PDA

View Full Version : D&D world runs on Medieval Physics?



Kami2awa
2007-10-24, 04:09 AM
With all the threads that claim RW physics should work in the D&D world; why should they? The D&D world is not the RW; it is closer to the imagined world of the middle ages. Old, flawed scientific ideas might well be absolutely true. For instance:

Four Elements: This one is supported strongly in D&D since elementals and elemental planes actually exist in the RAW. Everything is made of four elements. You can't summon anti-osmium and destroy the world because osmium doesn't exist.

Atoms: Don't exist; nor does the world of atomic and particle physics. Chemical reactions occur because the balance of the 4 elements changes (e.g. set fire to wood, and its inherent fire element comes out, leaving fire-depleted ash which no longer burns).

Medicine: Is based on balancing of energies in the body. In early times western doctors believed in 4 "humours" which were the basic bodily fluid; imbalance of the humours caused disease. Much the same is suggested in D&D with positive and negative energy flows in living things; disease is associated with evil clerical magic, which channels negative energy, while healing is a channeling of positive energy.

Stars and planets: Are little points of light in the sky, moved around by the will of the gods. Gravity is much the same; the world may be flat, and things stay on it by divine will.

kpenguin
2007-10-24, 04:16 AM
Um... I thought that atoms goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks with Democritus...

Also, a spherical earth was still something known and taught in the Medieval ages, although the flat earth theory was influential.

InaVegt
2007-10-24, 04:28 AM
Um... I thought that atoms goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks with Democritus...Yes, but it only gained popularity in recent times.


Also, a spherical earth is still something known and taught in the Medieval ages, although the flat earth theory was influential.It was known by few, and forbidden by the church.

kpenguin
2007-10-24, 04:41 AM
It was known by few, and forbidden by the church.

I dunno, several middle ages sources, including members of the church, seem to point to a spherical earth and indeed a spherical universe. Thomas Aquinas himself seemed to support it.

They still believed the sun revolved around the earth, but that's a different story.

Charity
2007-10-24, 04:44 AM
Yes, but it only gained popularity in recent times.

It was known by few, and forbidden by the church.
Sorry Gez but..

The idea of the Christian Church's belief in a flat earth during medieval times has turned out to be flatly fallacious. Jeffrey Burton Russell, professor of history at the University of California at Santa Barbara, has recently published a book entitled: Inventing the Flat EarthColumbus and Modern Historians.5 This thoroughly documented study indicates that the supposed link between the early Christian Church and the flat-earth concept is a recent historical invention. The early Greek perception of a spherical earth, somewhat similar to the sun and moon, was never lost. Virtually all the leading medieval scholars believed in a spherical earth. These included well-known writers and Church authorities such as the Venerable Bede (673-735); John Scottus Eriugena, the leading philosopher of the 9th century; Roger Bacon (c. 1220-1292); St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), and Dante Alighieri (1265-1321). Furthermore, the rotation of the earthly sphere was discussed by Jean Buridan and Nicole Oresme, the leading 12th century scientists. Russell points out that even St Augustine, who is cited by Boorstin as a supporter of the flat-earth idea, seems to have believed in a spherical earth.
From here (http://www.grisda.org/origins/22003.htm)

All a wee bit off topic, but I dislike the fallacy.

On topic, surely D&D does already run on archaic science... I can't see how your suggestion is any different from standerd D&D (if there is such a thing)

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-24, 04:50 AM
Thomas Aquinas himself seemed to support it.

Of course St. Thomas supported the idea of a round earth. His greatest accomplishment was reconciling Aristotlean logic with the teachings of the church. And Aristotle had a very compelling argument for the world not being a flat square:

The earth cannot possibly be flat, because if it were flat, then it would on occasion cast a corner shadow on the moon. Since there is only ever a curved shadow on the moon, the earth must be a sphere, as that is the only shape that would cast only the types of shadow we see on the moon.



It was the geocentric view of the universe that was strongly supported by the church, to the point of any other view being heresy. The flat earth thing was more of a matter of the uneducated. From a purely empirical standpoint, the earth looks flat. It looks even more flat if you are on a ship at sea.

Bender
2007-10-24, 05:06 AM
D&D physics falls mostly under rule number zero. Whether, and how something works that would work in the RW is up to the DM.

most threads linking RW physics to D&D are either hypothetical discussions, because some of us just like to discuss physics, or DM's that want to include something in their campaign and want to comfort their science-oriented players.

bugsysservant
2007-10-24, 05:08 AM
Um... I thought that atoms goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks with Democritus...

Yes atoms were thought up by Democritus but they only gained popularity in recent times (Dalton, I believe). However, the important thing would be the anti-: positrons, the first antimatter, were only conceived by Dirac in the last century, IIRC.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-24, 05:12 AM
Example application of RW physics in a useful way (or at least my players pointed this out, along the lines of "why does physics only work when it is to our disadvantage!").

I had an adventure in which the PCs had to travel to the deepest part of the ocean, to do battle with the lord of the underworld, to retrieve a portion of his power (which they needed in order to negate the UBBEG's divine powers).

I needed a race of super-strong, super fast, super tough beings to challenge the then level 17-18 PCs. Which immediately presented a problem -why haven't they taken over the world? The solution I came up with was that their physiology was dependent on the extreme pressures present at the bottom of the ocean. Their bodies would tear themselves apart in a low-pressure environment (which the PCs discovered when they later tried to polymorph into this super-race above ground).

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-24, 05:16 AM
D&D worlds tend to work just like Earth, but with magic thrown in for good measure.

Magic runs on the idea of the four elements, but mundane things tend to just be normal.

And most D&D worlds do in fact orbit the sun and are in fact spherical... Or close to it.


I needed a race of super-strong, super fast, super tough beings to challenge the then level 17-18 PCs. Which immediately presented a problem -why haven't they taken over the world? The solution I came up with was that their physiology was dependent on the extreme pressures present at the bottom of the ocean. Their bodies would tear themselves apart in a low-pressure environment (which the PCs discovered when they later tried to polymorph into this super-race above ground).

If they're so fragile that they'd tear themselves apart in one atmosphere, then they wouldn't be super-tough just because they're at the bottom of the ocean.

I suppose you think humans explode in a vacuum, too?

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-24, 05:21 AM
Did I say explode? I was more referring to internal damage. Veins rupturing and what not. There are a great deal of pressure sensitive things in a normal biological being.

Their superhuman status isn't necessarily caused by the high pressure either.

de-trick
2007-10-24, 08:01 AM
i kind of go with it, as in yes and no. in history yes there science was off and D&D is based off medieval world with magic.

the magic factor th roughs a lop in as do higher intelligent races and long lived races, a elf or gnome would be able to tinker and study how the world works so they could discover things about are belief in science

illathid
2007-10-24, 08:24 AM
It was the geocentric view of the universe that was strongly supported by the church, to the point of any other view being heresy. The flat earth thing was more of a matter of the uneducated. From a purely empirical standpoint, the earth looks flat. It looks even more flat if you are on a ship at sea.

Actually sailors would've almost certainly been believers of a round earth. The ocean is one of the few places where the curvature of the earth actually blocks ones' vision. it's why when a ship comes over the horizon you can only see it's sails at first, or why you can only see the tops of mountains when first sighted at see.

Bender
2007-10-24, 11:05 AM
Actually sailors would've almost certainly been believers of a round earth. The ocean is one of the few places where the curvature of the earth actually blocks ones' vision. it's why when a ship comes over the horizon you can only see it's sails at first, or why you can only see the tops of mountains when first sighted at see.

Yet, that isn't necessarily the case in every D&D world...

With all the divinations around, the inhabitants would probably know whether the earth was flat or round, or any other shape, but that doesn't prevent it from being anything the DM wants it to be.

valadil
2007-10-24, 11:35 AM
I've been in D&D games with flat worlds, worlds believed to be flat but nobody really knows, and definitely spherical worlds. It never made a difference in the actual game and was just a detail.

Wraithy
2007-10-24, 11:52 AM
In D&D I don't think it matters if people believe in a certain shape of the world, although I don't think people would be aware of gravity, many things are subject to the laws of "as the gods will it".
there is no science, only twisted theology! MWUH HA HA HA HAAA!!!
I've forgotten what theology means! MWUH HA HA HA HAAA!!!

Kompera
2007-10-24, 12:41 PM
With all the threads that claim RW physics should work in the D&D world; why should they? The D&D world is not the RW; it is closer to the imagined world of the middle ages. Old, flawed scientific ideas might well be absolutely true.
It's not so much as old, flawed ideas might be true, as it is that modern, potentially game disrupting ideas shouldn't be used by the players as a bludgeon with which to wreck the economic, social, military, or any other balance of the world setting the DM has invented.

I've had players try to "invent" mass production, for example, so that they could churn out piles of magic items and either sell them or use them. This would, of course, completely ruin the economy and possibly the military and social structures of the entire area in which this was taking place. And we can't have that, unless it's a part of the story arc!

So I've come up with a foil for this sort of game cooking exercise.

The players ask a Wizard to make a magic item. And he does. Then they set him down with 10 hired Wizards and try to break the process into easily replicated steps, thus saving time and money and getting scads of wands on the cheap. But the original Wizard interrupts you. "Why would you want to do that?", he asks. "So that we can make more of these here Fireball wands faster and more efficiently", is the reply. "But, why would you think that doing the same thing again will result in another working Fireball Wand?", says the Wizard.

*boggle* say the players.

"You see", says the Wizard, "crafting a magic items involves much research into the methods. Why do you think it takes time to make such an item? Readings are taken, charts consulted, the heavens and clouds watched for signs. And only when all the signs are fortuitous can the item be crafted using the methods which the readings have revealed. A day later, the heavens have moved on, the clouds are not favorable, and the same method won't result in another working Wand, it'll be a stick with a lot of time and effort wasted on it."

And that was the end of the mass-production experiment. :smallcool:

Chronos
2007-10-24, 05:54 PM
In D&D I don't think it matters if people believe in a certain shape of the world, although I don't think people would be aware of gravity, many things are subject to the laws of "as the gods will it".How could people not be aware of gravity? I'm getting this mental image now of Roadrunner cartoons, where Wile E. runs off the edge of the cliff, but doesn't fall until he notices.

To the OP, physics was the same in the medieval world as it is now. It's just our understanding of physics which has changed. And while D&D physics is, to some extent, based on the medieval understanding of physics, there are some things which just weren't covered in that understanding.

For instance, suppose a character with Far Shot and a composite longbow is in a long dungeon corridor with a low ceiling. How far can he shoot? The DM might reasonably rule that his maximum range is reduced, since a long-range shot needs to arc. Folks in medieval times would have known this, and would also know that a low ceiling would limit range. But by how much does it limit range? The medieval understanding of physics allows no means to determine this, other than by experiment (and the experiment would give the same result as modern calculations). Assuming that the DM is conversant in physics, what's wrong with him using our modern understanding of physics to determine what the outcome of that medieval experiment would be?

That said, of course the DM has leeway to rule out ideas. If the party's half-orc barbarian with an Int of 5 randomly decides to mix together sulpher, saltpeter, and charcoal, stuff the mixture under the evil queen's throne, and toss a match at it, the DM is perfectly free to describe any effect he wants from that action: He's not required to say that it goes boom.

Bender
2007-10-25, 01:08 AM
How could people not be aware of gravity? I'm getting this mental image now of Roadrunner cartoons, where Wile E. runs off the edge of the cliff, but doesn't fall until he notices.
It's so obvious and ever present that people don't think about it. Sure, you know that everything falls down, but almost nobody contemplates about the actual force at work. In a way, they were not aware of gravity, but they were aware of it's effects. But that doesn't really make a functional difference.


To the OP, physics was the same in the medieval world as it is now. It's just our understanding of physics which has changed. And while D&D physics is, to some extent, based on the medieval understanding of physics, there are some things which just weren't covered in that understanding.

For instance, suppose a character with Far Shot and a composite longbow is in a long dungeon corridor with a low ceiling. How far can he shoot? The DM might reasonably rule that his maximum range is reduced, since a long-range shot needs to arc. Folks in medieval times would have known this, and would also know that a low ceiling would limit range. But by how much does it limit range? The medieval understanding of physics allows no means to determine this, other than by experiment (and the experiment would give the same result as modern calculations). Assuming that the DM is conversant in physics, what's wrong with him using our modern understanding of physics to determine what the outcome of that medieval experiment would be?
But in D&D this works exactly as the medieval understanding of a ballistic object: flying objects travel in a straight line up to a certain point (maximum range) then they fall straight down. :smalltongue: (Impetus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_impetus))
I don't see why you would complicate things, but if you care to do the maths before the game, go ahead, but make sure to write a parameterised template to adjust for the height of the shooter, the strength of the thrower... And do you know the starting velocity or the aerodynamic effect of the tail of an arrow?


That said, of course the DM has leeway to rule out ideas. If the party's half-orc barbarian with an Int of 5 randomly decides to mix together sulpher, saltpeter, and charcoal, stuff the mixture under the evil queen's throne, and toss a match at it, the DM is perfectly free to describe any effect he wants from that action: He's not required to say that it goes boom.
of course that won't work, making gunpowder involves more than just mixing everything. The process even entails some risk of premature explosion.:smallbiggrin:

Darkxarth
2007-10-25, 01:23 AM
The process even entails some risk of premature explosion.:smallbiggrin:

I hear a lot of alchemists have that problem, it's ok. :smallwink:

Sergeantbrother
2007-10-25, 08:53 AM
I have always thought it would be interesting for medieval ideas about medicine to be true. Illnesses are caused by an imbalance in the humors, so bleeding, if done properly, is the proper method to cure certain illnesses.

I think that the idea in general (about ancient misconceptions being true) could add a lot of flavor to a campaign setting. It would also play havoc with people who try to meta-game present day knowledge into D&D, which I have seen on a few occasions.