cop out.

I'm not asking for an explanation of magic. Just an explanation of the laws of your universe. If I'm a player and I don't understand them, you could jackass me at any point while citing one of them.

jere7my

2013-12-28, 09:22 PM

That sounds suspiciously like a cop out.

I'm not asking for an explanation of magic. Just an explanation of the laws of your universe. If I'm a player and I don't understand them, you could jackass me at any point while citing one of them.

Well, if you don't trust your DM, there's not much point in playing with them. Discovering the rules can be a big part of the point. Even Brandon Sanderson, who's all about rules-based magic, made discovering the rules of magic a major part of his Mistborn series. In gaming, knowing what's going on at the start of a game of Call of Cthulhu can take all the fun out of it.

Snails

2013-12-28, 10:21 PM

That sounds suspiciously like a cop out.

I'm not asking for an explanation of magic. Just an explanation of the laws of your universe. If I'm a player and I don't understand them, you could jackass me at any point while citing one of them.

Yes and no. If you are playing 11th level characters, as a DM I work make some effort so that you not unnecessarily confused by the results of 6th level or lower spells. But if you are facing a 15th level caster, you may get surprised by customizations of upper level spells, and I do not owe any explanation. (If someone with the right skill ranks wants to spend a month in a well-stocked library, I would offer appropriate rewards.)

warrl

2013-12-28, 10:47 PM

There are multiple forces. The rules of one force apply (the complex interactions of electromagnetic forces inside atoms that cause conventional explosions to work) except when they are overwhelmed by a much more powerful application of some other force (the applications of the strong nuclear force that cause nuclear explosions to work). Sometimes multiple sets of rules apply because multiple forces are at very-roughly-similar levels of power - for example rockets have to deal with gravity, but it isn't gravity that enables them to fly.

A D&D world typically works on a rough approximation of the usual real-world forces and their normal rules, adapted (among other things) to a turn-based system, except when those forces are trumped by application of more powerful forces. Just like the real world. However, nuclear explosions and the strong nuclear force are typically not an active issue in D&D worlds; instead they have another force (or possibly more than one other force) called "magic", and perhaps yet another force called "psionics".

orrion

2013-12-28, 11:43 PM

Well, if you don't trust your DM, there's not much point in playing with them. Discovering the rules can be a big part of the point. Even Brandon Sanderson, who's all about rules-based magic, made discovering the rules of magic a major part of his Mistborn series. In gaming, knowing what's going on at the start of a game of Call of Cthulhu can take all the fun out of it.

All the physical laws still exist in Mistborn. In fact, Ironpulling and Steelpushing are still based on the laws of physics. In the first book Kelsier explicitly tells Vin to "avoid Push-matches with people who weigh more than you."

So.. that series seems like a bad example for your point.

jere7my

2013-12-29, 12:03 AM

All the physical laws still exist in Mistborn. In fact, Ironpulling and Steelpushing are still based on the laws of physics. In the first book Kelsier explicitly tells Vin to "avoid Push-matches with people who weigh more than you."

So.. that series seems like a bad example for your point.

As I said, I mentioned Sanderson specifically because his magic system is rigidly rule-based. Even someone who attempts to base his magic on the existing physical laws, as you prefer, might not want to offer up all of the rules at the outset, as you demanded; it takes 3 or more books before most of the rules of Allomancy become clear to the reader. (And, of course, many of them violate our physical laws left and right. Conserving momentum while violating thermodynamics is giving the nod to real-world physics without actually obeying them.)

My overall point is that Sanderson's method is not the only or best way of dealing with magic. My specific point here is that even he, on the opposite side of the debate from me, doesn't provide the reader with "a complete explanation of the rules of [his] universe" up-front, as you asked for.

orrion

2013-12-29, 12:22 AM

As I said, I mentioned Sanderson specifically because his magic system is rigidly rule-based. Even someone who attempts to base his magic on the existing physical laws, as you prefer, might not want to offer up all of the rules at the outset, as you demanded; it takes 3 or more books before most of the rules of Allomancy become clear to the reader. (And, of course, many of them violate our physical laws left and right. Conserving momentum while violating thermodynamics is giving the nod to real-world physics without actually obeying them.)

I don't even think Sanderson is particularly egregious in taking a while to define his magic system.

For example, it took forever before we had a working knowledge of channeling in The Wheel of Time. Channeling might not be quite as rules based, but there were all sorts of "can't do this with the Power" or limitations (such as lifting yourself or the length of bridges made with Air) that we didn't learn until like book 7, there were all kinds of "females-or-males-can-do-this-but-the-other-one-can't" (men couldn't link without women, women could link up to 13 but needed men to go further, men could take heat into themselves but women couldn't, women could heal severed men to 100% power but could only imperfectly heal women and vice versa). Oh, and then Androl comes out of nowhere in the last couple books and breaks the rules about gateways.

In fact, I'd argue that Sanderson's system of Allomancy is easier to intuit and understand. Later on it gets more complex because he keeps adding metals to the system, but the basic 8 are simple enough. I'd even go so far as to say a working knowledge of physical laws improves the understanding of the two most complicated usages, which are Ironpulling and Steelpushing).

Besides - and most importantly - we still have a basis for comparison in that Sanderson's world still follows physical laws, except where Allomancy trumps them. In the system you've outlined for your game, it's more like "there's this set of universal laws, but you've got no idea what they are or how they operate." A guy playing in Sanderson's world would know that if he fell from a great height, he'd die. A guy playing in your world apparently doesn't know that - he's flying totally blind.

jere7my

2013-12-29, 12:41 AM

I don't even think Sanderson is particularly egregious in taking a while to define his magic system.

He's not egregious about it; he just doesn't do it in a preface.

Besides - and most importantly - we still have a basis for comparison in that Sanderson's world still follows physical laws, except where Allomancy trumps them. In the system you've outlined for your game, it's more like "there's this set of universal laws, but you've got no idea what they are or how they operate." A guy playing in Sanderson's world would know that if he fell from a great height, he'd die. A guy playing in your world apparently doesn't know that - he's flying totally blind.

First off, I haven't outlined anything about a specific game; I'm talking generally about ways to handle magic. You might have me confused with another poster (possibly Jay R).

Second off, I'm not sure how you derived from my posts the idea that nobody in a world based on something other than our physical laws would have any idea how gravity would affect them. I said a couple of times that it's not a free-for-all, that basic day-to-day activities would probably look more or less like they do in our world even if the mechanisms are all alchemy and lumniferous aether and sympathy and spontaneous generation. The people of the middle ages (or whenever) got through life more or less successfully without knowing what the universal laws are; they knew not to jump from steeples, just not why. They knew the moon would cycle back to full in a month, but they didn't know why. And if the moon one month failed to return, or they jumped off a steeple and flew instead of falling—they wouldn't know why.

Third off, anybody with more than 120 hit points won't die upon falling from a great height in D&D. For anybody with more than 20, a mile-high fall may or may not be lethal, depending on how the dice roll. So a guy playing in "my" world would indeed not know whether a great fall would kill him, provided "my" world is D&D and he's mid-level or higher.

Jay R

2013-12-29, 10:36 AM

Thermodynamics don't apply, so that means energy is created. I just create my own.

Yes, of course. That's what the cleric spell "Create Food and Water" does.

But you are making the unwarranted assumption that because mass and energy can be created in some circumstances that therefore your character can do so at any time, at will. That's like discovering that TNT explodes in our world, and deducing that you can generate fireballs at will. "It can happen" does not imply "you have the power to make it happen at will".

You are specifically saying that a law doesn't operate anymore. So I should be able to do things - like create energy - that are impossible because of that law.

Because a specific universal law is not the mechanism of the universe doesn't mean that there aren't mechanisms in the universe.

Yes, there are ways to create energy - flight, levitate, fireball, teleport (if going up), etc. If your character can cast those spells, then you can do those things - up to the limits of those spells.

But because those spells exist, we know that the universal laws of the D&D universe are not consistent with the universal laws of our universe. Lightning Bolt alone proves that electricity is not merely traveling electrons according to the laws we know, or you'd need a source for that many electrons. Levitation or Feather Fall proves either that gravity is not the universal attraction of matter, or that mass or energy is not conserved.

There are clearly laws at work - but they are different.

In my world, for instance, the seven planets are the moon, Mercury, Venus, the sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn - just as Ptolemy tells us.

In my game, Suppose a player tried to say "Thermodynamics don't apply, so that means energy is created. I just create my own." I would respond with, "OK, how do you plan to do this?" Casting the correct spell will work. Something else might work. I'd be impressed if somebody came up with something using phlogiston theory. But they can't use modern physics, which doesn't apply, and they can't simply say, "I just create my own."

Reddish Mage

2013-12-29, 10:49 AM

Yes, of course...

Yes, there are ways to create energy - flight, levitate, fireball, teleport (if going up), etc. If your character can cast those spells, then you can do those things - up to the limits of those spells.

Um...not necessarily. There's nothing in the spell descriptions that claim energy is being created. I've read in numerous other contexts explanations that claim spellcasters are merely using mana or some such to transform energy from one form to the other.

Magic works in such a regular and predictable fashion in D&D that it fits the definition of a science, with its own laws. It clearly is manipulating the elemental forces that make up the world originating from the inner planes.

Jay R

2013-12-29, 11:10 AM

Exceptions to a rule do not imply the rule is incorrect. They imply an exception to the rule.

They imply that the universal law is not a universal law. If gravity is not the constant, universal attraction of all matter in the universe, then all our equations are wrong. Our equations cannot work in a universe with Fireballs, teleports, etc.

If matter or energy is created out of nothing, or charge is not conserved, virtually everything we think we know about matter and forces in the universe will be proven wrong. There will still be laws of the universe, of course, but all our equations will be as wrong as Ptolemaic astronomy - a good, useful approximation, known to be false.

If Lightning Bolts are possible at any time by a wizard who has memorized the spell, then electricity is not a flow of electrons from a high potential to a lower one, or it would have gone off the first time the wizard approached any possible target.

Magic breaks the laws of physics. Some other stuff too. Inexplicably, dragons can fly. Physics equations do not require that the laws of physics are universal, but evidently that is true in this universe, all observations (including those of very distant galaxies) are consistent with what would be expected if physical laws are universal.

Therefore, the laws of physics of our universe are irreconcilable with the laws of physics in D&D, which is the point being made.

That doesn't have to be true in a made-up world. It makes sense to assume things work like they do in this world, especially if the thing is not mentioned anywhere.

It is simply not true that "if you find a repeatable exception to a scientific law, the law is deemed wrong and you start digging into why". But a model with more explanatory power (you might say "explains the exceptions") might be favored; that's a big part of why relativity theory replaced Newtonian mechanics.

That is the perfect example to prove the opposite of your point. Relativistic results are not exceptions to Newtonian laws; they disprove Newtonian laws. Newtonian mechanics are now known to be mere approximations. Approximations close enough that we cannot measure the difference at low speeds, but incorrect nonetheless.

But the crucial thing is that those approximations work fine at the times and places and speeds in which they were discovered, which is not true in a D&D world. Where Levitation is cast, the laws of gravity simply aren't working like they were earlier.

So F = G x m1 x m2 / r^2 is not the universal law of gravitation.

Levitation, Feather Fall, and Flight spells (including the flight of dragons) cannot work at all under our laws of gravity. Therefore the laws of a D&D universe are not the laws of our own.

The law "F = G x m1 x m2 / r^2 unless Vaarsuvius tells it to go sit in the corner and cry" is not a modification to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation; it's proof positive that there is not a Law of Universal Gravitation. Also, it doesn't work unless every casting of one of those spells is also (very slightly) affecting the orbits of planets, since the pull of earth on a falling PC is the same force on the moon's orbit.

The funny thing is that I'm not entirely sure we disagree. My main point is that the equations for our physics make local changes to universal laws impossible. Therefore, those laws are not what's happening in the D&D universe, even if they may be a close enough approximation for general use when there are no magic, monsters, or inter-species breeding going on.

orrion

2013-12-29, 12:07 PM

Therefore, the laws of physics of our universe are irreconcilable with the laws of physics in D&D, which is the point being made.

The existence of magic has no impact on the existence of the laws of physics, though. In every instance you cite those laws are merely being bypassed. They don't stop existing nor is there evidence that other laws (aside from those of magic itself) exist in their place. The physical laws are being temporary overruled rather than completely removed.

I file this under "suspension of disbelief" - the idea that the laws of our world can be transcended.

You apparently file it under something else.

Jay R

2013-12-29, 12:25 PM

The existence of magic has no impact on the existence of the laws of physics, though. In every instance you cite those laws are merely being bypassed. They don't stop existing nor is there evidence that other laws (aside from those of magic itself) exist in their place. The physical laws are being temporary overruled rather than completely removed.

I file this under "suspension of disbelief" - the idea that the laws of our world can be transcended.

You apparently file it under something else.

I don't "file it" at all. I try to analyze it.

Let's take a simple example. Haley is falling. Vaarsuvius casts Feather Fall, and she slows down.

Now, either the actual laws of physics actually apply, until the spell is cast, or they don't.

You seem to believe that they apply, which means that Haley is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons, as is the earth. They all attract each other according to the formula F = G x m1 x m2 / r^2, because all matter does at all times, or the universe would not work.

When the spell is cast, does Haley become lighter, or does the earth become lighter, or do the particles in the earth stop having an effect on the particles in Haley? And in any of the cases, how does that happen? what happens to the universal forces, including the ones holding the bodies together?

The answer is that we see a result that cannot be explained on the assumption that up to that second, the earth and Haley are composed of elementary particles that have these specific properties.

Whatever is happening until the spell is cast, it cannot be explained by the equations and relationships as we know them.

Besides - and most importantly - we still have a basis for comparison in that Sanderson's world still follows physical laws, except where Allomancy trumps them. In the system you've outlined for your game, it's more like "there's this set of universal laws, but you've got no idea what they are or how they operate." A guy playing in Sanderson's world would know that if he fell from a great height, he'd die. A guy playing in your world apparently doesn't know that - he's flying totally blind.First off, I haven't outlined anything about a specific game; I'm talking generally about ways to handle magic. You might have me confused with another poster (possibly Jay R).

Agreed - and he's wrong about my world. I specifically wrote "Cute stunts involving clever use of the laws of thermodynamics simply won’t work. Note that cute stunts involving the gross effects thereof very likely will work. Roll a stone down a mountain, and you could cause an avalanche." (emphasis added.)

These words made it clear that orrion's silly guesses about my world are just made-up nonsense.

Things that work in a medieval fantasy will work in my world. Attempting to use modern scientific knowledge your character doesn't have will not work.

"Hey, look - this is all wrong. When Twoflower said they'd got better kind of magic in the empire I thought- I thought..."

The imp looked at him expectantly. Rincewind cursed to himself. "Well, if you must know, I thought he didn't mean magic. Not as such."

"What else is there, then?"

Rincewind began to feel really wretched. "I don't know," he said. "A better way of doing things, I suppose. Something with a bit of sense in it. Harnessing - harnessing the lightning, or something.

The imp gave him a kind but pitying look. "Lightning is the spears hurled by the thunder giants when they fight," it said gently. "Established meteorological fact. You can't harness it."

"I know," said Rincewind miserably. "That's the flaw in the argument, of course."

halfeye

2013-12-29, 12:40 PM

Reddish Mage

2013-12-29, 12:43 PM

Aren't you forgetting the bit in where the Giant falls and doesn't die, because max falling damage is not enough to kill someone?. Even without "magic" you get an impossible creature, doing something impossible, and then something impossible happens.

orrion

2013-12-29, 01:36 PM

Agreed - and he's wrong about my world. I specifically wrote "Cute stunts involving clever use of the laws of thermodynamics simply won’t work. Note that cute stunts involving the gross effects thereof very likely will work. Roll a stone down a mountain, and you could cause an avalanche." (emphasis added.)

These words made it clear that orrion's silly guesses about my world are just made-up nonsense.

What exactly do you classify "roll a stone down a mountain and you could cause an avalanche" as? That sounds like a pretty good example of "made-up nonsense" to me.

Kish

2013-12-29, 01:40 PM

I believe "roll a stone down a mountain, and you could cause an avalanche" is meant to be an example of something a world with magic has in common with the real world, not of a non-magic-based divergence.

Jay R

2013-12-29, 03:13 PM

What exactly do you classify "roll a stone down a mountain and you could cause an avalanche" as? That sounds like a pretty good example of "made-up nonsense" to me.

Made up nonsense? That's one way avalanches actually start. One rock hits another, both keep rolling and hitting more, etc.

You wrote the following, that you made up yourself.

In the system you've outlined for your game, it's more like "there's this set of universal laws, but you've got no idea what they are or how they operate." A guy playing in Sanderson's world would know that if he fell from a great height, he'd die. A guy playing in your world apparently doesn't know that - he's flying totally blind.

This was entirely made up. You have no evidence that people in my game are "flying blind", or that they've "got no idea what they are or how they operate."

You made it up. Nothing I wrote said that. You even made up the part you put in quotation marks, which were not in fact a quotation.

So I provided an actual quote - the exact words I wrote - to prove that my players were not flying blind, and that they could expect the gross effects of natural laws to work as expected.

And by the way - the game was original D&D - there were no rules for falling damage.

warrl

2013-12-30, 07:51 PM

Let's take a simple example. Haley is falling. Vaarsuvius casts Feather Fall, and she slows down.

Now, either the actual laws of physics actually apply, until the spell is cast, or they don't.

You seem to believe that they apply, which means that Haley is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons, as is the earth. They all attract each other according to the formula F = G x m1 x m2 / r^2, because all matter does at all times, or the universe would not work.

When the spell is cast, does Haley become lighter, or does the earth become lighter, or do the particles in the earth stop having an effect on the particles in Haley?

None of the above.

Other forces - from those (one or more) forces that collectively are labelled "magic" - are applied to offset the effect of gravity. Gravity is still in full effect, but there is also this other thing that acts - only on Haley and her gear - much like gravity but in the opposite direction. It keeps Haley from accelerating to a dangerous speed, and also slows her rapidly (but safely) if she is already at a dangerous speed.

If you were to put a very-thick metal shock-absorbing plate directly under falling Haley and then explode a nuclear weapon under the plate (see Project Orion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion))), she would also cease to fall - and while gravity would remain in effect, it would be pretty much irrelevant to her trajectory for the next couple seconds. It's the same thing, but a more extreme example that would actually work in the real world.

And in any of the cases, how does that happen? what happens to the universal forces, including the ones holding the bodies together?

In this specific use of the magic force (no comment on other uses), nothing happens to any of the universal forces, including those holding bodies together.

The answer is that we see a result that cannot be explained on the assumption that up to that second, the earth and Haley are composed of elementary particles that have these specific properties.

I didn't make any such assumption. I also didn't find it necessary to theorize that they are made in any other way. I simply assumed that magic is a fundamental force of the universe that can be selectively applied. (Which is pretty much what makes it "magic".)

Whatever is happening until the spell is cast, it cannot be explained by the equations and relationships as we know them.

It certainly can. Simply by assuming that, when magic is NOT being applied, everything happens exactly as if magic is not being applied.

What's harder to explain is that Haley only falls during her turn - so Tarquin and V can spend several free actions talking, and then V can move to the window and cast the spell.

Meph

2013-12-30, 08:32 PM

Silly fact, neither in our world one can know if he's going to die when falling down. Somebody falls from a plane, and lives. Somebody else dies when falling from a bicycle. Any use from knowing the physics's laws? Do not fall, this one only.

Jay R

2013-12-30, 11:07 PM

It certainly can. Simply by assuming that, when magic is NOT being applied, everything happens exactly as if magic is not being applied.

If you believe that "The force between two bodies is always proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance between them" is not contradicted by "The force between two bodies is NOT always proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance between them", then our understandings of what a universal law means are sufficiently incompatible that further discussion won't serve any purpose.

I believe that exceptions to a universal law are not merely a major change to that law, but in fact make it not a universal law at all. Some people here do not.

We can each run our D&D worlds according to our understanding of physics. Mine, for instance, is an immobile earth, at the center of the universe, surrounded by the orbits of the seven planets and the fixed sphere. Many equations that work here would not work there. There's no reason other DMs have to do the same.

We have pretty much worked our way to the fundamental differences in our thought, and explained them for everyone's perusal. I think we're done here.

orrion

2013-12-31, 11:31 AM

Throknor

2013-12-31, 05:08 PM

If you believe that "The force between two bodies is always proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance between them" is not contradicted by "The force between two bodies is NOT always proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance between them", then our understandings of what a universal law means are sufficiently incompatible that further discussion won't serve any purpose.

I believe that exceptions to a universal law are not merely a major change to that law, but in fact make it not a universal law at all. Some people here do not.

We can each run our D&D worlds according to our understanding of physics. Mine, for instance, is an immobile earth, at the center of the universe, surrounded by the orbits of the seven planets and the fixed sphere. Many equations that work here would not work there. There's no reason other DMs have to do the same.

We have pretty much worked our way to the fundamental differences in our thought, and explained them for everyone's perusal. I think we're done here.
How about this: you're looking at the wrong law. For 'Feather Fall' in particular the question isn't 'How are the laws of gravity/attraction ignored?' it's 'How is Haley made as light as a feather?'. It still breaks thermodynamics at a molecular level, but gravity as a Law remains intact.

Or considering Leviate - the better question is 'where does the countering force come from?'. I can counter gravity with a simple magnet. Take a couple of electromagnets and a primitive tribe would be kneeling before you. If we somehow brought Isaac Newton forward his first thought on seeing a plane wouldn't be 'gravity is wrong!', it would be 'how does that produce a counter force for gravity?'.

So yes, magic overrides the normal laws of physics as we know them. But if one introduces an unknown mental force that we have yet to detect then we can have both magic shows when it is present and completely consistent physics when it's not. Heck, I think this was a theme of the Star Trek episode 'Who Mourns for Adonis', and I'm guessing if I wanted to take the time I could find a lot of analogous reasonings throughout science fiction.

And something that occurs to me in general is that spells used to require material components (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0220.html). To me it seems as a hand-wave to appeasing physical laws. For example, the fireball from bat guano could be argued out along the lines of a nuclear reaction of some kind controlled by the magic user's mental training. Lighting bolts required a bit of fur and glass to have a spark to expand. A stretch? Of course; but at least a hand-wave to why things work as they do.

Jay R

2014-01-01, 10:48 PM

How about this: you're looking at the wrong law. For 'Feather Fall' in particular the question isn't 'How are the laws of gravity/attraction ignored?' it's 'How is Haley made as light as a feather?'. It still breaks thermodynamics at a molecular level, but gravity as a Law remains intact.

Which is exactly my point. It breaks the laws of thermodynamics. "We can change the physical laws by force of will" is equivalent to "The physical laws are not the universal laws we know."

If we somehow brought Isaac Newton forward his first thought on seeing a plane wouldn't be 'gravity is wrong!', it would be 'how does that produce a counter force for gravity?'.

I take it you've never actually studied Newton's laws of motion. He would say, "Look, a man-made bird. The wings aren't flapping, so there must be a force pushing enough air out the back fast enough to propel it forward." Jets and props are based on Newton's laws; they don't violate them.

So yes, magic overrides the normal laws of physics as we know them.

Which is precisely my point. They are compleely different from universal laws that can't be overridden.

But if one introduces an unknown mental force that we have yet to detect then we can have both magic shows when it is present and completely consistent physics when it's not.

Not "a force we have yet to detect"; it's a force that can't be accounted for in the equations.

A wall with a door you can sometimes open is not the same as an unbroken wall that cannot be breached.

A field that only grows food sometimes is different from a field that never grows food.

And for the same reasons, "completely consistent physics" only part of the time is 100% completely inconsistent with physics as we know it.

orrion

2014-01-01, 11:30 PM

Copperdragon

2014-01-02, 03:43 AM

Which is exactly my point. It breaks the laws of thermodynamics. "We can change the physical laws by force of will" is equivalent to "The physical laws are not the universal laws we know."

The laws of thermodynamics are not laws per se. They are observations. Everything we see around us does not go against them, and when we think we found something that we were missing before, thus the laws formulated based on mere observations are true.

There's no fundamental principle that lets us formulate these laws as actual laws or even explain where they come from.

When you have an external source for energy, magic, I also see no violation at all in these laws anyway. If a Fireball explodes from "nothing" it violates the laws of thermodynamics. If "magic" provides the engery and momentum I do not see an issue at all. We just cannot grasp magic scientificly but I am very sure that is only because "magic" does not exist in the real world. If it did I am very certain that physicists would very quickly at publishing papers and formulating formulae about it.
Magic is not breach with science simply because it does not exist. And if it would exist, science would simply take it over as a new field (and possibly not even that, it would simply incorporate it into physics, chemistry and biology just fine).

ChristianSt

2014-01-02, 05:35 AM

@ all this "Magic violates the laws of thermodynamics":

It is quite possible that Magic in the form we normally encounter wold brake the laws of thermodynamics as we know. But even then? What is the problem with that?

First of all it might be possibly that there could be some sort of explanations that this somehow would work in the physical framework we know - I would bet against it, but to use another Law (Clarke's Law): "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - That's the third part, but the first one is even better in this situation: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

But even without saying it might be somehow possible, why can't media depict a world as "normal physics + X". So it might be possible that the OotS world is governed by normal physical laws, with some addition/alterations (most notable the whole magic thing plus another bunch of stuff needed to make HP/Levels/Classes and other stuff work the way they do). It is also possible (and more likely) that it is an actual stick figure world with stick-physics based on D&D-rules/mechanics. (I personally think that each magic should have some sort of underlying rules system, and should not simply just do whatever the author wants it to do. I doesn't need to be strictly formalized and he doesn't need to tell it - but if I have the feeling he can use magic as a DEM for whatever than it is just bad.)

I'm not that advanced in physics, but from my understanding it might even be possible that the laws of thermodynamics doesn't even apply in the way we know them. Just compare that to the mechanics. There are some set of laws that are somewhat true (and certainly thought to be true), but aren't really that true: Just look at something like Newton's laws of motions. It holds for a normal everyday look at it, but when you enter something like the quantum scale or special relativity it just isn't anymore valid in that form. It needs a series of addendum/fixes/changes.
So maybe will do something find special circumstances that will make it necessary to change the laws of thermodynamics.

BaronOfHell

2014-01-02, 05:56 AM

Is there really any observation one can deem impossible if those behind the observation have resources and knowledge beyond our comprehension? Light speed was long thought an impossible barrier to break, and even here there are suggestions of how to do so without violating the limits put by current physical observations and models governing these observations.
Isn't it an old saying that magic is indistinguishable from sufficient complex technology?

I like to think that the observation of any spell can be scientifically explained and reapplied. After all, what is science but the accounting of the rules of existence and is D&D not based on rules?

Throknor

2014-01-02, 09:35 AM

Jay R

2014-01-02, 12:24 PM

Clearly you think because they are called 'laws' they are immutable.

This is simply false. I think the laws musty be continuous to work as they work here because they are continuous here. I think Force equals mass x acceleration because I have studied the equations and know how they work. I know that velocity is the derivative of distance, and acceleration is the derivative of velocity, and have studied enough calculus to know why that implies continuity. Teleportation on the macroscopic level itself makes acceleration not the second derivative of distance, and therefore shows that the equations for motion don't apply consistently in a D&D world.

I suspect that I'm the only one in this discussion who has taught physics on the college level and math on the graduate level. I have seven engineering patents. It's simply not true that my understanding of the physics equations is based on the fact that they are called "laws".

In a D&D world, Earth, Air, Fire and Water are elements. In our world they are not.

In a D&D world, a Fireball works without fuel. In our world, fire cannot burn without fuel.

In a D&D world, a wizard can where a lightning bolt goes. In our world, lightning must go from the highest negative charge to the lowest.

In a D&D world, flesh can be turned into stone, and vice versa. In our world, this would require intra-nuclear changes that would absorb or emit so much energy that the entire nearby countryside would be changed forever. In one direction, it would cause a nuclear explosion.

The laws of physics in a D&D world are incompatible with the laws of physics in our world. That's all.

Why is this a problem for anybody?

BaronOfHell

2014-01-02, 01:10 PM

Teleportation on the macroscopic level itself makes acceleration not the second derivative of distance, and therefore shows that the equations for motion don't apply consistently in a D&D world.

Quantum entanglement has suggested the possibility of instant travel of information. Just because we've defined acceleration does not mean it makes sense in every aspect of the universe. Like position itself isn't necessarily applicable at quantum levels.

In a D&D world, a Fireball works without fuel. In our world, fire cannot burn without fuel.

In a D&D world, a wizard can where a lightning bolt goes. In our world, lightning must go from the highest negative charge to the lowest.

But is there really a lack of fuel, or even charge? One could argue the fire and lightning in D&D has nothing to do with the fire and lightning in the real world. It could also be argued that energy is transfered between one plane and another, and this energy is what fuels the processes seen.

The laws of physics in a D&D world are incompatible with the laws of physics in our world. That's all.

To me, the problem is that you claim something impossible. I do not disagree that D&D works on different rules than the modern world, merely that it can't possible operate on rules governing our world is what I don't agree with.

Amphiox

2014-01-02, 01:36 PM

In a D&D world, Earth, Air, Fire and Water are elements. In our world they are not.

Actually, this is not true. What is actually the case is that the definition of the word "element" in the D&D world is not the same as the scientific definition of the word "element" is in the real world. Instead D&D is using a colloquial archaic definition of the word "element". There are Earth, Air, Fire and Water Elementals in D&D, but all substances in the D&D universe are not made up of, nor can they be broken down into, constituent components consisting solely of Earth, Air, Fire and Water, and each of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are not indivisible with respect to maintenance of chemical properties (which would be the scientific definition of the word "element").

In a D&D world, a Fireball works without fuel. In our world, fire cannot burn without fuel.

We don't actually know that. It is possible that the spell provides fuel for the fire through magical means, perhaps even channeling it from another plane. (The existence of planes in the D&D universe allows for local violations of conservation of mass/energy without global/multiplanar violations of the same)

In a D&D world, a wizard can where a lightning bolt goes. In our world, lightning must go from the highest negative charge to the lowest.

Again we do not know this. It is possible that in the casting of the lightning spell, what the wizard actually does is magically change the charge in the vicinity of his target to the lowest, and magically raise the charge around himself to the highest, within the local area.

The laws of physics in a D&D world are incompatible with the laws of physics in our world. That's all.

This too is actually not true. What actually is the case is that D&D (and really, all other fantasy worlds) has a specific set of defined rules which disregard known laws of physics (they may or may not be in compliance, but when they were invented no one really bothered or cared to check), but *everything else* still follows the known laws of physics.

Sharp weapons cut. Blunt weapons crush. Armor protects from damage. Arrows have a maximum range. Thrown objects move in parabolic arcs. Things fall. Water flows downhill. Living things are born, grow old, and die. Light reflects off surfaces.

What the D&D world is, is a specific set of "miracle exceptions" tacked *on top of* the regular laws of physics. Thus, in general, the D&D world is actually fully compliant with the known laws of physics, except in the specific instances where the rules mention an exception (and when it comes down to it, that constitutes a tiny minority of everything that has to be happening to make such a world "run"). And it has to be. If it were actually in true violation of the known laws of physics, then literally everything that happens within it, from the interactions of atoms on up, would be utterly incomprehensible to humans, and we wouldn't be able to play games, design campaigns, or write fiction about it.

Why is this a problem for anybody?

What does one mean by "problem"? Some people enjoy speculating about how alterations of the rules of physics might work. It is really just an extension of the standard human instinct for scientific thought, which some of us are more inclined to than others. Basically, one observes something, and then tries to figure out the *reasons* that what one observes is the way it is, and not some other way. This is the foundation of all human science. Some people enjoy applying the same exercise to fictional settings. Except in this instance, we have a set of pre-defined rules with which we can compare what we observe to, and sometimes we can see what appears to be contradictions.

The same happens all the time in real life. When we observe apparent contradictions, it can either be because the actual rules are different than what we think they are, and figuring this out advances science, or it is because we aren't interpreting our observations correctly. In a D&D universe, we posit that the rules as written must be correct and final, so only the second option is possible. Thus the exercise is to figure out how to interpret the observation to make it compliant with the rules.

Of course anyone can just handwave it away and say "it's magic", but that's not the point. Because some people enjoy this speculative exercise. We do it for fun.

Because we like to.

Because we want to.

That's all there is to it.

Amphiox

2014-01-02, 01:41 PM

Isn't it an old saying that magic is indistinguishable from sufficient complex technology?

Clarke's Laws:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from god.

The reverse is also true:

Any sufficiently defined magic system is indistinguishable from science.

(Science in the general term, as a process, and not specifically the science as it is in the real world)

jere7my

2014-01-02, 01:42 PM

Clearly you think because they are called 'laws' they are immutable. It has already been observed they break down on the quantum level. Using Occum's Razor it is much simpler to say the world tOOtS live in has an extra, unknown force that can be mentally controlled before it manifests than it is to say our known observations are completely incompatible.

Here's one problem with that: Detect magic could presumably be used to detect that force (unless some kind of shielding were going on). Giant preying mantises are impossible, but they don't ping a detect magic. That means the "magical force" is not actively engaged in supporting their massive weight; it has to be something, for want of a better word, "natural." If there were something else keeping them from crumpling in a pile of chitin, someone would be able to detect it.

Beyond that, D&D worlds have four(ish) elements, crystal spheres and aether in the heavens, and so on. It's simpler, Occam-style, to assume that D&D rules have fundamentally different "pulp fantasy physics" under the hood, which make things that would be impossible in our world possible. Life in a dull human village would be a close approximation of life in our world, but the farther you get from "normal", the less like our world the physics become (like the closer you get to relativistic speeds in our world, the poorer an approximation Newton's Laws are). This makes a giant preying mantis startling to a callow farmhand from the sticks—even if he doesn't know the square-cube law, and can't explain why it's impossible, he knows something weird is going on when he sees a 40-foot mantis.

If you want a D&D world based on our physics with exceptions, that's fine, but the exceptions will cover most of reality (the heavens, the inner and outer planes, and loads of things right on your home planet).

Keltest

2014-01-02, 01:48 PM

Here's one problem with that: Detect magic could presumably be used to detect that force (unless some kind of shielding were going on). Giant preying mantises are impossible, but they don't ping a detect magic. That means the "magical force" is not actively engaged in supporting their massive weight; it has to be something, for want of a better word, "natural." If there were something else keeping them from crumpling in a pile of chitin, someone would be able to detect it.

Not necessarily. A wizard should in theory be loaded with magic energy, yet they do not radiate to detect magic either unless they have a spell affecting them. Nor do elves in most D&D worlds, who are also inherently magic. That says a lot more about the function of Detect Magic than it does about the presence or absence or magic in giant creatures.

jere7my

2014-01-02, 01:51 PM

This too is actually not true. What actually is the case is that D&D (and really, all other fantasy worlds) has a specific set of defined rules which disregard known laws of physics (they may or may not be in compliance, but when they were invented no one really bothered or cared to check), but *everything else* still follows the known laws of physics.

This is really not true. Fiction is filled with worlds in which day-to-day things behave more or less as they do in our world, but the rules underpinning those behaviors are completely different. A rock might still fall when you drop it, but it does so because the earth element in it wants to rejoin the earth-source in the ground, not because gravity has any currency in the world (as you can see just by looking at the nested crystal spheres above us). They might look superficially like our world, provided the hero never leaves the village, but any poking and prodding of the rules will reveal that they are not ours.

Amphiox

2014-01-02, 02:08 PM

This is really not true. Fiction is filled with worlds in which day-to-day things behave more or less as they do in our world, but the rules underpinning those behaviors are completely different. A rock might still fall when you drop it, but it does so because the earth element in it wants to rejoin the earth-source in the ground, not because gravity has any currency in the world (as you can see just by looking at the nested crystal spheres above us). They might look superficially like our world, provided the hero never leaves the village, but any poking and prodding of the rules will reveal that they are not ours.

You are mistaking here "laws of physics" with "theories of physics".

The Laws of Physics describe HOW things work. For example, the strength of a gravitational field varies according to an inverse square law. An equation can then be used to calculate *how fast* any object is falling given how long it has been falling, factoring air resistance and the like.

Nothing in the Laws of Physics actually describe WHY things work as they do. Those are our theories (which are approximations to reality that get ever closer to the truth, but we don't know how close and probably never will).

If an object falls in a D&D world, does its rate of fall obey the inverse square law? If it didn't, then everything about moving and falling objects, swinging swords, shot arrows, thrown enemies with grapples, etc, would be *different* from the real world. Even a very small difference, because it applies so universally, would completely change how EVERYTHING moves, and how combat and things like that must work. (Another example is Newton's Third Law, that every action must have an opposite and equal reaction - note again it doesn't explain WHY this is, just that this is HOW the universe works. This is the law the makes it so that weapons do damage on impact, without it, no form of combat is even possible)

So even to be "superficially" like our world, the LAWS of physics have to be identical. You have to remember that the laws of physics govern literally EVERYTHING. From two individual air molecules bump into one another when you take a breath, to how a cup feels in your hand when you pick it up. The tiniest deviation multiples up exponentially such that by the time it reaches the level where a character can sense it, it is a massive change.

The THEORIES might be different. Gravity in a D&D world does not have to be due to a curvature in spacetime. It could be produced by some kind of magic. But however it is produced, whatever is the WHY of gravity, the HOW of gravity actually working, has to obey the same physical law/equation, in order to end up with a world that people can use to play campaigns and the like, and have things happen in a comprehensible manner.

BaronOfHell

2014-01-02, 02:13 PM

Thus, in general, the D&D world is actually fully compliant with the known laws of physics, except in the specific instances where the rules mention an exception (and when it comes down to it, that constitutes a tiny minority of everything that has to be happening to make such a world "run"). And it has to be. If it were actually in true violation of the known laws of physics, then literally everything that happens within it, from the interactions of atoms on up, would be utterly incomprehensible to humans, and we wouldn't be able to play games, design campaigns, or write fiction about it.
While I generally agree with your very nice post, I am not confident that the rules required for the reality we experience are unique. E.g. in stead of there being atoms in D&D, which (please correct me if I'm wrong) I actually don't think there are, in stead the entire world is made by the Gods through their power and this is also what maintains it, it's the source for all the energy of the planes, and how everything works, etc.

Therefore I don't believe the D&D world has to be governed by the rules we experience, only that it possibly could in most, if not every, instance.

Amphiox

2014-01-02, 02:20 PM

While I generally agree with your very nice post, I am not confident that the rules required for the reality we experience are unique. E.g. in stead of there being atoms in D&D, which (please correct me if I'm wrong) I actually don't think there are, in stead the entire world is made by the Gods through their power and this is also what maintains it, it's the source for all the energy of the planes, and how everything works, etc.

Therefore I don't believe the D&D world has to be governed by the rules we experience, only that it possibly could in most, if not every, instance.

There may or may not be atoms in a D&D world. But the various gas, pressure, and temperature laws will have to be the same, or so close to the same that the equations that describe them have to be identical with constants invariant to within measurement error. If that were not so, then something as basic as speaking would not work in the D&D world.

In the real world, the laws are the way they are because of the way atoms interact. In the D&D world it could be that the laws are the way they are because the Gods magically made it so, and set up some kind of magic to keep it so.

But either way, the *laws* must be the same.

jere7my

2014-01-02, 02:37 PM

You are mistaking here "laws of physics" with "theories of physics".

I am not. You are correct that the laws describe observations, and common observations in (most) fantasy worlds will usually be adequately described by our laws of physics. But if you move beyond the normal—say, you get to the moon and discover that it's attached to a very large wire loop—then those observations may not be compatible with our laws of physics. In that case, the simpler explanation may not be "Our physics apply, except in space, and, uh, these various other places". It may be "The earth element is attracted to the earth source, but in space of course there is no earth element, so there is no attraction."

Shorter me: The simpler, more consistent set of laws to describe what is observed in a fantasy world may be fundamentally different from our physical laws, and just happen to approximate them in the village before the hero leaves it. Trying to cling to our physical laws until they break may not be the best way to appreciate a created world, particularly one based on pulp fantasy.

ChristianSt

2014-01-02, 02:38 PM

This is simply false. I think the laws musty be continuous to work as they work here because they are continuous here. I think Force equals mass x acceleration because I have studied the equations and know how they work. I know that velocity is the derivative of distance, and acceleration is the derivative of velocity, and have studied enough calculus to know why that implies continuity. Teleportation on the macroscopic level itself makes acceleration not the second derivative of distance, and therefore shows that the equations for motion don't apply consistently in a D&D world.

I suspect that I'm the only one in this discussion who has taught physics on the college level and math on the graduate level. I have seven engineering patents. It's simply not true that my understanding of the physics equations is based on the fact that they are called "laws".

In a D&D world, Earth, Air, Fire and Water are elements. In our world they are not.

In a D&D world, a Fireball works without fuel. In our world, fire cannot burn without fuel.

In a D&D world, a wizard can where a lightning bolt goes. In our world, lightning must go from the highest negative charge to the lowest.

In a D&D world, flesh can be turned into stone, and vice versa. In our world, this would require intra-nuclear changes that would absorb or emit so much energy that the entire nearby countryside would be changed forever. In one direction, it would cause a nuclear explosion.

The laws of physics in a D&D world are incompatible with the laws of physics in our world. That's all.

Why is this a problem for anybody?

(First of all: I have the feeling that you mixed up immutable with discrete)

The problem is that we don't know exactly how the D&D world know - but you just exclude that it could work just like ours with some additional rule changes.

Even your cited example "Force equals Mass times Acceleration" is just wrong. It my be a really good approximation, but for all physics knows just using F=m*a is wrong. (Unless you mean the four-vector version of the equation [at least Wikipedia says that], and I don't think that anyone that hasn't studied that part of physics can relate with that concept. Or at least I can't say the heck what a four-force or a four-acceleration should be). The Newton's laws are only valid because the underlaying equations got fixed up with new facts that have collected since Newton has stated them (and to be fair - for normal usage outside quantum levels / special relativity they work fine). And maybe (or probably better 'quite possible') science will need to alter them (or other laws) in the future again. Science is more a process about explaining what we can observe.
There are some things we can say for sure if we make assumptions. For example look at geometry: Without all the underlying axioms of the everyday Euclidean geometry we can at arrive at a different set of rules like the elliptic geometry, which is also valid.
If something can be tested again and again and again and again without breaking we call it a law. In fact it is an important part of science that hypothesis and laws can be falsified, i. e. it is possible to imagine a test which proves it is false. It is possible that the laws we know are true. It is also possible that we haven't found a test which proves them wrong.

So why shouldn't it be possible that the D&D magic system doesn't work with some scientific rule-set we just simply haven't figured out yet?

Keltest

2014-01-02, 02:41 PM

BaronOfHell

2014-01-02, 02:41 PM

There may or may not be atoms in a D&D world. But the various gas, pressure, and temperature laws will have to be the same, or so close to the same that the equations that describe them have to be identical with constants invariant to within measurement error. If that were not so, then something as basic as speaking would not work in the D&D world.

In the real world, the laws are the way they are because of the way atoms interact. In the D&D world it could be that the laws are the way they are because the Gods magically made it so, and set up some kind of magic to keep it so.

But either way, the *laws* must be the same.

I might have misunderstood you before in that I now believe you mean that what we observe in the real world must in general (except for the exception you mention) be the same in D&D, as D&D is based on the real world. In which case I agree. I just like to point out I'm not sure sound has to be governed by the same mechanics it is in our world, only that the rules governing it produces the results we see. E.g. speak could be an attribute of a character that has nothing to do with his environment as long as his throat isn't grappled / mouth isn't blocked, or whatever other method can be used to silence someone.

Also, since acceleration has been mentioned some times now. I'm fairly new to D&D, but when I read some spell rules it struck me that it does not seem like acceleration do exist in D&D. I could only find stuff which travels at a set speed.

jere7my

2014-01-02, 02:48 PM

Erm... that doesn't actually contradict what Amphiox said at all, you know. What happens must be identical to our world in order to create a game environment that people can roleplay. Gravity must still happen, but whether it is because of the inherent attraction between any two bodies or because the gods use magic to emulate that effect doesn't need to be specified.

The question is, what happens when you make an observation that is not identical to our world? What is the simplest explanation? If gravity appears to work in the village, but then things with mass aren't attracted to other things with mass at some later point, is the simpler explanation that gravitational attraction works exactly as it does in our world except when it doesn't, or that some other law is at work (perhaps involving sympathy, or daemons)? If that other law covers all the situations you observe instead of some of them, then it's a better explanation than the law of gravity.

Edit: Toon is a fine example of this. Cartoon physics and the Laws of Comedy apply. If you try to make predictions based on our laws of physics and causality, you're Wile E. Coyote and you deserve what happens to you.

Amphiox

2014-01-02, 02:51 PM

I am not. You are correct that the laws describe observations, and common observations in (most) fantasy worlds will usually be adequately described by our laws of physics. But if you move beyond the normal—say, you get to the moon and discover that it's attached to a very large wire loop—then those observations may not be compatible with our laws of physics. In that case, the simpler explanation may not be "Our physics apply, except in space, and, uh, these various other places". It may be "The earth element is attracted to the earth source, but in space of course there is no earth element, so there is no attraction."

Shorter me: The simpler, more consistent set of laws to describe what is observed in a fantasy world may be fundamentally different from our physical laws, and just happen to approximate them in the village before the hero leaves it. Trying to cling to our physical laws until they break may not be the best way to appreciate a created world, particularly one based on pulp fantasy.

Again, what you are missing is just how *fundamental* the laws of physics are. They govern EVERYTHING, small to large. In order for the laws to even approximate reality within the hero's village, they must be either identical to the actual laws in the real world, or close enough to be nearly indistinguishable (as indistinguishable as the difference between Newton's laws and Einstein's, for example). If they were not, the *whole world breaks*. Change one small aspect of ANY of the physical laws, and EVERYTHING changes.

In the real world, the principle of "as below, so above" applies, in the sense that the same set of laws govern everything, near and far. The moon moves according to the laws of gravity just as the apple falls from the tree.

In a D&D world, the moon does not have to follow the law of gravity that governs the apple falling from the tree. The moon might be made of some exotic substance that interacts differently with gravity, or have some kind of magic governing it. It may not move in the same way as the real moon moves in the real world. In other words, it may not obey the law of gravity and motion the way the real moon does in the real world, it can be one of the "miracle exceptions" that obeys some other, fantasy law. BUT, the actual law of gravity and motion *still exists*, and is *still the same as what it is in the real world*. Because apples DO fall in the D&D world, and swords DO cleave enemies in the D&D world.

"So above" may not apply to the D&D world, but "as below" does. Therefore, ALL the laws of physics must be there, working in the local space. Additional laws can exist on top of them, but the whole complement of physical laws still need to be there, to create the foundation of the fantasy world.

(And if the moon was attached to a wire loop, it's motion may not follow the physical laws of gravity, but it will still follow the physical laws that govern the motion of objects attached to tethers.)

Keltest

2014-01-02, 02:53 PM

Amphiox

2014-01-02, 03:01 PM

The question is, what happens when you make an observation that is not identical to our world? What is the simplest explanation? If gravity appears to work in the village, but then things with mass aren't attracted to other things with mass at some later point, is the simpler explanation that gravitational attraction works exactly as it does in our world except when it doesn't, or that some other law is at work (perhaps involving sympathy, or daemons)?

Take this real world example: Newton's Law of Gravity versus Einstein's Law of Gravity (Relativity).

They are different descriptions of gravity, and Einstein's is the more extensive. BUT, when you bring velocity down to zero, the two converge and reduce to the SAME equation (the differences between the two only become measurably significant if velocity approaches light speed). And it HAS to be that way. Newton formulated his law based on how he observed the world to be working. The world did not change and start working differently just because Einstein came up with his idea. Einstein's equation describes MORE of reality than Newton's, but within the realm of phenomenon in which they overlap, they become THE SAME.

So that "other" law you posit must still, within the context, produce the SAME result in the village. It has to reduce to the SAME equation.

If that other law covers all the situations you observe instead of some of them, then it's a better explanation than the law of gravity.

Once more you confuse "law" with "theory". Scientific laws do not explain. They *describe*. (And, through description, predict.) THEORIES explain, not laws. The explanation of gravity, the THEORY of gravity, could be ANYTHING in a fantasy universe, but if you want that fantasy universe to run in a way that approximates the real world enough to allow for things to appear "normal" in mundane situations, then that THEORY has to produce laws (ie equations) that are pretty close to the real world equations.

Toon is a fine example of this. Cartoon physics and the Laws of Comedy apply. If you try to make predictions based on our laws of physics and causality, you're Wile E. Coyote and you deserve what happens to you.

Imagine trying to roleplay a world with toon physics without having a pre-agreed ruleset specifically describing where the toon physics applies and where it does not.

jere7my

2014-01-02, 03:01 PM

Again, what you are missing is just how *fundamental* the laws of physics are. They govern EVERYTHING, small to large. In order for the laws to even approximate reality within the hero's village, they must be either identical to the actual laws in the real world, or close enough to be nearly indistinguishable (as indistinguishable as the difference between Newton's laws and Einstein's, for example). If they were not, the *whole world breaks*. Change one small aspect of ANY of the physical laws, and EVERYTHING changes., to create the foundation of the fantasy world.

I haven't missed anything, {SCRUBBED} I have a degree in physics; I know how the laws in our world work. In our world, you're right; making the tiniest change to a fundamental constant would change the universe irreparably. In a fantasy world, that only matters if you want it to. Causality and logic don't have to work the way they do here. Extrapolating what would happen if you changed X to Y may not be the point of the fantasy world. Pulp fantasy is not about chains of logic; it's about grand impossibility. That works because of magic, and trying to sneak real-world physics in under the floorboards misses the entire point of the genre.

You are saying that you can't change the way gravity works because that would have cascading implications that would affect everything else in the world. I am saying that you can freely change the way gravity works because there may or may not be any implications. Your argument is itself predicated on the laws in our world. This is fantasy. Magic is magic.

(And if the moon was attached to a wire loop, it's motion may not follow the physical laws of gravity, but it will still follow the physical laws that govern the motion of objects attached to tethers.)

Sez you.

jere7my

2014-01-02, 03:07 PM

Take this real world example: Newton's Law of Gravity versus Einstein's Law of Gravity (Relativity).

They are different descriptions of gravity, and Einstein's is the more extensive. BUT, when you bring velocity down to zero, the two converge and reduce to the SAME equation (the differences between the two only become measurably significant if velocity approaches light speed). And it HAS to be that way. Newton formulated his law based on how he observed the world to be working. The world did not change and start working differently just because Einstein came up with his idea. Einstein's equation describes MORE of reality than Newton's, but within the realm of phenomenon in which they overlap, they become THE SAME.

So that "other" law you posit must still, within the context, produce the SAME result in the village. It has to reduce to the SAME equation.

In the village, yes. Outside the village, once you start making additional observations, if they disagree with the law you have in your head, the law you have in your head may be wrong. Newton's laws are fundamentally wrong, though they approximate day-to-day life quite well, and we figured that out by looking at what happens in unusual circumstances.

Once more you confuse "law" with "theory". Scientific laws do not explain. They *describe*. (And, through description, predict.) THEORIES explain, not laws. The explanation of gravity, the THEORY of gravity, could be ANYTHING in a fantasy universe, but if you want that fantasy universe to run in a way that approximates the real world enough to allow for things to appear "normal" in mundane situations, then that THEORY has to produce laws (ie equations) that are pretty close to the real world equations.

{SCRUBBED} If the law you have in your head fails to predict what happens when you leave the normal, and another law successfully does so, then the other law is probably better. If we approach relativistic speeds and something other than Lorentz contraction occurs, then the fundamental laws undergirding the universe we're in do not match the ones Einstein came up with, however similar things look at walking speed.

Got it? I'm done.

Edit:

Imagine trying to roleplay a world with toon physics without having a pre-agreed ruleset specifically describing where the toon physics applies and where it does not.

You have just described Toon. Good job.

Amphiox

2014-01-02, 03:13 PM

I haven't missed anything,

Yes, you have.

{SCRUBBED}

No, I'm not.

Causality and logic don't have to work the way they do here.

Yes, in fact they do. It only takes a little thought to see why.

You are saying that you can't change the way gravity works because that would have cascading implications that would affect everything else in the world.

No, in fact I'm not.

I am saying that you can freely change the way gravity works because there may or may not be any implications.

I'm saying that IF your work of fiction already describes a mundane reality, such as the hero's home village, wherein everything works much as it does in the real world, then in THAT work of fiction, the laws of physics that govern mundane reality must approximate the real world to within observational error. Thus, in such a world GIVEN such a setting, already shown, gravity cannot be FREELY changed to anything you want. It can be changed, but only within a subset of possible changes wherein the equations that describe gravity reduce to being identical to real world physics within observational error for the mundane reality already described.

You CAN make a fictional world where gravity works completely differently (Stephen Baxter, IIRC, played around with the concept in some of his fiction), BUT such a world would have a different mundane reality, which you can then explore.

But in a fictional world which ALREADY SHOWS a mundane reality approximate with the real world, then we KNOW FROM THAT OBSERVATION that the laws of physics must reduce to approximate to real world laws within the parameters of the mundane reality so shown.

Your argument is itself predicated on the laws in our world.

No, it is not.

And you are STILL mistaking "law" for "theory", notwithstanding your claim to a physics degree.

This is fantasy. Magic is magic.

Sufficiently described fantasy is indistinguishable from science. Rules-based magic asymptotes to physics. The more rules there are, the closer it approximates.

Amphiox

2014-01-02, 03:22 PM

If the law you have in your head fails to predict what happens when you leave the normal, and another law successfully does so, then the other law is probably better. If we approach relativistic speeds and something other than Lorentz contraction occurs, then the fundamental laws undergirding the universe we're in do not match the ones Einstein came up with, however similar things look at walking speed.

WHATEVER that law happens to be, if your hero's mundane village life at walking speed approximates reality, then the equation describing that law must reduce, in mundane circumstances at walking speed, to Newton's law, just as Einstein's do. The laws therefore, are approximate, to within observational limits, the same.

{SCRUBBED}

warrl

2014-01-02, 03:31 PM

Amphiox

2014-01-02, 03:47 PM

I believe that "the force of gravity between two bodies is always proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance between them" is not contradicted by "the force of this magical energy between two bodies is NOT always proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance between them".

Just as I believe that "gravity pulls things together" is not contradicted by "large explosions push things apart".

In real world physics, this is basically what is happening with the theoretical work on "dark energy". On the macroscale observations seem to indicate that galaxies and other large objects are NOT being attracted to one another in concordance with the inverse of the square of the distance between them (specifically, the rate they are expanding away from one another is not slowing down in a manner consistent of that law).

So one proposal is the existence of a repulsive force, given the label "dark energy" that acts against gravity. In this scenario, the laws that govern gravity do not change. There is just another law acting that results in a different final outcome.

Alternatively, the laws of gravity really *could* be wrong and need to be changed, but AFAIK that is not the preferred hypothesis at the moment.

But you're assuming that magic has to be exceptions to universal laws. I'm assuming that magic CAN be DIFFERENT universal laws that only apply to a significant degree in specific circumstances. Kind of like, oh, electromagnetism, or the strong nuclear force. Neither of which contradict gravity or have much relevance to skipping a rock across a pond - but when they apply, gravity is routinely pretty much irrelevant.

This. Many times this. This is an excellent analogy.

Magic doesn't actually *ever* have to violate real world physics. All it has to do is *overwhelm* real world physics when appropriately concentrated so that the effect of the real-world physics laws becomes negligible in that specific circumstance.

And quite frankly, it is impossible to tell which is the case in a fictional setting without actually getting into that setting and doing a controlled experiment.... (or having the author tell you flat out which it is).

Jay R

2014-01-03, 12:42 PM

OK, fine, you can certainly all run your games that way.

I will continue to run mine as I choose.

And I will continue to believe "there are exceptions" contradicts "there are no exceptions".

Lexible

2014-01-03, 01:28 PM

The alternative, assuming (generally, though not necessarily always, a pretty safe assumption in one of my games) that the game is in fact set on a round orbiting planet, would be that a Forcecage would appear to move constantly, as it stayed in one place and the planet orbited out from under it.

/the sun orbited the galactic center/the galaxy orbited the galactic cluster's center/the trajectory of matter in this super-cluster proceeds apace...

Conservation of momentum plays havoc with teleportation.

On the other hand, solutions like the local frame of reference could also be problematic: Kish made a narratively and intuitively appealing point (not quoted) about Forcecage relative to the surface it is on: but what happens if someone—the spellcaster say—decides that "the surface it is on" is the first layer of air molecules, or to keep things on solid ground, the first layer of dust grains on the ground. Presumably one could pick up the forcecage+dust grains and maniuplate like a dust-grains-weight cubic object... to jam in a doorway, or use as a weapon or whatever one's imagination desires.

Keltest

2014-01-03, 03:56 PM

OK, fine, you can certainly all run your games that way.

I will continue to run mine as I choose.

And I will continue to believe "there are exceptions" contradicts "there are no exceptions".

Magic does not have to be an exception. Simply another independent law (a law of magic) generating an effect greater than that generated by the law of physics. Birds can fly because they generate more upward force than gravity pulls them down with. That doesn't mean that gravity doesn't work, or that birds are an exception, simply that something else is doing something different at the same time.

Calzone

2014-01-03, 07:57 PM

I'm saying that IF your work of fiction already describes a mundane reality, such as the hero's home village, wherein everything works much as it does in the real world, then in THAT work of fiction, the laws of physics that govern mundane reality must approximate the real world to within observational error.

This could be true, depending on the definition of "observational error". I expect you mean the amount of uncertainty that we have in observations of physical reality here in our universe. However, I don't think a work of fiction that depicts a mundane reality must demonstrate laws of physics that have that degree of similarity to our own. I would instead say that a work of mundane fiction ought demonstrate a system that provides a "relatable" approximation of reality to our real world to the extent that the fictional setting is shown to the reader.

Take a look at Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels. His cosmology (A disc-shaped world with an inhabitable surface/atmosphere atop four elephants atop a giant turtle swimming through Space) is extremely incompatible with our existing physical descriptions of our own reality.

Examples of things in Discworld that we might find unintelligible were we to apply our understanding of our world to the Disc:

Light moves at inconsistent speeds across the Disc, often affected by geography.
There are vast deposits of delicious fat and burn crispy bits buried beneath the ground.
A Bloody Stupid architect was able to design and build such mind-bendingly wrong structures that they distort space and time.
People and places often can exert unpredictable or unexpected effects because of force of personality, "fate", some anthropomorphic state, or narrative causality

In the novels these things can, and do, often affect the lives of mundane people living mundane lives. Sometimes mundane people die due to these things. Sometimes mundane people's reactions to these things is central to the story Pratchett is telling.

A common theme among these stories is that as a reader I do not expect the physical laws of our reality to be upheld, or even necessarily approximated, in the Discworld novels. Do I know if every time Pratchett writes about something falling in Discworld that it falls at the same rate as our world, or at a consistent rate? No, and I do not care, because any differences between things falling in the novels and in the real world are not communicated to me by the author and have not made a difference to the story being told. There may not be gravity in Discworld - it might be governed by daemons, or by A'Tuin swimming upward, or some aethereal wind blowing continually downward, or the gods, or whatever hogwash he decided to use in his setting.

To make a broader point, there is no requirement that a fantasy setting, even one that proposes a nominally mundane setting, abide by or be described by any physical laws or theories that codify our understanding our reality. There is not even a requirement that basic warrants for the scientific method be valid. There need not be any consistent causes for natural occurrences around us. There need not be any correlation between repeated observations over a period of time. Numerous examples have been given in this thread of cosmologies that violate some or all of these things, cosmologies where the scientific method would fail, and yet some facsimile of mundane life might still be portrayed.

As I have said, you could still depict a mundane fantasy setting without the strict observational relationships imposed by physical laws. The cabbage farmer can still be a schmuck in the muck hoeing away regardless of whether his hoe has the same mass or the air has the same density as it did two days ago. The wheels of the blacksmith's wagon can still turn even if there isn't a mathematically describable friction coefficient to uniformly describe their inefficiencies. True, the mechanism of the mechanics will not be the same as in our world, so the vast majority of our scientifically determined knowledge might be suspect or outright wrong.

That's OK, though, because a scientific understanding of the world has not been necessary for humans to relate to a mundane existence for much of our existence, and we relate to virtual worlds in novels and games all the time that lack a rigorous adherence to real-world scientific understandings of physics. There are innumerable minor deviations from our physical descriptions of our reality (and doubtless many major ones) that do not impact our ability to describe or relate to a 'mundane' life in fantasy world, provided you do not assume the pre-existence of our existing cosmology.

Sure, you might not be able perform fun science tricks (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fun+science+tricks) because they might not work, but the gross generalities of mundane life communicated in a fantasy novel or a game of D&D can still be covered well enough. After all, D&D currently does a "good enough for gaming" approximation of statics and dynamics with a couple dozen pages of lookup tables and some formulae - not a single mention of any physical laws.

TL/DR: Perfect simulation of real-world physics isn't required to emulate mundane life for roleplaying purposes. {SCRUBBED}

Amphiox

2014-01-04, 06:49 PM

Pratchett's Discworld is an excellent example of my main point. Because the "mundane" reality that Discworld describes is actually quantitatively DIFFERENT from "mundane" reality in the real world. Wherever the physics/magic of Discworld are notably different from the real world, the effects cascade down to the smallest levels of the mundane reality, and Pratchett takes great pains to DESCRIBE IT AS SO.

We the readers know that the physics/magic that govern the Discworld are different than the real world BECAUSE it is directly shown to us to be different, all the way down to the smallest details. Because the slightest change in the laws of physics that govern a universe MUST have impacts on all scales.

If on the other hand a work of fiction does not make that effort to describe such differences, and presents within its fictional realm a mundane reality unchanged from real life, then that is an indication that the laws of physics of real world must be working in the same way within that fictional realm, notwithstanding any additional laws that could be tacked on.