Silly Childhood Misconceptions on Fantasy Elements?

[Vrock_Summoner]

Kids think up the craziest things sometimes, for no real reason other than that they're kids. That's part of why we love them so much.

So what're some of the wackiest theories and silliest misconceptions about elements common to fantasy and fantasy gaming that your young self, your own children, or other kids you've known pulled out of seemingly nowhere?

I'll start with myself. I really have no idea what inspired my brain to assume this and miss the most obvious choice, but for some reason, it took me watching my first R-rated vampire movie (at the tender age of... Actually, I don't remember, but I had to have been at least 9) to realize that vampires just use their teeth to make incisions and then drink the flowing blood in the normal swallowing methods. It blew my mind when I finally realized that, because I'd spent my whole experience with vampires working off the much weirder assumption that they drank more like four-pronged mosquitos, with their teeth having little tubes in them that sucked the blood directly out of your bloodstream. To this day, I'm both confused by what I was thinking, and cautiously optimistic about the idea of someday implementing insectoid vampires into a game.

Alright, you guys' turn!

[The Glyphstone]

Doesn't that depend on the vampire? Some of them (say, those portrayed in World of Darkness) have to be exhibiting some form of suction, due to the rate at which they can drain blood from a body. So your 9-year old self might deserve more credit than you're giving them.

[MrStabby]

It isn't that silly.

If we think about vampires as having a bite that not only feeds but also causes sickness then we draw an analogy with pretty much everything with a venomous bite - which do tend to channel fluid through/by their teeth.

I am not saying that insectoid vampires wouldn't be awesome though. Personally I would like to run a vampire squid as a fantasy (rather than real life) creature.

[Berenger]

It blew my mind when I finally realized that, because I'd spent my whole experience with vampires working off the much weirder assumption that they drank more like four-pronged mosquitos, with their teeth having little tubes in them that sucked the blood directly out of your bloodstream.

That's weird, I had exactly the same misconception when I was in that age. When I realized that syringe-teeth are not actually part of any vampire myth, I instantly stopped having nightmares about vampires. This and the original assumption might be related to my paralyzing fear of blood samplings, though...

[CharonsHelper]

Not really a fantasy thing (though it happened to be a fantasy movie) and I was much younger (3-5ish) - so what I remember may only be a memory of a memory.

I happened to catch a scene of a movie that my dad was watching where someone died (a pirate killed by a swamp monster? I don't remember details) Anyway, my dad told me something along the lines of "Don't worry, they're actors. They get paid to do that." I then went weeks if not months thinking what idiots those actors were. I mean, after they were dead, no one would have to pay them anyway! I was young enough that I wasn't even horrified by the prospect, just intrigued.

[Strigon]

That's weird, I had exactly the same misconception when I was in that age. When I realized that syringe-teeth are not actually part of any vampire myth, I instantly stopped having nightmares about vampires. This and the original assumption might be related to my paralyzing fear of blood samplings, though...

I had the same thought.
To this day, I personally think the idea of syringe-teeth is infinitely superiour to the way it's actually portrayed.

[Cealocanth]

I had the same thought.
To this day, I personally think the idea of syringe-teeth is infinitely superiour to the way it's actually portrayed.

I could see it working quite well with teeth with microscopic indentations in them to facilitate blood flow, combined with the injection of an adrenaline-like drug and an anti-coagulant. Why suck when you can have the victim's heart do the work for you? Even better if the 'drug' vector isn't just a straight injection, but actually a symbiotic parasite that lives in the vampire's mouth and can swim upstream.

I'm done derailing the thread now.

As a kid I assumed that giants were just tall moving statues, not living creatures. Such creatures do exist in fantasy, but they're rarely called 'giants'. Titans or golems or something, usually.

[Grim Portent]

I also thought Vampires had needle teeth when I was a little kid. I think I made the association of fangs and venomous snakes and assumed vampire fangs would have the same design.

Strangely though I can't think of any other fantasy stuff I misunderstood as a child. I think a lot of the elements of fantasy are quite easy to understand, generally deliberately because so much of it is based on folklore which was partially intended to keep kids away from dangerous places.

[quinron]

Not knowing what "symbology" meant, I used to think that ghosts carried chains around to imprison the living and turn them into ghosts.

[legomaster00156]

Not knowing what "symbology" meant, I used to think that ghosts carried chains around to imprison the living and turn them into ghosts.
This is a D&D monster waiting to be created.

[Winter_Wolf]

The vampire teeth thing must be pretty common, I thought that too when I was young. Don't know where it came from but it seemed so obvious, didn't it?

[Vrock_Summoner]

Wow, all of you guys had that too!? Shoot, it's the "the floor is made of lava" game all over again. Where are the common threads in child psychology that make us all independently come to the same conclusions on this stuff?

We haven't gotten many yet, but the misconceptions we've gotten so far have been pretty good! Keep it up guys :smallbiggrin:

[cobaltstarfire]

The vampire teeth thing must be pretty common, I thought that too when I was young. Don't know where it came from but it seemed so obvious, didn't it?

Yeah, ditto here, it still intuitively makes more sense in a way too.


Can't think of another one from me off hand, but I learned of an interesting one from the guy about a family member.

She (being a small child) had been walking with the family, and they came across a dead deer on the tracks that had been hit by a train or something. She said that she didn't know that being hit by a train would kill someone, she thought it'd just "squish" them.

Kind of an intersection of cartoon logic with the real world.

[Slipperychicken]

Vampire needle teeth make sense because of the way vampire biting is portrayed. Typically only a small amount of blood leaks out, and it's localized near a pair of tiny clearly-visible tooth-marks. Also, the teeth are generally visible for the audiences' sake, when the normal way would make more sense if the vampire's lips covered the wound to keep blood from draining away.

If a vampire were actually drinking the blood the "normal" way, the wound would look a lot messier and more blood would come out.


Also, I think needle-teeth are cooler. I'm making that canon in the game I'm DMing now.

[digiman619]

About syringe vampires: The closest thing I can think of with this are the vampires of Mirrodin, but they have syringe-hands; like Batman: Arkham Asylum's Scarecrow.

As for silly childhood misconceptions: When I was 7 or so, I saw Star Wars for the first time. When I saw the scene of Vader chocking the rebel ("If this is a consular ship, where's the ambassador?"), my young mind thought the sound of him asphyxiating was actually Vader snapping his neck. I was also disappointed that I couldn't get anything else to make that noise.

[Vrock_Summoner]

If a vampire were actually drinking the blood the "normal" way, the wound would look a lot messier and more blood would come out.
This is pretty much why it took an R-rated movie for me to realize what the intention was, I think. Can't remember what movie it was exactly, but I remember it being the first time I saw a vampire biting process shown in detail. Which is not to say it was necessarily medically accurate; it was an R-rated and probably mediocre vampire movie, so I'm willing to assume that my memories of the blood spraying out would realistically demand blood pressure levels far higher than a human body's.

Most of the time, in more "polite" vampire fiction, you just see the teeth sink in and maybe a single trickle of blood go down the neck, and it's all mostly clean and occasionally even portrayed as sensual (which, make no mistake dear readers, whether it's needle teeth or incision slurping, vampire bites are never a romantic or enjoyable gesture).

[GorinichSerpant]

I distinctly remember me and my sister being upset that gnomes were messing up the save files on a game we had, when I'm pretty sure it was us messing up each other's game files. Good times.

[Slipperychicken]

Most of the time, in more "polite" vampire fiction, you just see the teeth sink in and maybe a single trickle of blood go down the neck, and it's all mostly clean and occasionally even portrayed as sensual (which, make no mistake dear readers, whether it's needle teeth or incision slurping, vampire bites are never a romantic or enjoyable gesture).

I think it's just people not really understanding what that would feel like, to have teeth break skin and enter your veins, or even just to lose so much blood by any means. They want to believe that a vampire bite is just a pale, edgy, unique equivalent to a neck-kiss.

Also, losing blood sucks. I want to keep my blood in my veins, supplying my body with nutriment, as it's supposed to be.

[LooseCannoneer]

I thought the same thing about the vampire's teeth as well. I agree that it makes more sense, except in the most important case:

DM: As you enter the throne room of the vampire lord, he stares at you dispassionately while holding a glass of a red liquid. He takes another sip from the straw.

Player: Wait, the 1000-year-old vampire uses a straw? Did he need to wash the sippy cup?

[runeghost]

When I first read Lord of the Rings (long before the movies - I'm old) I got the idea in my head that Boromir was a fat elf. That made his presence in the text sort of incoherent, because I kept making assumptions about Gondor, Faramir, etc based on their connection to Boromir... who I knew was a tubby elf-guy.

[hamishspence]

When I was 7 or so, I saw Star Wars for the first time. When I saw the scene of Vader chocking the rebel ("If this is a consular ship, where's the ambassador?"), my young mind thought the sound of him asphyxiating was actually Vader snapping his neck. I was also disappointed that I couldn't get anything else to make that noise.

That's certainly how the novelization portrays his death:


An Imperial officer, his armored helmet shoved back to reveal a recent scar where an energy beam had penetrated his shielding, scrambled down out of the fighter's control room, shaking his head briskly.
"Nothing, sir. Information retrieval system's been wiped clean."
Darth Vader acknowledged this news with a barely perceptible nod. The impenetrable mask turned to regard the officer he was torturing. Metal-clad fingers contracted. Reaching up, the prisoner desperately tried to pry them loose, but to no avail.
"Where is the data you intercepted?" Vader rumbled dangerously. "What have you done with the information tapes?"
"We — intercepted — no information," the dangling officer gurgled, barely able to breathe. From somewhere deep within, he dredged up a squeal of outrage. "This is a … councilor vessel … Did you not see our ... exterior markings? We're on a ... diplomatic ... mission."
"Chaos take your mission!" Vader growled. "Where are those tapes!" He squeezed harder, the threat in his grip implicit.
When he finally replied, the officer's voice was a bare, choked whisper. "Only … the Commander knows."
"This ship carries the system crest of Alderaan," Vader growled, the gargoyle-like breath mask leaning close. "Is any of the royal family on board? Who are you carrying?" Thick fingers tightened further, and the officer's struggles became more and more frantic. His last words were muffled and choked past intelligibility.
Vader was not pleased. Even though the figure went limp with an awful, unquestionable finality, that hand continued to tighten, producing a chilling snapping and popping of bone, like a dog padding on plastic. Then with a disgusted wheeze Vader finally threw the doll-form of the dead man against a far wall. Several Imperial troops ducked out of the way just in time to avoid the grisly missile.
The massive form whirled unexpectedly, and Imperial officers shrank under that baleful sculptured stare. "Start tearing this ship apart component by component, until you find those tapes. As for the passengers, if any, I want them alive." He paused a moment, then added, "Quickly!"
Officers and men nearly fell over themselves in their haste to leave — not necessarily to carry out Vader's orders, but simply to retreat from that malevolent presence.

[hymer]

When I first played, the monsters we fought were pretty much kobolds. And though we usually managed to take them out even when outnumbered, they were fairly scary. And then I heard about orcs being considerably higher up on the monster totem pole, and for some reason orcs in my mind became dangerous super monsters for a while.
Then I re-read LotR and got things back into perspective.

[TeChameleon]

Huh. The syringe vampires thing is pretty widespread- to the point that I'm fairly certain it actually is canon in at least a few instances- Discworld vampires, for instance.

[hamishspence]

D&D vampire's Blood Drain ability is consistently described as "suck blood, with fangs":


Blood Drain (Ex)
A vampire can suck blood from a living victim with its fangs by making a successful grapple check. If it pins the foe, it drains blood, dealing 1d4 points of Constitution drain each round the pin is maintained.

And it's common (though not universal) for the vamp bite to be depicted as two neat holes - syringe-effect makes more sense than just "sucking through the mouth after the holes have been made" - the latter would leave one heck of a hickey.

[Sith_Happens]

Uh... This actually is the first I've heard of vampires not having syringe-fangs...

[Berenger]

Oh, I have another one.

When I was a young child (5-7 years?) I was a fan of Dogtanian and the Three Muskehounds.

https://abload.de/img/dogtanian_7962ypjxn.jpg

They cut down on the puns in the german localization, so Dogtanian was actually D'Artagnan. It was kind of disturbing to realize that there were human versions of D'Artagnan and the three Musketeers and they killed people.

[hewhosaysfish]

I thought the same thing about the vampire's teeth as well. I agree that it makes more sense, except in the most important case:

DM: As you enter the throne room of the vampire lord, he stares at you dispassionately while holding a glass of a red liquid. He takes another sip from the straw.

Player: Wait, the 1000-year-old vampire uses a straw? Did he need to wash the sippy cup?

Woudl it help save the image if the glass had little coloured paper umberellas in it and bat-shaped ice cubes?

[Winter_Wolf]

I distinctly remember me and my sister being upset that gnomes were messing up the save files on a game we had, when I'm pretty sure it was us messing up each other's game files. Good times.

I still blame gnomes when things go missing in my home.* The alternative is that these things just grew legs and walked off by themselves. I change and wash my clothing often enough that it shouldn't be able to self ambulate.

*I have two small children approximately the height and weight of D&D gnomes, so it's not really that far-fetched. Eventually they're going to confess by accident: "no daddy, gnomes aren't real! It was me!"

[Knaight]

I'm also pretty used to syringe vampires.

On a different note, when I was about 8 I read a military sci-fi series set in the far future which at one point described humans shooting shells with guns at some aliens. I wasn't familiar with artillery, so "gun" meant something like "rifle". The shell bit seemed a bit weird, but it was sci-fi so I pictured some sort of futuristic rifle that shot sea-shell shaped explosive projectiles. I can still call on that mental image, even though having reread the book I know that it's completely wrong.

[Hopeless]

Anyone considered that vampires aren't using their teeth to bite but rather their tongue is what pierces the neck and like a mosquito sucks out blood that way?!

[Grey Watcher]

Kids think up the craziest things sometimes, for no real reason other than that they're kids. That's part of why we love them so much.

So what're some of the wackiest theories and silliest misconceptions about elements common to fantasy and fantasy gaming that your young self, your own children, or other kids you've known pulled out of seemingly nowhere?

I'll start with myself. I really have no idea what inspired my brain to assume this and miss the most obvious choice, but for some reason, it took me watching my first R-rated vampire movie (at the tender age of... Actually, I don't remember, but I had to have been at least 9) to realize that vampires just use their teeth to make incisions and then drink the flowing blood in the normal swallowing methods. It blew my mind when I finally realized that, because I'd spent my whole experience with vampires working off the much weirder assumption that they drank more like four-pronged mosquitos, with their teeth having little tubes in them that sucked the blood directly out of your bloodstream. To this day, I'm both confused by what I was thinking, and cautiously optimistic about the idea of someday implementing insectoid vampires into a game.

Alright, you guys' turn!

Honestly, it didn't occur to me that the "multi-pronged humanoid mosquito" thing WASN'T how it worked until today. If nothing else, it accounts for how there's never any sign of spillage, which I think would be inevitable with the puncture-then-suck-and-swallow-like-a-living-human-would method.

Plus I figure that vampires don't metabolize blood the way we do food, so the digestive tract is essentially vestigial.

[Belac93]

I used the assume the syringe-vampire thing as well. It makes way more sense, anyway.

I used to have a very narrow view of witches, because my Oma convinced me that she was one. I thought that witches were very nice people, who kept slugs as pets, and always had a cowardly cat and a mean cat. I also thought that they had 2 brooms, made all of wood, one for flying and one for sweeping. I thought that they all had hooked noses, and that they all originally came from Germany.

I also used to wonder why minotaurs lived in mazes, because I thought their horns would get stuck on the walls.

[Lacuna Caster]

I also used to wonder why minotaurs lived in mazes, because I thought their horns would get stuck on the walls.
I know, right? ERGONOMICS PEOPLE.

[bulbaquil]

I used to think that:
- syringe vampires as has been frequently stated;
- griffins and pegasi were the same thing;
- hydras were creatures that showed up in plains and rocky terrain, because the hydra in Disney's Hercules wasn't in a swamp, and I associated "snakes" with rattlesnakes and arid regions;
- the 17th century Caribbean Sea and Atlantic Ocean were populated exclusively by pirates and the Virginia Company (which ran the slave trade), with the exception of the Mayflower. On that note, I believed slavery didn't exist anywhere between the fall of the Roman Empire and the colonial era.
- town guards and medieval prisons anywhere all looked like the ones from Aladdin;
- elves always wore green (I blame the Santa elves);
- Europe was bigger in medieval times (not figuratively due to travel limitations, but literally) because they had to have room for all the duchies and kingdoms that "no longer exist". (i.e.: "Tuscany" was some no-longer-existing location between the modern border of France and the modern border of Italy, not part of modern-day Italy.)
- ghosts always wore ethereal white sheets so that everyone could know they were there;
- zombies always looked and acted like ReDeads in Ocarina of Time

[Malimar]

When I first read Lord of the Rings (long before the movies - I'm old) I got the idea in my head that Boromir was a fat elf. That made his presence in the text sort of incoherent, because I kept making assumptions about Gondor, Faramir, etc based on their connection to Boromir... who I knew was a tubby elf-guy.

Before the movies, I used to picture Elrond as tubby. No idea why.

[Kami2awa]

- Europe was bigger in medieval times (not figuratively due to travel limitations, but literally) because they had to have room for all the duchies and kingdoms that "no longer exist". (i.e.: "Tuscany" was some no-longer-existing location between the modern border of France and the modern border of Italy, not part of modern-day Italy.)


That would be a rather fun way to hide "lost worlds". Robert Rankin's stories use a similar idea for the Forbidden Zones - they are the parts of a flat map which are lost when trying to wrap the (projected) map onto a globe of the same scale.

There is also an idea called the Mandela Effect, where commonly held memories don't match reality. A common manifestation of this is that people remember maps of the world being different in the past, even down to the location of islands like Sri Lanka. IRL this is probably due to different map projections, inaccurate maps and poor memory, but believers in the Mandela Effect believe that history is actually changing...



- ghosts always wore ethereal white sheets so that everyone could know they were there;


Though if ghosts were an optical phenomenon like a hologram, as has been suggested in the past, white would be the colour most likely to show up well. In future perhaps there'll be a lot of ghosts in high-vis jackets.

[enderlord99]

Uh... This actually is the first I've heard of vampires not having syringe-fangs...

Same here. I'm twenty years old; you?

[Bestigle]

Um.. I still think the syringe teeth makes the most sense. :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, when I was little, I listened to LotR on tape, and I spent the first two books thinking Merry and Pippin were girls. I thought that all dragons wore gemstones like armor (thanks Tolkein) as well. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out why, if centaur blood poisoned Heracles, how come they didn't poison themselves, and I tried to figure out why a well-tender would want Odin's eyeball, whether it was because he needed an eyeball (and subsequently, I thought that you could use someone else's eyeball in pinch) or if it was because he liked pirates. :smalltongue:

[LooseCannoneer]

Woudl it help save the image if the glass had little coloured paper umberellas in it and bat-shaped ice cubes?

I was personally imagining one of those hot pink silly straws with the loops.

[nedz]

+1 to the hollow teeth, though Vampire Bats do bite and lap.

Also, bugbears had Pumpkin heads.

[Thrudd]

+1 to the hollow teeth, though Vampire Bats do bite and lap.

Also, bugbears had Pumpkin heads.

I thought goblins had pumpkin heads, especially the Great Goblin described as having a huge head, when the Hobbit was first read to me as a small child. I associated goblins with something that comes out on halloween, and halloween with jack'o'lanterns, and naturally the Great Goblin must have connected with the Great Pumpkin somewhere in my 5 year old head.

[nedz]

I thought goblins had pumpkin heads, especially the Great Goblin described as having a huge head, when the Hobbit was first read to me as a small child. I associated goblins with something that comes out on halloween, and halloween with jack'o'lanterns, and naturally the Great Goblin must have connected with the Great Pumpkin somewhere in my 5 year old head.

It was an OD&D reference - seriously :smallamused:

[bulbaquil]

That would be a rather fun way to hide "lost worlds". Robert Rankin's stories use a similar idea for the Forbidden Zones - they are the parts of a flat map which are lost when trying to wrap the (projected) map onto a globe of the same scale.

There is also an idea called the Mandela Effect, where commonly held memories don't match reality. A common manifestation of this is that people remember maps of the world being different in the past, even down to the location of islands like Sri Lanka. IRL this is probably due to different map projections, inaccurate maps and poor memory, but believers in the Mandela Effect believe that history is actually changing...

My campaign setting does something similar if for no other meta-reason than to make the equirectangular projection equidistant at any latitude. The world, seen from e.g. a moon, is a sphere, but due to the confluence of ley lines (the in-universe explanation), space is magically warped as you approach the poles - passing through the pole still deposits you on the other side of the map as normal, but stand even one 5-foot-square away and walk due east or west and it'll take you just as much time to go from longitude line to longitude line as it would on the equator.

As a "Berenstein"-er, I sympathize with the Mandela Effect - I'd imagine that a setting with time travelers might well have situations where the "ripple effect" doesn't fully parse when history changes, and leaves behind echoes of the history that no longer is. (In fact, something like that is arguably necessary in order for there to be "timecops" or any other way of knowing the history you're in isn't the correct one; otherwise, even the timecops' memories and records would be changed.)

[LooseCannoneer]

As a "Berenstein"-er, I sympathize with the Mandela Effect - I'd imagine that a setting with time travelers might well have situations where the "ripple effect" doesn't fully parse when history changes, and leaves behind echoes of the history that no longer is. (In fact, something like that is arguably necessary in order for there to be "timecops" or any other way of knowing the history you're in isn't the correct one; otherwise, even the timecops' memories and records would be changed.)

Continuum has something like that in the frag system where everyone who is affected by a paradox takes frag and goes insane as time is pulling them to fix it. This allows the player characters a way to weaken other narcissists (enemy time travellers) with minor edits without making every single spanner (time traveller) mad at you, just remember to fix the paradox once you've bagged the narcissist.

This also allows for interesting stacking of fragging yourself so you can frag yourself safely by blocking an unfixable frag, while editing your memories so that you think the unfixable frag happened when you went back to watch it.

[Sith_Happens]

+1 to the hollow teeth, though Vampire Bats do bite and lap.

Don't vampire bats drink through their tongues?

[hamishspence]

Don't vampire bats drink through their tongues?

Not through them - tongue goes into blood, comes out with a little blood clinging to it - tongue goes back into mouth, blood is swallowed.

Just like a cat lapping up milk - but a whole lot faster.

[Kami2awa]

My campaign setting does something similar if for no other meta-reason than to make the equirectangular projection equidistant at any latitude. The world, seen from e.g. a moon, is a sphere, but due to the confluence of ley lines (the in-universe explanation), space is magically warped as you approach the poles - passing through the pole still deposits you on the other side of the map as normal, but stand even one 5-foot-square away and walk due east or west and it'll take you just as much time to go from longitude line to longitude line as it would on the equator.

As a "Berenstein"-er, I sympathize with the Mandela Effect - I'd imagine that a setting with time travelers might well have situations where the "ripple effect" doesn't fully parse when history changes, and leaves behind echoes of the history that no longer is. (In fact, something like that is arguably necessary in order for there to be "timecops" or any other way of knowing the history you're in isn't the correct one; otherwise, even the timecops' memories and records would be changed.)

It may interest you to know, then, that Robert Rankin describes pretty much exactly the same effect as the Mandela Effect in his book The Brightonomicon, calling the Chevalier Effect.

[nyjastul69]

I also thought vampires had syringe teeth. I didn't realize this misconception was so common.

I saw Star Wars in a drive-in theater when I was 7 or 8. I thought stormtroopers were robot's, like 3PO, and was bit confused about how Han and Luke could fit into robot suits.

[hamishspence]

Some stories specifically mention the hollow teeth - some don't (or even specifically state that the teeth themselves are solid).

[rooster707]

Honestly, it didn't occur to me that the "multi-pronged humanoid mosquito" thing WASN'T how it worked until today.

Same. This is a very common (mis?)conception, apparently.

[Rockphed]

I'm also pretty used to syringe vampires.

On a different note, when I was about 8 I read a military sci-fi series set in the far future which at one point described humans shooting shells with guns at some aliens. I wasn't familiar with artillery, so "gun" meant something like "rifle". The shell bit seemed a bit weird, but it was sci-fi so I pictured some sort of futuristic rifle that shot sea-shell shaped explosive projectiles. I can still call on that mental image, even though having reread the book I know that it's completely wrong.

This is an awesome sci-fi image. It must be made into a movie of some sort now. History demands it!


Before the movies, I used to picture Elrond as tubby. No idea why.

Um, he is old and knows lots of things. Obviously he is tubby like the librarian at your primary school.

[cobaltstarfire]

I saw Star Wars in a drive-in theater when I was 7 or 8. I thought stormtroopers were robot's, like 3PO, and was bit confused about how Han and Luke could fit into robot suits.

I had a long argument via writing exercises with my 11th grade English teacher about this, she was convinced that Storm Troopers were robots, and since we were watching Star Wars as part of a writing archetypes lesson she kept describing Star Wars as a Man Vs Machine story because of the Storm Troopers in particular.

[Strigon]

On a different note, when I was about 8 I read a military sci-fi series set in the far future which at one point described humans shooting shells with guns at some aliens. I wasn't familiar with artillery, so "gun" meant something like "rifle". The shell bit seemed a bit weird, but it was sci-fi so I pictured some sort of futuristic rifle that shot sea-shell shaped explosive projectiles. I can still call on that mental image, even though having reread the book I know that it's completely wrong.

On a similar note, I thought bullets were called missiles. I suppose, on a technicality, that wasn't wrong in the strictest sense, as they are still projectiles, but it led to more than one confusing moment when my brother and I would play with action figures.


I had a long argument via writing exercises with my 11th grade English teacher about this, she was convinced that Storm Troopers were robots, and since we were watching Star Wars as part of a writing archetypes lesson she kept describing Star Wars as a Man Vs Machine story because of the Storm Troopers in particular.

Oh... Oh, that must have hurt. Very, very badly; did you eventually convince her?

[nedz]

I also thought vampires had syringe teeth. I didn't realize this misconception was so common.

I'm not sure misconception is the correct term - it's just a different conception.

[Solaris]

So... Anyone else who never thought of them as having syringe-like teeth? I've honestly never run across the idea before. I mean, it makes a lot more sense than vampire bat-style bites, what with the lack of hickeys and all, but I've honestly never even heard of it, much less thought of it.
Definitely swiping the idea, though.


As for silly childhood misconceptions: When I was 7 or so, I saw Star Wars for the first time. When I saw the scene of Vader chocking the rebel ("If this is a consular ship, where's the ambassador?"), my young mind thought the sound of him asphyxiating was actually Vader snapping his neck. I was also disappointed that I couldn't get anything else to make that noise.

Yeah, me too. Try as I might...

[cobaltstarfire]

Oh... Oh, that must have hurt. Very, very badly; did you eventually convince her?

I think I did eventually, basically take the part that confused young nyjastul (how Han and Luke could wear robot...eh skins? Cases?) It's understandable for a child to make that mistake, but was exasperating even now thinking about it coming from an adult. In her defense, I don't think she watched all of the original Star Wars, cause I feel like she characterized Darth Vader as completely a robot too....

It might have actually been 10th grade now that I think about it harder...that was a long time ago. Either way my grades didn't suffer for continuously arguing with her about it, she was a pretty good teacher overall.

I do wonder if she amended her lessons , or if she completely forgot about it and went right back to teaching Star Wars: A New Hope as Man Vs Machine because the Storm Troopers are robots.

[Vknight]

@Cobaltstarfire
Depends on the teacher really I hope they did.
I have a different story on the matter involving the book Grendel and calling it published fan-fiction with the same quality, and during my senior year I heard the teacher use the same phrase when talking about the book to there class.

I never thought the vampire thing though that is helped in part because; I knew about Vampire bats when I was 7 and how they work

I had a few
-I thought evil witches had to be teachers around 6 to 8 area, or otherwise in a position of power over children. Evil Nurses, bad babysitters, Unreasonable Parents etc.
-I thought it was strange that vampires in movies wouldn't go out into the sun, because Dracula did that in the novel(its super common in a lot of vampire lore they can but with some limitation)
-I thought a elf had to be short(5'2" and shorter), or really tall(6'6" and taller), which I don't know why I just remember I only though of elves as being really small or giant willowy people
-Dwarves had no beards because they need to work on the forge without obstruction
-A curse isn't something that is malicious but is instead always meant to impart a life lesson on the person.

[Sith_Happens]

Not through them - tongue goes into blood, comes out with a little blood clinging to it - tongue goes back into mouth, blood is swallowed.

Just like a cat lapping up milk - but a whole lot faster.

I could have sworn I read at a zoo or someplace as a kid that they have tubes running through their tongues that they use like straws.:smallconfused:


-A curse isn't something that is malicious but is instead always meant to impart a life lesson on the person.

Technically true, it's just that sometimes the life lesson is "Don't piss me off" or just straight up "**** you.":smalltongue:

[GorinichSerpant]

@Cobaltstarfire
Depends on the teacher really I hope they did.
I have a different story on the matter involving the book Grendel and calling it published fan-fiction with the same quality, and during my senior year I heard the teacher use the same phrase when talking about the book to there class.

I never thought the vampire thing though that is helped in part because; I knew about Vampire bats when I was 7 and how they work

I had a few
-I thought evil witches had to be teachers around 6 to 8 area, or otherwise in a position of power over children. Evil Nurses, bad babysitters, Unreasonable Parents etc.
-I thought it was strange that vampires in movies wouldn't go out into the sun, because Dracula did that in the novel(its super common in a lot of vampire lore they can but with some limitation)
-I thought a elf had to be short(5'2" and shorter), or really tall(6'6" and taller), which I don't know why I just remember I only though of elves as being really small or giant willowy people
-Dwarves had no beards because they need to work on the forge without obstruction
-A curse isn't something that is malicious but is instead always meant to impart a life lesson on the person.

The thing about witches is amazing. I think that the thing with the elves is probably due to "elf" referring to either tall willowy people or tiny people that live can use leaves for cover, so really it checks out. Now I want to have an ability in an RPG that is called "Curse" that causes a target to suffer some supernatural effect until they learn a valuable life lesson.

[Vknight]

I could have sworn I read at a zoo or someplace as a kid that they have tubes running through their tongues that they use like straws.:smallconfused:

Technically true, it's just that sometimes the life lesson is "Don't piss me off" or just straight up "**** you.":smalltongue:

Snappers got a parasitic bug that eats there tongue. Some animals wrap there tongue around things using it like a channel to help draw in food
Well those last two didn't apply to the misconception because those would only be a life lesson if the curse ended when you learned leave that person alone/don't piss them off

[goto124]

As for silly childhood misconceptions: When I was 7 or so, I saw Star Wars for the first time. When I saw the scene of Vader chocking the rebel ("If this is a consular ship, where's the ambassador?"), my young mind thought the sound of him asphyxiating was actually Vader snapping his neck. I was also disappointed that I couldn't get anything else to make that noise.

I thought Vader was using telekinesis to control his victims' hands so that they move to their owners' necks and squeeze really hard, aka choke themselves.


I think it's just people not really understanding what that would feel like, to have teeth break skin and enter your veins, or even just to lose so much blood by any means. They want to believe that a vampire bite is just a pale, edgy, unique equivalent to a neck-kiss.

I just pretend that my characters, almost literal superhero adventurers who encounter much more horrifying things on a daily basis and just go home every night with little consequence, would find a vampire's kiss adorable. Especially if both parties have put in effort to set the romantic mood.

Doesn't work for all genres, though.

[Sith_Happens]

Hey, never underestimate the power of numbing agents and anticoagulants.:smallwink:

[Kid Jake]

Now I want to have an ability in an RPG that is called "Curse" that causes a target to suffer some supernatural effect until they learn a valuable life lesson.

It'd be even greater if ANY life lesson was enough to break the power, leading to magical duels that pretty much sound like rejected episodes of Dragon Tales.

"Oh no, I'm bleeding out of my eyes...it's only now that I see that the delivery fee isn't a substitute for tipping your pizza guy!"
"My heart...I can feel it slowing to a stop. I'll never steal my roommate's Poptarts again!"
"I've been rendered infertile! If only I'd remembered to look both ways before crossing the street..."
"Begone accursed imp! I banish thee with the power of improved personal hygiene!"

[Vrock_Summoner]

It'd be even greater if ANY life lesson was enough to break the power, leading to magical duels that pretty much sound like rejected episodes of Dragon Tales.

"Oh no, I'm bleeding out of my eyes...it's only now that I see that the delivery fee isn't a substitute for tipping your pizza guy!"
"My heart...I can feel it slowing to a stop. I'll never steal my roommate's Poptarts again!"
"I've been rendered infertile! If only I'd remembered to look both ways before crossing the street..."
"Begone accursed imp! I banish thee with the power of improved personal hygiene!"
This is beautiful. I think I just regained my ability to feel hope.

[hamishspence]

I could have sworn I read at a zoo or someplace as a kid that they have tubes running through their tongues that they use like straws.:smallconfused:


It has grooves, not tubes - which help facilitate it - but the lapping is what does the work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_vampire_bat

[enderlord99]

Bearenstæin.

[5a Violista]

Re: Hollow-toothed vampires:

It was actually Twilight that convinced me there were vampires who didn't have hollow teeth (I remember reading stories about vampires that specified they had hollow teeth; I can't remember where or which, though), and I thought the entire outrage about them not being "real vampires" was because they didn't have hollow teeth.

[Jay R]

As a child, I thought that Baba Yaga was a Jack and Jill Magazine character, like Superman is a DC Comics character.

Well, it was the only place I'd ever encountered her.

[halfeye]

I could have sworn I read at a zoo or someplace as a kid that they have tubes running through their tongues that they use like straws.:smallconfused:



Technically true, it's just that sometimes the life lesson is "Don't piss me off" or just straight up "**** you.":smalltongue:

"It's a gift". Because you don't want to offend the giver any further.


As a child, I thought that Baba Yaga was a Jack and Jill Magazine character, like Superman is a DC Comics character.

Well, it was the only place I'd ever encountered her.

Urg, nuke it from orbit now. :smallfurious::smallfrown:

Hi to Baba Yaga.

[Mightymosy]

Kids think up the craziest things sometimes, for no real reason other than that they're kids. That's part of why we love them so much.

So what're some of the wackiest theories and silliest misconceptions about elements common to fantasy and fantasy gaming that your young self, your own children, or other kids you've known pulled out of seemingly nowhere?

I'll start with myself. I really have no idea what inspired my brain to assume this and miss the most obvious choice, but for some reason, it took me watching my first R-rated vampire movie (at the tender age of... Actually, I don't remember, but I had to have been at least 9) to realize that vampires just use their teeth to make incisions and then drink the flowing blood in the normal swallowing methods. It blew my mind when I finally realized that, because I'd spent my whole experience with vampires working off the much weirder assumption that they drank more like four-pronged mosquitos, with their teeth having little tubes in them that sucked the blood directly out of your bloodstream. To this day, I'm both confused by what I was thinking, and cautiously optimistic about the idea of someday implementing insectoid vampires into a game.

Alright, you guys' turn!

Wait, so they don't suck through their teeth? Oh...

[Mightymosy]

I also thought vampires had syringe teeth. I didn't realize this misconception was so common.

I saw Star Wars in a drive-in theater when I was 7 or 8. I thought stormtroopers were robot's, like 3PO, and was bit confused about how Han and Luke could fit into robot suits.

Me too :smallsmile:

[The Insanity]

For a long time I was convinced that zombies where fictional creatures.

[Vrock_Summoner]

For a long time I was convinced that zombies where fictional creatures.
Either you're talking about the cultural voodoo zombies of Haiti, or I need to hear how this a misconception. Because I'm pretty sure zombies as portrayed in film are very fictional.

[Telok]

I once, long ago, ran across a couple of kids who believed that invisible people could see other invisible people and that it was only visible people who could not see invisible people. That never made any sense to me.

[Rusvul]

I once, long ago, ran across a couple of kids who believed that invisible people could see other invisible people and that it was only visible people who could not see invisible people. That never made any sense to me.

I had completely forgotten about this, but when I was like 5 this made perfect sense to me. Also syringe vampires.

[comk59]

Syringe Vampires, for sure.

I used to wonder why people didn't just stab a hydra's head, and concluded that a hydras brain must be in it's chest.

I also used to think that all wizards knew how to make fireworks.

[Milo v3]

This is the first I'm ever hearing of syringe vampires.... and I've heard of vampires that scrap and lick rather than suck.

[TeChameleon]

I used to wonder why people didn't just stab a hydra's head, and concluded that a hydras brain must be in it's chest.

... that makes a disturbing amount of sense.

Although I have to admit that my favourite method of dealing with a hydra popped up in Groo the Wanderer- the titular idiot barbarian just lopped off heads so fast that the bloody thing ended up looking like broccoli with teeth and falling over under the weight of its own heads!

And I'm fairly sure I've seen the 'invisible people can see other invisible people' thing pop up somewhere in fiction, now that it's been mentioned...

[digiman619]

And I'm fairly sure I've seen the 'invisible people can see other invisible people' thing pop up somewhere in fiction, now that it's been mentioned...

That does make a certain amount of sense from a physics standpoint; invisible retinas shouldn't be able to see light that passes literally through them, so 'invisible' creatures should be reflecting a color we can't pick up, so eyes that are also thusly shifted seeing shades of light normally invisible.

[bulbaquil]

I used to wonder why people didn't just stab a hydra's head, and concluded that a hydras brain must be in it's chest.


That seems perfectly logical. The heads never bicker with each other or act separately from one another, because the beast isn't controlled from the head. (Also makes sense from a 5e standpoint, where you can kill a hydra through simple hit-point attrition irrespective of current or original head count).

[DaveOTN]

I used to play a lot of D&D with my little brother when I was twelve or thirteen, which means he couldn't have been older than nine or ten. It was mostly just collective story-telling at that age, with me as the DM telling him what to roll, and we had a good time with it. At one point, though, he decided he'd create a dungeon for me to run through, and the lack of pictures in the old Rules Cyclopedia started to show when he described my character walking into an ambush laid by a pack of short, mostly-naked little humanoids with big eyes and wild multicolored hair streaming above their heads....

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Wizard_troll_doll-low_res.jpg


Of course he hadn't adjusted the stats, either, just assumed that they were scrawny little fairies, and was kind of suprised that they murdered my 3rd level fighter so quickly.

[ATHATH]

"Oh no, I'm bleeding out of my eyes...it's only now that I see that the delivery fee isn't a substitute for tipping your pizza guy!"
Sigged.

Why isn't the minimum character-count for posts 6?

[KillianHawkeye]

And I'm fairly sure I've seen the 'invisible people can see other invisible people' thing pop up somewhere in fiction, now that it's been mentioned...

Well I know it happened in the first season of Heroes when Peter Petrelli first meets The Invisible Man while not even realizing he's become invisible himself.

[Kid Jake]

Sigged.

Why isn't the minimum character-count for posts 6?

Yay! I like to be sigged.

[Rockphed]

And I'm fairly sure I've seen the 'invisible people can see other invisible people' thing pop up somewhere in fiction, now that it's been mentioned...

Lord of the Rings does this to a certain extent. Frodo's ring makes him invisible, except that the thing he really wants to hide from is mostly invisible and can see him better when he has it on.

[Slipperychicken]

I used to think pirates wore eyepatches because of injury to the eye, much like how they had peg-legs and other prostheses. It wasn't until later I learned about how it helps the covered eye adapt to darkness.


Um.. I still think the syringe teeth makes the most sense. :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, when I was little, I listened to LotR on tape, and I spent the first two books thinking Merry and Pippin were girls. I thought that all dragons wore gemstones like armor (thanks Tolkein) as well. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out why, if centaur blood poisoned Heracles, how come they didn't poison themselves, and I tried to figure out why a well-tender would want Odin's eyeball, whether it was because he needed an eyeball (and subsequently, I thought that you could use someone else's eyeball in pinch) or if it was because he liked pirates. :smalltongue:

I thought Merry was a girl for the longest. Same with wondering how creatures with poisonous blood don't poison themselves.

Well, using someone else's eyeball isn't so far-fetched in that tale, since Odin could still see out of his while digesting it. That implies you don't really need a connection to the brain for it to work.



-I thought evil witches had to be teachers around 6 to 8 area, or otherwise in a position of power over children. Evil Nurses, bad babysitters, Unreasonable Parents etc.
-A curse isn't something that is malicious but is instead always meant to impart a life lesson on the person.

I feel some plots brewing in my new-DM mind. Missing kid, turns out the mean old witch-teacher keeps her lair under the schoolhouse, took him there because he saw her do magic during detention. Normally wouldn't be a problem because that's the kind of thing a mischievous kid would say, but along with previous reports of witchery, that could have brought the inquisitor down on her head. Either that, or it's a witch making children do her bidding (namely stealing important things from their parents) in preparation for a nasty demon-conjuring that could wipe out the whole town.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

I used to think pirates wore eyepatches because of injury to the eye, much like how they had peg-legs and other prostheses. It wasn't until later I learned about how it helps the covered eye adapt to darkness.

There isn't actually any direct evidence for that, though it is plausible.

[tomandtish]

I always believed the suction vampire as well. A big part of the problem is how fast (in many versions) the vampire drains a human. Especially Buffy/Angel (and I KNEW better by then).

Seriously. Your average vampire on that show kills a human (unless it is a main character) with about 5 seconds of feeding through two tiny holes. They must have industrial strength vacuums hooked up to those fangs!


The pirates wearing eye patches for night vision is plausible, except they wear the eye patch during the day as well. So it's either injury or a fashion statement.

Not a misconception, but i always wondered how Midas went to the bathroom...

[Slipperychicken]

The pirates wearing eye patches for night vision is plausible, except they wear the eye patch during the day as well. So it's either injury or a fashion statement.


I meant for when they go below deck, where it's supposed to be dark.

[Winter_Wolf]

Not a misconception, but i always wondered how Midas went to the bathroom...

Must...resist...urge...to...make...tasteless joke.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Seriously. Your average vampire on that show kills a human (unless it is a main character) with about 5 seconds of feeding through two tiny holes. They must have industrial strength vacuums hooked up to those fangs!
Well, I'm not sure how much this changes the equation, but as I understand it, a human only has to lose about a third of their blood to be almost guaranteed to die without medical treatment, and if you puncture the right part of the neck a human will lose most of their blood in minutes without any additional help. But I'm by no means an expert.

[tomandtish]

Well, I'm not sure how much this changes the equation, but as I understand it, a human only has to lose about a third of their blood to be almost guaranteed to die without medical treatment, and if you puncture the right part of the neck a human will lose most of their blood in minutes without any additional help. But I'm by no means an expert.

Absolutely. The key being in minutes, not seconds.

I'm sure they do it that way because they don't want to waste minutes of screentime showing a feeding, but the result is that they show the victims dying in seconds (incidentally, with no obvious signs of the vampire swallowing).So high strength vacuum that provides the suction for them...

[Kid Jake]

Not a misconception, but i always wondered how Midas went to the bathroom...

The same way Lear went to the bathroom. No self respecting king shakes his own willy.

[Vrock_Summoner]

The same way Lear went to the bathroom. No self respecting king shakes his own willy.
Wait, does that mean he got a gold statue of a really reluctant-looking servant every time he needed to pee?

[Kid Jake]

Wait, does that mean he got a gold statue of a really reluctant-looking servant every time he needed to pee?

Well, I'd imagine that he occasionally got a gold statue of an inappropriately excited servant when he needed to pee, but yeah.

[Strigon]

Absolutely. The key being in minutes, not seconds.

I'm sure they do it that way because they don't want to waste minutes of screentime showing a feeding, but the result is that they show the victims dying in seconds (incidentally, with no obvious signs of the vampire swallowing).So high strength vacuum that provides the suction for them...

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8fidfSKIk1r8gsqgo3_250.gif

[The Glyphstone]

The pirates wearing eye patches for night vision is plausible, except they wear the eye patch during the day as well. So it's either injury or a fashion statement.



I meant for when they go below deck, where it's supposed to be dark.

Yeah, they'd swap the patch between eyes depending on if they were above or below deck, so they never had to adjust to the change in light conditions.

[GungHo]

Honestly, it didn't occur to me that the "multi-pronged humanoid mosquito" thing WASN'T how it worked until today. If nothing else, it accounts for how there's never any sign of spillage, which I think would be inevitable with the puncture-then-suck-and-swallow-like-a-living-human-would method.

Plus I figure that vampires don't metabolize blood the way we do food, so the digestive tract is essentially vestigial.

I think we all got this from the two little holes that would be left in vampire shows/movies. If the movies showed that the person had their neck ripped open like they were attacked by a large dog or big cat, I am pretty sure it would have come across a lot less... romantic of a notion.

My contribution: Color itself was invented in the 1950s and before then everything and everyone was black and white.

[halfeye]

My contribution: Color itself was invented in the 1950s and before then everything and everyone was black and white.
Nope, the nazis had colour propaganda, and there are earlier colour photographs using triple exposures through colour filters. Yeah, you were joking. :smallbiggrin:

[hewhosaysfish]

Well, I'd imagine that he occasionally got a gold statue of an inappropriately excited servant when he needed to pee, but yeah.

Or maybe, some sort of golden tongs would be in order?

[SethoMarkus]

Don't the legends just say Midas wore gloves? Couldn't a servant just wear a pair of gloves for the... task at hand? I mean, far less humorous a visual but...

[nedz]

Yeah, they'd swap the patch between eyes depending on if they were above or below deck, so they never had to adjust to the change in light conditions.

And promptly trip and fall down the stairs, or bump into things, because of their lack of depth perception. Hence the stories of them being always drunk.

Wait - you were talking about one of your misconceptions weren't you ? :smallamused:

[Jay R]

Don't the legends just say Midas wore gloves?

How do you put on gloves that turn rigid when you touch them?

In Ovid's Metamorphosis, he didn't have the curse for long. After Midas repented and prayed for help, Dionysus relented and told him how to rid himself of it.

[5a Violista]

And promptly trip and fall down the stairs, or bump into things, because of their lack of depth perception. Hence the stories of them being always drunk.

I can walk up and down stairs/navigate my way around obstacles in broad daylight/play sports/fence/tie knots/fire guns/etc perfectly fine without depth perception, and if I can do it I'm sure pirates can do it also. (Well, I'm a little hindered doing fencing without depth perception, but I could overcome that with more practice, I'm sure.)

[Strigon]

How do you put on gloves that turn rigid when you touch them?

In Ovid's Metamorphosis, he didn't have the curse for long. After Midas repented and prayed for help, Dionysus relented and told him how to rid himself of it.

Woven gloves; the individual threads become gold, which is still quite malleable.

[Cyclopean]

That does make a certain amount of sense from a physics standpoint; invisible retinas shouldn't be able to see light that passes literally through them, so 'invisible' creatures should be reflecting a color we can't pick up, so eyes that are also thusly shifted seeing shades of light normally invisible.

If an invisible creature reflected only wavelengths of light we couldn't perceive, it would appear to be completely black, not transparent.

[SethoMarkus]

Woven gloves; the individual threads become gold, which is still quite malleable.

Thank you, that was along the lines of what I was thinking. As well as gold being soft enough as to be pliable when thin. It was a nice counter, though! :P

[Rusvul]

Midas's curse always confused me. Does his hand only turn the piece of something that he touches to gold? Clearly not, he ended up with people-statues without touching every inch of the people in question. What about liquids? Can they turn to gold? What happens if he touches something really big, like a tree? A house? The earth? Could Midas have caused a Cat's Cradle-esque apocalypse by turning the earth and the sea to gold?

[Cyclopean]

Midas's curse always confused me. Does his hand only turn the piece of something that he touches to gold? Clearly not, he ended up with people-statues without touching every inch of the people in question. What about liquids? Can they turn to gold? What happens if he touches something really big, like a tree? A house? The earth? Could Midas have caused a Cat's Cradle-esque apocalypse by turning the earth and the sea to gold?

There's a comic about that.

http://67.media.tumblr.com/ce4f9900be2d2f8741062804bbaf6351/tumblr_nqgb4bJ4eT1qetjcco1_1280.jpg

[Jay R]

Woven gloves; the individual threads become gold, which is still quite malleable.

I suspect that leather gloves were far more common then. It might take some experimentation to come up with the idea of woven gloves.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Just simplify the idea of what a woven glove does here - make an extremely thin glove (even if it's really fragile material not suited to surviving as a glove, it'll be gold in a moment) and then wear a more proper glove over it so it has some shielding and doesn't look too strange.

[endoperez]

I was a teenager at the time, but I was 100 % certain that the kender from Dragonlance looked like fauns or satyrs. As in Pan of the Greek mythology - goat's feet, a little tail, small horns on the head. Possibly reed flutes too. All this from the name "Burrfoot" - he'd have to have fur-covered legs, otherwise he wouldn't have burrs latching onto them, right?

It's not a misconception, exactly, but the way I imagined Ents in LotR they were massive, thick-bodied and wide. Then the movies made them like thin stick-men. The clash between my mental image and the movie's visuals was so strong I still dislike the movies purely because of that. I know it's illogical to go to that extent, but...

[Jay R]

I was a teenager at the time, but I was 100 % certain that the kender from Dragonlance looked like fauns or satyrs. As in Pan of the Greek mythology - goat's feet, a little tail, small horns on the head. Possibly reed flutes too. All this from the name "Burrfoot" - he'd have to have fur-covered legs, otherwise he wouldn't have burrs latching onto them, right?

It's not a misconception, exactly, but the way I imagined Ents in LotR they were massive, thick-bodied and wide. Then the movies made them like thin stick-men. The clash between my mental image and the movie's visuals was so strong I still dislike the movies purely because of that. I know it's illogical to go to that extent, but...

Tolkien said that when an ent isn't moving, you cannot distinguish him from a tree. So they can't be any thicker than trees are.

[goto124]

So they can't be any thicker than trees are.

Depending on species of tree, they can become quite thick...

[enderlord99]

So they can't be any thinker than trees are.

I disagree. Trees can't think at all, and Ents blatantly can. This is the first time I've heard "think" used as an adjective, though...

[nyjastul69]

I disagree. Trees can't think at all, and Ents blatantly can. This is the first time I've heard "think" used as an adjective, though...

I think he meant thicker. At least that's how I read it.

[enderlord99]

I think he meant thicker. At least that's how I read it.
I know. I was poking fun at the typo.

[Jay R]

Depending on species of tree, they can become quite thick...

According to Tolkien, we're talking about beech, oak, chestnut, ash, fir, birch, rowan, and linden. These aren't baobabs or sequoias.

[hymer]

Tolkien said that when an ent isn't moving, you cannot distinguish him from a tree.

Do you recall where this came up? Particularly the context?

[Thrudd]

Do you recall where this came up? Particularly the context?

For one thing, when Merry and Pippin first wander into Fangorn Forest they walk right past Treebeard, thinking he is a slightly strange looking tree stump. Can't remember the exact description. Later on, other ents are described as slender, especially the younger ones like Quickbeam.

[hymer]

For one thing, when Merry and Pippin first wander into Fangorn Forest they walk right past Treebeard, thinking he is a slightly strange looking tree. Can't remember the exact description. Later on, other ents are described as slender, especially the younger ones like Quickbeam.

There's quite a ways from two Hobbits walking past without noticing him to him and a tree being outright indistinguishable. The Hobbits fail to notice Strider, Gollum and Elves, too, while these are observing them.

[Thrudd]

There's quite a ways from two Hobbits walking past without noticing him to him and a tree being outright indistinguishable. The Hobbits fail to notice Strider, Gollum and Elves, too, while these are observing them.

The point is, he's a thing that looks like a tree. He wasn't hiding or in the shadows, like Strider and Gollum and the rest. He was standing on a hill enjoying the sunlight. If they studied the strange stump carefully, they would have noticed he wasn't a tree but some kind of person, but at a glance it was not obvious. And Treebeard describes how ents gradually can go "treeish" when they stop moving, and more ents nowadays are going "treeish" than there are trees becoming "entish". If trees can become "entish" and vice versa, they can't be all that different in look or proportions.

[hymer]

The point is, he's a thing that looks like a tree. He wasn't hiding or in the shadows, like Strider and Gollum and the rest. He was standing on a hill enjoying the sunlight. If they studied the strange stump carefully, they would have noticed he wasn't a tree but some kind of person, but at a glance it was not obvious. And Treebeard describes how ents gradually can go "treeish" when they stop moving, and more ents nowadays are going "treeish" than there are trees becoming "entish". If trees can become "entish" and vice versa, they can't be all that different in look or proportions.

Which is also very different from the two being indistinguishable. I'm not having problems with 'Ents look like trees'. I'm having problems with 'Tolkien said Ents and trees look exactly the same'.

[Thrudd]

Which is also very different from the two being indistinguishable. I'm not having problems with 'Ents look like trees'. I'm having problems with 'Tolkien said Ents and trees look exactly the same'.

No, he didn't say exactly the same. But they aren't proportioned much differently, because they can turn into trees and trees can turn into them. The movie did make them look more tree-like than I think the book describes them, with all kinds of knots and extra protrusions and skin exactly like bark. "Indistinguishable" is a matter of degrees. An ent standing completely still (as they often are) can be mistaken for a tree, that is what the text describes.

[hymer]

No, he didn't say exactly the same.

Well, Jay R seems to think he did, so I'm interested in seeing what he was referring to.


"Indistinguishable" is a matter of degrees.

But


Tolkien said that when an ent isn't moving, you cannot distinguish him from a tree.

is definite.

[nyjastul69]

FWIW I found this description from Wikipedia.


[A] large Man-like, almost Troll-like, figure, at least fourteen foot high, very sturdy, with a tall head, and hardly any neck. Whether it was clad in stuff like green and grey bark, or whether that was its hide, was difficult to say. At any rate the arms, at a short distance from the trunk, were not wrinkled, but covered with a brown smooth skin. The large feet had seven toes each. The lower part of the long face was covered with a sweeping grey beard, bushy, almost twiggy at the roots, thin and mossy at the ends. But at the moment the hobbits noted little but the eyes. These deep eyes were now surveying them, slow and solemn, but very penetrating.

[hymer]

FWIW I found this description from Wikipedia.

That's the (I'm pretty sure mis-quoted by womeone writing it into Wikipedia) description of Treebeard when the Hobbits first encounter him. Later, at the Moot, we also hear about Ents as different to him as one kind of tree is to another, except their eyes all have that same, peculiar quality.
So the description doesn't apply to every Ent.

[nyjastul69]

That's the (I'm pretty sure mis-quoted by womeone writing it into Wikipedia) description of Treebeard when the Hobbits first encounter him. Later, at the Moot, we also hear about Ents as different to him as one kind of tree is to another, except their eyes all have that same, peculiar quality.
So the description doesn't apply to every Ent.

Yeah, I realize that is only a description of Fangorn.

Are you saying that Wiki quote is incorrect. I didn't bother to cross reference it to the novel itself. I assumed it was accurate.

[hymer]

Yeah, I realize that is only a description of Fangorn.

Are you saying that Wiki quote is incorrect. I didn't bother to cross reference it to the novel itself. I assumed it was accurate.

Why would, and why wouldn't you? :smallsmile: I'm certainly not faulting you.
It doesn't spell 'Hobbits' with a capital H. I'm pretty sure the book gets that right.

Edit: Well, that shows me! The 'h' is correct. Both 'Man' and 'Troll' are spelled with a capital letter, but not Hobbit. *shrug* Well, what do I know?

[nyjastul69]

Why would, and why wouldn't you? :smallsmile: I'm certainly not faulting you.
It doesn't spell 'Hobbits' with a capital H. I'm pretty sure the book gets that right.

Edit: Well, that shows me! The 'h' is correct. Both 'Man' and 'Troll' are spelled with a capital letter, but not Hobbit. *shrug* Well, what do I know?

Well, it *is* Wikipedia. Generally trusted, but not a primary source. Interesting bit about the H in hobbits though. I didn't know that.

[Jay R]

Well, Jay R seems to think he did, so I'm interested in seeing what he was referring to.

It was an interview I read when he was still alive, which makes it 1973 or earlier.

[JeenLeen]

I also though Merry was a girl. I don't remember if I was mistaken about Pippin, too, or not. Probably not.

I remember when I took karate, sometime when I was in elementary school. I asked the teacher if we were going to learn ninja magic. So apparently I thought ninjas and karate masters could do stuff like teleport or do stuff like Ryu from Street Fighter.

[nyjastul69]

I also though Merry was a girl. I don't remember if I was mistaken about Pippin, too, or not. Probably not.

I remember when I took karate, sometime when I was in elementary school. I asked the teacher if we were going to learn ninja magic. So apparently I thought ninjas and karate masters could do stuff like teleport or do stuff like Ryu from Street Fighter.
What was the instructor's response to that?

[Vrock_Summoner]

What was the instructors response to that?
Asking the real questions.

[Knaight]

And promptly trip and fall down the stairs, or bump into things, because of their lack of depth perception. Hence the stories of them being always drunk.

Wait - you were talking about one of your misconceptions weren't you ? :smallamused:

Try walking around with an eye closed - absent some serious clutter there's not even a noticeable difference in difficulty, particularly if you're in an area that you know.

[Sith_Happens]

Try walking around with an eye closed - absent some serious clutter there's not even a noticeable difference in difficulty, particularly if you're in an area that you know.

That's because your brain is familiar enough with depth perception to fake it for at least a few weeks. Also, yeah, just walking around and stuff isn't going to be severely impacted either way.

[JeenLeen]

What was the instructor's response to that?

I don't remember the words he said, but I recall he took it pretty well but nicely said no. I think he might've gone on to say we'd learn to break wooden boards with our hands or some other cool stuff.

I do recall he didn't make me feel embarrassed about asking. I think some of the other kids laughed -- I was probably between 6 and 9 -- but I appreciated how it handled it.

[Chimera245]

In reference to the invisible-can-see-invisible ringwraiths-can-see-Frodo-when-he-wears-the-One-Ring thing, I believe the books said that ringwraiths actually SEE darkness instead of light, like a pitch black moonless night would be like broad daylight to them, but a well-lit room with multiple light sources, so nothing really cast a noticeable shadow would leave them blind. I took this to mean something like the One Ring sort of half-shifts you to something like the Ethereal Plane or Plane of Shadow, and the Ringwraiths, who were also on that plane could see you.

As far as my own misconceptions, when I was really small, I thought "Poverty" and "Puberty" were the same word, and that no one was allowed to have any money between like 12 and 16 years old...

[Minescratcher]

In reference to the invisible-can-see-invisible ringwraiths-can-see-Frodo-when-he-wears-the-One-Ring thing, I believe the books said that ringwraiths actually SEE darkness instead of light, like a pitch black moonless night would be like broad daylight to them, but a well-lit room with multiple light sources, so nothing really cast a noticeable shadow would leave them blind. I took this to mean something like the One Ring sort of half-shifts you to something like the Ethereal Plane or Plane of Shadow, and the Ringwraiths, who were also on that plane could see you.

That's basically how it works, according to Gandalf.


...You were in the gravest peril while you wore the Ring, for then you were half in the wraith-world yourself, and they might have seized you. You could see them and they could see you.

[Fuzzy Logic]

+1 syringe vampires. I find the widespread belief rather fascinating.

Embarrassingly, I used to believe tv and movies were made by following people around with little flying cameras and would sometimes talk to my camera in an imitation of characters addressing the audience

[Kelb_Panthera]

If an invisible creature reflected only wavelengths of light we couldn't perceive, it would appear to be completely black, not transparent.

That would require it to -absorb- EM waves in the visibile spectrum. If it's transparent in the visible spectrum it can still be opaque to other parts of the spectrum.

Take glass for instance: while not perfectly so, it's mostly transparent to visible light but completely opaque in infrared.

[Jay R]

If an invisible creature reflected only wavelengths of light we couldn't perceive, it would appear to be completely black, not transparent.

That would require it to -absorb- EM waves in the visibile spectrum. If it's transparent in the visible spectrum it can still be opaque to other parts of the spectrum.

Take glass for instance: while not perfectly so, it's mostly transparent to visible light but completely opaque in infrared.

This would be true in a world with no magic. By definition, magic doesn't follow scientific principles.

I don't even assume that light has a spectrum in a D&D world. An invisible creature is simply one that you cannot see, and nobody in the world understands the mechanics of how we see anyway.

[nyjastul69]

I don't remember the words he said, but I recall he took it pretty well but nicely said no. I think he might've gone on to say we'd learn to break wooden boards with our hands or some other cool stuff.

I do recall he didn't make me feel embarrassed about asking. I think some of the other kids laughed -- I was probably between 6 and 9 -- but I appreciated how it handled it.

Cool, sounds like a good instructor.

[GuzWaatensen]

This would be true in a world with no magic. By definition, magic doesn't follow scientific principles.

I don't even assume that light has a spectrum in a D&D world. An invisible creature is simply one that you cannot see, and nobody in the world understands the mechanics of how we see anyway.

Why wouldn't light have a spectrum in D&D? How do you explain things having colors to your players?

Wouldn't it be easier to say: Everything works exactly as in our world, but wizards can turn themselves transparent and change their refractive index to that of air because magic.

Also note that in other media than air, it is possible to become invisible even in our reality (Search for refractive index matching on YouTube)

[bulbaquil]

Why wouldn't light have a spectrum in D&D? How do you explain things having colors to your players?

You don't explain things having colors to your players. Even if they ask. You just smile conspiratorially and continue with the game.

[Jay R]

Why wouldn't light have a spectrum in D&D?

Why wouldn't light have a spectrum in D&D?
Why would light have a spectrum in D&D?

Both questions are unanswerable. We know that mass and energy and momentum and angular momentum are not conserved. We know that the laws of thermodynamics are often broken.

The same set of physical laws that include a spectrum also prevent inter-species breeding, like dragons and humans, or owls and bears. They also prevent flying without wings or jet exhaust or being lighter than air.

Therefore there is no reason to assume that any other physical law works.


How do you explain things having colors to your players?

In over 40 years of role playing, I have never once explained things having colors to my players.
Not in historical games.
Not in modern games.
Not in superhero games.
Not in science fiction games.
And not in fantasy games.


Wouldn't it be easier to say: Everything works exactly as in our world, but wizards can turn themselves transparent and change their refractive index to that of air because magic.

Yes, it's easier. It's also meaningless.

When discussing universal laws, "Everything works exactly the same except when it doesn't" is semantically equal to "It doesn't work the same."

"There is a law of conservation of energy, except magic" is the same thing as "energy is not always conserved."

"There is a universal gravitational constant between two bodies unless magic changes it" means that there is no universal gravitational constant.

We don't consider something a physical law unless it's universal. Saying that mass & energy is conserved unless magic changes it is as meaningful as saying that an eggshell has never been cracked except once.


Also note that in other media than air, it is possible to become invisible even in our reality (Search for refractive index matching on YouTube)

Or even in air. Oxygen is invisible to us. But it doesn't turn invisible, by changing its refractive index at whim.

One reason not to assume modern physical laws exist except when they don't is that the assumption serves no purpose. It doesn't help the game in any way, and it didn't even preserve the physical laws. Furthermore, if the players use any knowledge of physical laws, they are using meta-knowledge - player knowledge that the characters don't have, since Knowledge (modern physics) isn't included in the rules. I once ran a game in which the following was part of the introduction:

A warning about meta-knowledge. 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.

Another reason is to allow cool story ideas. In the same game, I introduced seven artifacts, in the hands of adventurers, called the Staves of the Wanderers. They turned out to be staves that each carried powers from the seven planets of the Ptolemaic system ("planetes asteroi" - the wandering stars). So they were themed to the moon, Mercury, Venus, the sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Note that I used the medieval assumption that the sun and moon are planets, and the earth is not. An unthinking assumption of modern physics would have prevented that entire adventure.

Note also that I told them, above, that stars are not gigantic gaseous bodies undergoing nuclear fusion, and that Ptolemy might be helpful

[Bohandas]

Kids think up the craziest things sometimes, for no real reason other than that they're kids. That's part of why we love them so much.

So what're some of the wackiest theories and silliest misconceptions about elements common to fantasy and fantasy gaming that your young self, your own children, or other kids you've known pulled out of seemingly nowhere?

I'll start with myself. I really have no idea what inspired my brain to assume this and miss the most obvious choice, but for some reason, it took me watching my first R-rated vampire movie (at the tender age of... Actually, I don't remember, but I had to have been at least 9) to realize that vampires just use their teeth to make incisions and then drink the flowing blood in the normal swallowing methods. It blew my mind when I finally realized that, because I'd spent my whole experience with vampires working off the much weirder assumption that they drank more like four-pronged mosquitos, with their teeth having little tubes in them that sucked the blood directly out of your bloodstream. To this day, I'm both confused by what I was thinking, and cautiously optimistic about the idea of someday implementing insectoid vampires into a game.

Scrape and lick (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT-sUH0-fH0#t=00m58s)

[Bohandas]

I suspect that leather gloves were far more common then. It might take some experimentation to come up with the idea of woven gloves.

maille then

[Vrock_Summoner]

In over 40 years of role playing, I have never once explained things having colors to my players.
Not in historical games.
Not in modern games.
Not in superhero games.
Not in science fiction games.
And not in fantasy games.
Amusingly, and quite in line with your post, the only time I've ever had to explain things having colors to players was during a historical fantasy game explicitly (rather than implicitly) running on Aristotelean and Platonic ideas of how things work.

Player: "Wait, but what about this otherwise reasonable argument hinging on how light actually works in real life?"
Me: "Sorry buddy, this is Ars Magica, you see things because visual species are emitted by what you're looking at. For that matter, all of your senses work off the same 'specie emission' system, it's just that some senses' species fire longer and shorter distances from the source. You have to get really close for a touch specie to reach you, for example."
Player: "... What?"

[Bohandas]

I used to wonder why people didn't just stab a hydra's head, and concluded that a hydras brain must be in it's chest.

I never, to this day, understood how the regenerating heads thing ever managed to come into play at all. Unless your enemy is Maximilien Robespierre that doesn't seem to be a thing which is at all likely to come up.

[Bohandas]

I thought the same thing about the vampire's teeth as well. I agree that it makes more sense, except in the most important case:

DM: As you enter the throne room of the vampire lord, he stares at you dispassionately while holding a glass of a red liquid. He takes another sip from the straw.

Player: Wait, the 1000-year-old vampire uses a straw? Did he need to wash the sippy cup?

We greet you from the deeps (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d9h2iWwu9w#t=00m30s) (warning- coarse language after relevant scene)

[Bohandas]

Midas's curse always confused me. Does his hand only turn the piece of something that he touches to gold? Clearly not, he ended up with people-statues without touching every inch of the people in question. What about liquids? Can they turn to gold? What happens if he touches something really big, like a tree? A house? The earth? Could Midas have caused a Cat's Cradle-esque apocalypse by turning the earth and the sea to gold?

Liquids were affected, but apparently there was a limit to how much could be affected (and how fast), so he was eventually able to rid himself of he power by standing in a fast moving river for a while

[Belac93]

I never, to this day, understood how the regenerating heads thing ever managed to come into play at all. Unless your enemy is Maximilien Robespierre that doesn't seem to be a thing which is at all likely to come up.

I always wondered why you wouldn't just use a really long spear, or a hammer. If the necks are broken, then new hydras can't appear, right? I also wondered why you couldn't just set up something to slice their heads off until they collapsed under their own weight, and then you could just leave it wherever it was.

[Vrock_Summoner]

And then another thought - if you've been chopping heads and each stump is growing two more, why can't you just cut below where you chopped the first time and get rid of all the new heads? At least starts you back to square one.

Incidentally, the Hydra (I believe that's singular, much like the Minoraur) was originally a unique being of supernatural origin rather than something biological, so I'm going to assume that some explanation which sounds like nonsense for us today was justifying it in the time the myth was created - like maybe the body grows stronger with each new head that's grown so it can never weigh itself down. It was already creating mass from nothing anyway, that actually isn't necessarily a huge stretch.

[Jay R]

I always wondered why you wouldn't just use a really long spear, or a hammer. If the necks are broken, then new hydras can't appear, right? I also wondered why you couldn't just set up something to slice their heads off until they collapsed under their own weight, and then you could just leave it wherever it was.


And then another thought - if you've been chopping heads and each stump is growing two more, why can't you just cut below where you chopped the first time and get rid of all the new heads? At least starts you back to square one.

Because it's not a game module; it's a story. The problem was created for the specific purpose of requiring the old necks to be cauterized, so Heracles couldn't defeat it alone. So Heracles chopped off heads, while Iolaus cauterized the wounds with a torch.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Because it's not a game module; it's a story. The problem was created for the specific purpose of requiring the old necks to be cauterized, so Heracles couldn't defeat it alone. So Heracles chopped off heads, while Iolaus cauterized the wounds with a torch.
Gonna be honest, it's been so long since I read about the myth that I actually forgot Iolaus was there for that. I kinda just remember Heracles doing it all himself. Thanks for the reminder!

[Bohandas]

Technically true, it's just that sometimes the life lesson is "Don't piss me off" or just straight up "**** you.":smalltongue:

That was actually the premise of an episode of Adventure Time


By definition, magic doesn't follow scientific principles.

What about in Ghostbusters?


I saw Star Wars in a drive-in theater when I was 7 or 8. I thought stormtroopers were robot's, like 3PO, and was bit confused about how Han and Luke could fit into robot suits.

Though not really a thing in Star Wars this is something done by the protagonist of the Kilroy Was Here concept albim by Styx


Or maybe, some sort of golden tongs would be in order?

That's a hilarious image, (especially since I'm imagining them like salad tongs)


I always wondered why you wouldn't just use a really long spear, or a hammer. If the necks are broken, then new hydras can't appear, right? I also wondered why you couldn't just set up something to slice their heads off until they collapsed under their own weight, and then you could just leave it wherever it was.

Or just stab it in the gut....

And as for hammers, IIRC Hercules normally fought with a club. Why the heck did he choose this battle to use a sword in

[Jay R]

maille then

It probably didn't exist, and certainly wasn't well known if it did. King Midas is a Greek myth, believed to be based on the Midas who founded Gordium, which dates him back more than three thousand years.

[Iamyourking]

Gonna be honest, it's been so long since I read about the myth that I actually forgot Iolaus was there for that. I kinda just remember Heracles doing it all himself. Thanks for the reminder!

In fact, in some versions of the story, he was only supposed to do ten labors; but it was ruled that the hydra and the stables didn't count because he had help.

[Kantaki]

Re Herc vs. the Hydra: Wasn't one problem with killing the Hydra that one of the heads was immortal?
Basically Herc had to separate the heads from the body because as long as the „real” head was still attached it wouldn't stop in thw long run.
Once Herc had chopped all heads (and several replacements) off all he had to do was to find the head that kept twitching and bury it under a huge rock.

[Jay R]

Re Herc vs. the Hydra: Wasn't one problem with killing the Hydra that one of the heads was immortal?
Basically Herc had to separate the heads from the body because as long as the „real” head was still attached it wouldn't stop in thw long run.
Once Herc had chopped all heads (and several replacements) off all he had to do was to find the head that kept twitching and bury it under a huge rock.

There are lots of versions of the myth, and that is certainly one of them.

Originally heads didn't come back.
One author decided it was really one snake with all her offspring.

Greek myths don't have a single set form. Aristotle said that the way to write was to choose your plot (mythos) first, and then decide what elements you want to include. This approach guarantees that re-tellings will be different. Similarly, some modern Musketeers movies have Richelieu plotting to become king, which Dumas never wrote and would be impossible in 17th century France anyway.

[nyjastul69]

...Though not really a thing in Star Wars this is something done by the protagonist of the Kilroy Was Here concept albim by Styx...

Actually, it's funny you should mention 'Kiljoy Wasn't Here'. In 8th grade me and a buddy got 3 tickets to see that tour in Providence. It was me and my friends second concert ever (1st was The Kinks), and my first gf's first concert. It was my first really big date. We were all psyched. I got to school that morning, and my friend informed that the show had been cancelled. I. Was. Devastated. They obviously ended up breaking up.

Thanks for making me relive that. ;)

[JeenLeen]

I remembered something somewhat related to this topic.

As a child, I was told drinking orange juice helped you heal faster (due to vitamin C, but I focused on orange juice.)
I watched the X-Men cartoon, with Wolverine's super-healing.
I concluded that if one drank enough orange juice, they should be able to regenerate instantly like he did.

My 'kid logic' included being stickler on taking things to logical extremes. If a few glasses helped scrapes and having a cold heal better, then a few (or hundreds of) gallons should let you regrow an arm.

---

A professor of mine told me that he didn't believe space was a vacuum when he was taught it in science class. He knew about the idea of space as full of ether. It wasn't until he did replicated some experiments that were done to disprove the theory of ether that he accepted a vacuum.

[Vrock_Summoner]

This isn't quite fantasy, but here's another fun one that was common in my fantasies; I assumed you could survive falling at any speed as long as you were on something, because you just had to jump off the thing at the last second and you'd immediately transition to the upward speed you experience when jumping off of something that wasn't hurtling downwards.

Needless to say, even if I had been right, changing speeds that quickly would just kill you before you even hit the ground, but the thought that I could do that really made my first few plane flights easier.

[Jay R]

This isn't quite fantasy, but here's another fun one that was common in my fantasies; I assumed you could survive falling at any speed as long as you were on something, because you just had to jump off the thing at the last second and you'd immediately transition to the upward speed you experience when jumping off of something that wasn't hurtling downwards.

Needless to say, even if I had been right, changing speeds that quickly would just kill you before you even hit the ground, but the thought that I could do that really made my first few plane flights easier.

As a child, I was told that if I was ever in a falling elevator, I should start jumping up and down so I wouldn't be standing on it when it crashed into the ground.

At age eight, I could tell that wouldn't work. I'd just crash a tenth of a second later, at roughly the same speed.

[Bohandas]

I only just this week got the joke with regard to one of the running gags on the Earthworm Jim cartoon show, some 20 or so years after it went off the air. Clearly the repeated references to Dune were meant as a gag ambout how both franchises are extremely worm-centric.

[Chimera245]

I just remembered this, but at age 5-ish, I believed that superheroes had powers because of their costumes.

I once stayed over at a friend's house as part of a birthday party, and my mom got me Spiderman pajamas for the occasion. I was convinced that when I put them on, I would be able to climb on walls and shoot webs. Nighttime came, and everyone got changed, and I, in my new "superhero suit" went up to a wall, and put my hands on it. When they didn't stick, I had the most epic moment of dissappointment I had ever known...

[Jay R]

I'd never heard of the word "plunder", but the word "blunder" was fairly common in Superman comics. I knew it meant to make a mistake.

So I misheard a line in the Underdog theme song as:
"Speed of lightning, roar of thunder,
Fighting all who rob or blunder..."

It seemed to me that a superhero who fought people for making mistakes was unnecessarily harsh.

[Vogonjeltz]

Not really a fantasy thing (though it happened to be a fantasy movie) and I was much younger (3-5ish) - so what I remember may only be a memory of a memory.

I happened to catch a scene of a movie that my dad was watching where someone died (a pirate killed by a swamp monster? I don't remember details) Anyway, my dad told me something along the lines of "Don't worry, they're actors. They get paid to do that." I then went weeks if not months thinking what idiots those actors were. I mean, after they were dead, no one would have to pay them anyway! I was young enough that I wasn't even horrified by the prospect, just intrigued.

The Lost Continent?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Continent_(1968_film)

It had all these shipwrecked Spanish conquistadors and there was a sea monster in a pit in the ship.

I also used to think of vampire fangs as acting like reverse snake fangs, drawing blood up instead of injecting venom. Probably because the old vampire movies made the bites look very precise and clean.

[halfeye]

There was an old TV detective series where one episode was about a body being found drained of blood with two syringe holes in the neck. I don't remember much more except that it wasn't a vampire wot did it.

[Knaight]

There was an old TV detective series where one episode was about a body being found drained of blood with two syringe holes in the neck. I don't remember much more except that it wasn't a vampire wot did it.

This was the pilot of X-files.

[hymer]

This was the pilot of X-files.

The X-files pilot is the one where a guy in a coma comes awake secretly, and brings people into the woods to be abducted by aliens. I'm fairly certain you're mistaken about any dual puncture and blood drain.

On topic: I remember one of my then quite young friends having trouble wrapping his mind around the concept of searching for secret doors. Since you rolled every time you searched, what would happen if you succeeded in finding a secret door where there wasn't one? :smallamused:

[Airk]

Another vote for "I still kinda think vampires have hollow teeth".

The pirate eyepatch thing sounds like crap though. It falls into the category of "too clever by half" for me. First of all, most belowdecks work wasn't so important and urgent that giving your eyes a couple of seconds to adjust would be a problem. It's even more ridiculous because you don't magically go from the brightly lit sunny deck to some very, very dark "below decks" space - you're using hatches and ladders. Some light filters in to the first deck, and it only gradually gets really dark... and in the areas where it IS really dark, you're going to need some sort of light for any kind of useful task anyway. And the most urgent task being done belowdecks? Firing cannon. Where you have gunports open. Which let in light. And which you need to look out of to line up your shots. Making having an eye adjusted to darkness a liability. Also, if the eyepatch thing were such a clever idea, you'd expect it not to have been limited to pirates.

Honestly, I would expect that most pirates probably didn't wear eyepatches at all and that it's just another ridiculous part of modern pirate imagery, probably stemming from the same place as, yes, the hook hand and the peg leg - the expectation that these guys have seen a lot of violence and been marred by it.

[Bohandas]

Not really a fantasy thing (though it happened to be a fantasy movie) and I was much younger (3-5ish) - so what I remember may only be a memory of a memory.

I happened to catch a scene of a movie that my dad was watching where someone died (a pirate killed by a swamp monster? I don't remember details) Anyway, my dad told me something along the lines of "Don't worry, they're actors. They get paid to do that." I then went weeks if not months thinking what idiots those actors were. I mean, after they were dead, no one would have to pay them anyway! I was young enough that I wasn't even horrified by the prospect, just intrigued.

That kind of makes me think of that reality show about fishermen dying at sea

[Bohandas]

I just remembered this, but at age 5-ish, I believed that superheroes had powers because of their costumes.

To be fair this is the case for Batman and Iron Man.

[Winter_Wolf]

The X-files pilot is the one where a guy in a coma comes awake secretly, and brings people into the woods to be abducted by aliens. I'm fairly certain you're mistaken about any dual puncture and blood drain.:

It wasn't the pilot but it was an ep of X-Files. The one about a failed eugenics experiment where all the "Eve" clones were psychotic murderers. The word "exsanguinated" featured so much you could make it into a drinking game and be three sheets to the wind before the end of the episode. Or blacked out.

[TripleD]

Since you rolled every time you searched, what would happen if you succeeded in finding a secret door where there wasn't one? :smallamused:

I have a feeling this was or will be the plot of a Neil Gaiman story.

[Rockphed]

I have a feeling this was or will be the plot of a Neil Gaiman story.

That sounds like the plot of a CS Lewis story. It is kinda famous, but I cannot think of the name. It had some big cat, a clothing box, and a hag.

[Vrock_Summoner]

That sounds like the plot of a CS Lewis story. It is kinda famous, but I cannot think of the name. It had some big cat, a clothing box, and a hag.
Y'know, I realized that I was misremembering my author names after a couple of minutes, but I admit my initial reaction to reading this was to wonder where there was a clothing box in Alice in Wonderland.

[hymer]

It wasn't the pilot but it was an ep of X-Files. The one about a failed eugenics experiment where all the "Eve" clones were psychotic murderers. The word "exsanguinated" featured so much you could make it into a drinking game and be three sheets to the wind before the end of the episode. Or blacked out.

That would probably be the episode 'Eve' in the first season. You can guess yourself how I cleverly deduced that. :smallwink:

[GreatWyrmGold]

When I was young (I have no idea how young), I saw my father playing a text-based Lord of the Rings game (or something like that—my memory is hazy) and saw the word "orc" for the first time. For some reason, I assumed those were orca-people. Not like anthropomorphic orcas, but orcas with people-legs.



My campaign setting does something similar if for no other meta-reason than to make the equirectangular projection equidistant at any latitude. The world, seen from e.g. a moon, is a sphere, but due to the confluence of ley lines (the in-universe explanation), space is magically warped as you approach the poles - passing through the pole still deposits you on the other side of the map as normal, but stand even one 5-foot-square away and walk due east or west and it'll take you just as much time to go from longitude line to longitude line as it would on the equator.
...Wouldn't it be easier to say "The world is flat" and be done with it? Or at least "The world is a cylinder"?


-Dwarves had no beards because they need to work on the forge without obstruction
Your mistake was assuming that fantasy race stereotypes were sensibly compatible.

I used to wonder why people didn't just stab a hydra's head, and concluded that a hydras brain must be in it's chest.
Same general issue, really.



We know that mass and energy and momentum and angular momentum are not conserved. We know that the laws of thermodynamics are often broken.
Most of the world follows all physical laws; it's just magic parts that bend the laws. I generally assume that fantasy worlds have laws of physics like my own except that magic is a source of energy and so on. And you know what? My assumptions have never been proved wrong.


The same set of physical laws that include a spectrum also prevent inter-species breeding, like dragons and humans, or owls and bears. They also prevent flying without wings or jet exhaust or being lighter than air.
What?
Putting aside how you're assuming that owlbears and half-dragons are produced through normal reproduction (they are produced entirely or partly through magical means, respectively), and how you seem to think that "jet exhaust" is what makes planes fly...how are things things related?


When discussing universal laws, "Everything works exactly the same except when it doesn't" is semantically equal to "It doesn't work the same."
"There is a law of conservation of energy, except magic" is the same thing as "energy is not always conserved."
"There is a universal gravitational constant between two bodies unless magic changes it" means that there is no universal gravitational constant.
We don't consider something a physical law unless it's universal. Saying that mass & energy is conserved unless magic changes it is as meaningful as saying that an eggshell has never been cracked except once.
Ah, but mass isn't always conserved. Nuclear reactions change the mass of substances all the time. Yet "conservation of mass" is still considered a meaningful physical law. Also, isn't Netwon's second law exactly the kind of law you're saying is meaningless? "Everything maintains its velocity until something changes it."
If there's a well-defined set of instances where a physical law is violated, it can still be used as a meaningful scientific law (assuming those instances are properly accounted for). As it so happens, typical fantasy settings do have (reasonably) well-defined sets of instances. They might not be defined well in the work itself, but a sufficiently dedicated thaumatologist could figure out how it works as well as a sufficiently dedicated physicist can figure out how, say, nuclear fission works.
In fact, I'd argue that the apparent violations of conservation of mass/energy/momentum are just the mass/energy/momentum coming from something unusual. Just because energy can be supplied by gods or souls or qi or draconic blood or multiversal space worms or whatever doesn't mean we can (or should) throw all physical laws out the window. And before you say something about nonphysical forms of energy not counting, I'd like to bring up potential energy and neutrinos. A rock at the top of a cliff is identical in every way to one at the bottom, but the former has more energy. Beta decay seemed to violate conservation of energy and momentum, but rather than throw the theory out the window, Pauli and others hypothesized that some unknown and then-undetectable particle was the source of the energy (and were proved right, of course)—so who's defining "physical," anyways?


One reason not to assume modern physical laws exist except when they don't is that the assumption serves no purpose. It doesn't help the game in any way, and it didn't even preserve the physical laws.
I heartily disagree. If we're free—let alone forced—to set aside all assumptions of how the world works, it's impossible to start anywhere. You literally have to create an entire new set of physics before your players understand what they can and can't do...and if the end result isn't just "It's like our world, but with magic," the players aren't going to be able to understand what's going on.


Another reason is to allow cool story ideas. In the same game, I introduced seven artifacts, in the hands of adventurers, called the Staves of the Wanderers. They turned out to be staves that each carried powers from the seven planets of the Ptolemaic system ("planetes asteroi" - the wandering stars). So they were themed to the moon, Mercury, Venus, the sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Note that I used the medieval assumption that the sun and moon are planets, and the earth is not. An unthinking assumption of modern physics would have prevented that entire adventure.
Why?

[Segev]

In a D&D-specific misconception, when I read the 1e and 2e AD&D entry for "monks," for some reason the only image that came to mind was Friar Tuck. So I kept wondering why these (Catholic-style) monks were able to reach out and punch (with a very weak-looking, no-body-in-it-at-all punching style) and do so much damage, or why the "quivering palm" was there, or why they had such flowery titles (e.g. "Grand Master of Flowers"). I never once associated them with athletic or graceful motion.

It wasn't until I saw the picture in the 3.0 PHB that it clicked that they meant Xiao-Lin monks. I felt very silly.

[Thrudd]

In a D&D-specific misconception, when I read the 1e and 2e AD&D entry for "monks," for some reason the only image that came to mind was Friar Tuck. So I kept wondering why these (Catholic-style) monks were able to reach out and punch (with a very weak-looking, no-body-in-it-at-all punching style) and do so much damage, or why the "quivering palm" was there, or why they had such flowery titles (e.g. "Grand Master of Flowers"). I never once associated them with athletic or graceful motion.

It wasn't until I saw the picture in the 3.0 PHB that it clicked that they meant Xiao-Lin monks. I felt very silly.

Pedantry: It's shao lin not xiao lin. Both mean small/little and pronounced very similarly, but they are different words. Shao is small as in a few things, a small number of things. Xiao is small as in not big, a little thing. The one used for the famous temple is shao. If I weren't on the phone I'd put the characters in.

The cartoon called xiao-lin showdown is purposefully using the other word, probably because the characters are little kids.

[Segev]

Pedantry: It's shao lin not xiao lin. Both mean small/little and pronounced very similarly, but they are different words. Shao is small as in a few things, a small number of things. Xiao is small as in not big, a little thing. The one used for the famous temple is shao. If I weren't on the phone I'd put the characters in.

The cartoon called xiao-lin showdown is purposefully using the other word, probably because the characters are little kids.

Ironically, I initially spelled it "shao" and then "corrected" myself. Nice to know my instincts were right, and, more importantly, why!



Oh, and while I'm here: I also thought it was syringe-fanged vampires for a long time, and still prefer it at least as an explanation for how it gets into the mouth. Sort of a blood-groove thing, directing the stream to the throat to explain why they don't spill. Presumably, there's a coagulant they exude afterwards to keep the arterial wounds from bleeding when they're done. Totally draining the victim doesn't explain the survivors who didn't bleed out despite lack of EXTREME compression bandages to staunch the flow.

[Enixon]

Why wouldn't light have a spectrum in D&D?
Why would light have a spectrum in D&D?

Both questions are unanswerable. We know that mass and energy and momentum and angular momentum are not conserved. We know that the laws of thermodynamics are often broken.

The same set of physical laws that include a spectrum also prevent inter-species breeding, like dragons and humans, or owls and bears. They also prevent flying without wings or jet exhaust or being lighter than air.

Therefore there is no reason to assume that any other physical law works.



In over 40 years of role playing, I have never once explained things having colors to my players.
Not in historical games.
Not in modern games.
Not in superhero games.
Not in science fiction games.
And not in fantasy games.



Yes, it's easier. It's also meaningless.

When discussing universal laws, "Everything works exactly the same except when it doesn't" is semantically equal to "It doesn't work the same."

"There is a law of conservation of energy, except magic" is the same thing as "energy is not always conserved."

"There is a universal gravitational constant between two bodies unless magic changes it" means that there is no universal gravitational constant.

We don't consider something a physical law unless it's universal. Saying that mass & energy is conserved unless magic changes it is as meaningful as saying that an eggshell has never been cracked except once.



Or even in air. Oxygen is invisible to us. But it doesn't turn invisible, by changing its refractive index at whim.

One reason not to assume modern physical laws exist except when they don't is that the assumption serves no purpose. It doesn't help the game in any way, and it didn't even preserve the physical laws. Furthermore, if the players use any knowledge of physical laws, they are using meta-knowledge - player knowledge that the characters don't have, since Knowledge (modern physics) isn't included in the rules. I once ran a game in which the following was part of the introduction:

A warning about meta-knowledge. 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.

Another reason is to allow cool story ideas. In the same game, I introduced seven artifacts, in the hands of adventurers, called the Staves of the Wanderers. They turned out to be staves that each carried powers from the seven planets of the Ptolemaic system ("planetes asteroi" - the wandering stars). So they were themed to the moon, Mercury, Venus, the sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Note that I used the medieval assumption that the sun and moon are planets, and the earth is not. An unthinking assumption of modern physics would have prevented that entire adventure.

Note also that I told them, above, that stars are not gigantic gaseous bodies undergoing nuclear fusion, and that Ptolemy might be helpful

Dude, I just have to say, THANK YOU.

It always bugs me when people get on their high horse and refuse to even entertain the idea that physics might not function the same in fantasy worlds as they do in the real one. When Bob's level wizard has broken the laws of physics so often Newton and Einstein have a restraining order against him, and he's just third level, I'd say it's a pretty big clue that things don't neccisarilly work the same way as they do in reality. It's fine to assume normal stuff for a base line, and most of the time it's probally not going to come up anyhow, but in the event it does, I mean, if people've already accepted that things work different here, so why are they surrprised and upset to find out that things work different here.

Personally finding out that gravity works not becasue a natural phenomenon by which all things with energy are brought toward one another is in play but because greed spirits that live in the planet's core are constantly trying to pull everyone down too them is no more threatening to my verisimilitude than a 50ft tall Giant's spine not snapping like a twig in defiance of the square-cube law. "That's just how this particular world works"




oh, and with that out of the way, put me down for the syringe vampires too :biggrin:

I also thought the thing about invisibile people being able to see other invisible things too, for me it came from the eppisode of Rugrats where Angelica puts vanishing cream on the babies and tells them that's why they can see each other. I guess my six year old mind just kinda assumed that was a true thing about invisiblity, even if the vanishing cream itself wasn't really making them invisible :annoyed:

[bulbaquil]

...Wouldn't it be easier to say "The world is flat" and be done with it? Or at least "The world is a cylinder"?


Technically, yes (and, for most practical purposes, it acts as if it were a cylinder unless you actually cross the pole itself), but my way of doing it is less efficient and more needlessly complicated, and therefore contributes to a battle won in my life-long war against Ockham's Razor and/or Lean Six Sigma principles.

[Clistenes]

That's weird, I had exactly the same misconception when I was in that age. When I realized that syringe-teeth are not actually part of any vampire myth, I instantly stopped having nightmares about vampires. This and the original assumption might be related to my paralyzing fear of blood samplings, though...

My too. I too thought that vampires' teeth were like syringes when I was a kid.

[LudicSavant]

There are some pretty glaring misunderstandings about science in this thread. Silly adulthood misconceptions of fantasy elements, perhaps? :smallwink:

Science is, at its heart, the method by which information about the world is gathered. If you applied the scientific method in the D&D world, you would not end up with the laws of thermodynamics and simply be baffled by magic's exception. You'd quite literally end up with rules which cover the way that magic operates, because magic is a real, observable phenomenon in the D&D world. It ticks every box necessary for scientific inquiry.

If they were born in a D&D world, Newton and Einstein wouldn't have restraining orders against Bob the Magician, they'd be the magicians researching new vistas of arcane understandings. D&D magic pretty much just is science in a world that happens to have different natural laws.

[Amaril]

There are some pretty glaring misunderstandings about science in this thread. Silly adulthood misconceptions of fantasy elements, perhaps? :smallwink:

Science is, at its heart, the method by which information about the world is gathered. If you applied the scientific method in the D&D world, you would not end up with the laws of thermodynamics and simply be baffled by magic's exception. You'd quite literally end up with rules which cover the way that magic operates, because magic is a real, observable phenomenon in the D&D world. It ticks every box necessary for scientific inquiry.

If they were born in a D&D world, Newton and Einstein wouldn't have restraining orders against Bob the Magician, they'd be the magicians researching new vistas of arcane understandings. D&D magic pretty much just is science in a world that happens to have different natural laws.

Now, that's definitely a perfectly fine way to describe magic. But I'd argue it's not the only one.

The other big way I see magic used is as a representation of everything that defies logic and sense. You have the way the world usually works, the way it's supposed to work, and you have science that can quantify and explain it. That science might produce information different from what we have in reality, but it still works the same way. But then you have magic, and magic, by its very nature, doesn't make sense. It's everything that should not happen, even under in-setting scientific assumptions, but it does anyway, because that's its role in the story--to embody the unknown, the nonsensical, the insane, and make it a real force capable of actively influencing events. This approach is more characteristic of so called "soft-magic" stories where magic is inconsistent, unpredictable, and has few to no rules governing what it can do, and is thus rarely employed as a tool by protagonists because of its potential to trivialize the challenges they face.

Basically, it comes down to whether you analyze a setting based on its in-world rationality, or the external narrative principles that govern its function. A world designed to run on the former requires magic as just different science; a world built on the latter doesn't.

[LudicSavant]

The other big way I see magic used is as a representation of everything that defies logic and sense.
There is not a single official D&D setting where magic defies logic and sense to such a degree that you cannot learn about it by applying the scientific method in-world. I haven't even seen a homebrew setting that does this (I have merely seen authors who are not great at logic and sense claiming that their homebrew settings defy logic and sense, even though they very obviously do not from a scientist's perspective).

If you can look at a Fireball being cast and notice something true about the Fireball, you can do science regarding Fireballs. It doesn't even matter if you can't perform the spell yourself, any more than our inability to make black holes stops us from being able to do science just by looking at them and noting their properties and/or the effects they have on their surroundings.

If you can say "hey look, I can notice that fireball spells burn things" then you can totally do science.

[Amaril]

There is not a single official D&D setting where magic defies logic and sense to such a degree that you cannot learn about it by applying the scientific method in-world. I haven't even seen a homebrew setting that does this (I have merely seen authors who are not great at logic and sense claiming that their homebrew settings do this, even though they very obviously do not from a scientist's perspective).

If you can look at a Fireball being cast and notice something true about the Fireball, you can do science regarding Fireballs. It doesn't even matter if you can't perform the spell yourself, any more than our inability to make black holes stops us from being able to do science just by looking at them and noting their properties and/or the effects they have on their surroundings.

I was about to reply that I wasn't talking about D&D, but then I realized that your original post quite clearly mentioned D&D by name. So, fair enough, I'm the a**hole here :smalltongue:

Yeah, it would be impossible to do magic like that in a game, or at least a game where players are allowed to use it themselves. That would require magic to have rules, and the whole point is that it doesn't. Even as a GM, you'd inevitably have players calling BS when you started just making up random stuff that happens because magic, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Better to restrict that type of magic to other media.

[Bohandas]

There are some pretty glaring misunderstandings about science in this thread. Silly adulthood misconceptions of fantasy elements, perhaps? :smallwink:

Science is, at its heart, the method by which information about the world is gathered. If you applied the scientific method in the D&D world, you would not end up with the laws of thermodynamics and simply be baffled by magic's exception. You'd quite literally end up with rules which cover the way that magic operates, because magic is a real, observable phenomenon in the D&D world. It ticks every box necessary for scientific inquiry.

If they were born in a D&D world, Newton and Einstein wouldn't have restraining orders against Bob the Magician, they'd be the magicians researching new vistas of arcane understandings. D&D magic pretty much just is science in a world that happens to have different natural laws.

I agree. This is the most prevalent and major misconception. The only series I van name that even sort of do it right are the Discworld novels and the original Ghostbusters films.

[Segev]

I agree. This is the most prevalent and major misconception. The only series I van name that even sort of do it right are the Discworld novels and the original Ghostbusters films.

I heartily recommend anything by Brandon Sanderson. The Mistborn trilogy is a particularly good place to start. Magic being well-defined is a big part of his works. And it's generally not called "magic."

[GorinichSerpant]

I was about to reply that I wasn't talking about D&D, but then I realized that your original post quite clearly mentioned D&D by name. So, fair enough, I'm the a**hole here :smalltongue:

Yeah, it would be impossible to do magic like that in a game, or at least a game where players are allowed to use it themselves. That would require magic to have rules, and the whole point is that it doesn't. Even as a GM, you'd inevitably have players calling BS when you started just making up random stuff that happens because magic, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Better to restrict that type of magic to other media.

As a counter-argument I'd like to bring the Psychic Maelstrom in Apocalypse World, which is chaotic, unexplained and has the same kind of unpredictability that you usually have in those various media. Well, countering my own argument it's magic that it is mostly limited mostly to divination until it narratively makes sense otherwise and Apocalypse World is built around the players and GM having both a high level of trust and equal excitement for the PCs suffering horrible fates. The point being, you can have soft magic just fine in rpgs in certain conditions.

[LudicSavant]

I agree. This is the most prevalent and major misconception. The only series I van name that even sort of do it right are the Discworld novels and the original Ghostbusters films.

Try Brandon Sanderson or Patrick Rothfuss.


As a counter-argument I'd like to bring the Psychic Maelstrom in Apocalypse World, which is chaotic, unexplained and has the same kind of unpredictability that you usually have in those various media. Well, countering my own argument it's magic that it is mostly limited mostly to divination until it narratively makes sense otherwise and Apocalypse World is built around the players and GM having both a high level of trust and equal excitement for the PCs suffering horrible fates. The point being, you can have soft magic just fine in rpgs in certain conditions.

I'm not familiar with Apocalypse World. However, nothing in your description of it suggests to me that I could not, as an in-world character, potentially make informed observations about it.

[Spore]

I remember as a kid how utterly stupid the American gal named Toothfairy must be to hand out money for unusable teeth. Simultaneously it made incredible sense that the easter bunny brings me the colored eggs I helped my grandma to paint a day before because it is slightly warmer outside.

[bulbaquil]

I remember as a kid how utterly stupid the American gal named Toothfairy must be to hand out money for unusable teeth. Simultaneously it made incredible sense that the easter bunny brings me the colored eggs I helped my grandma to paint a day before because it is slightly warmer outside.

Or that Santa Claus's handwriting is suspiciously like one of your parents'...

[raygun goth]

I used to think "Medusa" was spelled with an "n." "Mednusa." I'd even pronounce it that way.

Because of my cultural background, I never saw "applied knowledge" in the form of spells or magic items as something fundamentally different from a technology - I had to learn that - otherwise, the difference between casting a spell you call "Repair Vehicle" required getting out the tools and working on it was nonexistent, one was just faster. Kicking the door and shouting "come on, baby, I need one more mile." Magic was the world, and the world was magic. My settings still tend to look more like Symbiosis (http://conceptartworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Symbiosis_Art_Book_06b.jpg) than medieval Europe. Magic, to me, was such a fundamental part of existence that Dispel Magic seemed like a godawful, stupid idea to me - in that it didn't straight up unweave reality.

I still believe the scientific method can be applied easily and quickly to D&D magic and I will FIGHT YOUUUU

I had to learn "future" and "past" as two different things and time as a line, rather than as a geographical location. That was probably the most difficult thing for me.

A non-fantasy related thing, but another funny fact - up until I was fourteen, nobody explained the Dewey Decimal system to me, and I thought that any time you came into a library you had to start at 000 and go up. That 000 is supposed to contain books about the Dewey Decimal system never came up - none of the libraries I went to as a kid had those books in them.

[Zaydos]

Since magic as science seems to be the topic of discussion at the moment, I will note that in The Dying Earth, i.e. what Gygax attributes with having stolen the magic system from, magic was the result of applying advanced mathematics (calculus) to the laws of reality after the age of science had passed and the new age of magic dawned. It was in fact science applied to a new set of physical laws and the writer made that clear.

Fred Saberhagen does similarly in his Empire of the East series.

[Bohandas]

In a D&D-specific misconception, when I read the 1e and 2e AD&D entry for "monks," for some reason the only image that came to mind was Friar Tuck. So I kept wondering why these (Catholic-style) monks were able to reach out and punch (with a very weak-looking, no-body-in-it-at-all punching style) and do so much damage, or why the "quivering palm" was there, or why they had such flowery titles (e.g. "Grand Master of Flowers"). I never once associated them with athletic or graceful motion.

It wasn't until I saw the picture in the 3.0 PHB that it clicked that they meant Xiao-Lin monks. I felt very silly.

That's on the game designers, not you. That's a poorly chosen name for the class. It's not what people think of when they hear the word "monk". Hell, even if you specified a buddhist monk I'd think of something closer to the Dalai Lama and his crew than Shaolin.

We have the same problem with the "vermin" type, whose contents coincide exactly with the english word "bug" but are described in game using a word that generally also includes rodents

[Segev]

That's on the game designers, not you. That's a poorly chosen name for the class. It's not what people think of when they hear the word "monk". Hell, even if you specified a buddhist monk I'd think of something closer to the Dalai Lama and his crew than Shaolin.

We have the same problem with the "vermin" type, whose contents coincide exactly with the english word "bug" but are described in game using a word that generally also includes rodents

In their defense, it is a word used to describe those characters.

And, at least in American parlance, rodents are called "vermin" all the time.

[goto124]

It's not what people think of when they hear the word "monk". Hell, even if you specified a buddhist monk I'd think of something closer to the Dalai Lama and his crew than Shaolin.

The only kind of combat-viable* monk I know is the Shaolin monk...

Okay, maybe not the only one, but it's the main kind of combat-viable monk I know.

* This is DnD!

[Segev]

The only kind of combat-viable* monk I know is the Shaolin monk...

Okay, maybe not the only one, but it's the main kind of combat-viable monk I know.

* This is DnD!
D&D, in my teenaged head, was vaguely European fantasy. Thus, "monks" clearly made sense as a character class. They lived in monasteries and illuminated vellum and brewed beer...and apparently could shatter your heart with a touch of their palms, according to their class mechanics. Which was weird, but hey. Fantasy! I just never got WHY until I realized I was thinking of the wrong cultural reference.

[Milo v3]

I am young enough that when I first read the monk class I immediately thought "Oh so it's like House of Flying Daggers or Naruto". Which I actually feel maybe a worse misconception, considering I was reading 3.0 where the monk Is closer in power level to a random medieval english monk than a martial art's master.....

[Bohandas]

And, at least in American parlance, rodents are called "vermin" all the time.

That's what I'm saying. That's why the vermin creature type is misleadingly named.

[Telonius]

My childhood fantasy misconception: there are not very many old people. Everyone you see who looks old is either the king, a witch, a wizard, or a disguised gnome/fairy/magic creature.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

That's what I'm saying. That's why the vermin creature type is misleadingly named.

Pathfinder fixed that, apparently. Rodents are appropriately classified as animals. The most common thing I've seen that confuses the hell out of 3.5 veterans: no, this actually makes sense now.

[arrowed]

Add me to the people who used to believe in syringe vampires, and the people saying Brandon Sanderson is an incredible author.
When I first read Lord of the Rings I got the wrong idea about hobbit feet. I thought their soles were thick and furry like a kind of reverse carpet. I think I only realised my misconception when I watched the films for the first time.

[Thrudd]

That's on the game designers, not you. That's a poorly chosen name for the class. It's not what people think of when they hear the word "monk". Hell, even if you specified a buddhist monk I'd think of something closer to the Dalai Lama and his crew than Shaolin.

We have the same problem with the "vermin" type, whose contents coincide exactly with the english word "bug" but are described in game using a word that generally also includes rodents

The game designers were designing the game during the heyday of kung fu flicks, Shaw Bros studios, not to mention the tv series "Kung Fu". Of course monks are kung fu warriors with super human powers, who doesn't know that?

[Bohandas]

Pathfinder fixed that, apparently. Rodents are appropriately classified as animals. The most common thing I've seen that confuses the hell out of 3.5 veterans: no, this actually makes sense now.

Rodents were always classified as animals! The problem is that there was a completely different creature type whose name implied it included them but didn't!

[Zaydos]

Chalk me up to 'thought that monks were Friar Tuck' camp. I was a small (6 maybe 7) child when I first played and was not allowed to read the PHB myself (older brother) so I was just being told about all the unarmed combat abilities of monks and going 'what?' as I had never heard monk used for kung fu martial artists before.

It didn't last long (by which I mean more than a week) because I asked why Friar Tuck would have martial arts but.

[Telonius]

Oddly enough, the "Friar Tuck Monk" thing made total sense to me - then again I knew that Father McClanahan used to be a bareknuckles fighter before he was ordained, and could totally see Sister Mary Joseph using a quarterstaff instead of a ruler.

[Kami2awa]

Dude, I just have to say, THANK YOU.

It always bugs me when people get on their high horse and refuse to even entertain the idea that physics might not function the same in fantasy worlds as they do in the real one. When Bob's level wizard has broken the laws of physics so often Newton and Einstein have a restraining order against him, and he's just third level, I'd say it's a pretty big clue that things don't neccisarilly work the same way as they do in reality. It's fine to assume normal stuff for a base line, and most of the time it's probally not going to come up anyhow, but in the event it does, I mean, if people've already accepted that things work different here, so why are they surrprised and upset to find out that things work different here.

Personally finding out that gravity works not becasue a natural phenomenon by which all things with energy are brought toward one another is in play but because greed spirits that live in the planet's core are constantly trying to pull everyone down too them is no more threatening to my verisimilitude than a 50ft tall Giant's spine not snapping like a twig in defiance of the square-cube law. "That's just how this particular world works"



I've often thought that fantasy worlds probably run off debunked science. For example, the presence of the (ever increasing number of) elemental planes suggests a different elemental system, closer to the classical system than Mendeleev's. The existence of alchemists and elementals suggests that proto-sciences work just fine. Magical healing runs off "positive energy", just as today's psychic healers will tell you it does, and medical scientists won't. The possibility of half-dragon suggests that genetics is not behaving itself at all.

The entire world is controlled by 5 Platonic solids, after all...

[Iamyourking]

Even from a strictly historical perspective, many European monks practiced wrestling-so it isn't as big of a stretch as one might think.

[GrayGriffin]

Friar Tuck was pretty badass in the original Robin Hood stories as well.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Pedantry: It's shao lin not xiao lin. Both mean small/little and pronounced very similarly...
I'm surprised that the words mean roughly the same thing despite being different enough to be Anglicized differently.


The only kind of combat-viable* monk I know is the Shaolin monk...

Okay, maybe not the only one, but it's the main kind of combat-viable monk I know.
In a world where the gods intervene to put a Band-Aid on your fallen comrades because a priest said pretty please, I'd say any holy man has a decent claim of being combat-viable.


My childhood fantasy misconception: there are not very many old people. Everyone you see who looks old is either the king, a witch, a wizard, or a disguised gnome/fairy/magic creature.
Plague must have gotten them.



-snip-
I'd like to refer you to my post on that subject (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21219184&postcount=181) (look in the spoiler).
TL;DR: Even if there are extra things that are possible in a fantasy setting, everything else works exactly the same as in our own, so why should we assume that those parts work differently?


There are some pretty glaring misunderstandings about science in this thread. Silly adulthood misconceptions of fantasy elements, perhaps? :smallwink:
Science is, at its heart, the method by which information about the world is gathered. If you applied the scientific method in the D&D world, you would not end up with the laws of thermodynamics and simply be baffled by magic's exception. You'd quite literally end up with rules which cover the way that magic operates, because magic is a real, observable phenomenon in the D&D world. It ticks every box necessary for scientific inquiry.
If they were born in a D&D world, Newton and Einstein wouldn't have restraining orders against Bob the Magician, they'd be the magicians researching new vistas of arcane understandings. D&D magic pretty much just is science in a world that happens to have different natural laws.
Also true. Though arguably less relevant to the anti-physicists' point.


Now, that's definitely a perfectly fine way to describe magic. But I'd argue it's not the only one.

The other big way I see magic used is as a representation of everything that defies logic and sense. You have the way the world usually works, the way it's supposed to work, and you have science that can quantify and explain it. That science might produce information different from what we have in reality, but it still works the same way. But then you have magic, and magic, by its very nature, doesn't make sense. It's everything that should not happen, even under in-setting scientific assumptions, but it does anyway, because that's its role in the story--to embody the unknown, the nonsensical, the insane, and make it a real force capable of actively influencing events. This approach is more characteristic of so called "soft-magic" stories where magic is inconsistent, unpredictable, and has few to no rules governing what it can do, and is thus rarely employed as a tool by protagonists because of its potential to trivialize the challenges they face.

Basically, it comes down to whether you analyze a setting based on its in-world rationality, or the external narrative principles that govern its function. A world designed to run on the former requires magic as just different science; a world built on the latter doesn't.
Science doesn't work like that. If there's something which violates the apparent laws of physics, scientists don't throw up their hands and declare that this is something that doesn't make sense and shouldn't happen—they leave that to philosophers and theologians. Instead, they quantify the something and try to understand where they went wrong when describing the laws of physics.
This exact thing happened with neutrinos, though on a less interesting scale. Conservation of energy and momentum seemed to be violated, so the scientists worked to figure out why; they made theories and figured out how to test them, and understood the universe better as a result. In a world with magic, the same thing would happen—except these "violations" would be incorporated into the laws of physics from the very beginning!
And just because people conclude something is "random" doesn't mean it necessarily is; there could well be patterns they haven't managed to figure out. A lot of biological patterns started out this way, such as species distribution ("Why are these species here but not there?"); then evolution and continental drift and so on came along, and we could piece it together, and now species distribution is...well, it's not as certain as the orbits of the planets, but it's still well-understood.


I agree. This is the most prevalent and major misconception. The only series I van name that even sort of do it right are the Discworld novels and the original Ghostbusters films.
And the funny thing is, Discworld is the closest thing to "Magic doesn't follow any kind of proper magical laws" that I can think of.

[Winter_Wolf]

I'm surprised that the words mean roughly the same thing despite being different enough to be Anglicized differently.

That's because they're not that similar. Shao means "a few", or little as in "a little bit". Xiao means "small-the opposite of big". In Chinese their meanings are significantly different and you're in for either a long debate or the more likely "shut up you're an idiot" from native speakers.

Why am I going on? Because when you go to school in China they pound in the lesson and make square holes and round pegs fit. :smalltongue:

[Segev]

That's because they're not that similar. Shao means "a few", or little as in "a little bit". Xiao means "small-the opposite of big". In Chinese their meanings are significantly different and you're in for either a long debate or the more likely "shut up you're an idiot" from native speakers.

Why am I going on? Because when you go to school in China they pound in the lesson and make square holes and round pegs fit. :smalltongue:

Are they pronounced differently, or is it like "they're, there, their" in English?

[Amaril]

Science doesn't work like that. If there's something which violates the apparent laws of physics, scientists don't throw up their hands and declare that this is something that doesn't make sense and shouldn't happen—they leave that to philosophers and theologians. Instead, they quantify the something and try to understand where they went wrong when describing the laws of physics.
This exact thing happened with neutrinos, though on a less interesting scale. Conservation of energy and momentum seemed to be violated, so the scientists worked to figure out why; they made theories and figured out how to test them, and understood the universe better as a result. In a world with magic, the same thing would happen—except these "violations" would be incorporated into the laws of physics from the very beginning!
And just because people conclude something is "random" doesn't mean it necessarily is; there could well be patterns they haven't managed to figure out. A lot of biological patterns started out this way, such as species distribution ("Why are these species here but not there?"); then evolution and continental drift and so on came along, and we could piece it together, and now species distribution is...well, it's not as certain as the orbits of the planets, but it's still well-understood.

In real life, that's all true. But fiction, or at least a certain subset of fiction that can use this kind of magic, doesn't run on real-life logic. It runs on symbols, on meaning. Within the context of a story, magic is perfectly capable of being inherently nonsensical and nonscientific, because that's what it represents in the story's allegory. I think the appropriate term might be Doylist vs. Watsonian thinking: in this case, you're concerning yourself with the Watsonian explanations for the way magic works in a story, while I'm focusing on the Doylist. My point is that you can't apply both perspectives to every kind of story. Some fictional settings are constructed specifically to appeal to Watsonian logic, to be internally consistent in a way the characters can understand just as well as the reader (that'd be your Sanderson); conversely, there are settings where Doylist logic is the only thing that's reliable, because they make symbolism a priority over in-world consistency (that'd be your Tolkien).

[Segev]

You're missing the point. "Science" isn't something that excludes magic, and magic doesn't escape science.

Science is a process. You can easily have "magical" and "non-magical" things, just as we have in the real world "electrical" and "non-electrical" technology. "Magic" is just some set of things which operate using rules that are part of that...magic. Whether it's "magic energy" that enables things otherwise impossible, or something else entirely.

If magic defies scientific inquiry, that means it is highly inconsistent. You can do the same thing 11 times and come up with so many different results that you couldn't begin to even do statistics on them. At which point, magic isn't something you can "do."

The moment magic is something one can "do," it becomes subject to meaningful scientific study, as you can document it, do experiments, and at least get a probabilistic sense for how things will go.

[Arbane]

You're missing the point. "Science" isn't something that excludes magic, and magic doesn't escape science.


The problem with doing scientific experiments on magic is (in some systems, at least), the nonzero possibility of giving yourself a hideous curse, sending an unstoppable horde of brooms to fetch water, or getting eaten by a demon.

[5a Violista]

Except science already has answers to that: observational studies. Modeling. Simple observation (separate from observational studies). Thought experiments. Not to mention the existence of unethical scientists who are willing to do it anyway.


Actually, though there's four things (that I can think of) that science can't/doesn't do: it doesn't make moral judgments. In D&D, it can tell you whether an act is Good or Evil or Lawful or Chaotic, but it can't tell you whether it's right, wrong, good, or bad (because alignment is something you can observe through any number of methods in D&D). Likewise, it can't tell you whether something is beautiful or unpleasing (because those are entirely subjective measures that vary person by person and isn't a quality of the thing) except for Nymphs in D&D, which science would conclude is supernaturally beautiful because that's an observable effect. Third: science can't tell you what to do with the scientific knowledge, whether you should summon demons or cure curses or fetch water or whatever: it only tells you that it is possible to do those things and how to do them, not whether or not you should do them. Finally, science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations (but this definition of "supernatural" doesn't match how D&D uses it: in this case, it means "unobservable" or "lacks disprovability"). As an example, in D&D settings, ghosts can be observed so science can determine whether or not they exist and how they work. In many D&D settings, gods can be observed (as well as their effects) so gods don't fall under this category of "supernatural". In D&D, magic and the sources of magic and the effects of magic can be observed and repeated: you can get magic from studying, you can get magic from genetics, you can get magic from gods or demons (which are also observable and their effects can be clearly pointed back to them), you can observe the explosions/cold/wellsprings of willpower/etc and measure their effects so D&D magic isn't considered "supernatural" under science's definition of "supernatural" either. In fact, there's very little in D&D that science would consider "supernatural".

Back on topic...
Actually, when I was 7 or 8 I thought floating cities really could and did exist (and usually hung out around clouds), so I was surprised when more fantasy books didn't have them or that treated flight as a difficult thing.

[Segev]

The problem with doing scientific experiments on magic is (in some systems, at least), the nonzero possibility of giving yourself a hideous curse, sending an unstoppable horde of brooms to fetch water, or getting eaten by a demon.

1) No different than doing science on any other poorly-understood and dangerous phenomenon

2) Doesn't change that you CAN apply the scientific method. Remember, "science" is a method. That's why we have social sciences - they literally are applying scientific methods to studying human behavior in order to attempt to discern rules that govern it.

[Bohandas]

The problem with doing scientific experiments on magic is (in some systems, at least), the nonzero possibility of giving yourself a hideous curse, sending an unstoppable horde of brooms to fetch water, or getting eaten by a demon.

Several of the Manhattan Project scientists died of radiation poisoning. So did Marie Curie.

There was also the explosions of he space shuttles Challenger and Columbia

[GreatWyrmGold]

That's because they're not that similar. Shao means "a few", or little as in "a little bit". Xiao means "small-the opposite of big". In Chinese their meanings are significantly different and you're in for either a long debate or the more likely "shut up you're an idiot" from native speakers.
Assuming it's not one of those "your language doesn't have words to succinctly explain the distinction" things, they still sound closely related. I mean, yes, you wouldn't want to use one to describe the other (just as you wouldn't say you have a few waters or lots of shoe in English), but they're both clearly describing lesser amounts, just varying if the number or size of the units is being changed. And in cases where the object is a mass of units, I can see the two being almost interchangeable (fewer gallons of water, less water).



In real life, that's all true. But fiction, or at least a certain subset of fiction that can use this kind of magic, doesn't run on real-life logic. It runs on symbols, on meaning. Within the context of a story, magic is perfectly capable of being inherently nonsensical and nonscientific, because that's what it represents in the story's allegory. I think the appropriate term might be Doylist vs. Watsonian thinking: in this case, you're concerning yourself with the Watsonian explanations for the way magic works in a story, while I'm focusing on the Doylist. My point is that you can't apply both perspectives to every kind of story. Some fictional settings are constructed specifically to appeal to Watsonian logic, to be internally consistent in a way the characters can understand just as well as the reader (that'd be your Sanderson); conversely, there are settings where Doylist logic is the only thing that's reliable, because they make symbolism a priority over in-world consistency (that'd be your Tolkien).
So? Even in Doylist settings, readers can (and, for reasonably popular ones, probably have) come up with explanations or at least patterns that are never mentioned in the works set in said settings. Imagine what someone who lived in the world could do.


The problem with doing scientific experiments on magic is (in some systems, at least), the nonzero possibility of giving yourself a hideous curse, sending an unstoppable horde of brooms to fetch water, or getting eaten by a demon.
Putting aside observational studies, models, scientists who accept the danger, etc, in most settings that stuff is in some way related to what the magic-user does (uses magic maliciously, gives a poorly-considered order, fails to properly bind the demon). I'd be willing to bet that a scientist could design safe experiments for almost any kind of magic that exists in fiction.


[a paragraph about what science can't do that should have been multiple]
Respectively:
1-3. It's true, science can't deal with subjective stuff. It's simply not designed to do that.
4. I generally take the stance that if you can't observe a force/object/entity or its effects, it doesn't exist in any meaningful sense. Obviously, some people disagree, but I guess that's one of those subjective things. You can't really prove the value of objectivity or logic or anything like that without taking it as an assumption that such things are how to judge things.

[Thrudd]

Are they pronounced differently, or is it like "they're, there, their" in English?

They are different. The difference may sound subtle to non-Chinese speakers, but it is distinct. Shao is pronounced pretty much as it looks, "show" which rhymes with "now". Xiao has the extra "ee" sound before the "ow", like "sheeow" (still rhymes with "now).

That's not even getting into the different tonalities and contexts which distinguish different words that are Romanized exactly the same.

[Segev]

They are different. The difference may sound subtle to non-Chinese speakers, but it is distinct. Shao is pronounced pretty much as it looks, "show" which rhymes with "now". Xiao has the extra "ee" sound before the "ow", like "sheeow" (still rhymes with "now).

That's not even getting into the different tonalities and contexts which distinguish different words that are Romanized exactly the same.

Yeah, I know Chinese uses tone as much as phoneme to convey pronunciation. I was just wondering if it was something one could hear in the word, or if it was something that only could be detected by seeing it written down.

Thanks for the answer!

[Amaril]

You're missing the point. "Science" isn't something that excludes magic, and magic doesn't escape science.

Science is a process. You can easily have "magical" and "non-magical" things, just as we have in the real world "electrical" and "non-electrical" technology. "Magic" is just some set of things which operate using rules that are part of that...magic. Whether it's "magic energy" that enables things otherwise impossible, or something else entirely.

If magic defies scientific inquiry, that means it is highly inconsistent. You can do the same thing 11 times and come up with so many different results that you couldn't begin to even do statistics on them. At which point, magic isn't something you can "do."

The moment magic is something one can "do," it becomes subject to meaningful scientific study, as you can document it, do experiments, and at least get a probabilistic sense for how things will go.

But that's not necessarily what science is in a story; it might be any number of other things. Maybe it's the danger of humanity overstepping its natural boundaries, and playing with forces it doesn't understand. Maybe it's an imbalance of power between social classes. Maybe it's our salvation, something we should all praise and seek to advance. What's important is what it represents. Things in fiction don't have static, singular definitions the way they do in real life--they can change according to what the writer wants to communicate about the real world. Science doesn't have to be all-encompassing in a story if the writer doesn't want it to be, and there can be room for things beyond its scope.


So? Even in Doylist settings, readers can (and, for reasonably popular ones, probably have) come up with explanations or at least patterns that are never mentioned in the works set in said settings. Imagine what someone who lived in the world could do.

But those explanations by the characters don't exist. You can't judge a text based on things that aren't part of it; if you make up explanations for things in a setting that don't appear to make sense, that's no indication that characters in the text have done the same. The only thing that can indicate that is if the text says so. The worlds fiction takes place in are not, by definition, complete worlds, and the logic on which they function isn't complete either; they exist only as much as they need to for the story to be told. If they were complete worlds, they'd be real.

[Segev]

But that's not necessarily what science is in a story; it might be any number of other things. Maybe it's the danger of humanity overstepping its natural boundaries, and playing with forces it doesn't understand. Maybe it's an imbalance of power between social classes. Maybe it's our salvation, something we should all praise and seek to advance. What's important is what it represents. Things in fiction don't have static, singular definitions the way they do in real life--they can change according to what the writer wants to communicate about the real world. Science doesn't have to be all-encompassing in a story if the writer doesn't want it to be, and there can be room for things beyond its scope.

Er... no. None of those are "science." Somebody calling those things "science" is like somebody calling them "hat." It's taking a word that has nothing to do with them and redefining it.

Now, you can use technology as a metaphor for those things. Or as a vehicle to illustrate them. But technology is a consequence of science.


I do understand the urge to assert this, however. "Science" in today's world is often an abused term, being used to refer to political and religious beliefs in hopes of shielding them from the scrutiny they deserve by cloaking them in an aura that declares anybody who questions them "anti-science," which is distorted to mean either "stupid" or "intellectually dishonest" or "corrupt," depending on context.

[Bohandas]

In real life, that's all true. But fiction, or at least a certain subset of fiction that can use this kind of magic, doesn't run on real-life logic. It runs on symbols, on meaning. Within the context of a story, magic is perfectly capable of being inherently nonsensical and nonscientific, because that's what it represents in the story's allegory. I think the appropriate term might be Doylist vs. Watsonian thinking: in this case, you're concerning yourself with the Watsonian explanations for the way magic works in a story, while I'm focusing on the Doylist. My point is that you can't apply both perspectives to every kind of story. Some fictional settings are constructed specifically to appeal to Watsonian logic, to be internally consistent in a way the characters can understand just as well as the reader (that'd be your Sanderson); conversely, there are settings where Doylist logic is the only thing that's reliable, because they make symbolism a priority over in-world consistency (that'd be your Tolkien).

Here's anoher place where the Discworld series does it right. In Discworld it is known to educated people that events seem to follow narrative lines and various characters make use of this knowledge on several occasions

[GreatWyrmGold]

But that's not necessarily what science is in a story; it might be any number of other things.
We're not talking about "science" as misdefined by a work, we're talking about real science. Don't move the goalposts.


But those explanations by the characters don't exist. You can't judge a text based on things that aren't part of it; if you make up explanations for things in a setting that don't appear to make sense, that's no indication that characters in the text have done the same. The only thing that can indicate that is if the text says so. The worlds fiction takes place in are not, by definition, complete worlds, and the logic on which they function isn't complete either; they exist only as much as they need to for the story to be told. If they were complete worlds, they'd be real.
So? Just because science hasn't been done doesn't mean science can't be done (citation: Earth pre-Bacon*).

*The scientist, not the food.

[Winter_Wolf]

Are they pronounced differently, or is it like "they're, there, their" in English?

They're different in standard Mandarin.

[Amaril]

I still feel like I'm not communicating my point properly, but I'm not sure how else to explain it. Anyway, I've derailed the thread too much, so I'll stop for now.

[Fungi]

To continue the tangent, it's pretty clear the words are etymologically related when you look at the characters for 小
xiǎo and 少 shǎo. You could also read 少 as shào meaning young.

I never thought of it before reading this thread but I think I might have believed in syringe vampires too.

[Zaydos]

I never thought of it before reading this thread but I think I might have believed in syringe vampires too.

That might be because in books (outside of the young adult vampire romances*) more often than not it is syringe vampires.

Polidori's "The Vampyre" (first English Vampire story) specifically likened to a pair of bug bites.
Dracula is questionable in the books, and even in the films (Hammer Horror, i.e. the birth place of 60-70% of our modern movie vampire tropes, likened them to giant bug bites, but also had the trickle of blood... once Christopher Lee removed his mouth which is consistent with syringe).
Vampire$ (the film John Carpenter's Vampires was based on) specifically mentioned syringe bites.
Salem's Lot specifically mentioned bug-like and syringe bites.
Even in Anne Rice it's questionable.

So yeah, outside of Buffy syringe vampires are the norm.

*I haven't read these save the first 2 Anne Rice books and the first Twilight book, my gf who does says that chompy chomp or unspecified is more common because eww you don't want to liken the love interest to a mosquito.

[Knaight]

So? Just because science hasn't been done doesn't mean science can't be done (citation: Earth pre-Bacon*).

*The scientist, not the food.

Bacon is far from the first scientist. To pick just one example: Al Hasan ibn Al Haytham did a lot of genuinely scientific research on optics centuries before Bacon.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Bacon is far from the first scientist. To pick just one example: Al Hasan ibn Al Haytham did a lot of genuinely scientific research on optics centuries before Bacon.

Well, yes and no. There are those who contributed to science before Bacon and the scientific method as far back as ptolemy and archimedes but it's not quite accurate to call them scientists, as such. Certainly brilliant men, well ahead of their time, but Bacon was the first to posit that -all- of the knowledge that men wield should come from empiricism and bring the disparate fields together under one umbrella idea of science in a way that became largely accepted by his peers.

Haytham certainly had the right idea though. I won't deny that what he did was great work that contributed to science but I wouldn't call him a scientist.

Though, in the end, I suppose there's an argument to be made that this is a distinction without a difference.

[LudicSavant]

Knaight is correct. It is perfectly appropriate to use the word scientist to describe Ibn al-Haytham, and to use the word science to describe the work he did.

GreatWyrmGold is also correct in his main point; whether or not anyone in the world is using science has no bearing on whether science can be done.

[Kantaki]

That might be because in books (outside of the young adult vampire romances*) more often than not it is syringe vampires.

Polidori's "The Vampyre" (first English Vampire story) specifically likened to a pair of bug bites.
Dracula is questionable in the books, and even in the films (Hammer Horror, i.e. the birth place of 60-70% of our modern movie vampire tropes, likened them to giant bug bites, but also had the trickle of blood... once Christopher Lee removed his mouth which is consistent with syringe).
Vampire$ (the film John Carpenter's Vampires was based on) specifically mentioned syringe bites.
Salem's Lot specifically mentioned bug-like and syringe bites.
Even in Anne Rice it's questionable.

So yeah, outside of Buffy syringe vampires are the norm.

*I haven't read these save the first 2 Anne Rice books and the first Twilight book, my gf who does says that chompy chomp or unspecified is more common because eww you don't want to liken the love interest to a mosquito.

:smallconfused:Really? Because this thread is the first time I've ever heard about syringe vampires.*:smallconfused:
To me it made perfect sense that they could make those tiny bite wounds and then drink from them without spilling.
A)They already have all kind of weird tricks and aren't human anyway, so being a tidy eater wasn't really a stretch. If anything it made them creepier.
B)Vamps are nobles, rich folk and stuff. Those people learn to eat without making a mess. It's in their blood.
Plus vampires drinking from (wine) glasses (or bottles)- without straws -was a thing in at least a few stories.

*Outside of cases where they explicitely feed in more exotic ways I mean. But I don't think I read (many of) those as a kid.

[Zaydos]

:smallconfused:Really? Because this thread is the first time I've ever heard about syringe vampires.*:smallconfused:
To me it made perfect sense that they could make those tiny bite wounds and then drink from them without spilling.
A)They already have all kind of weird tricks and aren't human anyway, so being a tidy eater wasn't really a stretch. If anything it made them creepier.
B)Vamps are nobles, rich folk and stuff. Those people learn to eat without making a mess. It's in their blood.
Plus vampires drinking from (wine) glasses (or bottles)- without straws -was a thing in at least a few stories.

*Outside of cases where they explicitely feed in more exotic ways I mean. But I don't think I read (many of) those as a kid.

I just listed books that actually liken them to bug bites which implies syringe. Either they use syringes or they inject something to prevent blood from leaking freely... which still requires syringe teeth. Or else blood not following the rules of how blood flows. And there's no reason a vampire with syringe teeth couldn't drink from wine glasses.

[Remedy]

And there's no reason a vampire with syringe teeth couldn't drink from wine glasses.
*tips glass, dips teeth into liquid, sips through teeth*

[Segev]

I suppose the "syringe" version I always conceived was kind of a hybrid. Essentially, the "suction" is done by blood grooves in the fangs that pull it into and direct it towards the back of the mouth, letting them taste it and drink "normally" without the mess of having to try to treat the neck like a straw. This would also let them sip from wine glasses normally.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Bacon is far from the first scientist. To pick just one example: Al Hasan ibn Al Haytham did a lot of genuinely scientific research on optics centuries before Bacon.
Fair.
Bacon is credited with the creation of the Scientific Method, and I thought it made more sense to reference someone who everyone would instantly recognize as "that Scientific Method guy" than to search for a history of the Method and mention someone almost no one would recognize.

[goto124]

Come to think of it, I've always thought vampires used syringe teeth, I just didn't use the word 'syringe', exactly think that hard about it, or realize how weird it was. It seemed normal.

[weckar]

My version of the snake-like syringe teeth went quite far, to where they actually folded back like some venomous snake fangs.

[Kitten Champion]

When I was pretty little, I used to think that witches were non-human magical creatures like fairies, ghosts, and vampires. Probably because they kind of got portrayed that way in some kid-friendly media and that's the general impression I got from stereotypical Halloween decorations and the like.

I even wrote a crayon-based picture story about a lonely Witch, Vampire, and a Ghost coming together as friends because each had the requisite skill/items to solve the other's dilemma - the Vampire gave the Ghost her enchanted mantle and gloves so she could touch things as a gesture of kindness. the Ghost could then find and bring the Witch's wand after it had been taken by an unruly crow to make its nest, and finally the Witch magically grew a field of giant tomatoes for the Vampire to sate her hunger, and everyone lived happily ever after in a big scarecrow of their design amid the tomato fields.

[weckar]

I even wrote a crayon-based picture story about a lonely Witch, Vampire, and a Ghost coming together as friends because each had the requisite skill/items to solve the other's dilemma - the Vampire gave the Ghost her enchanted mantle and gloves so she could touch things as a gesture of kindness. the Ghost could then find and bring the Witch's wand after it had been taken by an unruly crow to make its nest, and finally the Witch magically grew a field of giant tomatoes for the Vampire to sate her hunger, and everyone lived happily ever after in a big scarecrow of their design amid the tomato fields.
I know a little girl who would love to read that :smallsmile:


Cultural thing: I thought elves and fairies were the same thing for the longest time.

[hymer]

When I was pretty little, I used to think that witches were non-human magical creatures like fairies, ghosts, and vampires. Probably because they kind of got portrayed that way in some kid-friendly media and that's the general impression I got from stereotypical Halloween decorations and the like.

D&D hags are this way.

[digiman619]

I know a little girl who would love to read that :smallsmile:


Cultural thing: I thought elves and fairies were the same thing for the longest time.

Depending on which version of the mythos you read, they are. But I'm assuming that you thought Tinkerbell-type pixies were the same as Legolas-type elves? In that case, yeah, that'd be odd.

[erikun]

So what're some of the wackiest theories and silliest misconceptions about elements common to fantasy and fantasy gaming that your young self, your own children, or other kids you've known pulled out of seemingly nowhere?
As a kid, I did not realize that "Cleric" and "Clerk" were different terms. As such, I'd assumed that D&D had a bunch of merchants running around healing people as a profession. I'd just assumed that they were using their money to purchase healing potions or the components and making them themselves, like herbalists! I didn't exactly get the connection there.

It wasn't until much later that I'd found out just what a "Cleric" was.