Flat world, or round?

[Elderand]

The question wasn't whether it was an important difference or plausible -- the question was whether "gunpowder functions" and "firearms are workable" are matched overlapping sets.

They aren't, thee could be many reason why gunpowder function but firearms do not.
From the simple fact that metalurgy may not be good enough to handle gunpowder to "why the **** would we waste our time building firearms when a lot of really dangerous stuff is going to completely ignore it by virtue of damage reduction and the fact that special materials make for horrible bullets."

[Max_Killjoy]

Would you notices a difference? Or more to the point, would your character notice the difference, having never lived in a world where the everyday observable behaviour of all things, behaved in the same way all his life, having never seen the way things behave on a round world? No...no they wouldn't. YOU would notice a difference.


It doesn't matter if the characters would "notice the difference", the difference is between what we're being told about the world, and what we're being shown about the world.

If I want to understand my character, and my character's experience of the world, and how that shapes their reactions, decisions, and actions, then the world needs to make sense, and not be full of contradictions, inconsistencies, and dissonances.




But insisting everything be changed in a fantasy game, simply because YOU want to see physics work they way they do IRL, is just silly.....and a whole lot of extra work for the GM. Things are assumed to function they way they do IRL, unless specifically noted, so the GM doesn't have to write an entire physics textbook, and teach a PhD level course in said special physics, just to run a damned fantasy Role Playing GAME.


Just because you make an assumption, don't also assume that everyone else also makes the same assumption.

Things can't both be different in the ways you offer as examples, AND visibly function the way they do in real life.




Again, who cares if gravity is the pull of hell, or mass attracting mass...if it functions the same, does the difference really matter?


Evidently, some of us care, or it wouldn't have become a part of the discussion.

So it's the pull of hell, OK, how does that work? What is it about hell that generates a pull on mass in the mortal world, and what implications does that have? They'll be different than "mass attracts mass".

[Koo Rehtorb]

So it's the pull of hell, OK, how does that work? What is it about hell that generates a pull on mass in the mortal world, and what implications does that have? They'll be different than "mass attracts mass".

"Your character doesn't know and has no way to find out."

[Max_Killjoy]

They aren't, thee could be many reason why gunpowder function but firearms do not.
From the simple fact that metalurgy may not be good enough to handle gunpowder to "why the **** would we waste our time building firearms when a lot of really dangerous stuff is going to completely ignore it by virtue of damage reduction and the fact that special materials make for horrible bullets."

Please check the context of that exchange.

[Max_Killjoy]

"Your character doesn't know and has no way to find out."

IE, the GM or author is admitting without admitting that they dropped a just-so detail into the setting because it sounded cool, and never bothered actually thinking it through.

It's one thing to say that a particular character doesn't know. It's another thing entirely to make the faerie-tale assertion that some things cannot be known.

[Kantaki]

So it's the pull of hell, OK, how does that work? What is it about hell that generates a pull on mass in the mortal world, and what implications does that have? They'll be different than "mass attracts mass".

All things in the mortal world carry a tiny (or not so tiny) bit of evil in them. That (potential) evil is what hell is pulling down.
Without shedding their mortal coil even the purest paragons of Good cannot be truly free of the grip hell has on them.
From this it follows that by being evil enough one could be pulled to hell while still inhabitating an (un)living body- a clear advantage over the unfortunate souls who only arrive there after they die.
However, such would require an unprecedented degree of vileness that might very well be impossible to reach for anyone not already a inhabitant of the lower planes.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

All things in the mortal world carry a tiny (or not so tiny) bit of evil in them. That (potential) evil is what hell is pulling down.
Without shedding their mortal coil even the purest paragons of Good cannot be truly free of the grip hell has on them.
From this it follows that by being evil enough one could be pulled to hell while still inhabitating an (un)living body- a clear advantage over the unfortunate souls who only arrive there after they die.
However, such would require an unprecedented degree of vileness that might very well be impossible to reach for anyone not already a inhabitant of the lower planes.

The flesh is sinful. Any body gets pulled down, but after death the spirits least burdened with evil can escape its pull.

I love it.

Maybe heaven even pulls up at the same time. This makes it hard for pure good outsiders to come down unless bound by a spell or incarnated into a mortal body. Gravity is the universes way of separating good and evil. The ground is the universes way to give the spirits of mortals a chance to cleanse themselves while trapped in their meaty bodies. Evil spirits as incorporeal creatures fall right true. Ghosts appearing on earth are apparently neutral, and could potentially make a ton of spiritual money by setting up a messenger service between the upper and lower planes.

EDIT: It's also quite possible that chaos pulls to the east, which is why every Sauron Wannabe lives there. :smallbiggrin:

[Koo Rehtorb]

It's one thing to say that a particular character doesn't know. It's another thing entirely to make the faerie-tale assertion that some things cannot be known.

I don't think it's implying that it's unknowable at all. It is implying that your character can't duplicate thousands of years of scientific progress. Particularly as a hobby in their downtime, because presumably the game isn't about that and you have other more pressing things to be doing.

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't think it's implying that it's unknowable at all. It is implying that your character can't duplicate thousands of years of scientific progress. Particularly as a hobby in their downtime, because presumably the game isn't about that and you have other more pressing things to be doing.

Regardless, if you give that answer to the player or reader, you're asking the player or reader to quietly accept being presented with a novel detail while being told "this is just the way it is, don't bother trying to understand it, there's nothing to understand, it's just-so, don't waste your time thinking about it".

[Jay R]

IE, the GM or author is admitting without admitting that they dropped a just-so detail into the setting because it sounded cool, and never bothered actually thinking it through.

It's one thing to say that a particular character doesn't know. It's another thing entirely to make the faerie-tale assertion that some things cannot be known.

I think that our real disagreement is right here.

I come to D&D specifically for fairy tales. "Faerie-tale assertions" are the stock in trade. You seem to be unwillingly to play in a fairy tale, and want to turn it into science fiction. (But only in some areas. It seems maddeningly inconsistent - see below.)

I love both science fiction and fairy tales, but I don't want explanations for physics in my fairy tales for the same reason I don't want magical mysteries in my science fiction.

How does an invisibility spell make photons pass through or around bodies? How do flight and levitation break universal gravity? How do fireballs create energy, healing spells reverse entropy, protection spells tell the morality of a threat, etc.?

The only answer is the faerie-tale assertion that some things cannot be known.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Regardless, if you give that answer to the player or reader, you're asking the player or reader to quietly accept being presented with a novel detail while being told "this is just the way it is, don't bother trying to understand it, there's nothing to understand, it's just-so, don't waste your time thinking about it".

But by requiring that there must be an answer known (to the writer at least) in advance, you cut out a whole swath of interesting settings. Not all settings have (or even need to have) first-principles "physics." In fact, I've never seen a setting (for a book, movie, or game) where there wasn't a significant amount of handwavium or technobabble. Most such attempts make things worse than having no explanation at all because it reveals the wizard behind the curtain. Even the hardest of hard science fiction tends to do this, because otherwise we're stuck with only what we know now. And that ain't much.

As a scientist, let me assure you that there are many questions we CANNOT answer with scientific means. What does salt taste like? What is love? What is justice? These are questions where the answer is ideosyncratic--only the knower can know but each must know for themselves. Science can't even answer why-type questions very well. Why is the ratio of the mass of the electron to the charge of the electron the value it is? The standard model has no answer (it's a free parameter) and all the other theories have failed so far. The world is a mysterious place. And that's why I enjoy learning about it. There's no guarantee that the real world is knowable (at least by humans). We presume it is because it keeps physicists from throwing themselves off buildings in despair at the hopelessness of their work.

[Max_Killjoy]

But by requiring that there must be an answer known (to the writer at least) in advance, you cut out a whole swath of interesting settings. Not all settings have (or even need to have) first-principles "physics." In fact, I've never seen a setting (for a book, movie, or game) where there wasn't a significant amount of handwavium or technobabble. Most such attempts make things worse than having no explanation at all because it reveals the wizard behind the curtain. Even the hardest of hard science fiction tends to do this, because otherwise we're stuck with only what we know now. And that ain't much.

As a scientist, let me assure you that there are many questions we CANNOT answer with scientific means. What does salt taste like? What is love? What is justice? These are questions where the answer is ideosyncratic--only the knower can know but each must know for themselves. Science can't even answer why-type questions very well. Why is the ratio of the mass of the electron to the charge of the electron the value it is? The standard model has no answer (it's a free parameter) and all the other theories have failed so far. The world is a mysterious place. And that's why I enjoy learning about it. There's no guarantee that the real world is knowable (at least by humans). We presume it is because it keeps physicists from throwing themselves off buildings in despair at the hopelessness of their work.

There is a range of possible detail / depth between "there is no answer, it's just that way because it's just that way" and "why does the mass-charge ratio of an electron happen to be what it is?"

But for some reason, every time I say "that's just the way it is" is an insufficient answer, someone issues a retort based on quantum physics...

[PhoenixPhyre]

There is a range of possible detail / depth between "there is no answer, it's just that way because it's just that way" and "why does the mass-charge ratio of an electron happen to be what it is?"

But for some reason, every time I say "that's just the way it is" is an insufficient answer, someone issues a retort based on quantum physics...

Because, to a large degree, our current understanding of reality is based on "that's just the way it is." We don't have the answers. We often have no clue HOW to get the answers. We don't know if the answers are gettable. You're holding fictional settings to higher standards than the real world. Frankly, the real world is pretty unbelievable...

[Max_Killjoy]

Because, to a large degree, our current understanding of reality is based on "that's just the way it is." We don't have the answers. We often have no clue HOW to get the answers. We don't know if the answers are gettable. You're holding fictional settings to higher standards than the real world. Frankly, the real world is pretty unbelievable...

It almost sounds like you're conflating "what?" / "how?"... with "why?"

Oddly enough, faerie tales, myths, legends, etc, usually have a lot of "why?" answers, but very few "what?" / "how?" They give just-so answers claiming to tell us why a thing is the way it is, but not how a thing actually works.

Reality, on the other hand, offers up a decent level of "what?" / "how?" answers... and is absolutely devoid of "why?" That we're having this conversation over this medium is pretty much irrefutable (IMO) proof that we have a decent idea of a lot of "how" related to electromagnetism, chemistry, optics, etc.


Now, I also have to wonder just how many damn times I have to post that I am not insisting that the GM or author have the mass-charge ratio of the electron worked out for their setting, that's not the level of detail/depth that's required.

[Jay R]

Regardless, if you give that answer to the player or reader, you're asking the player or reader to quietly accept being presented with a novel detail while being told "this is just the way it is, don't bother trying to understand it, there's nothing to understand, it's just-so, don't waste your time thinking about it".

Yes, exactly. just like you handle every other non-scientific aspect of D&D, from cross-breeding species to discrete levels of ability. That how myths, fairy tales and other fantasies work.

I don't know how the Greek sky Ouranos had sex with the earth Gaia, or why their children are neither sky nor planet but Titans. I don't know how Ymir's armpit created the first man and woman. I don't know how Baba Yagi's hut can have legs. I have no explanation for why the gingerbread cottage in Hansel and Gretel stands up, how a mirror can find the fairest in the land, how horses that used to be mice know how to pull a pumpkin-coach to the castle, how a sea-witch can steal a voice, or how a lion can talk to a meerkat and warthog. This is just the way it is, don't bother trying to understand it, there's nothing to understand, it's just-so, don't waste your time thinking about it.

I have no good explanation for how D&D spells work -- how rings of invisibility make photons pass through mass, how flight spells lift people without propulsion or wings, how many spells create or destroy mass and energy -- other than "this is just the way it is, don't bother trying to understand it, there's nothing to understand, it's just-so, don't waste your time thinking about it". That's crucial to creating a world of wonder and awe.

Demanding explanation for the flat world without demanding it of each magic item, of class levels, of cross-breeding, and every other non-mundane aspect of the game, is simply inconsistent.

If a flat earth bothers you, don't play in such a game. That's fine. But you're not likely to convince most of us that it's any worse than flight spells or owlbears.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It almost sounds like you're conflating "what?" / "how?"... with "why?"

Oddly enough, faerie tales, myths, legends, etc, usually have a lot of "why?" answers, but very few "what?" / "how?" They give just-so answers claiming to tell us why a thing is the way it is, but not how a thing actually works.


My strong impression from the rest of the thread is that you were unsatisfied when people gave answers based on "how things work" in the proposed universes. You always went deeper with questions at the next layer down, requiring closer-to-first-principles explanations. If that's not so, sorry. I do think it's important to point out that exploring the consequences of any significant change (even blue skin) would require large and unpredictable (except possibly by experts) changes in the underlying physical and chemical properties of the setting. That's how tightly held together our models are of reality. They predict (not explain, define, or control) our current observed reality very well but fail miserably as soon as even the smallest parameter is tweaked.

To expect more than hand-waved explanations for differences in settings is to expect setting designers to be experts in a huge range of fields (because worlds are stinking complex). It's way too much to expect and rather unfair, in fact. Some suspension of disbelief is required. How much is a personal thing. One person's "just so story" is another person's comfort level.



Reality, on the other hand, offers up a decent level of "what?" / "how?" answers... and is absolutely devoid of "why?" That we're having this conversation over this medium is pretty much irrefutable (IMO) proof that we have a decent idea of a lot of "how" related to electromagnetism, chemistry, optics, etc.


Now, I also have to wonder just how many damn times I have to post that I am not insisting that the GM or author have the mass-charge ratio of the electron worked out for their setting, that's not the level of detail/depth that's required.

We don't really (speaking as someone with a PhD in quantum chemistry). We have great models. That work for specific things and break horribly for anything else. We just have lots and lots of these models. Basically, we're universe hackers (in the jerry-rig sense). We make it work, but our understandings of the fundamentals are based on convenient assumptions and a whole lot of hope and sleight of hand. Turns out we can make great predictions, but that doesn't mean our models have anything to do with what reality actually looks like. Remember the principle of parsimony (Occam's razor) is not a scientific law. It just makes our jobs easier to assume it works.


The classical laws of electrodynamics, encapsulated in Maxwell's Equations, turn out to be very very very good in their realm. They're Lorentz invariant (so special and general relativity work fine without modifications), they are complete, etc. The model that Maxwell used to generate them was...special. It assumed that the vacuum was composed at the fundamental level of gears and springs that rotated and oscillated against each other to give rise to electromagnetic waves. We've since decided that we don't need those extra mechanisms, so our model has changed. Does that mean we understand the vacuum better? Nope. It still could really be composed of gears and springs for all we know. Or angels pushing things around. Scientists don't care as long as the models we have give us good predictions.

[Max_Killjoy]

My strong impression from the rest of the thread is that you were unsatisfied when people gave answers based on "how things work" in the proposed universes. You always went deeper with questions at the next layer down, requiring closer-to-first-principles explanations. If that's not so, sorry. I do think it's important to point out that exploring the consequences of any significant change (even blue skin) would require large and unpredictable (except possibly by experts) changes in the underlying physical and chemical properties of the setting. That's how tightly held together our models are of reality. They predict (not explain, define, or control) our current observed reality very well but fail miserably as soon as even the smallest parameter is tweaked.

To expect more than hand-waved explanations for differences in settings is to expect setting designers to be experts in a huge range of fields (because worlds are stinking complex). It's way too much to expect and rather unfair, in fact. Some suspension of disbelief is required. How much is a personal thing. One person's "just so story" is another person's comfort level.


The core objections are:

1) when "A works by X" and "B works by Y" are both presented, and they're mutually incompatible, or would interact to produce knock-on effects but clearly do not do so in the fictional reality being shown to us.

2) when "C works by Z" is asserted, but the fictional reality we're shown obviously does not reflect that assertion, or does not reflect it outside of a narrow set of phenomena, and instead looks suspiciously like our world with the numbers filed off.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The core objections are:

1) when "A works by X" and "B works by Y" are both presented, and they're mutually incompatible, or would interact to produce knock-on effects but clearly do not do so in the fictional reality being shown to us.


And why is compatibility a requirement for all A, B, X, and Y? We don't have that (as far as we know) in the real world. The standard model of quantum mechanics and general relativity (both of which we are pretty confident about as far as their predictions) are completely incompatible. As long as you're not in a region where both models are valid, it just doesn't matter because they cover different ground and answer different questions. Yes, it's unsatisfying, but it seems to be the best we can do for now (not that that stops people from trying).

As far as knock-on effects--every change would have large knock-on effects. There's only so far down the rabbit hole you can go as a DM or world-builder. Sometimes those knock-on effects just aren't important to the matter at hand. The exact shape of the sword grip to account for different hand structures can be completely glossed over. Even bigger things (how the ship goes over the "horizon" of a flat world) just don't matter 99.9% of the time to 99.9% of the players.

At best, what a writer/DM/world-builder describes is the closest analogue that would make sense to us Earth-bound humans. You're seeing everything through that filter. There may be much more going on there that would be difficult if not impossible to pass through the human veil and put into words. Think explaining the workings of the internet to an illiterate farmer from the 12th century. It'll be difficult.



2) when "C works by Z" is asserted, but the fictional reality we're shown obviously does not reflect that assertion, or does not reflect it outside of a narrow set of phenomena, and instead looks suspiciously like our world with the numbers filed off.

What about confounding effects? C may work by Z and all else being equal that would have effects alpha, beta, and gamma. But because of D, E, F, and G, they all happen to work out to be something roughly similar to our world (for our convenience as players mostly). D, E, F, and G may be unknown to the in-universe characters. They may have no way of performing the tests required to show that. Or, for that matter, the people may believe that C works by Z, but it may actually work by something else completely (which would have different effects).

What I'm trying to say is that you're assuming too much and too little at the same time. What's presented in a setting document (or in a book, in play, etc) is only a tiny fragment of the reality. It's been packaged for the purpose at hand--playing a game. No such document could ever hope to account for any non-trivial amount of the knock-on effects that would happen if you took the setting principles or ideas to their "logical conclusion." Doing so would detract from the purpose of the setting (namely the game). And for 90+% of the players spending time along those lines would be tiresome and a total waste of time. It may matter to you, but that's entirely personal preference and you're strongly outside the norm in that regard.

To turn it around--are there any settings (for any media) you find do a good job with your criteria? I'd love to investigate examples to see what I think about it.

[Xuc Xac]

The core objections are:

1) when "A works by X" and "B works by Y" are both presented, and they're mutually incompatible, or would interact to produce knock-on effects but clearly do not do so in the fictional reality being shown to us.

2) when "C works by Z" is asserted, but the fictional reality we're shown obviously does not reflect that assertion, or does not reflect it outside of a narrow set of phenomena, and instead looks suspiciously like our world with the numbers filed off.

This is why people keep throwing quantum mechanics in your face. Your point #1 applies to things like quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality. Your point #2 applies to the formulas of Newton and Euclid.

You say you object to flat worlds, but the only reasons you give also apply to many other things including the real world. If you just don't like flat worlds, you can just say it's personal preference. Just don't try to justify your hatred of hamburgers by saying cows are sacred while you're chewing on a steak and wearing a leather jacket.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is why people keep throwing quantum mechanics in your face. Your point #1 applies to things like quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality. Your point #2 applies to the formulas of Newton and Euclid.

You say you object to flat worlds, but the only reasons you give also apply to many other things including the real world. If you just don't like flat worlds, you can just say it's personal preference. Just don't try to justify your hatred of hamburgers by saying cows are sacred while you're chewing on a steak and wearing a leather jacket.

So it turns out no matter what I actually post, you'll twist it around in order to accuse me of hypocrisy or something.

We're done. Bye.

/plonk

[Max_Killjoy]

And why is compatibility a requirement for all A, B, X, and Y? We don't have that (as far as we know) in the real world. The standard model of quantum mechanics and general relativity (both of which we are pretty confident about as far as their predictions) are completely incompatible. As long as you're not in a region where both models are valid, it just doesn't matter because they cover different ground and answer different questions. Yes, it's unsatisfying, but it seems to be the best we can do for now (not that that stops people from trying).

As far as knock-on effects--every change would have large knock-on effects. There's only so far down the rabbit hole you can go as a DM or world-builder. Sometimes those knock-on effects just aren't important to the matter at hand. The exact shape of the sword grip to account for different hand structures can be completely glossed over. Even bigger things (how the ship goes over the "horizon" of a flat world) just don't matter 99.9% of the time to 99.9% of the players.

At best, what a writer/DM/world-builder describes is the closest analogue that would make sense to us Earth-bound humans. You're seeing everything through that filter. There may be much more going on there that would be difficult if not impossible to pass through the human veil and put into words. Think explaining the workings of the internet to an illiterate farmer from the 12th century. It'll be difficult.



What about confounding effects? C may work by Z and all else being equal that would have effects alpha, beta, and gamma. But because of D, E, F, and G, they all happen to work out to be something roughly similar to our world (for our convenience as players mostly). D, E, F, and G may be unknown to the in-universe characters. They may have no way of performing the tests required to show that. Or, for that matter, the people may believe that C works by Z, but it may actually work by something else completely (which would have different effects).

What I'm trying to say is that you're assuming too much and too little at the same time. What's presented in a setting document (or in a book, in play, etc) is only a tiny fragment of the reality. It's been packaged for the purpose at hand--playing a game. No such document could ever hope to account for any non-trivial amount of the knock-on effects that would happen if you took the setting principles or ideas to their "logical conclusion." Doing so would detract from the purpose of the setting (namely the game). And for 90+% of the players spending time along those lines would be tiresome and a total waste of time. It may matter to you, but that's entirely personal preference and you're strongly outside the norm in that regard.

To turn it around--are there any settings (for any media) you find do a good job with your criteria? I'd love to investigate examples to see what I think about it.

For cripe's sake.

I keep talking about not having the gross observable phenomena and effects openly contradict each other or the stated nature of the world, and somehow we keep getting into quantum mechanics. I keep talking about fictional realities needing to make some amount of sense and not be full of blatant holes and pitfalls, and somehow that gets twisted into me supposedly demanding that the author get multiple PhDs and spend a lifetime working out every last detail of physics, biology, history, culture, and linguistics, or something.

I'm looking at the level of "areas of high rainfall tend to be on the windward side of high mountains, not the leeward side, so you might want to tweak your map in this area", and for some reason the response I'm getting is "Oh my god, you expect the GM to have a PhD in climatology and spend 100s of hours working out the historical weather patterns and how a shift in rainfall caused the crop selection of the people in Wetdryistan to change 8 generations ago..."


Never mind.


Edit -- and yes, I'm the sort of player who at least wants to say "That's probably too heavy" when someone wants to move scrap starship hull that must weigh 5+ tons strapped to the back of a hoverbike. Not GM, player. As in, the rest of the players come up with a plan to steal the thing we need using a hoverbike to carry it off, and I'm the one biting my tongue the entire time because I know that there's a fatal flaw in what they're trying to do, but I'm conflicting between pointing it out and just letting the game get past this point.

[Xuc Xac]

For cripe's sake.

I keep talking about not having the gross observable phenomena and effects openly contradict each other or the stated nature of the world, and somehow we keep getting into quantum mechanics.

Never mind.

So, you're basically objecting to some hypothetical GM describing something poorly. That's not an objection to flat worlds. That's an objection to poor GM description. I've seen a GM who didn't understand alcohol describe a spilled barrel of ale catching fire. I know that's wrong because ale isn't flammable, but I don't object to fantasy worlds having ale in them just because a GM described it incorrectly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For cripe's sake.

I keep talking about not having the gross observable phenomena and effects openly contradict each other or the stated nature of the world, and somehow we keep getting into quantum mechanics. I keep talking about fictional realities needing to make some amount of sense and not be full of blatant holes and pitfalls, and somehow that gets twisted into me supposedly demanding that the author get multiple PhDs and spend a lifetime working out every last detail of physics, biology, history, culture, and linguistics, or something.


Holy Hyperbole Batman!



I'm looking at the level of "areas of high rainfall tend to be on the windward side of high mountains, not the leeward side, so you might want to tweak your map in this area", and for some reason the response I'm getting is "Oh my god, you expect the GM to have a PhD in climatology and spend 100s of hours working out the historical weather patterns and how a shift in rainfall caused the crop selection of the people in Wetdryistan to change 8 generations ago..."


I can understand this complaint, but have two responses--
1) Your complaint presumes that rainfall works the same way on planet X as it does on earth. For example, my setting doesn't have predictable winds that are caused by the planet's rotation. The Great Mechanism tended by the gods handles that, allocating rainfall according to its programming. Now because I felt like it I tended to have it follow the earth-like patterns, but that's entirely my whim.

2) So what? Why does it matter if one side "should" be dry but is wet? Again, 90+% of players won't care in the slightest, and most of the rest won't care much. This is a personal preference not shared widely.



Edit -- and yes, I'm the sort of player who at least wants to say "That's probably too heavy" when someone wants to move scrap starship hull that must weigh 5+ tons strapped to the back of a hoverbike. Not GM, player. As in, the rest of the players come up with a plan to steal the thing we need using a hoverbike to carry it off, and I'm the one biting my tongue the entire time because I know that there's a fatal flaw in what they're trying to do, but I'm conflicting between pointing it out and just letting the game get past this point.

I fully agree with this complaint. I would question if the system has mechanical pieces to help here--are carrying capacities of hoverbikes stated anywhere? That's not a setting issue, it's a players being cheap. I tend to run light on the logistics because I don't really care, but some things (you want to pick up that solid gold, larger-than-life statue? What's your Strength again? 8? Yeah, no) I care about. Again, table preference or system mechanics. Not a matter of a good or bad setting.

I'm still interested in settings that you think do a good job. Mainly because I want to learn to make better settings.

[Bohandas]

I think that our real disagreement is right here.

I come to D&D specifically for fairy tales. "Faerie-tale assertions" are the stock in trade. You seem to be unwillingly to play in a fairy tale, and want to turn it into science fiction. (But only in some areas. It seems maddeningly inconsistent - see below.)

I love both science fiction and fairy tales, but I don't want explanations for physics in my fairy tales for the same reason I don't want magical mysteries in my science fiction.

How does an invisibility spell make photons pass through or around bodies? How do flight and levitation break universal gravity? How do fireballs create energy, healing spells reverse entropy, protection spells tell the morality of a threat, etc.?

The only answer is the faerie-tale assertion that some things cannot be known.

I'm sure someone could design a consistent explanatory system that would allow for these phenomena, it would just be more trouble than it's worth to figure it out.

Good starting points would probably be to allow macro-scale observer effects, top-down physics, extra fundamental interactions (possibly only having effects in very specific or odd circumstances {such as only acting on onjects of a certain shape or size} and/or having limitations of scale similar to the nuclear forces {either having no effect past a certain distance like the nuclear forces, or not having effect below a certain distance), and/or non-conservation of mass

[John Campbell]

The last fantasy world I created was a flat world; a circle several thousand miles in radius enclosed in a crystal sphere which rotated around its north-south axis once per year, upon which the stars were mounted

The sun was a relatively small fiery ball that traveled across the sky each day, entering and leaving through gates in the east and west. There were separate gates for the moon, which was a similarly-sized ball that stayed always opposite the sun - it rose at sunset, was at its zenith at midnight, and set at sunrise, every day - that gave off its own silvery light, which waxed and waned over the course of a month - the moon's phases had no relation to its position relative to the sun, which didn't vary significantly. No one in-world knew where the sun and moon went when they weren't in the sky.

"Down" was normal to the plane of the disc, wherever on the known-inhabited side of the disc you were. There was in-world speculation as to whether the world was a disc with a similarly flat underside, or the top of a cylindrical column with the bottom...???, or the flat face of a hemisphere or a jagged lump of rock or what, and in the former case whether "down" was reversed on the other side so it might be habitable too, but no one really knew. It was rock as far down as anyone had been able to dig, at least.

A lot of this became plot-relevant. The theology was all tied up in the cosmology. The Sun, the Moon, and the stars were the gods of the various cultures (also the earth, but no one cared about those guys), and as the human empire was an intolerant theocracy, the theology was very important.

The humans on the world weren't native to it. They'd arrived generations earlier from their native world, which had fallen to forces of darkness, on magical golden ships through the Gates of the Sun. Their showing up and displacing the previous occupants (elves (and their dwarven slaves), hobgoblins, and gnolls) was the ultimate driver for most of the conflict. And when the PCs (who were really just passing through, trying to get back to Faerûn, which was their home Prime) left the world, they did it by using a relic they'd found to open the Gates of the Moon and pass through them to another world.

At one point a couple of the PCs were seriously trying to work out a practical way to get up to the sky-dome and literally pry a star loose from the firmament and drop it on the human capital.

The more mundane effects of the world being flat were very seldom actually relevant. The humans used heliographs (at night powered by Sun priests) to communicate at longer ranges, with fewer and lower towers, than would be possible on our Earth, but other than that...

Even the fairly flat and barren area I initially dropped the PCs in had too much terrain for the lack of curvature of the underlying world to have any practical effect on spotting ranges - though it was noticeable enough that the wizard was able to figure out pretty quickly that it was a flat world. The starfield turning so much more slowly than it should have, to the point that it took her several days to be sure that it turned at all, weirded her out more than mountains appearing out of the hazy distance rather than rising over the horizon. And it was the way the moon worked that really broke her brain. (And I have to admit that I did that one as subtle mockery of writers who seem to believe that's how the moon really works, which I've had to explain to so many people on the NaNo forums over the years that I wrote up a web page with diagrams that I can just link to.)

[IShouldntBehere]

What about a butt shaped world? Like I guess not just the butt, like the butt and a bit of the legs above the knees. The top would be flat of course, as would the bottoms of the legs. I suppose there could be a passage to the underworld between the cheeks or something.

[Max_Killjoy]

Holy Hyperbole Batman!


There have been some posts accusing me of expecting the GM to be an expert in multiple fields...




I can understand this complaint, but have two responses--
1) Your complaint presumes that rainfall works the same way on planet X as it does on earth. For example, my setting doesn't have predictable winds that are caused by the planet's rotation. The Great Mechanism tended by the gods handles that, allocating rainfall according to its programming. Now because I felt like it I tended to have it follow the earth-like patterns, but that's entirely my whim.


You do, however, have a reason for it to be different when it is, and it sounds like you've followed through (up and down) on the implications of the world in your setting working differently.

Too often, the rainforest is where the desert should be just because the GM or writer wanted a rainforest there and a desert over here, and that worldbuilder couldn't be bothered to do 15 minutes of reading on the subject.




2) So what? Why does it matter if one side "should" be dry but is wet? Again, 90+% of players won't care in the slightest, and most of the rest won't care much. This is a personal preference not shared widely.


It's not just "a preference"... I'll look at a map of some Fantasy Land and these things just pop into my head. "Why are those mountains there?" "What's causing that desert?" "Why is there a lush forest right next to it?" "Why does that river appear to be running uphill?" And 9 times out of 10, there's no actual answer to any of those questions, nothing about the world or the history or even the magic that would explain the bizarro geology.




I'm still interested in settings that you think do a good job. Mainly because I want to learn to make better settings.


At present, I can't think of any from fantasy works that I've liked that feature big head-scratching "wondrous" geology or other elements like we're discussing here. Most worlds I've read tend to stick to familiar observable-level behavior -- the descriptions make it clear that it all functions in a way at least superficially similar to our world, so that the reader doesn't have to constantly remember all the quirks of the world that the characters would consider normal, and the writer doesn't have to keep working it in and spelling it out.

[Mechalich]

What about a butt shaped world? Like I guess not just the butt, like the butt and a bit of the legs above the knees. The top would be flat of course, as would the bottoms of the legs. I suppose there could be a passage to the underworld between the cheeks or something.

The issues are mostly the same. Ultimately there are two types of worlds, spherical and other. Anything larger than Ceres: 900 km in diameter or ~ 9 x 10^20 kg in mass (this is 0.00015 Earths, or ~1/6700th of Earth) is going to be round baring either 1. superstrong materials (which is plausible up to a point somewhere between a Banks' Orbital and a Ringworld) or 2. funky gravity (which isn't plausible and mandates fantasy physics). Once you've gone with fantasy gravity you can plausibly make your world look like whatever you want. That's why Spelljammer had a worlds table that was bizarre crazy, they'd already imposed fantasy gravity so why not.

[IShouldntBehere]

The issues are mostly the same. Ultimately there are two types of worlds, spherical and other. Anything larger than Ceres: 900 km in diameter or ~ 9 x 10^20 kg in mass (this is 0.00015 Earths, or ~1/6700th of Earth) is going to be round baring either 1. superstrong materials (which is plausible up to a point somewhere between a Banks' Orbital and a Ringworld) or 2. funky gravity (which isn't plausible and mandates fantasy physics). Once you've gone with fantasy gravity you can plausibly make your world look like whatever you want. That's why Spelljammer had a worlds table that was bizarre crazy, they'd already imposed fantasy gravity so why not.

No. Gravity works as normal. However the butt force holds the butt together in the shape of butt, that's why it's called the butt force. The butt force has no noticeable effects outside retaining the shape of the giant butt, and keeping directional on the butt pointing towards nearest surface of the butt and anything else required to be a butt with butt people on the butt (It's entirely populated by little butt people) . The giant butt world has normal, spherical moon that orbits at normal distance by normal properties for an object the mass of the butt. Gravity is not changed. The one and only the difference the butt force, which makes butts which is why it's called the butt force. All other objects in the universe as they are not butts or things living on/being part of the butt are subject to all standard physical laws in a standard way.

Also sometimes the butt farts.

[Koo Rehtorb]

No. Gravity works as normal. However the butt force holds the butt together in the shape of butt, that's why it's called the butt force. The butt force has no noticeable effects outside retaining the shape of the giant butt, and keeping directional on the butt pointing towards nearest surface of the butt and anything else required to be a butt with butt people on the butt (It's entirely populated by little butt people) . The giant butt world has normal, spherical moon that orbits at normal distance by normal properties for an object the mass of the butt. Gravity is not changed. The one and only the difference the butt force, which makes butts which is why it's called the butt force. All other objects in the universe as they are not butts or things living on/being part of the butt are subject to all standard physical laws in a standard way.

Also sometimes the butt farts.

Story checks out.

[Xuc Xac]

(It's entirely populated by little butt people

Oh, you mean the garbanzos or "chickpeaple"! That's totally a real thing.

[BlacKnight]

The question wasn't whether it was an important difference or plausible -- the question was whether "gunpowder functions" and "firearms are workable" are matched overlapping sets.

But you were complaining that writers make stuff different for the sake of it being different. And you cited gunpowder. Then you make this example, but now you say that the difference actually matters.
So I'm confused.



It's not just "a preference"... I'll look at a map of some Fantasy Land and these things just pop into my head. "Why are those mountains there?" "What's causing that desert?" "Why is there a lush forest right next to it?" "Why does that river appear to be running uphill?" And 9 times out of 10, there's no actual answer to any of those questions, nothing about the world or the history or even the magic that would explain the bizarro geology.

I a writer puts a rain forest next to a desert... well you want to know why that happen. PhoenixPhyre explanation satisfy you. But I would like to know even more. How the Gods set up the Great Mechanism ? How the Gods were born ? How you can see the level of detail requested is just a matter of personal preferences.
I could imagine that there are people that want know even more in detail than you. Maybe they want to know the size of the electrons.

[AdelizziArani]

Why there are people that believe that the Earth is flat? The Earth is round!!!

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Why there are people that believe that the Earth is flat? The Earth is round!!!

As round as a pancake!

[Lord Torath]

Why there are people that believe that the Earth is flat? The Earth is round!!!Beats me. They're probably conspiracy theory fans. Moon landings were faked (obviously, if the work is flat!), JFK had two assassins after him, Global Warming was made up by China, who has now duped the rest of the world into going along with it, and there is a tiny little man who turns on and off the light in your refrigerator. There have probably been studies done on why people believe this, but I'd probably check with a mod before starting a thread on it.


As round as a pancake!You're not helping. :smallamused:

[PhoenixPhyre]

I a writer puts a rain forest next to a desert... well you want to know why that happen. PhoenixPhyre explanation satisfy you. But I would like to know even more. How the Gods set up the Great Mechanism ? How the Gods were born ? How you can see the level of detail requested is just a matter of personal preferences.
I could imagine that there are people that want know even more in detail than you. Maybe they want to know the size of the electrons.

That was one of my (attempted) points. Each world-builder only has a limited amount of effort to put in. They tend to put it where they think it's important, which lines up with their interests. I, for instance, care about the metaphysical reality (the gods, the creation story, etc). It keeps me grounded in a theme so that I can keep things mostly consistent (or not horribly inconsistent). Each reader will have to decide for themselves what things are important to them in a setting. This is personal taste, not right or wrong.

As for your questions about my setting, I'll spoiler it as it's an aside from the conversation.

There's actually been 3 sets of "gods" in my setting.

Before the pocket universe the setting inhabits came into existence, there was the Dreaming Dark. A semi-sentient void. Eventually it dreamed of itself--if there is "self", there must be "other." And so the First Dreamers came about. Their dreams/thoughts/desires created innumerable pocket universes. One of the Dreamers, known only as The One, created the setting's universe, consisting of a single star system enclosed in a barrier (although that's not really true--the barrier is omnipresent and the Dark is coexistent with reality...things get weird).

The One created the Primordial Gods, 9 beings that embodied a fragment of reality--4 elements, life, death, good, evil, change. They built the world and the ancestors of the races. Then Change rebelled and tried to overthrow everything. The One ended that Dawn War by forming the Primordials into the planar cosmology as we know it--himself he sacrificed to create the Great Mechanism that keeps things going. Change was imprisoned in the Abyss with those that followed him. Mortals are the degenerated descendants of those first races. The Successor Gods were (mostly) powerful beings that survived the Dawn War and claimed rule over aspects of Creation. Some later ones were ascended mortals.

Later (about 200 years before present day), Change was released by a hubristic mage. In the resulting chaos, a team of adventurers used an artifact (supposedly the Eye of the One) to well, blow crap up. The result was the temporary stoppage of all magic. In this setting, that has bad effects. The Successor Gods (all but 4) sacrificed themselves to keep the Great Mechanism going and to incorporate Change into reality (thus finishing the Dawn War for good). The Four who remained devoted themselves to the Mechanism and swore off dealing with mortals.

The Four, needing help, chose powerful mortal spirits and other beings and gave them access to the Great Mechanism's power in exchange for handling domains. Thus the 16 current Gods were born. Some candidates refused and were exiled to the Abyss--these are the Outcasts, the Demon Princes.

To make a new God, you'd need to kill off one of the current ones and get approval from the Four. Making a new Demon Prince is easier--just carve out a realm in the Abyss using the souls of thousands of people and get people to worship you (feeding you their soul energy).

[2D8HP]

As round as a pancake!


Or pizza?

"It is said that the Creator had a pepperoni and cheese pizza in mind when creating the Discworld, but slightly overdid it. The secret of pizza-making was given to Klatchian mystic Ronron "Revelation Joe" Shuwadhi by the Creator in a dream.

The original pizza can be found in the Forbidden City of Ee, although, of course, that would require finding that city first.

Pizza is eaten by student wizards who work until late on Hex, other humans, and more recently dwarfs and*trolls. It has, however, been discovered that pizza should not be fed to swamp dragons. Known pizzas include the Quatre Rodenti (the dwarf choice), Klatchian Hotsand Four Strata. Even Lord Vetinari has eaten a pizza at least once."

[Cluedrew]

The last fantasy world I created was a flat world;That sounds like a beautifully done flat world. Not only in terms of the world itself, but how it came up and how the players interacted with it.

[Max_Killjoy]

But you were complaining that writers make stuff different for the sake of it being different. And you cited gunpowder. Then you make this example, but now you say that the difference actually matters.
So I'm confused.


Again, context.

I cited gunpowder not working as an example of a writer just not wanting something (firearms in this case) in a setting, so they come up with an ad hoc reason without thinking it through. In response, you asked:



Really who has ever removed gunpowder but left firearms in a setting ?


And a few examples were offered specifically in response to that question. That's all.

I didn't say the difference matters, I answered your question, and then clarified that it wasn't technically gunpowder when your search seemed to indicate that there was gunpowder in the setting.

It does, however, serve as an example of maybe something "done different" in a setting just for the sake of being different, because it still allows for firearms and bombs and so on. I don't recall in the two books I've read so far, any instance of it making much significant difference or leading to anything interesting about the world itself. But that's not why it was brought up; it was brought up to address the question "Really who has ever removed gunpowder but left firearms in a setting ?"




I a writer puts a rain forest next to a desert... well you want to know why that happen. PhoenixPhyre explanation satisfy you.


It explains why the weather displays fantastic patterns on the world of his setting, and strictly as an answer to that immediate question, it's satisfactory, yes. It's more of an answer than is usual for wonky weather, which usually just results from "I want this here next to that" mapmaking and the worldbuilder not even being arsed to do 15 minutes of reading on the subject of climate and weather.




But I would like to know even more. How the Gods set up the Great Mechanism ? How the Gods were born ? How you can see the level of detail requested is just a matter of personal preferences.
I could imagine that there are people that want know even more in detail than you. Maybe they want to know the size of the electrons.


That wasn't the question at hand, however, and unlike some people in these threads, I at least try to avoid the "use dissection of the example to avoid the point as fervently as possible" game. If the discussion were about PhoenixPhyre's setting, I'd have had many many questions.

[Jay R]

I'm sure someone could design a consistent explanatory system that would allow for these phenomena, it would just be more trouble than it's worth to figure it out.

More importantly, it would have no value at all. It would not serve the game, or the players, in any way at all. It's only purpose would be to de-mystify the mystical, in a game we like because of the magical aspects.

I want to know how a pistol works in a modern game, and I may want some explanation for how a phaser works in a science fiction game.

But I have no interest in knowing how a wand works in a fantasy game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It explains why the weather displays fantastic patterns on the world of his setting, and strictly as an answer to that immediate question, it's satisfactory, yes. It's more of an answer that is usual for wonky weather, which usually just results from "I want this here next to that" mapmaking and the worldbuilder not even being arsed to do 15 minutes of reading on the subject of climate and weather.


I mostly agree with most of this post, but I want to point something out. As a non-professional world-builder, if I spend 15 minutes reading on climate and weather (which, knowing myself, would end up being 2 or 3 hours), that's 15 minutes out of my limited time budget that didn't go to planning NPCs, encounters, locations, etc. It may be worth the time, but that's a judgement call. Since only a few players (none of the ones I've ever DM'd for certainly) would even notice, should I spend my time here? Or should I spend it somewhere the players might notice? As I tend to work from broad-brush strokes and only create the detail on-demand (a session or two ahead of the party) this time expenditure can't be done all at once world-wide. Doing that would consume multiple weeks worth of available planning time. Besides, I'm not even really sure what the rest of the world (outside of the current play area) really looks like. I have ideas, but they're kinda nebulous.

Sure, if I were publishing the setting and expecting others to pay for it, I'd make sure there was at least a hand-waved explanation for all of the notable "discrepancies" like weird weather patterns.

[BlacKnight]

I didn't say the difference matters, I answered your question, and then clarified that it wasn't technically gunpowder when your search seemed to indicate that there was gunpowder in the setting.

It does, however, serve as an example of maybe something "done different" in a setting just for the sake of being different, because it still allows for firearms and bombs and so on. I don't recall in the two books I've read so far, any instance of it making much significant difference or leading to anything interesting about the world itself. But that's not why it was brought up; it was brought up to address the question "Really who has ever removed gunpowder but left firearms in a setting ?"

If there isn't any difference with real gunpowder he hasn't really removed gunpowder. So ok, we have an example of stuff done differently just for "cool" factor. Is a bad thing ? Sure it's a waste of world building work. But it's a capital sin ? Some people like cool factor.


It explains why the weather displays fantastic patterns on the world of his setting, and strictly as an answer to that immediate question, it's satisfactory, yes. It's more of an answer than is usual for wonky weather, which usually just results from "I want this here next to that" mapmaking and the worldbuilder not even being arsed to do 15 minutes of reading on the subject of climate and weather.

That wasn't the question at hand, however, and unlike some people in these threads, I at least try to avoid the "use dissection of the example to avoid the point as fervently as possible" game. If the discussion were about PhoenixPhyre's setting, I'd have had many many questions.

Let's use a setting where weather is strange as example. There are multiple level on analysis possible:

1) Who cares ? There would be an explanation, but I have more important stuff to do.
2) Gods made stuff this way. Period
3) Gods made the Great Mechanism, the controls weather. They can change it by doing X.
4) Gods control matter with their minds. They use this power to control weather. They can control X mass at Y distance, with other limitations.
5) Gods neurons, when stimulated by the right electric impulse, emitt X waves, that interacts with atoms in this way...
6) skyV0+skyVS*exp(-skyVG/(abs(mu)+0.001))

There are obviously intermediate levels.
What is not enough and what is too much ? How do you identify the right level of explanation ?

[Max_Killjoy]

I wonder what would happen if the same level of analysis, criticism, and skepticism was directed at the actual worldbuilding and the resulting settings... as has been directed at the idea of a minimum standard of effort and quality in worldbuilding.

[Bohandas]

Can I just say that with all the giant beetles and ants running around, and big flying dragons, changing how gravity works in a fantasy setting is kind of a given

EDIT:
Though figuring out precisely how it's changed isn't strictly necessary, just as we can get along our day to day lives in the real world without a working theory of quantum-scale gravitation

[ImNotTrevor]

I wonder what would happen if the same level of analysis, criticism, and skepticism was directed at the actual worldbuilding and the resulting settings... as has been directed at the idea of a minimum standard of effort and quality in worldbuilding.

It already is, just not here.

Also, people are trying to understand your position. This is dismissing their curiosity and not clarifying your position. Hence why people keep asking.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I wonder what would happen if the same level of analysis, criticism, and skepticism was directed at the actual worldbuilding and the resulting settings... as has been directed at the idea of a minimum standard of effort and quality in worldbuilding.

I've not seen anyone contest that there should a minimum standard. We just don't agree with you (or with each other!) about what that minimum standard is or should be. This is entirely a de gustibas situation. I do not believe that it is possible to define an objective minimum standard that covers anything content related. This includes internal contradictions. I can imagine many fun worlds to play in where internal consistency is limited or subverted. It'd be hard, but doable in my opinion.

"Bad" settings for me are ones that are written in such a way as to make it hard to understand and use. There are many "good" settings I wouldn't want to play in, and "bad" ones that I would love to make playable. Then there are the many many worlds that are great for what they do but unplayable in a TTRPG. Some settings explicitly set out goals--these can be judged as to conformance. Most, however, are simply worlds for the imagination. The only goal--explore an idea.

What I'm against is people trying to state their own personal tastes as fact. Verisimilitude is a word that seems to mean "I like it" rather than anything objective. Everyone must decide for themselves where the lines are drawn. When people use "X is bad" to mean "I don't like X," the discussion suffers. Note--the whole point of the de gustibas maxim is that you can't dispute taste. There's nothing objective to contest, analyze, etc.

[Jay R]

George Martin never explains how winter or summer can last for many years, or even what a "year" really means.

Jonathan Swift never explains how the cube-square law is nullified for Lilliputians and Brobdingnagians.

J. R. R. Tolkien doesn't explain how a ring can make you invisible, or why elves and wizards aren't subject to the stresses that cause human bodies to break down in 100 years.

And nobody cares. This sort of story is not about that sort of explanation. Nor do these stories have characters trained in modern scientific observation, or even the idea that equations could ever describe how the world works.

More germane to the topic, C. S. Lewis does not explain how Narnia can be a flat world, and never discusses how far the sailors on the Dawn Treader can see.

And yet, somehow, I managed to enjoy that book.

[Max_Killjoy]

George Martin never explains how winter or summer can last for many years, or even what a "year" really means.


He also made the wall too high and didn't realize that he'd made agriculture impossible in areas where he had people engaged in agriculture, and so on, and so on. He was too busy making sure everyone suffers, and is a jerk. Or dead. Or a dead jerk. But suffering regardless.




Jonathan Swift never explains how the cube-square law is nullified for Lilliputians and Brobdingnagians.


1) Gulliver's Travels written in 1726... when was the nature of the cube-square law as a limitation on living things first understood?
2) It was a satire. Absurdity is a known ingredient in satire.




J. R. R. Tolkien doesn't explain how a ring can make you invisible, or why elves and wizards aren't subject to the stresses that cause human bodies to break down in 100 years.


Can you provide any examples where Tolkein presented contradictory facts about Middle Earth, or told us one thing about it and then showed us something incompatible? Do you have any examples of inconsistency, incoherence, or dissonance? Because that would actually be a response to what I'm talking about...


The core objections are:

1) when "A works by X" and "B works by Y" are both presented, and they're mutually incompatible, or would interact to produce knock-on effects but clearly do not do so in the fictional reality being shown to us.

2) when "C works by Z" is asserted, but the fictional reality we're shown obviously does not reflect that assertion, or does not reflect it outside of a narrow set of phenomena, and instead looks suspiciously like our world with the numbers filed off.

...



And nobody cares.


Obviously an overstatement, as evidenced by this discussion.




This sort of story is not about that sort of explanation. Nor do these stories have characters trained in modern scientific observation, or even the idea that equations could ever describe how the world works.


The writer does need to know enough about how and/or why it works in order to avoid contradiction and incompatibility, even if the reader never knows.

For the RPG setting creator or the GM, it's actually even MORE important to have a robust framework to build on, because everything is "live" and there's no chance to go back and edit once something's been put on the table.




More germane to the topic, C. S. Lewis does not explain how Narnia can be a flat world, and never discusses how far the sailors on the Dawn Treader can see.

And yet, somehow, I managed to enjoy that book.


1) I'm not sure that religious allegory is a good example for robust worldbuilding...
2) As an author, he can fastidiously avoid the such topics, and it will never occur to characters to consider them, because he doesn't want them to. A video game designer can fastidiously avoid situations in which it would come up, always present terrain that doesn't show off the differences, etc. In contrast, a GM cannot simply keep telling the players "You can't do that." "You can't go there." "Your character would never think of that." "Your character can't ask that question."


I enjoyed the Harry Potter series as books, but as an RPG setting, it would need serious work -- because it's full of just-so, consequence-free worldbuilding where allegory, atmosphere, and the narrative need of the moment trumped internal consistency and coherence. Rowling has said that she has turned down offers to license the Potterverse as an RPG because it would require things set in stone that she wants left in flux, and answers put in print for questions she wants left unanswered.

Fiction is a more controlled medium for the writers, and a more passive experience for the reader/viewer/listener. An RPG is not a book, even when it's based on that book.

[GungHo]

(For the record, it has actually come up in my various musings, how you'd tell if you'd been moved to some other part of the world instantly, and the time of day, location of major celestial bodies, and the seasonal weather all come to mind. So yes, actually, it would stand out if in-game we teleported halfway around the world, and none of those things were different.)

I have a lot of fun with this one. Go into a door midday and it's night on the other side. Did I teleport across the world, to another world, get sent through time? Everything looks the same, but I can see things 189 miles away. I don't know how to work this. This is not my beautiful house. THIS IS NOT MY BEAUTIFUL WIFE.

[BlacKnight]

He also made the wall too high and didn't realize that he'd made agriculture impossible in areas where he had people engaged in agriculture, and so on, and so on. He was too busy making sure everyone suffers, and is a jerk. Or dead. Or a dead jerk. But suffering regardless.


Can you provide any examples where Tolkein presented contradictory facts about Middle Earth, or told us one thing about it and then showed us something incompatible? Do you have any examples of inconsistency, incoherence, or dissonance? Because that would actually be a response to what I'm talking about...


So you are saying that the agriculture should be impossible in the North, but LOTR elves being immortal is not a problem ? Why ?
I don't remember Tolkien explaining how elves immortality works. So why is Martin required to explain how agriculture in the North works ?
I'm not trying to twist your arguments. I'm genuinely curious about your reasoning.

[Max_Killjoy]

So you are saying that the agriculture should be impossible in the North, but LOTR elves being immortal is not a problem ? Why ?
I don't remember Tolkien explaining how elves immortality works. So why is Martin required to explain how agriculture in the North works ?
I'm not trying to twist your arguments. I'm genuinely curious about your reasoning.

1) What sort of world is Martin trying to present? Is it a grounded world with even the mythic elements presented in a grittier way? That's not the same sort of world that Tolkein is trying to present, is it?

2) Agriculture is a more mundane and familiar element than elves. We know how agriculture works, and the situation in The North seems to violate that understanding.

3) Tolkein does offer some in-setting explanation as to why elves are ageless and humans are not, and it's coherent with this setting even if it's not one I'm hugely fond of.

4) I'm more perplexed by the fact that real people age and die unavoidably, than I am by the fact that some fictional species do not.

[BlacKnight]

1) What sort of world is Martin trying to present? Is it a grounded world with even the mythic elements presented in a grittier way? That's not the same sort of world that Tolkein is trying to present, is it?

Well there are erratic seasons, dragons, giants, zombie, magic assassins, resurrections and other stuff like that.
I don't know if it falls into your definition of "grounded world". I don't think that there are less fantastic elements than LOTR.


2) Agriculture is a more mundane and familiar element than elves. We know how agriculture works, and the situation in The North seems to violate that understanding.

I can reverse this argument: Death is a more mundane element than erratic seasons. We know how death works and elves seems to violate that understanding.
And I hope you understand that this argument sounds a lot like: "elves are fantasy, they don't need an explanation". Which you were fighting before if I'm not mistaken.


3) Tolkein does offer some in-setting explanation as to why elves are ageless and humans are not, and it's coherent with this setting even if it's not one I'm hugely fond of.

I suppose the explanation is: Ilùvatar likes elves so he mades them immortal. Well is still more than what Martin says about agriculture in the North, but honestly I can't say that is much better.


4) I'm more perplexed by the fact that real people age and die unavoidably, than I am by the fact that some fictional species do not.

So if I was perplexed by the fact that mass attracts mass this would make a setting where gravity works different not needing an explanation ?

Honestly points 2) and 4) seems subjective at best. You don't find it strange, so it's ok and don't need an explanation. But different people can find strange different things. In fact when I discuss world building fails with my friends we are always annoyed by different things !

[IShouldntBehere]

2) As an author, he can fastidiously avoid the such topics, and it will never occur to characters to consider them, because he doesn't want them to. A video game designer can fastidiously avoid situations in which it would come up, always present terrain that doesn't show off the differences, etc. In contrast, a GM cannot simply keep telling the players "You can't do that." "You can't go there." "Your character would never think of that." "Your character can't ask that question.".

This may come as a shock, but the vast majority of players (at least those I've encountered) do not want to ask those questions, go those places or just generally poke at the seams of the world. So long as adventure hooks are at least passably compelling they're more less happy to just go along for the ride.

I can't think of any players I've met that upon being told that a forest was infinitely big, would attempt to build a flying machine just to see how high they can soar to prove the forest has an end. More likely if they're told there is an infinite forest they'll be more concerned with finding the giant sloth-spirit who lives there so they can ask for a jar of his tears to cure the plague that's killing their friends.

Rarely upon being told "you see bottomless pit" are players inclined to have their character hurl themselves off the cliff place their hands on their hips, smirk and go: "Well the rules say I take falling damage this round when I hit bottom, so either I hit the bottom or this round goes on forever AND.THE.GAME.STOPS.HERE. GG GM bottomless pits don't exist".

Stories where players try to use some circle of teleportation to flood the world using a water plane or some such are more the exception than the rule, and even then happens more often in goofy games and hypothetical thought experiments.

A game world need be no more than window dressing for the particular adventures being run there, and whatever few variations the players will come up in the spirit of those adventures. At a healthy table nobody is out to grossly violate the spirit of the game and the kind of activities meant to be done in it, so all the things that wouldn't hold up outside that context don't matter. In this sense it's not too far removed from what an author of a book is doing. After all even they run some risk of "writing themselves into a corner" in telling future stories. You don't have to be on roller coaster tracks to have people be content to stay in the amusement park.

If you tell folks that the world is shaped from like bowl, with a giant bridge running from one lip to another that keeps the souls of the damned from invading they'll more be interested in protecting that bridge, than going "HEY GUYZ! THAT BRIDGE WOULD NEVER STAND UP! It's too long". They'll be more interested in taking a trip across the bridge than they will be at noting the odd absence of deadly winds atop it. A simple description of an odd skybox, a few strange looking NPCs to converse with and giant bridge-destroying troll or two are enough.

Certainly tastes vary and there are players bound to balk at such things (after all this thread is a thing), but I think they're more than exception than rule. Players & GMs are more/less in the same boat. If the world has an edge and the world is about to end because all the oceans are draining off the side and the water-god who refills the oceans is missing, that's what's interesting not "Hey guys, wouldn't this really make the currents very odd".

[Koo Rehtorb]

I can reverse this argument: Death is a more mundane element than erratic seasons. We know how death works and elves seems to violate that understanding.
And I hope you understand that this argument sounds a lot like: "elves are fantasy, they don't need an explanation".

Considering immortal creatures exist in the real world I don't find elves that much of a stretch.

[pwykersotz]

This may come as a shock, but the vast majority of players (at least those I've encountered) do not want to ask those questions, go those places or just generally poke at the seams of the world. So long as adventure hooks are at least passably compelling they're more less happy to just go along for the ride.

I can't think of any players I've met that upon being told that a forest was infinitely big, would attempt to build a flying machine just to see how high they can soar to prove the forest has an end. More likely if they're told there is an infinite forest they'll be more concerned with finding the giant sloth-spirit who lives there so they can ask for a jar of his tears to cure the plague that's killing their friends.

Rarely upon being told "you see bottomless pit" are players inclined to have their character hurl themselves off the cliff place their hands on their hips, smirk and go: "Well the rules say I take falling damage this round when I hit bottom, so either I hit the bottom or this round goes on forever AND.THE.GAME.STOPS.HERE. GG GM bottomless pits don't exist".

Stories where players try to use some circle of teleportation to flood the world using a water plane or some such are more the exception than the rule, and even then happens more often in goofy games and hypothetical thought experiments.

A game world need be no more than window dressing for the particular adventures being run there, and whatever few variations the players will come up in the spirit of those adventures. At a healthy table nobody is out to grossly violate the spirit of the game and the kind of activities meant to be done in it, so all the things that wouldn't hold up outside that context don't matter. In this sense it's not too far removed from what an author of a book is doing. After all even they run some risk of "writing themselves into a corner" in telling future stories. You don't have to be on roller coaster tracks to have people be content to stay in the amusement park.

If you tell folks that the world is shaped from like bowl, with a giant bridge running from one lip to another that keeps the souls of the damned from invading they'll more be interested in protecting that bridge, than going "HEY GUYZ! THAT BRIDGE WOULD NEVER STAND UP! It's too long". They'll be more interested in taking a trip across the bridge than they will be at noting the odd absence of deadly winds atop it. A simple description of an odd skybox, a few strange looking NPCs to converse with and giant bridge-destroying troll or two are enough.

Certainly tastes vary and there are players bound to balk at such things (after all this thread is a thing), but I think they're more than exception than rule. Players & GMs are more/less in the same boat. If the world has an edge and the world is about to end because all the oceans are draining off the side and the water-god who refills the oceans is missing, that's what's interesting not "Hey guys, wouldn't this really make the currents very odd".

I think this misses the (infinite) forest for the (infinite) trees. It's not about abuse, it's about use. If people's bodies are governed by the four elements system and the humors, then you can be darned sure that a player will try to cure that sick NPC with an infusion of the proper element if there's no cleric handy. If you aren't ready to explain a certain amount of the how and why, you'll break interest real quick. Like the end of Blazing Saddles where everything was just on a set. For the distance thing, I can see it coming up with players who understand a good amount of science. All it takes is a fun suggestion made in good faith that the setting is a robust one and the GM not having an answer for a question to make people realize they're on a stage rather than in a world. All I've heard Max say since he started clarifying was that for his enjoyment, you have to build a few levels deep and make those levels cohesive.

It seems pretty reasonable to me. I have specialized rules set up to interact with my four elements system. They're pretty basic, but I have an answer for when the players want to do the thing I'm encouraging them to do in the game and interact with my setting in a reasonable way.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well there are erratic seasons, dragons, giants, zombie, magic assassins, resurrections and other stuff like that.
I don't know if it falls into your definition of "grounded world". I don't think that there are less fantastic elements than LOTR.


Which is why I said "Is it a grounded world with even the mythic elements presented in a grittier way?" and phrased it as a question. I gave up on reading the Martin works, they're not to my liking, so I'm not as familiar with the setting as some of you may be. Smaug is practically a demigod... the dragon's of Game of Thrones are simply animals that "get away with" flying and breathing fire, as far as I know.




I can reverse this argument: Death is a more mundane element than erratic seasons. We know how death works and elves seems to violate that understanding.
And I hope you understand that this argument sounds a lot like: "elves are fantasy, they don't need an explanation". Which you were fighting before if I'm not mistaken.


I was, and that's not the reason I was giving. It's not that elves are fantasy that makes the difference, it's that agriculture is very real -- agriculture in Martin's setting seems to "break the rules" we know from real agriculture, and as far as I know, we're never shown anything that would make sense of what's going on there.




I suppose the explanation is: Ilùvatar likes elves so he mades them immortal. Well is still more than what Martin says about agriculture in the North, but honestly I can't say that is much better.


Actually, no, the reverse. The Gift of Men (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Gift_of_Men). (Not much of a gift, if you ask me.)




So if I was perplexed by the fact that mass attracts mass this would make a setting where gravity works different not needing an explanation ?


No. Just the icing on the cake for my reasons why the two (Tolkein's and Martin's) seem quite different to me.

[Mutazoia]

Max, you seem to keep operating on the assumption that a completely alien world, in a completely alien universe, has to operate in completely the same fashion that ours does. Once you depart our reality, all bets are off.

[Max_Killjoy]

Max, you seem to keep operating on the assumption that a completely alien world, in a completely alien universe, has to operate in completely the same fashion that ours does. Once you depart our reality, all bets are off.

Or rather, you've missed about 90% of what I've actually written in my posts.

I shouldn't have to keep going back and repeating and repeating what I've already said multiple times that explicitly runs counter to your assertion here, in order to finally get people to quit making that assertion.


Oh well.

[IShouldntBehere]

I think this misses the (infinite) forest for the (infinite) trees. It's not about abuse, it's about use. If people's bodies are governed by the four elements system and the humors, then you can be darned sure that a player will try to cure that sick NPC with an infusion of the proper element if there's no cleric handy. If you aren't ready to explain a certain amount of the how and why, you'll break interest real quick. Like the end of Blazing Saddles where everything was just on a set. For the distance thing, I can see it coming up with players who understand a good amount of science. All it takes is a fun suggestion made in good faith that the setting is a robust one and the GM not having an answer for a question to make people realize they're on a stage rather than in a world. All I've heard Max say since he started clarifying was that for his enjoyment, you have to build a few levels deep and make those levels cohesive.

It seems pretty reasonable to me. I have specialized rules set up to interact with my four elements system. They're pretty basic, but I have an answer for when the players want to do the thing I'm encouraging them to do in the game and interact with my setting in a reasonable way.


For most players the answer "The key is not using too much, these balances are sensitive. It's a DC 8 to get the perfect amount, less than a drop really" is sufficient.


They don't need (or generally want) to know "You'll need 5 therums, not 4 or 6. Therums are a unit of measurement devised by <snip>, anyway the key reason you need to know to little is that liver... <snip> and that's why sweat is salty. Please see this list of diagrams on how these humors work."

Details on exactly why you need that small and the mechanics of how the small amount helps but other amounts wouldn't is a far greater detail than most players would ask for, want or even tolerate.

[Milo v3]

I mean... I disagree with Max a lot in this discussion... But come on guys, a strawman Is really being built up on this page.

[Bohandas]

The issues are mostly the same. Ultimately there are two types of worlds, spherical and other. Anything larger than Ceres: 900 km in diameter or ~ 9 x 10^20 kg in mass (this is 0.00015 Earths, or ~1/6700th of Earth) is going to be round baring either 1. superstrong materials (which is plausible up to a point somewhere between a Banks' Orbital and a Ringworld) or 2. funky gravity (which isn't plausible and mandates fantasy physics). Once you've gone with fantasy gravity you can plausibly make your world look like whatever you want. That's why Spelljammer had a worlds table that was bizarre crazy, they'd already imposed fantasy gravity so why not.

What if it's a very young world. I imagine there's a decent range where it would become round eventually but could take centuries or millenia to do so

[Mechalich]

Certainly tastes vary and there are players bound to balk at such things (after all this thread is a thing), but I think they're more than exception than rule. Players & GMs are more/less in the same boat. If the world has an edge and the world is about to end because all the oceans are draining off the side and the water-god who refills the oceans is missing, that's what's interesting not "Hey guys, wouldn't this really make the currents very odd".

This is about standards. There are two very different standards of game world-building for two levels of distribution: table vs. publication.

If you are just throwing together a world for your buddies at your table and you are confident that you can ad hoc things about your players, then yes, it doesn't matter. That's true. the reality is that lot's of stuff doesn't matter for your table only. 90+% of all issues - with TTRPGs vanish into nothing when you reduce to the specific circumstances of one table and one playstyle doing one thing.

Given that, for the purposes of this discussion, or really any discussion of design principles in TTRPGs (which is what this discussion is about - the principle of defaulting to a world with natural basic physical conditions rather than a blatantly mythic one for world-building design purposes) that shows up on an online message board should be taken as operating at the publication level. Meaning, we're talking about something you produce for public consumption by a group of people who don't necessarily know you and who will not have the opportunity to ask you questions when they arise and will instead have to figure out any emergent problems and properties entirely on their own. Whether or not you are publishing professionally or just have something tossed onto a website (like the link in my signature) is irrelevant.

If you are world-building for publication, one of the key goals is that you want multiple tables to identify the same themes and principles in your work and run it similarly enough that, if two people from different tables met up and started talking about your setting they would be able to recognizably talk about the same thing and would be using something resembling the same rules set. Internal consistency is very important when it comes to this.

So when you throw a setting out there where you, the designer, claim, 'the Earth is a flat disk floating in a void of infinite chaos' and then you don't outline how that effects gameplay to the level of situations that are likely to arise once a campaign, different tables will come up with their own answers and they may extrapolate that outwards into something completely unrecognizable as a result.

This can happen with narrative media like novels too (cough, Fifty Shades, cough), but it's less common, simply because the nature of the medium doesn't strongly support it (though the fanfiction movement has made bad world-building more obvious in series that garner a lot of attention in that sense).

[Max_Killjoy]

This is about standards. There are two very different standards of game world-building for two levels of distribution: table vs. publication.

If you are just throwing together a world for your buddies at your table and you are confident that you can ad hoc things about your players, then yes, it doesn't matter. That's true. the reality is that lot's of stuff doesn't matter for your table only. 90+% of all issues - with TTRPGs vanish into nothing when you reduce to the specific circumstances of one table and one playstyle doing one thing.

Given that, for the purposes of this discussion, or really any discussion of design principles in TTRPGs (which is what this discussion is about - the principle of defaulting to a world with natural basic physical conditions rather than a blatantly mythic one for world-building design purposes) that shows up on an online message board should be taken as operating at the publication level. Meaning, we're talking about something you produce for public consumption by a group of people who don't necessarily know you and who will not have the opportunity to ask you questions when they arise and will instead have to figure out any emergent problems and properties entirely on their own. Whether or not you are publishing professionally or just have something tossed onto a website (like the link in my signature) is irrelevant.

If you are world-building for publication, one of the key goals is that you want multiple tables to identify the same themes and principles in your work and run it similarly enough that, if two people from different tables met up and started talking about your setting they would be able to recognizably talk about the same thing and would be using something resembling the same rules set. Internal consistency is very important when it comes to this.

So when you throw a setting out there where you, the designer, claim, 'the Earth is a flat disk floating in a void of infinite chaos' and then you don't outline how that effects gameplay to the level of situations that are likely to arise once a campaign, different tables will come up with their own answers and they may extrapolate that outwards into something completely unrecognizable as a result.

This can happen with narrative media like novels too (cough, Fifty Shades, cough), but it's less common, simply because the nature of the medium doesn't strongly support it (though the fanfiction movement has made bad world-building more obvious in series that garner a lot of attention in that sense).


I think you've used White Wolf's games as an example of the character / roleplaying / gameplay side of this, and I keep meaning to ask if you can expand on those statements. Maybe another thread, if not germane here.

[Cluedrew]

I mean... I disagree with Max a lot in this discussion... But come on guys, a strawman Is really being built up on this page.Most often in war, both sides are wrong.

Which is an poetic way of saying, emotions are running high and a lot of people are saying stupid things. Seriously, I'm pretty sure a resolution to this flat-world vs. round-world and level of detail came up a few pages ago in a small group of clear and calm posts. But then the thread moved around them, forgot they were there and the debate about the debate is raging on.

What does how well the Westeroth (which I am pretty is a globe) have to do with flat worlds? I get it wasn't fully explained how the details of the setting work and is a dark setting. And yes its popular. So some people think it is sufficient world building. People also say that about Harry Potter, I question that some times. But others don't or do just for the joke and get back to the story. Preference can vary, level of detail can very, level of fact checking and internal consistency can very. Depending on what you want out of a story, they can vary up and down without issue. What else is their to discuss?

This is not the post I set out to write. But I like it.

[ArcanaGuy]

You know, there's all this mess of arguing and hyperbole and straw men, and 'This won't work because the science doesn't work" and then someone using actual math and science to describe exactly how it would work and all that jazz. And I've been loving it, don't get me wrong. This is geeky nitpicking at its finest.

However, I think you all are missing the main point. Someone back on page two said "cavendish balance" and "Screw killing monsters, it's way more fun be be a scientist!"

And my response to all of you is: "You know what? that does sound terribly fun. I've taken a bit of time to put it together, but here you go. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?526706-Wisenholt-Mad-Science-with-a-proper-Hypothesis)"

[Bohandas]

You know, there's all this mess of arguing and hyperbole and straw men, and 'This won't work because the science doesn't work" and then someone using actual math and science to describe exactly how it would work and all that jazz. And I've been loving it, don't get me wrong. This is geeky nitpicking at its finest.

However, I think you all are missing the main point. Someone back on page two said "cavendish balance" and "Screw killing monsters, it's way more fun be be a scientist!"

And my response to all of you is: "You know what? that does sound terribly fun. I've taken a bit of time to put it together, but here you go. (Screw killing monsters, it's way more fun be be a scientist!)"

Your link is broken, I think

[BlacKnight]

Considering immortal creatures exist in the real world I don't find elves that much of a stretch.

I'm sure that there are also organisms that can survive years long winters.


Which is why I said "Is it a grounded world with even the mythic elements presented in a grittier way?" and phrased it as a question. I gave up on reading the Martin works, they're not to my liking, so I'm not as familiar with the setting as some of you may be. Smaug is practically a demigod... the dragon's of Game of Thrones are simply animals that "get away with" flying and breathing fire, as far as I know.

I'm having an hard time understanding you here. Middle Earth is a mythological world, while Westeros should be a grounded world. The difference is given by what ? The number and importance of fantastical elements ?
If that the case Westeros is built to mirror the Middle Earth: magic is comig back instead of vanishing. At the beginning it appeared like a mundane world with some fantastical element, but now it's maybe even more fantasy than Middle Earth at the end of the 3rd age.


I was, and that's not the reason I was giving. It's not that elves are fantasy that makes the difference, it's that agriculture is very real -- agriculture in Martin's setting seems to "break the rules" we know from real agriculture, and as far as I know, we're never shown anything that would make sense of what's going on there.

Mhm. Let's see: if humans were immortal in LOTR that would break immersion for you ? If agriculture in the North was said to use some plants that don't exist in the real world would you be satisfied ?

[ArcanaGuy]

Your link is broken, I think


Oops. Thanks. Fixed it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?526706-Wisenholt-Mad-Science-with-a-proper-Hypothesis).

[Mutazoia]

I think some people should just stick to playing hard Sci-Fi, or "Modern" games like SpyCraft.

[NascragMan]

What a great idea! I don't know why doing a flat earth campaign never occurred to me. I'm stealing a bunch of these suggestions.

[Bohandas]

So you are saying that the agriculture should be impossible in the North, but LOTR elves being immortal is not a problem ? Why ?
I don't remember Tolkien explaining how elves immortality works. So why is Martin required to explain how agriculture in the North works ?
I'm not trying to twist your arguments. I'm genuinely curious about your reasoning.

BTW agriculture (and all plant growth, in fact) also ought to have been impossible in Tolkien's Silmarillion, what with there being no sun and all. I mean, maybe Yavanna sustained the plants directly or something since she was still on the planet at that time but if she did it isn't made clear if I recall correctly

[BlacKnight]

BTW agriculture (and all plant growth, in fact) also ought to have been impossible in Tolkien's Silmarillion, what with there being no sun and all. I mean, maybe Yavanna sustained the plants directly or something since she was still on the planet at that time but if she did it isn't made clear if I recall correctly

If I remember correctly Arda was also flat prior the destruction of Nùmenor.

[Bohandas]

Yes it was. And it raised a lot of troubling questions

[2D8HP]

If I remember correctly Arda was also flat prior the destruction of Nùmenor.


In Michael Moorcock's The Knight of Swords the world was round in the past, but the rise of Chaos and Magic changed it.

[Bohandas]

You know, overall this thread really makes me think of the Mystery Science Theater theme

"If you're wondering how he eats and breathes and other science facts, just repeat to yourself 'it's just a show, I shoukd really just relax'" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA9HmBckvP4#t=01m05s)

[Kantaki]

You know, overall this thread really makes me think of the Mystery Science Theater theme

"If you're wondering how he eats and breathes and other science facts, just repeat to yourself 'it's just a show, I shoukd really just relax'" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA9HmBckvP4#t=01m05s)

Well sure, but that only gets you so far.
At some point you have to ask questions.
And start answering
Besides, it's boring.
Making stuff up to explain things is way more fun.:smallbiggrin: