"Because magic"...?

[Schwann145]

Title is a very common answer whenever a topic of, "how" comes up in regards to game mechanics.
Whether it's in the form of, "it's magic so it can happen," as an explanation for a thing itself, or, "magic exists, so why couldn't/shouldn't this also happen?" as an explanation for a quasi-magical thing that isn't directly a spell effect or something like.

That tends to pass the smell test often, as it probably should.
But when does it fail?
D&D worlds are worlds where magic exists and extraordinary feats are possible in a way they certainly aren't in reality - but they're not worlds where just anything is possible.
For instance, people tend to still age. Gravity remains a force to contend with. E tends to keep equaling MC2.

"Why can character/monster/etc do X?"
"Well, Wizards can do A, B, and C, Y monster exists, etc, so why not? Justified."

Okay. But...

"My human fighter can fly. No wings, no spells, just a human, but I want them to fly at will. Because magical world is magical so it's fine, right?"
"No, humans don't get Fly so your human fighter can't fly. Maybe you'll find some way to fly later in the game."

Well, why did this line get drawn? How is that line between the two justified?
(Or would you, as a DM, just say, "okay, deal - human fighter can fly at will?")

[Evaar]

Not sure I understand the question. The game is composed of rules and exceptions to those rules. Things don’t fly unless they have a flying speed. They either inherently have that speed, or they can obtain it through the use of spells or items. If they don’t have a flying speed, they don’t fly.

Magic is the framework we use to explain these mechanics in the narrative. If it was a sci-fi setting it might be nanotech jetpacks.

So no, human fighter doesn’t get to fly just because he doesn’t know why the rules say he can’t.

[rel]

I'm struggling to parse this so I may have missed the point.

You have the mechanics that say what can happen. And then you have the fluff to map what happens to the narrative and justify why the mechanics are the way they are.

Depending on the game the fluff can either influence the mechanics or the mechanics can be inviolable with the fluff only functioning as colour.

Both options are valid but the method used should be decided upfront, remain the same and be applied broadly and consistently.

And if fluff is consistently used to boost the power of one character archetype or style of play depower another then this needs to be made clear and explicit upfront.
Before anyone even agrees to play.

As for boiling fluff explanations down to 'it's magic', I see no problem with that explanation as long as 'it's magic' is code for 'there are rules and restrictions governing this effect every bit as complex and ironclad as the rules governing more mundane occurrences.'
It's magic is only a problematic explanation if it codes for 'I think the stuff I like should get bennies and the stuff I don't like shouldn't'

If the mechanics in your game say fighters can fly then they can fly and the fluff should provide an explanation.
Likewise if the mechanics in your game say spellcasters take at least an hour to cast any spell of 4th level or higher then them's the rules and once again, the fluff should reflect that.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Even the rulebooks say "because magic" so I'm not sure what you expect. If the rules tell us a two ton (or larger) lizard can breath fire, poison, acid or freezing winds and fly I'm not going to make much headway trying to explain that any other way and the game doesn't exactly expect me to either.

The key difference is that those are things the system tells me are true. Dragons fly, devils and demons exist, there's literally a weave of magic in the world that facilitates all of the magical fantasy aspects of the world that couldn't exist in real life. The world is magical because it is.

What the rules don't tell me is true is that humans, barring any intervention whether magical or otherwise, can fly. To suggest that the argument is applied equally in both cases is fairly disingenuous.

And since this seems to be a branching off of the monk discussion, I'll use it to illustrate an example. A human Monk is explicitly magical, and the class features they gain from being a monk are labeled as such. They are literally able to do these fantastical things "because magic". There is no other given explanation and there doesn't have to be, the rules assume this is true from the very beginning in the introduction section of the phb.

[Satinavian]

It is mostly because D&D has no proper magic system, just a hodgepodge of inconsistent ideas stolen from basically everywhere. So you will often find something similar someone has at some time ported to D&D that counts as pecedence for "D&D magic can do those things".


However, when you play games that do have a proper magic system with things it can and can't do and internally somewhat consistent reasons for that, it behaves more like everything else and "because magic" stops being an explaination. People then start to expect you to explain how or why magic allows you to do it.

[MoiMagnus]

"My human fighter can fly. No wings, no spells, just a human, but I want them to fly at will. Because magical world is magical so it's fine, right?"

Admittedly, it's the case in some universes. Regular humans in H2G2 can learn to fly.


There is an art to flying, or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. ... Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, that presents the difficulties.



"No, humans don't get Fly so your human fighter can't fly. Maybe you'll find some way to fly later in the game."


I'd note that just because it's possible doesn't mean it's easy or that you know how to do it.

The human fighter at level 2 is literally able to act faster than what should be physically possible (getting a second action in a round), so that's something accessible to any human, but not something that most human can do. This power doesn't include any explanation about how it works, but it would not be absurd to say that it's supernatural time manipulation. It would be a stretch since "time manipulation" doesn't appear explicitly in any of the fighter features, but it's a way to justify it.

If you build a universe in which humans can fly, then the Fly spell is not magically making the human fly, it is instead magically temporarily unlocking the native power that humans have to fly. And actually learning to fly might require a side quest of some sort, and mechanically could be represented by an homebrew feat.




Well, why did this line get drawn? How is that line between the two justified?


I find it useful to "select a kind of reality" to guide the line. In other words, what kind of films are we playing in?

[Sneak Dog]

There are little rules and logic to magic in D&D's settings, so that's the end of the reasoning. Magic is also all over the place, so it's generally applicable.

Some people stop aging and defy gravity. Not sure why you'd bring up advanced modern physics of e = mc squared, but that'd be awfully hard to notice being broken. And honestly, the line is hard to draw. Because at the highest levels, one can take a crashing flying fortress to the face and maybe walk away from the crash site. It's suggested to be 18d10 damage. Barbarians absolutely will walk. So it's hard to tell they can't then shove the fortress aside so they can climb out from the impact site.

Except if it's an ability check, where there is no way they will ever lift a formerly flying fortress while they're subject to bounded accuracy.

[Kane0]

It is mostly because D&D has no proper magic system, just a hodgepodge of inconsistent ideas stolen from basically everywhere.


Aye. D&D magic isnt so much a system as a collection of things that can be done put in a list (or several lists), with the last item being 'etcetera'

[Tanarii]

Things that are "because magic":
Dragon breath weapons
Halfling and Gnomes with even close to human-level strength
All PCs jump distance = Str score
Crossbows in general, Crossbow Expert in particular
Polearm Master butt-end attack with a spear and Shield

Things that people seem to draw the line at, not allowing, despite "because magic":
One punch man type jumps to from the moon to earth
Persuading a hostile (but not attacking) creature to take a major risk or sacrifice to do what you want
Hiding your S-component casting with a sleight of hand check
Climbing a tree without a Strength (Athletics) check

[Burley]

"Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic."

I can give a rough explanation of the physics which cause our planet to orbit our star, and why our moon does the same to our planet. I can tell you how atoms form molecules to form all of our existence, and explain that even the densest matter is mostly empty space. I can explain why birds fly, how fish breathe and why humans have eyes with circular pupils on the front of their face.
I won't, though, because its not really worth either of our time, right now.

In a world where there is magic, a user of magic could explain the underpinnings of a spell. They could write a dissertation on the movements of ethereal thread, woven together my hand and voice. What can't be explained can be researched.
"Because magic" is the answer given when somebody asks "Why?" and its not worth the time to tell them. A DM may say it because magic is not real and its not their job to create a world and have a mathematical proof for it.

I don't think its reasonable, though, for a player or DM to use "because magic" to get away with something that contradicts the game's rules/design or common sense. Its akin to "I'm the mommy, that's why." A meaningless answer to avoid explaining what you don't want to.

[JackPhoenix]

"It's magic" is explaination for *some* differences between what's possible in D&D and what's possible in real life. It's not the only explaination, and the difference isn't clearly visible. You can explain everything with "it's magic" if you want to, but that's not the default stance of the people who created the rules. Jumping rules or PAM bonus action attacks or crossbows are not "because magic", it's "because D&D ruleset isn't physics simulator, doesn't *try* to be physics simulator, and the rules are, in many cases, badly written. It's an abstraction that simplifies things to allow us to play a *game*". And the same rules clearly state what is or isn't possible (to the extent of the clarity they are written with, and the GM's right to interpret and change them), "X is because magic, therefore, anything goes" is *not* a stance the rules take, nor it is a stance that is conductive to running a consistent game.

[Tanarii]

"It's magic" is explaination for *some* differences between what's possible in D&D and what's possible in real life. It's not the only explaination, and the difference isn't clearly visible. You can explain everything with "it's magic" if you want to, but that's not the default stance of the people who created the rules. Jumping rules or PAM bonus action attacks or crossbows are not "because magic", it's "because D&D ruleset isn't physics simulator, doesn't *try* to be physics simulator, and the rules are, in many cases, badly written. It's an abstraction that simplifies things to allow us to play a *game*". And the same rules clearly state what is or isn't possible (to the extent of the clarity they are written with, and the GM's right to interpret and change them), "X is because magic, therefore, anything goes" is *not* a stance the rules take, nor it is a stance that is conductive to running a consistent game.
Either it's magic, or at least super-powers/anime (which is just magic by another name), or it's broken and needs to be house ruled. Pick your poison.

[Boci]

Either it's magic, or at least super-powers/anime (which is just magic by another name), or it's broken and needs to be house ruled. Pick your poison.

Super power/anime still works in an anti-magic field, and their are other things that interact with magic too, like magic resistance. And really? You're arguing every example of D&D rules that doesn't perfectly mimic real world physics has to be house ruled? What about turn based combat? It can result in some janky stuff, so lets hear your house rule for that, since according to you, "eh, good enough for a game" isn't an acceptable stance, its can only be "magic" or "broken, needs house rule".

Its also funny you refer to this as anime, because I'm pretty sure at least a few western myths separated the supernatural physical abilities of heroes with actual magic.

[Unoriginal]

But when does it fail?

It doesn't.



For instance, people tend to still age.

Tend to, yes. The fact that there are exceptions is enough of an indicator to how it's not an hard rule.



Gravity remains a force to contend with.

Gravity on a typical D&D Material Plane world is fundamentally different for the force in our world.

For starter, a falling object or entity will immediately fall 500ft down if dropped without anything to catch it.




E tends to keep equaling MC2.

This is 100% incorrect.

For starter, matter in D&D 5e comes from the elemental Inner Planes. Not really something that works with relativity, even if conservation of energy applied.



"My human fighter can fly. No wings, no spells, just a human, but I want them to fly at will. Because magical world is magical so it's fine, right?"
"No, humans don't get Fly so your human fighter can't fly. Maybe you'll find some way to fly later in the game."

There is nothing in the D&D 5e world preventing a human from just being able to fly.

But the fact that it is *possible* does not mean everyone has access to it. Most kobolds don't have wings, but some do. Most humanoids don't have psychic powers, but some do. Most Clerics can't bring someone back to life if the body was destroyed, but some do.

PCs are already outliers in what can be done compared to the general population, but there is nothing preventing James the Flying NPC to have a very specific psionic power or some otherworldy influence that let him fly, and there is nothing preventing a PCs from getting a Boon of Flying (or a Dark Gift of Flying). It is simply that most PCs don't have that capacity, because it's not part of the standard class package.



Well, why did this line get drawn? How is that line between the two justified?

There are rules. That's the line, and the justification of the line. All classes have arbitrarily-restricted powers and capacities. Why can't a Wizard have an Imp as a familiar? Why is a Bear Barbarian not protected against psychic damage?

It's all arbitrary.

As you said, yes, a DM can just say "ok you can fly".


In other words: the Guy at the Gym does not exist in D&D 5e, no matter the argument.

[strangebloke]

justification for mechanics is left as an exercise to the player.

[Pildion]

Title is a very common answer whenever a topic of, "how" comes up in regards to game mechanics.
Whether it's in the form of, "it's magic so it can happen," as an explanation for a thing itself, or, "magic exists, so why couldn't/shouldn't this also happen?" as an explanation for a quasi-magical thing that isn't directly a spell effect or something like.

That tends to pass the smell test often, as it probably should.
But when does it fail?
D&D worlds are worlds where magic exists and extraordinary feats are possible in a way they certainly aren't in reality - but they're not worlds where just anything is possible.
For instance, people tend to still age. Gravity remains a force to contend with. E tends to keep equaling MC2.

"Why can character/monster/etc do X?"
"Well, Wizards can do A, B, and C, Y monster exists, etc, so why not? Justified."

Okay. But...

"My human fighter can fly. No wings, no spells, just a human, but I want them to fly at will. Because magical world is magical so it's fine, right?"
"No, humans don't get Fly so your human fighter can't fly. Maybe you'll find some way to fly later in the game."

Well, why did this line get drawn? How is that line between the two justified?
(Or would you, as a DM, just say, "okay, deal - human fighter can fly at will?")

This is why I use Hard Magic systems, and like D&D's spell system. "Because magic" is NEVER an answer. The study of magic is just like the study of Chemistry in my worlds, they are a science to study and understand.

I really don't like soft magic systems where magic can just do what ever it wants to "because story" and "because magic".

[Burley]

This is why I use Hard Magic systems, and like D&D's spell system. "Because magic" is NEVER an answer. The study of magic is just like the study of Chemistry in my worlds, they are a science to study and understand.

I really don't like soft magic systems where magic can just do what ever it wants to "because story" and "because magic".

I build characters and DM with this "hard magic" mentality. Then, somebody has a sorcerer and... they don't study or understand friggin' nuthin'.

[Segev]

This is why I use Hard Magic systems, and like D&D's spell system. "Because magic" is NEVER an answer. The study of magic is just like the study of Chemistry in my worlds, they are a science to study and understand.

I really don't like soft magic systems where magic can just do what ever it wants to "because story" and "because magic".

Yes and no. Even in hard magic systems, "Why does an allomancer get to be stronger by burning pewter?" is answered, ultimately, by, "because that's how the magic works."

[Pildion]

I build characters and DM with this "hard magic" mentality. Then, somebody has a sorcerer and... they don't study or understand friggin' nuthin'.

I don't mean that the Sorcerer's study magic like a Wizard, I meant that as a whole the magic system has rules. You can't just do what ever you want and say because magic. The Sorcerer just intrinsically can use the magic, but they can't go around "breaking the rules" outside of the extras meta magic gives them.

[Psyren]

Spells != magic.

Magic can do anything, but spells have very noticeable limitations, even if some of them are arbitrary or inconsistent across spells of the same level.

[Catullus64]

"Because magic" is often a way to say, in an offhanded, slightly-less-immersion-breaking way, "Don't examine this too closely." It's not meant as a satisfying answer for how something works, it's a polite admission that there is no good answer and we should move on with the adventure.

This is a pretty silly game, when you get right down to it. Lots of things in it don't make logical sense, because they're meant to be accepted with something of a childlike spirit. People in suspense movies don't call the police because it's dull, and dragons can fly in defiance of physics because it's much more exciting that way.

A DM should work hard to maintain a sense of consistency and verisimilitude in his world, but he needs the players to be his partners in that endeavor, not his adversaries. When the DM admits "there's not a logical answer for this, kindly accept it and move on", the players should try to be generous with obliging that request.

[Pildion]

"Because magic" is often a way to say, in an offhanded, slightly-less-immersion-breaking way, "Don't examine this too closely." It's not meant as a satisfying answer for how something works, it's a polite admission that there is no good answer and we should move on with the adventure.

This is a pretty silly game, when you get right down to it. Lots of things in it don't make logical sense, because they're meant to be accepted with something of a childlike spirit. People in suspense movies don't call the police because it's dull, and dragons can fly in defiance of physics because it's much more exciting that way.

A DM should work hard to maintain a sense of consistency and verisimilitude in his world, but he needs the players to be his partners in that endeavor, not his adversaries. When the DM admits "there's not a logical answer for this, kindly accept it and move on", the players should try to be generous with obliging that request.

In the end what I'm trying to get at is that I always try my best to maintain my worlds consistency and verisimilitude. I get annoyed when people just use "because magic" to break it instead of trying to build their world more.

[Psyren]

"Because magic" is to maintain verisimilitude, not break it. It provides a justification for things like instantly getting a rampaging (half-)ogre to stop attacking the group and sit on his hands. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0713.html) Could you do that with just a non-magical Charisma check? Probably, but it would likely be a lot more involved than simply telling him to.

[ProsecutorGodot]

In the end what I'm trying to get at is that I always try my best to maintain my worlds consistency and verisimilitude. I get annoyed when people just use "because magic" to break it instead of trying to build their world more.

Justifying things with potentially over-explained or contrived reasons have the potential to be just as damaging. "Because magic" works both ways, in the times where taking the effort isn't worth how far you've got to track for it then it can be less damaging to immersion.

That's not to say you shouldn't seek a reason beyond "because magic" but that sometimes it's not worth it.

[Willie the Duck]

This is a pretty silly game, when you get right down to it. Lots of things in it don't make logical sense, because they're meant to be accepted with something of a childlike spirit. People in suspense movies don't call the police because it's dull, and dragons can fly in defiance of physics because it's much more exciting that way.

I think, most importantly (to me) is that the game exists to facilitate me and my friends playing swords and shields and arrows and armor and sorceress hitting the opposing side with a fireball and kung fu theater guy leaping overhead and grabbing the macguffin, etc., and all the trying to make sense of it has to help facilitate this, not distract, confuse, conflate, or become a goal unto itself.

[Catullus64]

In the end what I'm trying to get at is that I always try my best to maintain my worlds consistency and verisimilitude. I get annoyed when people just use "because magic" to break it instead of trying to build their world more.

And you are admirable for doing so, but working out such things takes time, and a DM's time and thought are finite resources. I have a pretty high tolerance for inconsistencies and contradictions if I have faith that they are in service of a good story. Try to have compassion for a DM who can't always work out the inconsistencies in their game, and needs to indulge in a little handwaving here and there, if it means they can instead focus that attention on presenting fun scenarios and stories.

[Keravath]

These are world building questions rather than rules questions :)

"Because magic ..." is the easy answer to explain why rules of physics are broken.

However, it is the DMs decision as to which "rules of physics" if any apply to their game world. Most people play in a game world similar to our own where when you throw a rock in the air it falls to the ground and the distance is controlled by the strength of the throw and air resistance.

If a DM wants a group of humans or even all humans to have a fly speed in their game world. It happens. Why can they fly? How do they fly? The DM either comes up with an explanation that fits their game world or they say "Just because magic ..." and justify it because that is the way they want the world to be and it doesn't require any more justification than that.

Personally, when building worlds, I like logical consistency and balance. Logical consistency means that the players can interact with the game world and will generally know what to expect. When their character drinks water, sleeps, swings a sword or casts a spell - they do what the player/character expect they will do in most cases unless there is another logical reason why it does not in the specific situation. I also like a balanced world in the sense that the impact of these changes on society/civilization are factored into the world building.

For example, in a magical world where the ability to learn magic is relatively common then you would likely see a lot of people able to cast the simplest cantrips - prestidigitation, mage hand, minor illusion, mending - enough people able to cast prestidigitation results in a very clean world, inns/taverns with the best tasting food would have someone casting prestidigitation in the kitchen (the D&D version of MSG), there would be little need to have people spend time washing clothes when a caster with prestidigitation can clean a cubic foot of clothes every 6 seconds. A load of laundry, perfectly cleaned in less than a minute.

You also have the effect of healing spells like lesser restoration which could heal blindness and disease. Or just cure wounds which could bring a commoner back to full health with a single casting. D&D societies would be far healthier than ours let alone a medieval society IF healing magic is readily available ... and these are only existing low level spells or cantrips.

Anyway, whatever happens in their game world, a DM has the option of coming up with an explanation that fits the logic of their world or just saying "because magic ..." since that is the way it works and honestly, that is probably all most characters would be aware of as an explanation.

There are lots of examples in the rules of things that might break the laws of physics or be difficult to explain and the easy way to deal with them is "because magic ...". Dragons flying - their wings aren't big enough - how do they fly? How can a dragon breath work? How can the gaze of a basilisk cause a creature to magically turn to stone but the gaze of a medusa causes the change to stone without being obviously magical? The game is filled with many of these and the DM can explain them in their game world or just say that is how it works "because magic ..."

As to why humans might not be able to fly at will? The DM says that is not an ability of humans in my game world. End of story. The DM ultimately decides what is or is not possible in their game world and can use any explanation or none as they prefer including "because magic ..." or "because not magic ..." :)

[Frogreaver]

Title is a very common answer whenever a topic of, "how" comes up in regards to game mechanics.
Whether it's in the form of, "it's magic so it can happen," as an explanation for a thing itself, or, "magic exists, so why couldn't/shouldn't this also happen?" as an explanation for a quasi-magical thing that isn't directly a spell effect or something like.

That tends to pass the smell test often, as it probably should.
But when does it fail?
D&D worlds are worlds where magic exists and extraordinary feats are possible in a way they certainly aren't in reality - but they're not worlds where just anything is possible.
For instance, people tend to still age. Gravity remains a force to contend with. E tends to keep equaling MC2.

"Why can character/monster/etc do X?"
"Well, Wizards can do A, B, and C, Y monster exists, etc, so why not? Justified."

Okay. But...

"My human fighter can fly. No wings, no spells, just a human, but I want them to fly at will. Because magical world is magical so it's fine, right?"
"No, humans don't get Fly so your human fighter can't fly. Maybe you'll find some way to fly later in the game."

Well, why did this line get drawn? How is that line between the two justified?
(Or would you, as a DM, just say, "okay, deal - human fighter can fly at will?")

The answer is because that’s not in the fiction and genre that D&D is derived from and attempts to emulate.

[KorvinStarmast]

E tends to keep equaling MC2. Nope. D&D worlds operate on metaphysics, not physics. (Earth, Air, Water, Fire, Spirit model (Eastern) or Earth, Air, Water, Fire model (Western). Just for instance, the vision light and darkness rules. That isn't modeling RL physics of vision, light, or sight.

Well, why did this line get drawn?
Who cares? It's a game.

These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs' Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find DUNGEONS and DRAGONS to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers. With this last bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works! ~ E. Gary Gygax 1 November 1973 Tactical Studies Rules Editor Lake Geneva, Wisconsin Use your imagination to sand off the sharp edges if need be.

How is that line between the two justified? It doesn't need to be. It's a game.

(Or would you, as a DM, just say, "okay, deal - human fighter can fly at will?") The rule set for D&D 5e handles flying combat badly, so I'd not do that. I still puke at the assertion that a flying creature can be knocked prone and thus fall because they are prone. Words have meanings. It's a non sequitur, given that to be prone is to be something in relation to being erect, which is standing up. If you've ever seen a bird fly, their body posture is already not standing up, it''s more like prone (lying on stomach). But since they did not put in the time and effort to create a 3D-friendly combat system/SET OF MECHANICS, we use that clunky rule since it's a game

[Waazraath]

OP

I think I more or less understand where you are coming from. The difference (a difference) between more pulp fantasy and more sophisticated fantasy is in questions like this. If magic exists in the world, does it has its own logic, limitations, rules and history, or is it simply 'there' without explanation and logic and is it used to fill holes in the story?

I think in general, D&D (lets stick mostly to 5e) does try to be the sophisticated variant. Magic, and magical effects, have causes, in the gods, magical creatures, backgrounds. There is a rule system for magic, "spells", which require components, time, et cetera.

At the same time, from the start (PHB), this is done a bit sloppy. Some spell casting classes have the origin of their power explained and justified in detail: the cleric (from the gods), the warlock (through a pact with a powerful being), the wizard (through long and hard study, its spellbook, using formulas and words which take years of research to do correctly - though I think older editions had this laid out even more clearly, with the wizard having an older starting age due to needing study, and had the least weapon proficiencies cause thy did not have time to practice weapons). I think sorcerers (bloodline, magical accident) and druids (the power of nature being a real thing) are also reasonably well explained.
But in addition to these classes, there are others. Worst offender is imo the bard. Where older editions made some effort in explaining the magical abilities of the bard, 5e hardly does. While there definitly is enough in fantasy literature (true names, music of creation, etc. etc.), the magic of the bards 'just is', and left mostly unexplained. More or less similar are the oaths of the paladins - explicitly not from a deity per se, it is left largely to the imagination of the reader/player why they give spells

To be really honest, the obvious failure in this system (aside that some 'magic' worked out much more than others) is that there is far too much overlap. It is logical for the wizards to have the gestures, the mumbling of mystic words, and the components related to the effect they want to create, but I see no reason whatsoever that a cleric who does a prayer that's actually granted has to go through the same motions, let alone the sorcerer who has its power from within. I sincerely hope that in a future edition the designers use this, and we can have something like:
- wizards: components (s/m/v)
- sorcerers: no components at all
- bards: singing/music as component for all magical effects, nothing else
- clerics: holy symbol
etc. It would give classes imo a much stronger identity (of course, one would have to balance spells again aganist this difference).


But I digress.

When we go back to 5e, later additions to the game get more and more sloppy in this respect. Take the rune knight. Great subclass, but why/how? If a fighter can scribe some symbols in their sword and it gives them power, why doesn't everybody? Why does it work for them, and not for somebody else? Why can't a wizard who's studying magic for decades scribe these specific runes?

All in all, I think the game would be better if the designers would pay more attention to the question "why/how magic".

[KorvinStarmast]

All in all, I think the game would be better if the designers would pay more attention to the question "why/how magic". That's a part of where V,M,S spell components comes from, and I disagree with your assertion that bard magic must involve singing. It can be poetry, chant, drumbeats, clapping, joke telling with the punch line releasing the magic - or yes, an awesome guitar solo.

[Catullus64]

When we go back to 5e, later additions to the game get more and more sloppy in this respect. Take the rune knight. Great subclass, but why/how? If a fighter can scribe some symbols in their sword and it gives them power, why doesn't everybody? Why does it work for them, and not for somebody else? Why can't a wizard who's studying magic for decades scribe these specific runes?

All in all, I think the game would be better if the designers would pay more attention to the question "why/how magic".

The classes and their subclasses don't represent rules and boundaries of how things work in the world. They represent frameworks around which players can structure their characters. They are non-diegetic distinctions. Maybe the Wizard could learn to perform the same magic as a Rune Knight; so long as he remains in the Wizard class and not the Fighter class, he isn't doing that, and for the story at hand that's all that matters.

"Why/how magic" is a difficult line to walk. You run the risk of puncturing all sense of mystique and wonder if it's not done carefully, and what you're left with is essentially technobabble but with more chanting and funny hats. And the simple fact may remain that a given world has mysteries not subject to reason alone.

[Unoriginal]

Also, in link with the questions in the OP:


How does Indiana Jones manage to fight half a dozen armed goons at once and not die?

[KorvinStarmast]

Also, in link with the questions in the OP:
How does Indiana Jones manage to fight half a dozen armed goons at once and not die?
Plot armor is the best AC, amirite? :smallbiggrin:

[Catullus64]

Also, in link with the questions in the OP:

How does Indiana Jones manage to fight half a dozen armed goons at once and not die?

This reminds me of an interesting debate I had with a friend which seems germane to this thread. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, my friend assumed that the reason that the Ark doesn't fry Indy and Marion along with the baddies is because they shut their eyes. But I think that's a far less interesting reading of the scene than if you assume that the Ark knows, somehow, who in its presence intends to use it for evil. Indy doesn't shut his eyes because he thinks that will directly prevent the Ark from smiting him, but because he understands in that moment that looking upon the contents of the Ark is wrong on some deeper level. Reducing it to a mechanistic program of 'If eyes open -> melt face' diminishes the wonder of what occurs. Clear and consistent inputs and outputs seldom keep company with a sense of mystery and enchantment.

[sithlordnergal]

All in all, I think the game would be better if the designers would pay more attention to the question "why/how magic".

I actually think its wise that the designers didn't answer the "why/how magic". Instead they gave people what happens, and left the why/how it happens to DMs and players. Had they codified the why/how into the rules, then you'd have a lot more arguments about the RAW/RAI of why/how. I also suspect they would do the why/how poorly.

Consider Druids, they said that Druids will not wear metal armor because it is considered taboo. Its not that they can't wear metal armor, a Druid is perfectly capable of using and wearing metal armor, its that they won't. And it apparently doesn't matter where your Druid is from. Are you a Mountain Dwarf that took the Guild Artisan background and you're proficient in Smith's Tools? Well that doesn't matter, you're a Druid, wearing metal armor is "taboo", so you can't do it. Answer me honestly, is "because its taboo" a satisfying answer as to why Druid's don't wear metal armor, no matter their history and background.

I suspect that if WotC had added more "why/how", you'd end up with a lot more answers like the Druid instead of good answers.




OP

As for your question, "Because magic" is basically the handwave answer for making sense of things that simply don't, or can't, make sense. Consider a level 20 Tabaxi Fighter/Monk with the Mobile feat. In 6 seconds they can:


Move 140ft
Attack 4 different people while moving that 140ft, with enough precision to try and Stun all four creatures
Free Object Interaction to open a door
Reaction to catch a bullet fired from a pistol from a guy who had readied their action to shoot anyone who opened the door
Use that same Reaction to throw the bullet back with enough force to deal the same damage as the pistol fired the bullet
Use Action Surge to Dash another 140ft back to the party, for a total movement of 280ft
Inform the party that they stunned four guys, and there's a guy with a pistol in the hallway beyond that



They did all of that in 6 seconds according to the rules, and its not like they did anything over the top action wise. Its no different than a level 20 Fighter with Crossbow Expert being able to fire a Hand Crossbow 9 times in 6 seconds via action surge, and still being able to move and such. As for why Humans don't naturally fly, its simply because that's how they made the rules.

[Tanarii]

I have a long time friend who, whenever I complain that something in a movie doesn't make 'sense', tells me "Wizards did it". Even if the movie doesn't have magic. :smallamused:

[Unoriginal]

I have a long time friend who, whenever I complain that something in a movie doesn't make 'sense', tells me "Wizards did it". Even if the movie doesn't have magic. :smallamused:

That's a meme from the Simpsons.

[Waazraath]

I disagree with your assertion that bard magic must involve singing

I disagree we disagree. Cause that's not what I said, which was "singing/music", and I do agree with poetry/chant/etc. as well.


The classes and their subclasses don't represent rules and boundaries of how things work in the world. They represent frameworks around which players can structure their characters.

But they do. The rules on classes are much more then a stucture for characters, the texts on wizards, clerics, warlocks etc. do explain where these supernatural powers come from. They are both crunch and fluff, as they are often named on forums like these. Sometimes there is a lot of fluff on where powers come from, sometimes little. But for psionics and runes in Tasha's, there's almost nothing. Compare it for instance with 3.5, Incarnum, Soulbinding, Psionics, even Truenaming: loads of background, loads of explanation. It had a solid foundation, not 'because magic'.


I actually think its wise that the designers didn't answer the "why/how magic". Instead they gave people what happens, and left the why/how it happens to DMs and players. Had they codified the why/how into the rules, then you'd have a lot more arguments about the RAW/RAI of why/how. I also suspect they would do the why/how poorly.

Consider Druids, they said that Druids will not wear metal armor because it is considered taboo. Its not that they can't wear metal armor, a Druid is perfectly capable of using and wearing metal armor, its that they won't. And it apparently doesn't matter where your Druid is from. Are you a Mountain Dwarf that took the Guild Artisan background and you're proficient in Smith's Tools? Well that doesn't matter, you're a Druid, wearing metal armor is "taboo", so you can't do it. Answer me honestly, is "because its taboo" a satisfying answer as to why Druid's don't wear metal armor, no matter their history and background.

I suspect that if WotC had added more "why/how", you'd end up with a lot more answers like the Druid instead of good answers.

Maybe... but even if I would agree that it would be better to 'not get into the why/how', then we still have an edition where it is done half-donkeyd, where it is done for some classes but hardly for others. For consistency's sake, shouldn't they not have done it at all? In the most basic for, that would mean there is magic, there are magic users, and they gain a bunch of abilities without any components, or flavour text on whether they studied hard or worshipped a deity or the like.

[KorvinStarmast]

I disagree we disagree. Cause that's not what I said, which was "singing/music", and I do agree with poetry/chant/etc. as well. We have an accord.

[Tanarii]

That's a meme from the Simpsons.
Hmm. I remember it long before '99, which is when the 'net says the Simpsons does it. But I'll ask him, could well be. He's quoted other things I totally missed the reference for decades. :smallamused:

[Reach Weapon]

Well, why did this line get drawn? How is that line between the two justified?
I think it might be worth noting that 5E is about as good of a reality simulator as Chess is a battlefield one. Is there anything that 5E modeling doesn't warp in the interests of simplicity and playability?

[Waazraath]

We have an accord.

Darn... from disagreeing to disagree to agreeing to agree. And that on the internet :smallbiggrin:

[Unoriginal]

Is there anything that 5E modeling doesn't warp in the interests of simplicity and playability?

The opinions of people who don't like monks/martials doing incredible stuff?

[Mechalich]

It is worth noting that D&D has two different kinds of phenomenon with regard to impossible effects, those that are built into one of its several 'magic systems' and those that are simply ambient aspects of the world that defy known physical laws.

Spellcasting, for example, is part of a magic system. That system is roughly: people who undertake X set of practices are able to produce various discrete effects (spells) with capabilities A, B, and C, and these capabilities increase as greater levels of mastery of the practices are achieved. It's not solid magic system, because the fluff behind D&D spellcasting has always been a bizarre mess, but the general principle is there.

Many other effects, most commonly the abilities of monsters, aren't part of any system and are completely ad hoc. A basilisk can turn people to stone with its gaze, a griffon can fly in defiance of everything known about thrust-lift-weight ratios, etc. These things just sort of happen and in many cases the fluff explanation goes no deeper than 'because magic.' There have been, over the years, a few attempts to try and solidify the fluff behind certain monster abilities, notably undead (the old 2e Van Ritchen's guides, for example), but these have rarely produced any actual systems.

What this means is that many ability sets in D&D are completely ad hoc and as far as the capabilities of monsters and of races are concerned there is no foundation in the fluff establishing why or why not any creature should have or not have any set of abilities. To cycle back to the OPs example about flight, while Humans can't fly in D&D, because they don't have a fly speed, there's absolutely nothing in the system that prevents creating a race of Flying Humans that are physically identical to humans in every way but just happen to have a Fly speed. In the 3e supplement Stormwrack, this was actually done, in that the book created the Aventi, humans that could breathe underwater and possessed a swim speed with no biological explanation at all. It was simply 'because magic.'

Now, slapping free flight onto the human chassis without building in some sort of major trade off would have overwhelming world-building consequences, but there's no system-based reason why not to do it.

[KorvinStarmast]

It is worth noting that D&D has two different kinds of phenomenon with regard to impossible effects, those that are built into one of its several 'magic systems' and those that are simply ambient aspects of the world that defy known physical laws.

Spellcasting, for example, is part of a magic system. That system is roughly: people who undertake X set of practices are able to produce various discrete effects (spells) with capabilities A, B, and C, and these capabilities increase as greater levels of mastery of the practices are achieved. It's not solid magic system, because the fluff behind D&D spellcasting has always been a bizarre mess, but the general principle is there.

Many other effects, most commonly the abilities of monsters, aren't part of any system and are completely ad hoc. A basilisk can turn people to stone with its gaze, a griffon can fly in defiance of everything known about thrust-lift-weight ratios, etc. These things just sort of happen and in many cases the fluff explanation goes no deeper than 'because magic.' There have been, over the years, a few attempts to try and solidify the fluff behind certain monster abilities, notably undead (the old 2e Van Ritchen's guides, for example), but these have rarely produced any actual systems.
Didn't 3.x try to address this with the Su and Ex classification of powers? Or am I oversimplifying that?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Didn't 3.x try to address this with the Su and Ex classification of powers? Or am I oversimplifying that?

They tried, but like most things 3.x, they mostly made things worse. Because their classification was...arbitrary. And incomplete. Plus, it seems to give lots of fodder for argument, as people read tons of extra into the markers. Or maybe that's all just me looking at the arguments on that part of the forum with a bit of a jaundiced eye.
--------

Personally, everything in 5e of any consequence (ie anything that's a class feature or something adventuring specific) is "fantastic". It's not bounded by the real world, only by its own terms. And should be interpreted as such. In-universe, it's pretty "normal". But the fictional universe isn't our universe. Because there's magic in and through everything. That magic is part of their physical laws. And as such, things end up different at a core level.

[Mechalich]

Didn't 3.x try to address this with the Su and Ex classification of powers? Or am I oversimplifying that?

Not really. Spell-like abilities were systemic - they were just spells cast by some innate means - and interacted with the spellcasting system accordingly in all the expected ways. Extraordinary and Supernatural abilities were both ad hoc, the only difference was that Antimagic Field shut off Supernatural abilities but not Extraordinary abilities. No explanation was ever provided for how either one worked with any consistency and it was perfectly possible to fluff the exact same effect either way (and this was done). They were black box abilities.

And generally, once a game permits the existence of black box abilities to do one thing, there's little to nothing in the fluff stopping black box abilities from doing anything and everything. In D&D, this is generally acceptable, because the system is a kitchen sink, and there's no way to include such a vast array of stuff without resorting to a black box 'it works because it works' explanation, nor is this necessarily any less robust than certain blanket magic systems that place no limits on possible effects they just have to be sourced in 'The One Power' of 'The Force' or some other universal option.

This sort of differentiation matters much more in a setting where there is a strict and critically, limited magic system that can only do certain kinds of things.

With regard to the use of black box abilities in game, it does mean that the GM should be honest about restrictions. The reason you can't play 'Flying Humans' in D&D has no fluff basis (and indeed flying elves have been in D&D for a long time), it's a purely mechanical restriction made for the purpose of game balance and because most GMs aren't prepared to handle a setting where every sapient being flies all the time.

[Schwann145]

I kinda figured I wasn't clear enough in OP.
Dang...

So I'm not talking about actual magic in the game or anything like that.

What I'm wondering about is... say...
Dragons exist "because magic." D&D is a magical game that takes place in magical worlds where anything can be explained by the fact that everything is magic.
But Humans are... just human. As human as a real-world human. To address my example-question, Humans can't fly because humans can't fly. We don't have magic, or wings, or mental powers, or some kind of mutation that allows it.
Humans can't fly. So in-game humans can't fly. And that is adhered to. Is there a balance issue with letting a human character fly? Well other playable races can fly, so probably not. But still... humans = no flying.

But that sort of logic is totally thrown out the window the moment we address anything that doesn't have a real-life counterpart. Dragons can exist and breathe fire, Monks can deflect giant-thrown boulders, and any one of a million other examples, because D&D isn't a reality simulator, it doesn't concern itself with real-life things, it's fantasy, it's magic, and therefore it's possible.
Well... except when it's not. Because, as above, a human is still expected to be just a human. The very idea of letting that human fly for no reason is met with resistance... why? Because humans can't fly IRL.
But IRL doesn't apply to D&D I thought... yet it does.

That's the line I'm wondering about. Where is it drawn, and what justifies drawing it there?

Hopefully this makes my query more clear. Sorry I wasn't clear enough in OP. ;(

[ProsecutorGodot]

But Humans are... just human. As human as a real-world human. To address my example-question, Humans can't fly because humans can't fly. We don't have magic, or wings, or mental powers, or some kind of mutation that allows it.(

That's not what's been expressed in the thread, actually quite the opposite. Human's in DND are not real world humans. They're inconsistently durable, a house cat can kill a commoner but an adventurer can survive a fall from the stratosphere, they can have magic, my own example was very specifically a human monk, in part to demonstrate that humans in DND are also subject to "because magic".

Just like your example was "human fighter" to attempt to portray humans as "normal, no magic" with the closest comparable abilities to a real life warrior. It's not true for fighter's either by the way, as has been mentioned, Action Surge X-Bow Expert Fighters pumping 9 attacks from a crossbow in 6 seconds is so outside of reality that something must be going on.

[Schwann145]

That's not what's been expressed in the thread, actually quite the opposite. Human's in DND are not real world humans. They're inconsistently durable, a house cat can kill a commoner but an adventurer can survive a fall from the stratosphere, they can have magic, my own example was very specifically a human monk, in part to demonstrate that humans in DND are also subject to "because magic".

Just like your example was "human fighter" to attempt to portray humans as "normal, no magic" with the closest comparable abilities to a real life warrior. It's not true for fighter's either by the way, as has been mentioned, Action Surge X-Bow Expert Fighters pumping 9 attacks from a crossbow in 6 seconds is so outside of reality that something must be going on.

That's my fault for saying "human fighter" when I should have left "fighter" out of it. A housecat can be lethal IRL (though very unlikely), and the classless human certainly isn't surviving the fall from the stratosphere.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That's my fault for saying "human fighter" when I should have left "fighter" out of it. A housecat can be lethal IRL (though very unlikely), and the classless human certainly isn't surviving the fall from the stratosphere.

A classless Dwarf, or any race for that matter because even Relentless Endurance can't stop catastrophic death, isn't either. So what does being a Human have to do with it?

You can't assert "humans are not allowed to be magic" and then pick and choose what we're allowed to attribute to them to argue otherwise. Just because not every Human is magical doesn't mean none of them are or that none of them should be.

The example in OP is just a bit hyperbolic in my opinion as well, there are no standard races that get to fly for no reason, any player race is given a reason (they have wings) and the majority of enemies have some sort of explicit magical ability... or wings. Whether those wings should reasonably function is what gets explained away with "but magic" because it's much easier to assume that those wings function as intended.

[Mechalich]

What I'm wondering about is... say...
Dragons exist "because magic." D&D is a magical game that takes place in magical worlds where anything can be explained by the fact that everything is magic.
But Humans are... just human. As human as a real-world human. To address my example-question, Humans can't fly because humans can't fly. We don't have magic, or wings, or mental powers, or some kind of mutation that allows it.
Humans can't fly. So in-game humans can't fly. And that is adhered to. Is there a balance issue with letting a human character fly? Well other playable races can fly, so probably not. But still... humans = no flying.

But that sort of logic is totally thrown out the window the moment we address anything that doesn't have a real-life counterpart. Dragons can exist and breathe fire, Monks can deflect giant-thrown boulders, and any one of a million other examples, because D&D isn't a reality simulator, it doesn't concern itself with real-life things, it's fantasy, it's magic, and therefore it's possible.
Well... except when it's not. Because, as above, a human is still expected to be just a human. The very idea of letting that human fly for no reason is met with resistance... why? Because humans can't fly IRL.
But IRL doesn't apply to D&D I thought... yet it does.

That's the line I'm wondering about. Where is it drawn, and what justifies drawing it there?


D&D, like most fantasy, defaults to the idea that anything that can be found in the real world is assumed to behave the same way in the fantasy world unless specified otherwise. Humans can't fly in the real world so, by default, they can't fly in the fantasy world. This is an essential bookkeeping shortcut, because if you don't do it, all bets are off and you have to constantly specify how every element in the world operates. For items that don't have real life counterparts you have to this anyway, because there's nothing to default too (though many things are often assumed anyway, for example, externally mammalian monsters are generally assumed to have roughly mammalian internals when you cut them open).

It is perfectly possible for someone designing a game or a setting to enable some or all humans to fly (flight gated by some power threshold is in fact extremely common in Wuxia-based settings). In D&D it's just an adjustment to the race entry that adds in a fly speed, making it mechanically simple, and because flight is a black box ability the fact that humans don't have wings is irrelevant.

The reason there's resistance to this, commonly, is because when you make major modifications to an important real world element - like humans, usually the most common sapient species in any setting - the world-building consequences are immense. A world in which all humans can fly is going to be massively different than any typical quasi-medieval setup and powered human flight is a sufficiently obvious change that even people who don't think about world-building much or are easily able to suspend their disbelief tend to realize this. Note that a comparatively smaller change, for example giving all humans darkvision, doesn't provoke this reaction even though the actual process is identical.

[Psyren]

But Humans are... just human. As human as a real-world human. To address my example-question, Humans can't fly because humans can't fly. We don't have magic, or wings, or mental powers, or some kind of mutation that allows it.
Humans can't fly. So in-game humans can't fly. And that is adhered to. Is there a balance issue with letting a human character fly? Well other playable races can fly, so probably not. But still... humans = no flying.

D&D humans derive their powers from class. Even for pure martials like rogues/barbarians/fighters, that still gives them access to superhuman abilities and features. I guess I'm not seeing the issue here.

You're saying that a "classless human" is no different than a human in our world... to which I say, yeah that's the point, the humans in our world ARE classless by D&D standards for the most part.

[Reach Weapon]

But IRL doesn't apply to D&D I thought... yet it does.
I'll ask again: What part of 5E are you arguing models the real world even remotely accurately?
(There's things called humans that can't fly in both is certainly an accurate statement, but it's a fractional model at best.)

[rel]

I kinda figured I wasn't clear enough in OP.
Dang...

So I'm not talking about actual magic in the game or anything like that.

What I'm wondering about is... say...
Dragons exist "because magic." D&D is a magical game that takes place in magical worlds where anything can be explained by the fact that everything is magic.
But Humans are... just human. As human as a real-world human. To address my example-question, Humans can't fly because humans can't fly. We don't have magic, or wings, or mental powers, or some kind of mutation that allows it.
Humans can't fly. So in-game humans can't fly. And that is adhered to. Is there a balance issue with letting a human character fly? Well other playable races can fly, so probably not. But still... humans = no flying.

But that sort of logic is totally thrown out the window the moment we address anything that doesn't have a real-life counterpart. Dragons can exist and breathe fire, Monks can deflect giant-thrown boulders, and any one of a million other examples, because D&D isn't a reality simulator, it doesn't concern itself with real-life things, it's fantasy, it's magic, and therefore it's possible.
Well... except when it's not. Because, as above, a human is still expected to be just a human. The very idea of letting that human fly for no reason is met with resistance... why? Because humans can't fly IRL.
But IRL doesn't apply to D&D I thought... yet it does.

That's the line I'm wondering about. Where is it drawn, and what justifies drawing it there?

Hopefully this makes my query more clear. Sorry I wasn't clear enough in OP. ;(


The line is in a different place for each gaming group. Some groups insist on strict gym guy physics under which anything that isn't spelled out in the rules and that the players around the table cannot also physically demonstrate doesn't work unless it comes from a spell.

Other groups run more fantastic worlds where reality is built from the energies of the planes and while things look superficially similar to earth the differences lie just beneath the surface.
In such worlds it's not uncommon for a random human to know how to fly or become invisible, or walk between the worlds. Not because they're a magic user but just because they're an inhabitant of a world of myth and know a few tricks.

Many people seem to have fun with both extremes and everything in between so the important thing is to make sure you find a group that want the same level of the fantastic that you do.

[Schwann145]

A classless Dwarf, or any race for that matter because even Relentless Endurance can't stop catastrophic death, isn't either. So what does being a Human have to do with it?
Nothing in particular. I was just using Humans as the most relatable example.


I'll ask again: What part of 5E are you arguing models the real world even remotely accurately?
(There's things called humans that can't fly in both is certainly an accurate statement, but it's a fractional model at best.)
I think you're looking at it more mechanically than I am. Hit Points and turn-based combat and all that certainly don't model reality accurately at all. But dropping things means they fall, you starve if you don't eat and drink, and (to keep abusing an example) humans can't fly.
The assumption I'm seeing, and working with, is that because it's D&D, it's completely incomparable to the real world. Anything and everything can, and is, different. So why are we bothering to insist that some things stay the same? Just because it's RAW?

[Reach Weapon]

So why are we bothering to insist that some things stay the same?
That's not a thing I am insisting. In fact, my argument is that the two merely have serendipitous similarities. Both have humans, horses and houses, but as the mechanics demonstrate, they're fundamentally different things. They have the same names as an aid to vocabulary acquisition not to reinforce any concept of sameness.


Just because it's RAW?
There's also something to honoring the touchstones of established settings that aren't codified, which can have the added benefit of making "real earthers" a lot less wrong.

[Unoriginal]

But Humans are... just human. As human as a real-world human.

No, they are not.

A real-life human can't fight ten armored, armed human with nothing but their bare fist and a loincloth and win.

A real-life human can't get in a wrestling match with a gorilla and win.



To address my example-question, Humans can't fly because humans can't fly. We don't have magic, or wings, or mental powers, or some kind of mutation that allows it.
Humans can't fly. So in-game humans can't fly. And that is adhered to. Is there a balance issue with letting a human character fly? Well other playable races can fly, so probably not. But still... humans = no flying.

It's called fictional archetypes and expectations.

Some humans in D&D can fly. Most can't because it's not the archetype they fill.

Same way that Indiana Jones can outpace deadly traps with enough time to go back for his hat. It fits the fictional archetype and expectaction for the character, so he can do it.





That's the line I'm wondering about. Where is it drawn, and what justifies drawing it there?

It's arbitrary, like everything else in the game.

Why can't Wizards cast 9th level spells at will? Why can't elves separate into two identical but half-sized elves? Why can't Gnomes fly?

Answer: because it's not the fictional archetypes and expectations the game has chosen to espouse, in a purely arbitrary manner.


Some humans in DnD can fly. No human in real life can. DnD humans are not real life humans.

[Willie the Duck]

I think you're looking at it more mechanically than I am. Hit Points and turn-based combat and all that certainly don't model reality accurately at all. But dropping things means they fall, you starve if you don't eat and drink, and (to keep abusing an example) humans can't fly.
The assumption I'm seeing, and working with, is that because it's D&D, it's completely incomparable to the real world. Anything and everything can, and is, different. So why are we bothering to insist that some things stay the same? Just because it's RAW?

I think we're all still trying to grok your overarching point. Let's switch to one of your other real-world-actions points -- dropping things mean they fall. I ask you this: Why are we bothering to insist in D&D that things fall when dropped? Is it because it is RAW?

To answer myself, no, not because it is RAW (that it is RAW is probably to support the general framework of real-life actions to have recognizable results). Instead, it is so that there is (in a world we are to vaguely inhabit if we are playing the role of our characters) some kind of recognizable boundaries (even if they are then broken or subverted, doing so ought be notable). If you create a world where there are no assumptions and nothing works like they intuitively should and water flows uphill, and when dropped things fall North-Northeast (except every-other Tuesday, when they just hang mid-air) and so on, pretty soon you're just inhabiting a jibberishverse where nothing is notable because everything is.

[Demonslayer666]

That's not "because magic". It's "because I wanna". You are confusing the two.

"Because Magic" is an explanation for an existing rule. Not justification for creating rules that do not exist.

If you are the DM and creating a world, then you can justify humans flying by saying "because magic", because it's your world. You cannot go the other direction and create rules in someone else's world and justify it with "because magic" because it doesn't exist. However, you could try and collaborate with the DM to create it...

[ZRN]

I think I more or less understand where you are coming from. The difference (a difference) between more pulp fantasy and more sophisticated fantasy is in questions like this. If magic exists in the world, does it has its own logic, limitations, rules and history, or is it simply 'there' without explanation and logic and is it used to fill holes in the story?

I'd probably reject the "pulp"/"sophisticated" description here. Brandon Sanderson says it better (https://www.brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-first-law/) in distinguishing "hard" and "soft" magic:


I see a continuum, or a scale, measuring how authors use their magic. On one side of the continuum, we have books where the magic is included in order to establish a sense of wonder and give the setting a fantastical feel. Books that focus on this use of magic tend to want to indicate that men are a small, small part of the eternal and mystical workings of the universe. This gives the reader a sense of tension as they’re never certain what dangers—or wonders—the characters will encounter. Indeed, the characters themselves never truly know what can happen and what can’t.

I call this a “Soft Magic” system, and it has a long, established tradition in fantasy. I would argue that Tolkien himself is on this side of the continuum. In his books, you rarely understand the capabilities of Wizards and their ilk. You, instead, spend your time identifying with the hobbits, who feel that they’ve been thrown into something much larger, and more dangerous, than themselves. By holding back laws and rules of magic, Tolkien makes us feel that this world is vast, and that there are unimaginable powers surging and moving beyond our sight.

So, it's not just cruddy "pulp" fiction that has less-defined rules of magic; quite a lot of good fantasy lit, not to mention its premodern inspirations (from folk tales to medieval epics), doesn't have hard-and-fast rules for magic. (Sanderson also notes that even when using "soft" magic, good writers don't let it work as a deus ex machina.)

Obviously in D&D magic the default is "hard" magic because there are defined rules and spells. But I think part of the job of a DM (at least in a more narrative-focused campaign) can be "softening" the magic system by incorporating creatures and forms of magic outside of the PHB spell list, keeping the players surprised.

[Waazraath]

I'd probably reject the "pulp"/"sophisticated" description here. Brandon Sanderson says it better (https://www.brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-first-law/) in distinguishing "hard" and "soft" magic:



So, it's not just cruddy "pulp" fiction that has less-defined rules of magic; quite a lot of good fantasy lit, not to mention its premodern inspirations (from folk tales to medieval epics), doesn't have hard-and-fast rules for magic. (Sanderson also notes that even when using "soft" magic, good writers don't let it work as a deus ex machina.)

Obviously in D&D magic the default is "hard" magic because there are defined rules and spells. But I think part of the job of a DM (at least in a more narrative-focused campaign) can be "softening" the magic system by incorporating creatures and forms of magic outside of the PHB spell list, keeping the players surprised.

Interresting take and link, thnx!

[PhoenixPhyre]

Obviously in D&D magic the default is "hard" magic because there are defined rules and spells. But I think part of the job of a DM (at least in a more narrative-focused campaign) can be "softening" the magic system by incorporating creatures and forms of magic outside of the PHB spell list, keeping the players surprised.

D&D doesn't have hard magic. It has magic with no rules at all (other than mechanical implementations). The system itself allows spells to do anything a writer wants. It's entirely deus ex machina/fiat. There's no underlying rhyme or reason why there are spells for X and not for Y. And there only aren't spells for Y right now. That's the opposite of a hard magic system where some things just can't be done with magic, full stop.

The mechanics are not the physics. The PHB spell list and spell rules are mechanical game implementation, not an in-universe fact. There's no information that every thing we call fireball is actually the same, merely that we treat it the same for ease of play. And the lists aren't comprehensive either.

[Unoriginal]

D&D doesn't have hard magic. It has magic with no rules at all (other than mechanical implementations). The system itself allows spells to do anything a writer wants. It's entirely deus ex machina/fiat. There's no underlying rhyme or reason why there are spells for X and not for Y. And there only aren't spells for Y right now. That's the opposite of a hard magic system where some things just can't be done with magic, full stop.

The mechanics are not the physics. The PHB spell list and spell rules are mechanical game implementation, not an in-universe fact. There's no information that every thing we call fireball is actually the same, merely that we treat it the same for ease of play. And the lists aren't comprehensive either.

And even with established NPCs, there are tons of stuff that aren't "statblock abilities".

Hags have their whole 'weird magic'. Demon Princes can turn animals and people into monstrous forms, create new species that way, or hijack divine connections. Tiamat can curse people in creative manners. Etc.

Although I have to point out, Deus Ex Machina is specifically a non-foreshadowed plot-altering/resolving event.

To give an example: Frodo suddenly teleporting to escape pursuers would be a Deus Ex Machina. Him using the One Ring to put a geas on Gollum, which gets fullfilled soon after, isn't.

[ZRN]

D&D doesn't have hard magic. It has magic with no rules at all (other than mechanical implementations). The system itself allows spells to do anything a writer wants. ... That's the opposite of a hard magic system where some things just can't be done with magic, full stop.

Magic can always do "whatever a writer wants," even in a "hard" magic system; the difference is that a "hard" magic system is clear and transparent about the rules in advance. I mean, Sanderson himself is as hard-magic a writer as I think you can find, and at a core level he clearly just makes up whatever he wants when designing the system. He wrote Mistborn with a whole bunch of details about allomancy, but when he added bone-stealing shapeshifters because he thought they'd be cool, he made up something vague about hemalurgy to "explain" it. This isn't a failing, though, because even the bone-stealing guys were explained and set up early enough in the text that they didn't just pop up to save the day in a deus ex machina.

The PHB has a spells section with 80+ pages of highly detailed and specific rules for what magic can do. If the DM wants D&D to be a "hard" magic system, all they have to do is NOT allow custom or homebrew magic. Most people on this board could watch a magic-user fight a battle for about 30 seconds and deduce a class and approximate level, and from that, a pretty detailed account of exactly what that character can and can't do. Do those spell lists conform to a reasonable physics/metaphysics of the game universe? No, but that's not really the point of "hard" magic. The point is a narrative one: you want a magic system with explicit rules about what can and can't be done because that creates more satisfying puzzles for the reader that can be solved without the author resorting to a deus ex machina. That's the whole goal of playing a magic user in D&D! You have cool but explicitly limited powers and you have to figure out how to use them to overcome obstacles.

[Unoriginal]

Magic can always do "whatever a writer wants," even in a "hard" magic system; the difference is that a "hard" magic system is clear and transparent about the rules in advance. I mean, Sanderson himself is as hard-magic a writer as I think you can find, and at a core level he clearly just makes up whatever he wants when designing the system. He wrote Mistborn with a whole bunch of details about allomancy, but when he added bone-stealing shapeshifters because he thought they'd be cool, he made up something vague about hemalurgy to "explain" it. This isn't a failing, though, because even the bone-stealing guys were explained and set up early enough in the text that they didn't just pop up to save the day in a deus ex machina.

The PHB has a spells section with 80+ pages of highly detailed and specific rules for what magic can do. If the DM wants D&D to be a "hard" magic system, all they have to do is NOT allow custom or homebrew magic. Most people on this board could watch a magic-user fight a battle for about 30 seconds and deduce a class and approximate level, and from that, a pretty detailed account of exactly what that character can and can't do. Do those spell lists conform to a reasonable physics/metaphysics of the game universe? No, but that's not really the point of "hard" magic. The point is a narrative one: you want a magic system with explicit rules about what can and can't be done because that creates more satisfying puzzles for the reader that can be solved without the author resorting to a deus ex machina. That's the whole goal of playing a magic user in D&D! You have cool but explicitly limited powers and you have to figure out how to use them to overcome obstacles.

But spellcasting is only a tiny part of D&D's magic.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But spellcasting is only a tiny part of D&D's magic.

Exactly. And PC spellcasting is an even tinier fraction.

[Composer99]

Title is a very common answer whenever a topic of, "how" comes up in regards to game mechanics.
Whether it's in the form of, "it's magic so it can happen," as an explanation for a thing itself, or, "magic exists, so why couldn't/shouldn't this also happen?" as an explanation for a quasi-magical thing that isn't directly a spell effect or something like.

That tends to pass the smell test often, as it probably should.
But when does it fail?
D&D worlds are worlds where magic exists and extraordinary feats are possible in a way they certainly aren't in reality - but they're not worlds where just anything is possible.
For instance, people tend to still age. Gravity remains a force to contend with. E tends to keep equaling MC2.

"Why can character/monster/etc do X?"
"Well, Wizards can do A, B, and C, Y monster exists, etc, so why not? Justified."

Okay. But...

"My human fighter can fly. No wings, no spells, just a human, but I want them to fly at will. Because magical world is magical so it's fine, right?"
"No, humans don't get Fly so your human fighter can't fly. Maybe you'll find some way to fly later in the game."

Well, why did this line get drawn? How is that line between the two justified?
(Or would you, as a DM, just say, "okay, deal - human fighter can fly at will?")

I think it's valuable to remember a few things:

(1) As designed D&D is a game of fantastic adventure first and foremost, and "world simulator with high-fidelity verisimilitude" at best in a distant second place. If any given player or DM wants to run it with more high-fidelity verisimilitude than you might expect from the core rulebooks, more power to them at their table, but that's definitely a table-by-table situation, not what the game is about writ large.

(2) D&D has always had a kind of "gonzo" kitchen-sink approach to the kinds of fantasy included, subject to the tastes of the designers and the kind of fantasy fiction they were acquainted with in each era of the game. That's all well and good, but it does make it more difficult to maintain high-fidelity verisimilitude (if that is one of your goals).

(3) Much like a strategic/operational-level WW2 boardgame that plays a war resembling the real one in its contours in a span of 60 hours or so could never possibly hope to realistically emulate the war, and so many abstract mechanics that don't neatly map to the diegesis just have to be handwaved away (if you're trying to find an explanation from a "how realistic is this" angle, anyway), the sheer amount of detail in reality is impossible to fully emulate in a fantastic D&D world - never mind adding in layers of fantastic details, from magical creatures to spellcasting to other planes of existence.

(4) For ease of play, it does seem generally true that the explicitly fantastic needs to be called out. I shouldn't say "properly explained" because in many cases that's simply impossible, but suffice to say that, for instance, we can assume that unless we're told otherwise by the rules or by the adventure text or by the DM, a creature can't fly if our commonsense intuition tells us it can't - or, alternatively, a creature can only fly if genre emulation suggests it can. Which is why humans need a spell, or a magic item, or some other unnatural contrivance (*) to be able to fly, while dragons just flap their wings and take to the skies without a care for the physics involved.

(*) Term emphatically not being used pejoratively.

[Elenian]

No, no. Human fighters cannot fly at will only because of magic. You see, swordsmen and warriors are associated with the central direction and the element of earth. Just as the laws of the jade emperor prohibit the stones from falling upward, so too do they oblige warriors to remain earthbound.

(I've never used this particular explanation before, but a conceit I quite like is that even those parts of a fantasy seeing that work more or less familiarly actually have a very different metaphysical basis. A thrown javelin keeps flying not because of linear momentum but because a throwing motion is an offering to the goddess of projectiles, and it is her invisible hands that keep the javelin in flight - the better the offering, the longer the cast. And so on)

[PhoenixPhyre]

No, no. Human fighters cannot fly at will only because of magic. You see, swordsmen and warriors are associated with the central direction and the element of earth. Just as the laws of the jade emperor prohibit the stones from falling upward, so too do they oblige warriors to remain earthbound.

(I've never used this particular explanation before, but a conceit I quite like is that even those parts of a fantasy seeing that work more or less familiarly actually have a very different metaphysical basis. A thrown javelin keeps flying not because of linear momentum but because a throwing motion is an offering to the goddess of projectiles, and it is her invisible hands that keep the javelin in flight - the better the offering, the longer the cast. And so on)

Not exactly the same, but I've long thought that D&D physics (and other physical laws) are much closer to Aristotelian mechanics, as filtered through a vaguely, poorly-understood, pseduo-medieval-alchemist viewpoint.

Literal elements? Check.
Things in motion come to a halt unless pushed forward? Check.
Idealized "forms" of things (like angels are idealized realizations of "good")? Check.
Etc.

[sithlordnergal]

But that sort of logic is totally thrown out the window the moment we address anything that doesn't have a real-life counterpart. Dragons can exist and breathe fire, Monks can deflect giant-thrown boulders, and any one of a million other examples, because D&D isn't a reality simulator, it doesn't concern itself with real-life things, it's fantasy, it's magic, and therefore it's possible.
Well... except when it's not. Because, as above, a human is still expected to be just a human. The very idea of letting that human fly for no reason is met with resistance... why? Because humans can't fly IRL.
But IRL doesn't apply to D&D I thought... yet it does.



Ahhhh, I get you now, the answer for that would be "to make world building easier". Humans provide a very important base line for world building in DnD, because we know what Humans can do and what Humans act like. When you see the tag "Humanoid" on a creature, you can guess that it can move pretty much the same way a Human can, unless it has something special like wings or gills. When you talk about an Elven City, you can guess that its going to be similar to a Human city. Sure, it'll be made out of different material, and there will be some differences because Elves are different from Humans, but at the very heart of it all, it will be very similar to a Human city. We don't have to go in depth on the particulars because "Elves are basically Humans but more Dexterous".

Now, nothing stops you from making a world where all Humans fly...but then you have to do a lot more work with the world building. How do Humans fly? Do they have wings, or do they fly via innate magic? What does a city made by flying Humans look like? Are there even regular roads? Or is the city multi-layered? Is the city even on the ground? Or are they built high in the sky? How about fortifications? Walls are pretty much useless if every Human can fly over them. You'd need a way to cover your head at all times. So are forts built into cliffs? Are they built underground if there is no cliff? Or do they basically make like a hive that has walls on all sides?

And since all Humans can fly, are other Humanoids the same? Humans are the baseline for Humanoids. Very few Humanoids can do more than a Human can when it comes to movement. So if Humans can fly, can everyone else?

You also need to consider encounter design. If everyone can fly, are you really going to use swords and shields? Are you going to have Heavy Armor that prevents you from flying? Whenever you fight a Human, that fight is going to take place on a Z axis. So what sort of tactics do they use? Walls, chasms, and pit traps no longer matter because everyone can fly, so will they be used?

[Elenian]

Not exactly the same, but I've long thought that D&D physics (and other physical laws) are much closer to Aristotelian mechanics, as filtered through a vaguely, poorly-understood, pseduo-medieval-alchemist viewpoint.

Literal elements? Check.
Things in motion come to a halt unless pushed forward? Check.
Idealized "forms" of things (like angels are idealized realizations of "good")? Check.
Etc.

Have you ever played Ars Magica? It's a fairly hard-magic wizard RPG set in 1220s Europe... if the beliefs of 13th century European mystics were literally true. Aristotle was right about basically everything, the heavens are full of crystal spheres, medieval bestiaries contain accurate descriptions of the fauna of Africa, etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Have you ever played Ars Magica? It's a fairly hard-magic wizard RPG set in 1220s Europe... if the beliefs of 13th century European mystics were literally true. Aristotle was right about basically everything, the heavens are full of crystal spheres, medieval bestiaries contain accurate descriptions of the fauna of Africa, etc.

I haven't. D&D is like that...except the accuracy part. And I don't think it was designed that way; it's just that the eventual outcome fits that model best, in hindsight.

And it's something I've including intentionally in my worldbuilding. For example, the stars are not big fires very far away; they're angelic beacons, marking outposts at about a distance of 4 AU from the primary. Only a few are fixed; most wander.

Another example--the seasonal variation has nothing to do with axial tilt or changes in insolation. It's due to the rotation of the planet through the varying influences of the 12 elemental planes. And plants don't photosynthesize via chemical reactions. Sure, astral fire-aspected energy is an input, but sunlight is not. This lets me have wondrous underground gardens, just of plants that absorb their fire anima from the ground. Oh, and you can breathe in space, but the air-aspected anima there is thin.

And the planets and moons have spirits associated with them.

[rel]

As I was looking over this thread, I remembered I once gave hobbits the ability to fall with style in a game.
The didn't have wings or magic (beyond the ability to consume 12 breakfasts per day) but nevertheless they were at home in the air.
This manifested as fall damage always rolling the minimum value and hobbits having the ability to move horizontally as they fell effectively controlling their falls.


Now then, soft vs hard magic.
The D&D magic system is soft.
A hard magic system is built up from overarching rules that restrict what magic as a whole can do.

The most common example of an overarching rule I can give is 'magic cannot let you change the past'. This is usually put in because time travel is hard to write and undermines the integrity of a story.

Another common rule is 'magic cannot bring the dead back to life'.
This is a rule in a lot of fantasy because people dying then getting better is bad for drama.

Now, a single rule does not a hard magic system make, but as more and more rules are added, the system becomes constrained.
The answer to the question of 'why can't the mage solve this problem, they have magic' increasingly has a ready answer in the form of 'magic doesn't work like that because of rule X'.
Eventually, what can be done with magic is quite rigidly defined and predictable. Even if more magic is introduced at a later date, the existing rules mean that its possible to deduce what its limits will be.

By contrast, D&D magic has rules governing individual effects, but no overarching rules governing magic as a whole.
Just because there isn't an effect to achieve Y now, doesn't mean there won't be one when the next book or piece of homebrew gets added to the game.

[Jak]

I would allow the hypothetical fighter to fly for up to 10 minutes...
provided he learned the fly spell at level 14, and was holding a wing feather from any bird (even if it's a penguin), and he maintained concentration on flying.

Seems like a fair tradeoff to me.

[KorvinStarmast]

Dragons exist "because magic." D&D is a magical game that takes place in magical worlds where anything can be explained by the fact that everything is magic.
But Humans are... just human. As human as a real-world human. To address my example-question, Humans can't fly because humans can't fly. We don't have magic, or wings, or mental powers, or some kind of mutation that allows it.
Humans can't fly. So in-game humans can't fly. And that is adhered to. Is there a balance issue with letting a human character fly? Well other playable races can fly, so probably not. But still... humans = no flying.

But that sort of logic is totally thrown out the window the moment we address anything that doesn't have a real-life counterpart. Dragons can exist and breathe fire, Monks can deflect giant-thrown boulders, and any one of a million other examples, because D&D isn't a reality simulator, it doesn't concern itself with real-life things, it's fantasy, it's magic, and therefore it's possible.
Well... except when it's not. Because, as above, a human is still expected to be just a human. The very idea of letting that human fly for no reason is met with resistance... why? Because humans can't fly IRL.
But IRL doesn't apply to D&D I thought... yet it does.

That's the line I'm wondering about. Where is it drawn, and what justifies drawing it there?

Hopefully this makes my query more clear. Sorry I wasn't clear enough in OP. ;( On this matter you are simply wrong.

But that sort of logic is totally thrown out the window the moment we address anything that doesn't have a real-life counterpart. If you were right, neither Science Fiction nor Fairy Tales would work, and yet they do. The fantastical and the mundane do work together, but it takes effort to do so. Your argument assumes a lack of mental energy on the part of players and DMs, even though they are all playing a game that requires use of the imagination, which is (at least in part) a mental process.

Secondly, it not a matter of "On/Off" switch. It's like a dimmer, or a rheostat, used to turn up or turn down the amount of non reality elements.

I'll suggest that you consider what SF, fantasy and Speculative Fiction authors wrestle with all the time. How much of the story is set in the primary world such that you or I or anyone who lives can identify with its elements, and how much of it harnesses the secondary world, which is that land of make believe and stuff that doesn't exist in our world.
For example: in The Expanse, the Epstien Drive.
For example: in Robin Hobb's Farseer/Assassin trilogy, both the Skill and the Wit.
For Example: in Star Trek, Warp Drive.

JRR Tolkien addresses this nicely in his essay/presentation On Fairy Stories when he talks about the balance and how much of the Secondary world one puts into the story. He's not the only author to discuss this, however, his essay fits our (D&D) fantasy genre very well. I highly recommend it.

(It has a few other things in it about authors and artists being sub creators that may or may not resonate, but any DM fulfills that role).

[Willie the Duck]

I would allow the hypothetical fighter to fly for up to 10 minutes...
provided he learned the fly spell at level 14, and was holding a wing feather from any bird (even if it's a penguin), and he maintained concentration on flying.

Seems like a fair tradeoff to me.

<checks when Eldritch Knights get non-adjuration/evocation spells> Clever, very clever.

[KorvinStarmast]

<checks when Eldritch Knights get non-adjuration/evocation spells> Clever, very clever.
The post you responded to made me think of The Penguin Feather, which used to be a record store / head shop in the Washington DC area around the time I was first playing D&D.

And you beat me to the EK check. :smallyuk: *golf clap*

:smallfrown: K just reviewed the Rune Knight runes, and I don't see any of the storm or cloud giant runes enabling flight at the higher levels. There's an option that might have been nice for a 11th or 14th level Rune feature: flight, or flight for X amount of time.

[The_Jette]

Title is a very common answer whenever a topic of, "how" comes up in regards to game mechanics.
Whether it's in the form of, "it's magic so it can happen," as an explanation for a thing itself, or, "magic exists, so why couldn't/shouldn't this also happen?" as an explanation for a quasi-magical thing that isn't directly a spell effect or something like.

That tends to pass the smell test often, as it probably should.
But when does it fail?
D&D worlds are worlds where magic exists and extraordinary feats are possible in a way they certainly aren't in reality - but they're not worlds where just anything is possible.
For instance, people tend to still age. Gravity remains a force to contend with. E tends to keep equaling MC2.

"Why can character/monster/etc do X?"
"Well, Wizards can do A, B, and C, Y monster exists, etc, so why not? Justified."

Okay. But...

"My human fighter can fly. No wings, no spells, just a human, but I want them to fly at will. Because magical world is magical so it's fine, right?"
"No, humans don't get Fly so your human fighter can't fly. Maybe you'll find some way to fly later in the game."

Well, why did this line get drawn? How is that line between the two justified?
(Or would you, as a DM, just say, "okay, deal - human fighter can fly at will?")

If the DM wants Fighters ( or anyone really) to have the ability to fly at will, all they have to say is that the fighter's trained their internal ki/will/spirit to the point that they can use it to effect their external body as well as their internal spirit, and fly that way, similar to how fighters learn to fly in Dragonball Z. Is it Rules as Written? Nope. But, you're the DM. In a world with magic, literally anything can happen. After all, we're just assuming that E keeps equaling MC2. That may not actually be true.

Heck, you could even create a Fighter Sub-Class that focuses on learning how to perfect the art of making oneself light as a feather so that they eventually fly at will. It's your game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

After all, we're just assuming that E keeps equaling MC2. That may not actually be true.


May not? How about is not. The laws of reality in a D&D world must be strongly alien to our own, even if the surface outcomes are similar. Because all magic violates conservation of energy. Yes, the existence of people who can cast a flying spell proves that something screwy is going on in that world's natural laws. In a world where background magic is in and through everything, magic is part of the natural laws by definition. Not an exception to it.

[The_Jette]

May not? How about is not. The laws of reality in a D&D world must be strongly alien to our own, even if the surface outcomes are similar. Because all magic violates conservation of energy. Yes, the existence of people who can cast a flying spell proves that something screwy is going on in that world's natural laws. In a world where background magic is in and through everything, magic is part of the natural laws by definition. Not an exception to it.

The laws of reality "must be" strongly alien to our own? That's one way to interpret it, but not the only way. In a world where magic is a part of the world, it could be used to redirect or even contradict the laws of reality instead of working in tandem. It could be the underlying pillars upon which all of reality rests and would fall apart without. It could also be entirely separate, in a sense overlapping reality without being bound by it. There are many things it could be. To say that is is or is not something is extremely presumptuous.

[Jak]

May not? How about is not. The laws of reality in a D&D world must be strongly alien to our own, even if the surface outcomes are similar. Because all magic violates conservation of energy. Yes, the existence of people who can cast a flying spell proves that something screwy is going on in that world's natural laws. In a world where background magic is in and through everything, magic is part of the natural laws by definition. Not an exception to it.

I always figured thing work similar to our universe, only in DND, the physics engine has a more forgiving loan system if you are a caster. (Also, very contrived ways of "charging it to your account," I suppose.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I always figured thing work similar to our universe, only in DND, the physics engine has a more forgiving loan system if you are a caster. (Also, very contrived ways of "charging it to your account," I suppose.)


The laws of reality "must be" strongly alien to our own? That's one way to interpret it, but not the only way. In a world where magic is a part of the world, it could be used to redirect or even contradict the laws of reality instead of working in tandem. It could be the underlying pillars upon which all of reality rests and would fall apart without. It could also be entirely separate, in a sense overlapping reality without being bound by it. There are many things it could be. To say that is is or is not something is extremely presumptuous.

If you do that, then you don't have natural laws. You have a chaotic mess that cannot be reasoned about because it has no internal consistency. There is no such thing as "contradicting the laws of reality". That rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to have a natural law. Natural laws are not the laws of man, which can be violated. If you can violate a natural law, you didn't have that law at all, you had some other law that allowed the action. And our natural laws do not allow any kind of meaningful magic in the D&D sense.

Seriously--any kind of significant magic is utterly incompatible with anything like our natural laws. The conservation laws are violated six ways from Sunday by the simplest cantrip. And no, throwing in "it comes from other planes" doesn't help in the slightest. The existence of dragons (heck, and giants) proves that the square cube law does not hold. The fact that you have elemental cold (instead of cold just being the relative absence of thermal energy) proves that the underlying fundamentals are very very different.

You can get similar surface results, but the system internals must be utterly unlike our own. Or completely incoherent. At which point anything goes, because there are no natural laws.

[Unoriginal]

The laws of reality "must be" strongly alien to our own? That's one way to interpret it, but not the only way.

It is the only way, unless you reject most of the lore.

Real life space isn't a Phlogiston with Crystal Spheres encircling solar systems, to name one thing.


I always figured thing work similar to our universe, only in DND, the physics engine has a more forgiving loan system if you are a caster. (Also, very contrived ways of "charging it to your account," I suppose.)

To name another thing, real life matter doesn't come from four elemental Inner Planes, so no, it does not work similarly to our universe.

Also, why "if you are a caster"? Casters are far from the only ones who do things impossible for real life's rules.

[Segev]

My usual suggestion/response to desires for flying fighters is that the iconic way to do that is to ride a pegasus, gryphon, or other flying mount. This has a number of mechanical problems in D&D, however, sadly.

[The_Jette]

If you do that, then you don't have natural laws. You have a chaotic mess that cannot be reasoned about because it has no internal consistency. There is no such thing as "contradicting the laws of reality". That rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to have a natural law. Natural laws are not the laws of man, which can be violated. If you can violate a natural law, you didn't have that law at all, you had some other law that allowed the action. And our natural laws do not allow any kind of meaningful magic in the D&D sense.

Seriously--any kind of significant magic is utterly incompatible with anything like our natural laws. The conservation laws are violated six ways from Sunday by the simplest cantrip. And no, throwing in "it comes from other planes" doesn't help in the slightest. The existence of dragons (heck, and giants) proves that the square cube law does not hold. The fact that you have elemental cold (instead of cold just being the relative absence of thermal energy) proves that the underlying fundamentals are very very different.

You can get similar surface results, but the system internals must be utterly unlike our own. Or completely incoherent. At which point anything goes, because there are no natural laws.

You seem to do this a lot. You make an argument against something that a person didn't say, then you seem to be proud of your victory against their non-argument. So, here's the thing: you're assuming that magic is natural, and a part of nature. From that view point, you're absolutely right. Magic would have to be internally consistent, and effect the world exactly the same way, without violating any internal natural laws. However, I'm not assuming that it is or isn't. Therefore, I can sit back and say that magic both can be a part of natural laws, and can violate natural laws, depending on the setting. And, I'd be right. Because magic isn't real, so in our games it can be whatever we want it to be. And, the world can be entirely identical to our world with the exception that magic exists and can violate natural laws. And, you can jump up and down steaming from the ears, but it isn't going to make you any more right or wrong.

[The_Jette]

It is the only way, unless you reject most of the lore.

Real life space isn't a Phlogiston with Crystal Spheres encircling solar systems, to name one thing.



Which lore are we talking about? Because according to Spelljammer, the different planes do float in the Phlo. According to the Forgotten Realms, there are different planes overlapping the prime material plane, which is the inner plane, and you can go into the outer planes by plane shifting, but it's all connected to each other. Oh, and no other universes exist. According to Krynn, the only other realm is the realm of the gods, and nothing else exists. According to my friend's homebrew world, there's no hell, and devils exist because people will them into being. There's a lot of different lores that need to be taken into account.

[Unoriginal]

Which lore are we talking about? Because according to Spelljammer, the different planes do float in the Phlo. According to the Forgotten Realms, there are different planes overlapping the prime material plane, which is the inner plane, and you can go into the outer planes by plane shifting, but it's all connected to each other. Oh, and no other universes exist. According to Krynn, the only other realm is the realm of the gods, and nothing else exists. According to my friend's homebrew world, there's no hell, and devils exist because people will them into being. There's a lot of different lores that need to be taken into account.

I am talking about the 5e lore. Where all the setting worlds are in their own Crystal Sphere inside the Phlogiston, and where other planes of existence exist.

That is the lore that needs to be taken into account in a discussion about 5e on a forum about 5e, unless it is mentioned otherwise.

Sure, in your friend's homebrew world, there may be other ways magic works. And that's absolutely fine, as your friend's homebrew world only has to fit your friend's tastes. But that is not the default, aka the 5e lore, which is what is assumed people talk about unless they mention otherwise.

[Segev]

You seem to do this a lot. You make an argument against something that a person didn't say, then you seem to be proud of your victory against their non-argument. So, here's the thing: you're assuming that magic is natural, and a part of nature. From that view point, you're absolutely right. Magic would have to be internally consistent, and effect the world exactly the same way, without violating any internal natural laws. However, I'm not assuming that it is or isn't. Therefore, I can sit back and say that magic both can be a part of natural laws, and can violate natural laws, depending on the setting. And, I'd be right. Because magic isn't real, so in our games it can be whatever we want it to be. And, the world can be entirely identical to our world with the exception that magic exists and can violate natural laws. And, you can jump up and down steaming from the ears, but it isn't going to make you any more right or wrong.

Philosophically speaking, if it's in the universe of the game, it's part of the game's natural laws. One could just as well define anything relying on chemistry rather than mechanical newtonian physics to be "outside the natural laws."

Magic is internally consistent when you consider all aspects of it, anyway. Those aspects include the fact that the entirety of the laws of that world rely on the will and imagination of the DM, of course, but....

[PhoenixPhyre]

You seem to do this a lot. You make an argument against something that a person didn't say, then you seem to be proud of your victory against their non-argument. So, here's the thing: you're assuming that magic is natural, and a part of nature. From that view point, you're absolutely right. Magic would have to be internally consistent, and effect the world exactly the same way, without violating any internal natural laws. However, I'm not assuming that it is or isn't. Therefore, I can sit back and say that magic both can be a part of natural laws, and can violate natural laws, depending on the setting. And, I'd be right. Because magic isn't real, so in our games it can be whatever we want it to be. And, the world can be entirely identical to our world with the exception that magic exists and can violate natural laws. And, you can jump up and down steaming from the ears, but it isn't going to make you any more right or wrong.

No. You can't. Because real life physical laws are real. And they have properties and assumptions that utterly exclude anything like D&D magic.

Real life physical laws are internally-consistent. And by construction, real life physical laws cover everything that interacts with the physical world. Note: this is a fundamental property of those physical laws. You can't have both
1) real life physical laws
2) something that interacts with physical reality that isn't part of those physical laws.
Because in doing so, you've violated premise #1. Make magic whatever you want, but if you make it interact with real life physical laws, the only consistent value (consistent with real world physics) is Magic == null. And if you decide you want an inconsistent value, then you don't have real world physical laws.

Beyond that--we're on the 5e D&D forums. And the default for 5e D&D is that magic is absolutely part of the natural world.



The worlds within the D&D multiverse are magical places. All existence is suffused with magical power, and potential energy lies untapped in every rock, stream, and living creature, and even in the air itself. Raw magic is the stuff of creation, the mute and mindless will of existence, permeating every bit of matter and present in every manifestation of energy throughout the multiverse.


D&D magic is fundamentally a part of natural reality. And we're discussing D&D, so going outside of that is entirely not on the table as an option.

[The_Jette]

{scrubbed}

[PhoenixPhyre]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

No, I'm saying that your logic is invalid. You can run it however you want, but you can't say A = A and A =/= A at the same time and claim to be using real-world logic.

A world in which there is magic that contradicts real world physical laws cannot also be a world where real-world physical laws are in play. Those two are intrinsically incompatible. At the logic level. And more fundamentally, at the "basic meaning of words, which has to be shared if we want to communicate" level.

[Willowhelm]

And more fundamentally, at the "basic meaning of words, which has to be shared if we want to communicate" level.

I missed the scrubbed post but I think this is the fundamental issue.

[The_Jette]

No, I'm saying that your logic is invalid. You can run it however you want, but you can't say A = A and A =/= A at the same time and claim to be using real-world logic.

A world in which there is magic that contradicts real world physical laws cannot also be a world where real-world physical laws are in play. Those two are intrinsically incompatible. At the logic level. And more fundamentally, at the "basic meaning of words, which has to be shared if we want to communicate" level.

There is only one immutable law in D&D and that is what the DM says goes. If the DM say that magic can break natural laws because it's outside the laws of the natural world, then that's what happens. You saying that they can't do that is ridiculous. You saying that the rules of someone else's game cannot exist is also ridiculous. You cannot dictate how someone else runs their game, or the laws of that games world. And, no matter how much you scream about it, that isn't going to change. If magic isn't natural, then real-world physics can still exist and be in play. You saying otherwise doesn't change that.

[sithlordnergal]

May not? How about is not. The laws of reality in a D&D world must be strongly alien to our own, even if the surface outcomes are similar. Because all magic violates conservation of energy. Yes, the existence of people who can cast a flying spell proves that something screwy is going on in that world's natural laws. In a world where background magic is in and through everything, magic is part of the natural laws by definition. Not an exception to it.

Thinking about it, you're actually correct. Even the basic premise that velocity equates to kinetic energy break down in the rules. For example, take the Peasant Railgun. If you look at RAW, and only RAW, it half works. Technically, you could line up a ton of peasants, have them ready their action to hand off a stick, and technically, by the rules, they could move that stick all the way down the line in less than 6 seconds. Doesn't matter how long the line is, nothing in the rules state it doesn't work. Now obviously this isn't RAI and it breaks verisimilitude, but the rules of 5e DnD technically allow it.

However, at the same time, if you're just following that reading of RAW, when the final peasant throws the stick it will do 1d4+Str Mod, no more no less. Because despite all of that velocity, it has no effect on the final damage according to RAW. According to the rules of 5e, velocity does not equal kinetic energy. Its why a Fighter/Barbarian/Monk can go from 0 to 215 MPH in 6 seconds without any drawbacks, and them running into someone at that speed has no consequences.

If you were to apply RAW rules to the physics of a DnD world, then their physics are 100% alien and bonkers to the real world.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There is only one immutable law in D&D and that is what the DM says goes. If the DM say that magic can break natural laws because it's outside the laws of the natural world, then that's what happens. You saying that they can't do that is ridiculous. You saying that the rules of someone else's game cannot exist is also ridiculous. You cannot dictate how someone else runs their game, or the laws of that games world. And, no matter how much you scream about it, that isn't going to change. If magic isn't natural, then real-world physics can still exist and be in play. You saying otherwise doesn't change that.


How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn't make it a leg.

That bold statement is meaningless using anything like the regular definitions of words. Words have meanings. And "real-world physics" has meaning. And that meaning excludes magic by its very nature. Sure, you can pull a Humpty Dumpty (words mean what I want them to mean) but it doesn't actually help you communicate. And that's what words are for.

[The_Jette]

That bold statement is meaningless using anything like the regular definitions of words. Words have meanings. And "real-world physics" has meaning. And that meaning excludes magic by its very nature. Sure, you can pull a Humpty Dumpty (words mean what I want them to mean) but it doesn't actually help you communicate. And that's what words are for.

You need context for everything. If you can't change your understanding of what something is based on the context in which it is found, then you can't play the game. If I asked you what an elf is, and you described them as immortal warriors far stronger, faster, and powerful than a human ever could be on their own, and powerful in magic, then I'd think you were crazy. Of course, if you then said that these were the elves from the Inheritance series, that would make more sense. Just because in one context a word means one thing, doesn't mean that it won't change to the exact opposite in another context. And, that you can't deny.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You need context for everything. If you can't change your understanding of what something is based on the context in which it is found, then you can't play the game. If I asked you what an elf is, and you described them as immortal warriors far stronger, faster, and powerful than a human ever could be on their own, and powerful in magic, then I'd think you were crazy. Of course, if you then said that these were the elves from the Inheritance series, that would make more sense. Just because in one context a word means one thing, doesn't mean that it won't change to the exact opposite in another context. And, that you can't deny.

But "real-world physics" has a meaning in this context. The physics of the real world. Where it means things. Things that are completely incompatible with magic. Sure, you can use "real-world physics" to mean "the physics of this fantasy world that allow for magic", but that's not the same as what everyone else means by that. You're playing Humpty Dumpty games. Which is your right, but not exactly good for communication.

What I'm saying is that if you claim that "real world physics" is in play, but your "real-world physics" allows magic, then "real-world physics according to The_Jette" =/= "real-world physics as defined by anyone else". Which is an argument by definition, and a failure to communicate.

[The_Jette]

But "real-world physics" has a meaning in this context. The physics of the real world. Where it means things. Things that are completely incompatible with magic. Sure, you can use "real-world physics" to mean "the physics of this fantasy world that allow for magic", but that's not the same as what everyone else means by that. You're playing Humpty Dumpty games. Which is your right, but not exactly good for communication.

What I'm saying is that if you claim that "real world physics" is in play, but your "real-world physics" allows magic, then "real-world physics according to The_Jette" =/= "real-world physics as defined by anyone else". Which is an argument by definition, and a failure to communicate.

Here's the thing, it is real world physics, and magic can break it. "Because magic"

[Salmon343]

Vaguely following this argument on whether physics and magic can coexist...and I'm firmly on the side of yes.

What you do, is define the natural laws as operating in their system in the absence of magic. Magic therefore, is defined by the fact that it does not adhere to these rules. Thus you have a greater system of interactions - a subsystem of natural laws, and magic which can violate them. Maybe in specific ways, maybe because a wizard thought really hard about it.

Our understanding of the physical world is evolving all the time. Even conservation of energy has some caveats - go ask stars how they can fuse particles so easily. Magic can be handwaved as sidestepping the ordinary rules of physics, or they could be an expression of deeper natural phenomena that allow our much shallower laws to be broken. All it means is that the natural laws, as ported from our world, aren't the full story in a world of magic.

[Mechalich]

What you do, is define the natural laws as operating in their system in the absence of magic. Magic therefore, is defined by the fact that it does not adhere to these rules. Thus you have a greater system of interactions - a subsystem of natural laws, and magic which can violate them. Maybe in specific ways, maybe because a wizard thought really hard about it.


A fantasy world is a simulation. Like most simulations we have actually created it has multiple command levels. The base level is the one generated by the primary engine of the simulation and it usually produces outcomes that are mostly identical with real world physics at human observation scales (which are generally the only ones that matter, it is the very rare game where something operates with the speeds or precision necessary to consider the in-universe equivalent of relativity). The 'magic' level is a level above that consisting of effect-based exemptions built into the engine that certain in-universe are capable of accessing via specific actions or commands. This is in many ways analogous to the use of console/admin commands by people in the in-universe instance. In some cases, such as isekai 'the world is a game' universes this is literally true. Above this level there is often a still further 'deity level' that has the ability to edit the code of the simulation directly, though this is not always true. Many fantasy worlds as 'locked instances' wherein the god(s) are not allowed to actively produce code edits while the simulation is active. OOTS explicitly operates this way as part of a divine agreement and the gods must content their in-universe actions to functionally infinite amounts of the same magic the mortals have.

Now, the key bit to 'because magic' is that 'magic' usually encompasses both admin-command style magic effects and some variations in the base engine from real-world physics to allow things that would otherwise be impossible to exist. Tweaking the properties of flight to allow absurdly heavy animals like dragons to fly being a very common case. As far as it goes, there's really no limit on what kind or how many tweaks of this nature can be made, especially if the world to result is not intended to be self-sustaining as a model and reality only exists within the 'draw-distance' of PC action. However, if the game is intended to model a world with functional verisimilitude - and this is a requirement for certain kinds of stories - then there are soft limits on how much tweaking is possible before coherency falls apart, and those limits are actually well-below what is allowed in even core D&D.

[Willowhelm]

There’s still plenty of talking past each other here.

There is some fundamental truth about how reality works. (A)

There is what we understand about that fundamental truth. (B)

(A) includes “magic”. Just because (B) doesn’t understand or describe it, it doesn’t mean that magic violates (A). All it does is say that (B) wasn’t accurate so you update (B).

(B) is never, and was never, an accurate representation of reality. (A) does not equal (B).

If you use “natural law” or “reality” or “the laws of physics” to describe (B) you’re never going to agree with someone who uses it to describe (A).

What we understand of our real world universe (B) is fundamentally incompatible with what the rules and lore tell us about (B) in dnd. It is possible that there is some version of (A) where there actually is a multiverse-type situation where the fundamental constants of the universe are totally different and there is a way to move from this universe to that one and we just don’t know. If that is the case though… (A) is and always has been true. We just didn’t know enough. Nothing breaks (A). It can’t.

At least that’s my understanding of the arguments being made.

[Anymage]

Our understanding of the physical world is evolving all the time. Even conservation of energy has some caveats - go ask stars how they can fuse particles so easily. Magic can be handwaved as sidestepping the ordinary rules of physics, or they could be an expression of deeper natural phenomena that allow our much shallower laws to be broken. All it means is that the natural laws, as ported from our world, aren't the full story in a world of magic.

Fusion inside stars is entirely consistent with conservation of energy. The binding energy within atoms is not something we're used to in our day to day lives, but it's entirely consistent with physics. If it weren't consistent with physics then we'd realize a contradiction between our known laws and what we know, and seek to update our equations to better match our observations.

Let's step back, though. We already know that a lot of things in D&D would fall apart by real world physics, but don't have a wizard standing around casting a spell on them. The classic example being all the giant critters that would fall afoul of the square-cube law and not be able to hold up their own weight. Or how injury and healing in D&D look nothing like how they work in reality. This means that either D&D worlds have fundamentally different laws of physics with magic baked in, or run on physical laws analogous to our real world ones with magic making spot exceptions all over the place. Since the latter with so many exceptions being made is essentially the same as the former, I'm okay with saying that D&D worlds run off of fundamentally different and magic based physics entirely.

[Salmon343]

A fantasy world is a simulation. Like most simulations we have actually created it has multiple command levels. The base level is the one generated by the primary engine of the simulation and it usually produces outcomes that are mostly identical with real world physics at human observation scales (which are generally the only ones that matter, it is the very rare game where something operates with the speeds or precision necessary to consider the in-universe equivalent of relativity). The 'magic' level is a level above that consisting of effect-based exemptions built into the engine that certain in-universe are capable of accessing via specific actions or commands. This is in many ways analogous to the use of console/admin commands by people in the in-universe instance. In some cases, such as isekai 'the world is a game' universes this is literally true. Above this level there is often a still further 'deity level' that has the ability to edit the code of the simulation directly, though this is not always true. Many fantasy worlds as 'locked instances' wherein the god(s) are not allowed to actively produce code edits while the simulation is active. OOTS explicitly operates this way as part of a divine agreement and the gods must content their in-universe actions to functionally infinite amounts of the same magic the mortals have.

Now, the key bit to 'because magic' is that 'magic' usually encompasses both admin-command style magic effects and some variations in the base engine from real-world physics to allow things that would otherwise be impossible to exist. Tweaking the properties of flight to allow absurdly heavy animals like dragons to fly being a very common case. As far as it goes, there's really no limit on what kind or how many tweaks of this nature can be made, especially if the world to result is not intended to be self-sustaining as a model and reality only exists within the 'draw-distance' of PC action. However, if the game is intended to model a world with functional verisimilitude - and this is a requirement for certain kinds of stories - then there are soft limits on how much tweaking is possible before coherency falls apart, and those limits are actually well-below what is allowed in even core D&D.

That's one way of doing it!

In this case, wizards study the exemptions and learn how to make use of them, or even use them to find new exemptions...

Bards have cottoned onto the fact that the lead programmer did a joint Music & Computer Science Masters, and wrote the exemptions to musical logic...

Druids take advantage of the fact that life always finds a way - and leverage the knowledge that the natural world has gleamed into these exemptions from evolution...

...etcetera. There's a lot you can do with that idea! I quite like it, it clearly demonstrates the difference between physics and magic too. Magic doesn't have to make sense, as it's defined by being an out from the regularly scheduled programming. Of course you can give it strict rules, in which case it just becomes another branch of science...functionally speaking. As long as magic is repeatable, it doesn't matter if every spell is adhoc, it can be lumped in with science. But when you have one group which constantly violates the rules of the other - which acts fairly consistently - then its natural to create that split.


Fusion inside stars is entirely consistent with conservation of energy. The binding energy within atoms is not something we're used to in our day to day lives, but it's entirely consistent with physics. If it weren't consistent with physics then we'd realize a contradiction between our known laws and what we know, and seek to update our equations to better match our observations.


Yep - I was referring more to quantum tunnelling in stars allowing them to fuse at much lower temperatures than you'd expect, tunnelling through the potential barrier. The process as a whole does not violate energy conservation, but it does sidestep the minimum energy needed.

From my understanding that's one of the issues with us trying to gain power from fusion here, we don't have the kinds of masses necessary for quantum tunnelling to have a large enough effect.

[Composer99]

Magic is a glitch in the Matrix?

I dig it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fusion inside stars is entirely consistent with conservation of energy. The binding energy within atoms is not something we're used to in our day to day lives, but it's entirely consistent with physics. If it weren't consistent with physics then we'd realize a contradiction between our known laws and what we know, and seek to update our equations to better match our observations.

Let's step back, though. We already know that a lot of things in D&D would fall apart by real world physics, but don't have a wizard standing around casting a spell on them. The classic example being all the giant critters that would fall afoul of the square-cube law and not be able to hold up their own weight. Or how injury and healing in D&D look nothing like how they work in reality. This means that either D&D worlds have fundamentally different laws of physics with magic baked in, or run on physical laws analogous to our real world ones with magic making spot exceptions all over the place. Since the latter with so many exceptions being made is essentially the same as the former, I'm okay with saying that D&D worlds run off of fundamentally different and magic based physics entirely.

This. Spells are not the only magic. There are tons of things in a D&D world that completely defy anything like real-world physics by their very nature, yet have nothing to do with people casting spells. Spells are the smallest, most insignificant forms of fantastical[1] things in those worlds.

The entire cosmology wouldn't work with modern physics at all, despite being entirely "natural". Why do I say that? You have multiple, infinite planes, coexisting and interacting with the material plane. If that were the case under normal General Relativity, every point in space would effectively feel the energy-density of all of the infinity of the other planes. Which means that the entire universe would collapse into a Big Crunch (because the total energy-density of the universe would then be infinite at every point). And even if that didn't happen, orbits wouldn't close because gravity would "leak" across the other planes, meaning it would no longer act (at normal scales) in a Newtonian 1/r^2 fashion. And closed orbits can't happen in anything but a 1/r^2 gravitational field.

And the list goes on. Sentient creatures made of fire, fire that needs no fuel? Teleportation and faster-than-light communications? Causality violations. Basically, D&D worlds and real-world physics cannot coexist. Everything that makes it a D&D world, including all of the perfectly natural, non-spell, non "magic" things violates the laws of reality as we know them at a fundamental level. Which leaves two options.
1. The laws of D&D world are entirely incoherent and no reasoning about them or from them is possible.
2. The laws of D&D world are coherent and internally consistent, but do not resemble the real-world ones at the fundamental level.

Can you construct some complex model to try to salvage something like the real world? Sure. But it will always be ad-hoc, full of holes, and basically epicycles on epicycles. It's much cleaner and (I strongly believe) more interesting to take the non-real-world nature of a D&D world seriously and start to figure out what that implies. I've found that as I've done this, my worldbuilding has become much more real. Much more alive, much more cohesive and internally consistent. Because instead of just saying "well, magic can do whatever it wants, no explanations" (which is what the magic-as-exception system inevitably causes), you can start to explain why things work. I've got a working, extremely productive model of the underlying nature of physics, magic, and all those poorly-explained class abilities such as Evasion, Rage, Wildshape, etc[2]. And so far it's explained everything I've thrown at it and led to new avenues. Which makes it a very productive theory indeed. "Magic is just an exception" can't do that. Because it's entirely ad hoc.

[1] Those things that cannot exist in the real world as we know it.
[2] but these margins are much too small to contain it

[Schwann145]

I really need someone to explain why giants can't exist because of the square-cube law, but adults can exist without collapsing in on themselves despite the fact that toddlers also exist at significantly smaller sizes... :P

[OvisCaedo]

I really need someone to explain why giants can't exist because of the square-cube law, but adults can exist without collapsing in on themselves despite the fact that toddlers also exist at significantly smaller sizes... :P

...Because there's an upper limit on what the structure and makeup of the human body can support when scaled up? The square-cube law doesn't mean something's structural integrity will instantly fail as soon as you scale it up at all, it means there's eventually going to be an upper limit.

Would giants violate that upper limit in the real world? I have no idea! I'm not really a biologist or anything. I've seen tons of statements over the years about how giant insects wouldn't actually function, but I have to admit it's something I've never looked for hard information about. I have also heard that people with real world gigantism (which obviously doesn't even come close to fantasy giants) tend to have a lot of health issues from their body size

though 'things i've heard' is not much of a credible source

[Unoriginal]

I really need someone to explain why giants can't exist because of the square-cube law, but adults can exist without collapsing in on themselves despite the fact that toddlers also exist at significantly smaller sizes... :P

You do know that Giants are significantly taller than human adults, yes?

The square-cube laws is that when you double the size of a solid, the surface is multiplied by the square of 2, while the volume is multiplied by the cube of 2. If you triple the size of a solid, the surface is multiplied by the square of 3, the volume by the cube of 3. Etc.

Strength increases proportionally to surface, weight increases proportionally to volume.

In other word, if you increase in size, you become heavier at a rate far superior to how stronger you become. If you decrease in size, you become lighter at a rate far superior to how weaker you become.

Human children benefit from the square-cube law, as it means they are proportionally stronger than adults (muscle training aside).

A D&D Cloud Giant is about 24ft tall, four time as tall as a far-from-short human (6ft tall).

That means that their surface, to which their strength would be proportional to if they obeyed real-life physical laws, would be 16 times that of an human. Meanwhile, their volume, to which their volume would be proportional to if they obeyed RL physical laws, would be 64 times that of an human.

Volume is mass divided by density. Since the density of a body wouldn't change with the size increase, that means that the Giant's weight is multiplied by 64 at the same time as their volume.

In other word, a Cloud Giant under real life laws of physics weight 64 times the weight of a human, without being 64 times stronger. Even if we assumed the surface-strength relationship was a 1:1 ratio (which it isn't), the Giant would only be 16 times as strong as a human.

Ergo, the strength gained by the increase in surface is insufficient to support the increase in weight.

[Segev]

To put what's being said another way: the physics - or "natural laws" - of the setting in which the game takes place must include all magic that operates in that setting. By definition.

To illustrate it: if there existed a world where magnetism didn't work on a macro-scale the way it does in the real world, and therefore neither did electricity, a person looking at a story about our world would see the ability of some metals to attract or repel others from a distance, and the marvels of electronic devices, as "magical." (In truth, a lot of people IRL see them that way, consciously or unconsciously, and it tends to allow for fictions where "technology" is defined as something that can be "shut down" by a fictional event, much the way "magic" can be shut down by "antimagic" in D&D.)

But, to us, electricity, magnetism, etc. are a little bit unusual compared to the more obvious mechanical properties of the universe, but they're observable, quantifiable, and, as we dig deeper, apparently inextricably linked to the underpinnings of other macro-scale events, even such things as my sunglasses resting on top of the table in front of me rather than falling through it.

To those living in a setting with "magic," that magic is going to be no more nor less a part of their natural laws than anything else that works in that world. We could, if our scientists had chose, have defined electricity as "magic" and electrical charge as "mana," and been speaking with absolute seriousness all our lives about how magic runs our computers and how batteries concentrate mana at one end so that it can flow to the mana-starved other end and create magical effects as it passes through the mana conduits made of copper or other metals we use to run electronic devices. We could, if we'd defined them this way, termed computer programs "spells" instead of "programs."

All of which is to say that while denizens of magical fantasy worlds will recognize magic as a thing, they'll do so in the same way we recognize electricity as a thing. And they'll do every bit as much experimentation as we tend to.

[Mechalich]

To put what's being said another way: the physics - or "natural laws" - of the setting in which the game takes place must include all magic that operates in that setting. By definition.

The thing is, in a fantasy context the 'natural laws' need not be, and often explicitly are not, spatiotemporally constant. That is to say the laws of physics can change in time and space. This is very much true in D&D, with not only the planes having explicitly different sets of operating rules, but the laws of physics of the Prime Material subject to periodic change due to the actions of gods and/or overgods.

As a result of this, talking about all-encompassing natural laws doesn't work in the same way as it does in D&D worlds as it does in the real world, because the laws in place are subject to change. In fact, one of the things magic does is change those laws within a limited area of effect. Therefore it is extremely useful to speak of the physics of such settings in a multi-level scheme, with a base level of what a given environment operates on without any magic added and then layering magical effects on top of that.


Would giants violate that upper limit in the real world? I have no idea! I'm not really a biologist or anything. I've seen tons of statements over the years about how giant insects wouldn't actually function, but I have to admit it's something I've never looked for hard information about. I have also heard that people with real world gigantism (which obviously doesn't even come close to fantasy giants) tend to have a lot of health issues from their body size

The fossil record suggests that the tallest mammals top out at around the 20 ft. mark, slightly above the tallest living giraffes, and mammals of such great height possess extensive adaptations in order to function in this way. Giraffes, for example, have extremely high blood pressure to aid in pumping their blood against such a significant gravitational gradient. Any sort of bipedal giant would likewise require extensive adaptations in order to function.

The largest known primate was Giantopithecus, which may have reached around 10 ft. height. That's almost certainly approaching physiological limits for the overall body plan. Fantasy settings do allow for certain tweaks to push biology past known limits because you can posit things like stronger bone proteins, more efficient blood oxygen carries, and other mechanisms to tease things a bit either way. A 12 ft giant? Maybe. A 20 ft giant? Nope.

[Salmon343]

This. Spells are not the only magic. There are tons of things in a D&D world that completely defy anything like real-world physics by their very nature, yet have nothing to do with people casting spells. Spells are the smallest, most insignificant forms of fantastical[1] things in those worlds.

The entire cosmology wouldn't work with modern physics at all, despite being entirely "natural". Why do I say that? You have multiple, infinite planes, coexisting and interacting with the material plane. If that were the case under normal General Relativity, every point in space would effectively feel the energy-density of all of the infinity of the other planes. Which means that the entire universe would collapse into a Big Crunch (because the total energy-density of the universe would then be infinite at every point). And even if that didn't happen, orbits wouldn't close because gravity would "leak" across the other planes, meaning it would no longer act (at normal scales) in a Newtonian 1/r^2 fashion. And closed orbits can't happen in anything but a 1/r^2 gravitational field.

And the list goes on. Sentient creatures made of fire, fire that needs no fuel? Teleportation and faster-than-light communications? Causality violations. Basically, D&D worlds and real-world physics cannot coexist. Everything that makes it a D&D world, including all of the perfectly natural, non-spell, non "magic" things violates the laws of reality as we know them at a fundamental level. Which leaves two options.
1. The laws of D&D world are entirely incoherent and no reasoning about them or from them is possible.
2. The laws of D&D world are coherent and internally consistent, but do not resemble the real-world ones at the fundamental level.

Can you construct some complex model to try to salvage something like the real world? Sure. But it will always be ad-hoc, full of holes, and basically epicycles on epicycles. It's much cleaner and (I strongly believe) more interesting to take the non-real-world nature of a D&D world seriously and start to figure out what that implies. I've found that as I've done this, my worldbuilding has become much more real. Much more alive, much more cohesive and internally consistent. Because instead of just saying "well, magic can do whatever it wants, no explanations" (which is what the magic-as-exception system inevitably causes), you can start to explain why things work. I've got a working, extremely productive model of the underlying nature of physics, magic, and all those poorly-explained class abilities such as Evasion, Rage, Wildshape, etc[2]. And so far it's explained everything I've thrown at it and led to new avenues. Which makes it a very productive theory indeed. "Magic is just an exception" can't do that. Because it's entirely ad hoc.

[1] Those things that cannot exist in the real world as we know it.
[2] but these margins are much too small to contain it

Out of those, the only one I'd say breaks things to the point of being irreparable is teleportation, regarding causality. At d&d scales at least, it can just be light speed movement which ignores physical barriers (or travel through another plane, which is its own kind of mess), as the distance scales are quite small. Patching up causality violations would look alien to our world, compared to patching up energy conservation violations. On the planes front, I don't see how that'd lead to everything collapsing. A d&d plane needn't act identically to dimensions in our own world, and unlike causality and teleportation, I can't see any world-shaking implications for it not doing so. The gravity argument is an assumption that you could just...choose to not make.

I will say that there's merit in trying to tightly explain the implications of magic existing, something I look at in non d&d works. It can lead to a rich, meaningful world. However, the looser approach can maintain the sense of mystery and wonder magic has - my argument is just that it's more compatible with natural laws than you think.

Essentially, magic breaking the rules would lead to a complex, messy description of reality. The problem is that you're treating it as just that - a messy description of reality, rather than looking at it from the opposite way. Instead of looking at what magic can break, look at what it can't. Long distance instantaneous teleportation would break causality in a way that would defy how we understand the world around us, so I'd happily say that magic can't do that. While sentient fire doesn't wildly break any of our perceptions, so is good to go. Time travel, again, would not work, or only work in specific and limited ways. You needn't be limited to our current perceptions - quantum mechanics is weird in all sorts of wonderful ways, for example - just look at the implications of a particular magic, and see how hard it breaks something. I've put a line underneath causality breaking, perhaps you place yours elsewhere - but the problem stems from trying to create a unified model, rather than treating magic as a reality break. Both approaches are valid.

[JackPhoenix]

Teleportation and faster-than-light communications? Causality violations

I've yet to see any evidence FTL communication exists in D&D. While such spells have "instantaneous" duration, no (published, nobody cares about homebrew) setting is big enough to conclusively prove that you can teleport or communicate over more than 6-light second distance within the 6-second period of a single round.

[Tanarii]

Out of those, the only one I'd say breaks things to the point of being irreparable is teleportation, regarding causality. At d&d scales at least, it can just be light speed movement which ignores physical barriers (or travel through another plane, which is its own kind of mess), as the distance scales are quite small. Patching up causality violations would look alien to our world, compared to patching up energy conservation violations. On the planes front, I don't see how that'd lead to everything collapsing. A d&d plane needn't act identically to dimensions in our own world, and unlike causality and teleportation, I can't see any world-shaking implications for it not doing so. The gravity argument is an assumption that you could just...choose to not make.This is one of those things where the more you've learned about branches of physics, the harder it becomes to suspend disbelief.

Conversely, for anyone that's not gone beyond high school or possibly even first or second year college physics, it's pretty easy to just imagine things as "real world, with magic layered on top". Which is why most games (and stories) do it.

Personally I've had 27 years of exposure to fantasy literature and gaming, and it's been 15 since I finished studying physics and haven't used it since. So while I totally understand PhoenixPhyre is definitely correct, I can still suspend my disbelief successfully. :smallsmile:

[Unoriginal]

I've yet to see any evidence FTL communication exists in D&D. While such spells have "instantaneous" duration, no (published, nobody cares about homebrew) setting is big enough to conclusively prove that you can teleport or communicate over more than 6-light second distance within the 6-second period of a single round.

Factually untrue. Teleportation explicitly can let you travel to another world of the Material Plane, provided you know the code of a Teleportation Circle on said world.

It is canonically possible to teleport from Aber-Torril to Oerth, and back.

[Salmon343]

This is one of those things where the more you've learned about branches of physics, the harder it becomes to suspend disbelief.

Conversely, for anyone that's not gone beyond high school or possibly even first or second year college physics, it's pretty easy to just imagine things as "real world, with magic layered on top". Which is why most games (and stories) do it.

Personally I've had 27 years of exposure to fantasy literature and gaming, and it's been 15 since I finished studying physics and haven't used it since. So while I totally understand PhoenixPhyre is definitely correct, I can still suspend my disbelief successfully. :smallsmile:

This is true. I've also studied physics at degree level, which is why I drew the line at teleportation actually being teleportation - it breaks things in special relativity, whereas when I was younger that wouldn't at all be a problem.

That's why I'm focusing on what magic can't do, however. The point at which you say, "no, breaking this would make the world unrecognisable". If you've got a convincing argument for why something is a break too far, sure - but so far the argument feels a lot more general than that. If you approach magic from the bottom up instead of the top down, its going to be a lot more limited - and I haven't seen any convincing argument for why the top down approach can't also work. They have different flavours, but both still taste good.

(Bottom up would be creating defined laws for magic and then seeing what wonders that creates; top down would be allowing magic to do anything, then defining the exceptions.)

[Sneak Dog]

It seems entirely reasonable to me to not think in terms of modern physics when playing the medievalish fantasy game. Old-timey science was delightfully ridiculous, yet a lot of the theories made a modicum of sense given the tools they had for observing the world. So everything consisting of the elements of fire/air/water/earth/aether in your setting is fine.

Basically, on a surface level for day-to-day activities the physics ought to work the same, with the exceptions called out. This so that players know that even if they walk up the stairs, gravity will keep their feet on the ground. They heat up wood with a glowing hot piece of iron, then the wood will burn contrary to the metal which will be melting. They perform magic, and the magic may make the iron burn instead. That's magic, it's called out to be an exception. They get into space, and they're not suffocating? Weird, but not something that would come up often and be general knowledge in the setting. A neat new discovery has been made! (Tell it to the gnome inventor who'll sigh and tell you that obviously you can breathe in space, why wouldn't you.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

It seems entirely reasonable to me to not think in terms of modern physics when playing the medievalish fantasy game. Old-timey science was delightfully ridiculous, yet a lot of the theories made a modicum of sense given the tools they had for observing the world. So everything consisting of the elements of fire/air/water/earth/aether in your setting is fine.

Basically, on a surface level for day-to-day activities the physics ought to work the same, with the exceptions called out. This so that players know that even if they walk up the stairs, gravity will keep their feet on the ground. They heat up wood with a glowing hot piece of iron, then the wood will burn contrary to the metal which will be melting. They perform magic, and the magic may make the iron burn instead. That's magic, it's called out to be an exception. They get into space, and they're not suffocating? Weird, but not something that would come up often and be general knowledge in the setting. A neat new discovery has been made! (Tell it to the gnome inventor who'll sigh and tell you that obviously you can breathe in space, why wouldn't you.)

This i can agree with. My basic rule of thumb is that if it could be observed with tools and concepts of a 12th century alchemist, it works about the same as on Earth. So every day life stuff, surface stuff, that's all similar. But for very different underlying reasons. Instead of chemical reactions and properties explaining why wood burns in a camp fire and iron does not, there are alchemical properties. In my setting, it has to do with the elemental aspects of the matter (all matter being composed of one base thing, with different and mutable aspects explaining the differences). And spells like fireball work by inducing changes in the aspects via resonant patterns.

[Sneak Dog]

This i can agree with. My basic rule of thumb is that if it could be observed with tools and concepts of a 12th century alchemist, it works about the same as on Earth. So every day life stuff, surface stuff, that's all similar. But for very different underlying reasons. Instead of chemical reactions and properties explaining why wood burns in a camp fire and iron does not, there are alchemical properties. In my setting, it has to do with the elemental aspects of the matter (all matter being composed of one base thing, with different and mutable aspects explaining the differences). And spells like fireball work by inducing changes in the aspects via resonant patterns.

As a rule of thumb, if one could play an basic campaign from level 1 to 10 and not learn one whit about the detailed physics, it's fine.

Who cares if teleport is FTL or has a half a second delay? Who cares what the physics of space are? Who cares why a fireball creates fire? Some people do. And it's neat to discover the why's. But as long as it's not a big deal, as long as you can just play your medievalish fantasy campaign without caring too, then the changed physics aren't disruptive and shouldn't break someone's immersion or ability to make choices as their character.

If you get into Spelljammer levels of adjusted physics, I'd really put it forth in session zero and see the players' responses.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As a rule of thumb, if one could play an basic campaign from level 1 to 10 and not learn one whit about the detailed physics, it's fine.

Who cares if teleport is FTL or has a half a second delay? Who cares what the physics of space are? Who cares why a fireball creates fire? Some people do. And it's neat to discover the why's. But as long as it's not a big deal, as long as you can just play your medievalish fantasy campaign without caring too, then the changed physics aren't disruptive and shouldn't break someone's immersion or ability to make choices as their character.

If you get into Spelljammer levels of adjusted physics, I'd really put it forth in session zero and see the players' responses.

It's less for the players than for myself as DM and world builder. The players, since they deal with the surface level that more or less looks the same, don't care. But it's way easier and more productive for me when deciding how the world is and behaves. I don't have to carry around a whole stack of exceptions like a crazy metaphysical Jenga tower, I can work from first principlea in most cases.

Plus, it lets me be much more free about letting people do cool things without needing to cast spells to do so. Because spells are just one, fairly minor form that the "magic" takes. Instead of "magic is spells and can do anything", spells and other forms of magic fit into a framework. And a monk or barbarian can be just as magical as a wizard, while not casting spells. Because spells are just one way magic works, without done privileged place in the greater world.

[Unoriginal]

As a rule of thumb, if one could play an basic campaign from level 1 to 10 and not learn one whit about the detailed physics, it's fine.

Who cares if teleport is FTL or has a half a second delay? Who cares what the physics of space are? Who cares why a fireball creates fire? Some people do. And it's neat to discover the why's. But as long as it's not a big deal, as long as you can just play your medievalish fantasy campaign without caring too, then the changed physics aren't disruptive and shouldn't break someone's immersion or ability to make choices as their character.

If you get into Spelljammer levels of adjusted physics, I'd really put it forth in session zero and see the players' responses.

The thing is, there are people on this forum and elsewhere who insist "real life physics do apply, therefore X", with X generally being 'non-spellcasters are beholden to real life standards'.

Which then gets coupled with "casters don't follow real life physics".

[PhoenixPhyre]

The thing is, there are people on this forum and elsewhere who insist "real life physics do apply, therefore X", with X generally being 'non-spellcasters are beholden to real life standards'.

Which then gets coupled with "casters don't follow real life physics".

And I'd bet is a large part of the reason the developers (and others) find it so much easier to make new spells that do fancy things than to give non-spell abilities that do cool things. Because spells == magic and magic can do anything/break the rules, while non-magic must follow a restrictive interpretation of real life at best.

[Anymage]

The thing is, there are people on this forum and elsewhere who insist "real life physics do apply, therefore X", with X generally being 'non-spellcasters are beholden to real life standards'.

Which then gets coupled with "casters don't follow real life physics".

That, or insist that after their spell makes a spot adjustment that then causes some impressive event. The anti-osmium bomb and similar "we'll magic up enough fissile material to go boom" being popular versions. Saying that the world runs off of action movie physics or some medieval model makes it a lot easier to shut down such shenanigans.

[Tanarii]

This i can agree with. My basic rule of thumb is that if it could be observed with tools and concepts of a 12th century alchemist, it works about the same as on Earth. So every day life stuff, surface stuff, that's all similar. But for very different underlying reasons. Instead of chemical reactions and properties explaining why wood burns in a camp fire and iron does not, there are alchemical properties.
Everyone knows that the weight of burned objects changed because the phlogiston escapes during combustion and is absorbed by the air. I mean, jeez. :smallamused:

[Segev]

Everyone knows that the weight of burned objects changed because the phlogiston escapes during combustion and is absorbed by the air. I mean, jeez. :smallamused:

And, being Air, it now is repelled by Earth, which is why freshly-released phlostigon trapped in a cloth or paper shell will lift the whole thing!

[JackPhoenix]

Factually untrue. Teleportation explicitly can let you travel to another world of the Material Plane, provided you know the code of a Teleportation Circle on said world.

It is canonically possible to teleport from Aber-Torril to Oerth, and back.

Unless something changed somewhere, you can't teleport between crystal spheres.

[Unoriginal]

Unless something changed somewhere, you can't teleport between crystal spheres.


Something changed somewhere, as you can.

[CapnWildefyr]

Everyone knows that the weight of burned objects changed because the phlogiston escapes during combustion and is absorbed by the air. I mean, jeez. :smallamused:


And, being Air, it now is repelled by Earth, which is why freshly-released phlostigon trapped in a cloth or paper shell will lift the whole thing!

And why?

BECAUSE MAGIC! :smallcool:

But seriously, I'm not sure I totally get the premise of the OP's question, but at some point we have to justify the game, roll with the dice, and just try to keep it fun. So sometimes, some things have to be possible because we want to fight dragons (like in the stories/movies) and dragons can fly (because of the stories/movies) so yeah, don't bother looking under the hood, as long as the engine runs and it's not wrecking people's fun in playing the game.... that's why "because magic." And when someone wants flying humans... well, we put ourselves in the game as a reference point, and we can't fly by flapping our arms IRL, and so that's why humans in 5e can't fly either. But as has been pointed out -- we can change things if we want, the danger being confusion (unless that's the point): if the players can't make some sense of the game, you can't play it any more. It's not fun if you get lost (thus humans usually can't fly).

[KorvinStarmast]

Now then, soft vs hard magic.
The D&D magic system is soft.
A hard magic system is built up from overarching rules that restrict what magic as a whole can do.
{snip}
The most common example of an overarching rule I can give is 'magic cannot let you change the past'. This is usually put in because time travel is hard to write and undermines the integrity of a story. Time travel works in some narratives, but it's IME an amount of extra work for a DM that I prefer to do without.

By contrast, D&D magic has rules governing individual effects, but no overarching rules governing magic as a whole. It is, at best, a 'by exception' state but the exceptions are also stove piped a bit.

My usual suggestion/response to desires for flying fighters is that the iconic way to do that is to ride a pegasus, gryphon, or other flying mount. This has a number of mechanical problems in D&D, however, sadly. Mounted combat being a place that I'd like to have seen a bit more effort applied, particularly for martial characters like, as class features: fighters, paladins, rangers, and barbarians (and maybe monks given that in previous editions they could talk to animals).

I really need someone to explain why giants can't exist because of the square-cube law, but adults can exist without collapsing in on themselves despite the fact that toddlers also exist at significantly smaller sizes... :P Art major? :smallconfused: You'll also find that the cube/square law establishes limits in practical aircraft design, for reasons similar to what Unoriginal explained about bodies of roughly humanoid shape. (Until the power density of batteries improves by another order of magnitude, achieving an electric helicopter that can do what a Bell 205/Jet Ranger could do (as but one example) remains out of reach. For small scale flying vehicles, among them small drones, of a certain size there's a sweet spot for a variety of electric drive prop/rotor systems that you can see at your local store). In short, adult and ancient dragons can't fly unless there's something above and beyond standard gravity and standard aerodynamics at work. Something like ... Magic! :smallwink:

I've yet to see any evidence FTL communication exists in D&D. While such spells have "instantaneous" duration, no (published, nobody cares about homebrew) setting is big enough to conclusively prove that you can teleport or communicate over more than 6-light second distance within the 6-second period of a single round. If we estimate any of those kinds of things occurring 'in a turn' (as an action) you get an order of magnitude time scale (six seconds plus or minus a few) that probably keeps one out of trouble.

Factually untrue. Teleportation explicitly can let you travel to another world of the Material Plane, provided you know the code of a Teleportation Circle on said world.

It is canonically possible to teleport from Aber-Torril to Oerth, and back. For some reason, I had the idea in my head that a different planet is a different plane, or demi plane, within the material plane, but I am not sure which editions cosmology would support that. And Erac's Cousin did go from Oerth to Mars, as legend has it. (Barsoom Mars may not be actual Mars, though).

But seriously, I'm not sure I totally get the premise of the OP's question, but at some point we have to justify the game, roll with the dice, and just try to keep it fun. So sometimes, some things have to be possible because we want to fight dragons (like in the stories/movies) and dragons can fly (because of the stories/movies) so yeah, don't bother looking under the hood, as long as the engine runs and it's not wrecking people's fun in playing the game.... that's why "because magic." Unless one prefers to overthink things: it's a sub hobby of our RPG hobby. :smallbiggrin:

[JackPhoenix]

Something changed somewhere, as you can.

[citation needed]

[ProsecutorGodot]

[citation needed]

[citation provided] (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?564670-Jeremy-Crawford-on-travel-between-worlds-planes-and-the-D-amp-D-multiverse)

You posted in that thread. Discussion on Teleporting between realms using this method starts at around 37:20.

[JackPhoenix]

[citation provided] (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?564670-Jeremy-Crawford-on-travel-between-worlds-planes-and-the-D-amp-D-multiverse)

You posted in that thread. Discussion on Teleporting between realms using this method starts at around 37:20.

Ah, so neither "explicit" nor "canonical". It's about as relevant as Sage Advice.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Ah, so neither "explicit" nor "canonical". It's about as relevant as Sage Advice.

As soon as you can find the relevant and canonical say-so otherwise, this is worth more. It's based purely on a reading of the text and description of the prime material plane. The only setting (so far) that has any specific separation is Eberron, since it exists in a pocket within the ethereal plane, separated from the "ordinary" material plane which encompasses all fantasy gaming worlds.

Also it is pretty explicit, and canonical. You can find the quote in your PHB.

The Material Plane is the nexus where the philosophical and elemental forces that define the other planes collide in the jumbled existence of mortal life and mundane matter. All the worlds of D&D exist within the Material Plane, making it the starting point for most campaigns and adventures. The rest of the multiverse is defined in relation to the Material Plane.

The worlds of the Material Plane are infinitely diverse, for they reflect the creative imagination of the DMs who set their games there, as well as the players whose heroes adventure there. They include magic-wasted desert planets and island-dotted water worlds, worlds where magic combines with advanced technology and others trapped in an endless Stone Age, worlds where the gods walk and places they have abandoned.

The best-known worlds in the multiverse are the ones that have been published as official campaign settings for the D&D game over the years — Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Dragonlance, the Forgotten Realms, Mystara, Birthright, Dark Sun, and Eberron, among others. Each of these worlds boasts its own cast of heroic adventurers and scheming villains, its own ancient ruins and forgotten artifacts, its own dungeons and its own dragons. But if your campaign takes place on one of these worlds, it belongs to your DM — you might imagine it as one of thousands of parallel versions of the world, which might diverge wildly from the published version.

I also can't find mention of crystal spheres even still existing in 5e, so there's that as well.

[Unoriginal]

The Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes also notes Krynn, Oerth, Torril, and the others as being part of the Material Plane.

Which at least explicitly and canonically demonstrates both a setting large enough to observe FTL if it was to happens, and also give us many proof of FTL travels happening , since Giffs, Neogis and the like are explicitly interstellar travelers (as opposed to, say, the Githyanki,who travel so fast by plane-hopping).

I'm fairly certain Crystal Spheres do get mentioned in one or more of the books. I think Dungeon of the Mad Mage and the Mordenkainens

[ProsecutorGodot]

The Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes also notes Krynn, Oerth, Torril, and the others as being part of the Material Plane.

Which at least explicitly and canonically demonstrates both a setting large enough to observe FTL if it was to happens, and also give us many proof of FTL travels happening , since Giffs, Neogis and the like are explicitly interstellar travelers (as opposed to, say, the Githyanki,who travel so fast by plane-hopping).

I'm fairly certain Crystal Spheres do get mentioned in one or more of the books. I think Dungeon of the Mad Mage and the Mordenkainens

I'd be interested in where it was mentioned (truly, I genuinely can't find it) because the only mention of potential links to the idea of Crystal Spheres I can find in Dungeon of the Mad Mage involve the spelljamming vessel, though the captain of this vessel only travels through space, their home planet being one in the same solar system as Toril is on, so it never addresses it directly.

It does reference realmspace, which implies at least that the crystal sphere border around it does exist still. My FR lore is also reliant on research rather than memory so I could be misunderstanding that "realmspace" is just another term for a crystal sphere.

[Tanarii]

Isn't traveling on the phlogiston currents a form of FTL?

[Unoriginal]

Isn't traveling on the phlogiston currents a form of FTL?

Indeed. Giffs, Neogis and other interstellar travelers have FTL.

[Talakeal]

Can you construct some complex model to try to salvage something like the real world? Sure. But it will always be ad-hoc, full of holes, and basically epicycles on epicycles. It's much cleaner and (I strongly believe) more interesting to take the non-real-world nature of a D&D world seriously and start to figure out what that implies. I've found that as I've done this, my worldbuilding has become much more real. Much more alive, much more cohesive and internally consistent. Because instead of just saying "well, magic can do whatever it wants, no explanations" (which is what the magic-as-exception system inevitably causes), you can start to explain why things work. I've got a working, extremely productive model of the underlying nature of physics, magic, and all those poorly-explained class abilities such as Evasion, Rage, Wildshape, etc[2]. And so far it's explained everything I've thrown at it and led to new avenues. Which makes it a very productive theory indeed. "Magic is just an exception" can't do that. Because it's entirely ad hoc.

[1] Those things that cannot exist in the real world as we know it.
[2] but these margins are much too small to contain it


Out of curiosity, do your players care?

I remember having fun playing Runequest until I tried to invent something and was told that to play an inventor I would need to make a priest and bargain with the spirits because there were no scientific principles that governed the world, only magical spells and rituals. At that point I kind of completely checked out of the game and lost all immersion or interest in the setting.

[KorvinStarmast]

Which at least explicitly and canonically demonstrates both a setting large enough to observe FTL I disagree that using gates to go from one world to another is the same as FTL - it's more of a short cut, or a bending of spacetime - but as I never got into Spelljammer there may be some lore holes in my memory.

At that point I kind of completely checked out of the game and lost all immersion or interest in the setting. You weren't playing the same game that everyone else was, so you were wise to make that choice.

[Segev]

I disagree that using gates to go from one world to another is the same as FTL - it's more of a short cut, or a bending of spacetime - but as I never got into Spelljammer there may be some lore holes in my memory.
You weren't playing the same game that everyone else was, so you were wise to make that choice.

For practical purposes, getting there faster than light would by "taking the long way" counts as "FTL."

After all, the whole goal of traveling faster is arriving sooner, not the method of the journey, for most practical purposes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Out of curiosity, do your players care?

I remember having fun playing Runequest until I tried to invent something and was told that to play an inventor I would need to make a priest and bargain with the spirits because there were no scientific principles that governed the world, only magical spells and rituals. At that point I kind of completely checked out of the game and lost all immersion or interest in the setting.

This really isn't player facing 99% of the time, because they have fixed abilities. But it's very important for me to keep things consistent when worldbuilding and deciding how the world reacts to things and what the PCs would know automatically.

I do warn them up front that trying to pull real world science into things beyond the surface level won't work because that's not how the world works. So no inventing gunpowder (at least by following real world formulas), because chemistry is different. No summoning a neutronium golem because there is no such thing. Etc. And I dislike use of information (such as modern science) that the character can't have. There are laws and principles, they're just not (beyond the surface level) the ones that exist in real life. Because those are incompatible with magic.

Class abilities work basically as stock. But why they work and how they work (at the fiction level) is different. Druid players don't have to go through the process of dealing with the spirits for their spells; that just happens in the background. One of those things the character knows that the abstraction handles for the player.

[KorvinStarmast]

For practical purposes, getting there faster than light would by "taking the long way" counts as "FTL."
No, it doesn't, because the actual velocity never reaches C. The Portal/Gate basically cheats since it changes the shape of spacetime for long enough for someone to walk through.

After all, the whole goal of traveling faster is arriving sooner, not the method of the journey, for most practical purposes. Or arriving there at all, when it comes to plane-to-plane trips.

[Unoriginal]

I disagree that using gates to go from one world to another is the same as FTL - it's more of a short cut, or a bending of spacetime -

Agreed. Which is why I'm not talking about gates, but about spaceships, which are indeed a thing in D&D 5e.

Unless you meant my talk on teleportation. In which case, I have to disagree: teleportation isn't a gate/portal/wormhole. It's transportation through the same plane.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No, it doesn't, because the actual velocity never reaches C. The Portal/Gate basically cheats since it changes the shape of spacetime for long enough for someone to walk through.
Or arriving there at all, when it comes to plane-to-plane trips.

I just want to say that this doesn't actually matter. Any case where you can
1) send a light-speed signal from point A toward point X and then
2) hop in a magic device and end up at point X where you can then receive the signal you sent some time after you arrive (hearing your own broadcast).
is FTL (to be precise, it's space-like motion) and incurs all the causality violation and relativity-busting properties inherent in that. Doesn't matter if you used hyperspace, an Albecurrie field, or a wormhole/portal. You have sent information faster than light could, and that's a really really bad thing. All FTL is time travel, with all the screwy, universe-falls-apart effects that entail unless you include other hypotheses to prevent paradox. And yes, this goes for all the science fiction that does FTL in any way. It's all, fundamentally, magic. And violates some pretty core assumptions underlying the laws of physics. Ones that have been tested very very well, and the breaking of which would have very obvious effects at scales we can measure pretty well.

Also, plane-shifting means you move an indeterminate[1] distance in a finite amount of time. So even the spell blink causes issues that are insuperable by modern physics. The distance cannot be zero, because you're not where you started. The time is non-zero, but also not indeterminate. So your velocity is NaN (Not a Number), and that's...bad. Like...really bad. As in "all the equations now produce nonsense, because comparing NaN and anything == false. Even itself. Note: this is also the issue with glyph of warding and bags of holding, etc.

[1] not infinite, necessarily, but not a well defined number.

[Telok]

I do warn them up front that trying to pull real world science into things beyond the surface level won't work because that's not how the world works. So no inventing gunpowder (at least by following real world formulas), because chemistry is different. No....

My reading of it was not that Tanarii wanted to do something like use RL chem to invent gunpowder, but rather that because the character does not have the "inventor class" they can't invent anything. Like you have a hand crossbow, a crossbow, and a ballista, so you get the idea to build a extra large ballista. Nope, you aren't an inventor so you can't ever invent anything. It's like the old mistake that since an AD&D thief has the "climb walls" ability then only thieves can ever climb walls, or the 3.5e "fling ally/enemy" feat chain that means you can no longer toss creatures at each other without the game's permission slip.

Its the sort of thing about exclusionary exception based game design that created the "air breathing mermaid" meme. You set the rules up to imprint on players that without a specific ability saying they can do a thing, they can't even try. Games with inclusive exception based design tend to be more open skill based systems where buying abilities makes the character better at stuff or unlocks special abilities earlier than normal.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My reading of it was not that Tanarii wanted to do something like use RL chem to invent gunpowder, but rather that because the character does not have the "inventor class" they can't invent anything. Like you have a hand crossbow, a crossbow, and a ballista, so you get the idea to build a extra large ballista. Nope, you aren't an inventor so you can't ever invent anything. It's like the old mistake that since an AD&D thief has the "climb walls" ability then only thieves can ever climb walls, or the 3.5e "fling ally/enemy" feat chain that means you can no longer toss creatures at each other without the game's permission slip.

Its the sort of thing about exclusionary exception based game design that created the "air breathing mermaid" meme. You set the rules up to imprint on players that without a specific ability saying they can do a thing, they can't even try. Games with inclusive exception based design tend to be more open skill based systems where buying abilities makes the character better at stuff or unlocks special abilities earlier than normal.

And I totally agree that that sort of thing (the "permission slip" model) is kinda crappy. But I'm not sure that that's really relevant here--we were talking about the underlying physical model (or lack thereof). And it seemed the complaint was that he couldn't apply his player knowledge (of inventions, etc) to the game world because that world's model was "everything comes from spirits/magic", so there were no player-accessible natural laws--everything was effectively arbitrary. Which I was assuring him that as long as you're operating at the surface, observable-by-ordinary-means (available to a 12th century alchemist, maybe with a bit more math) level, my model works basically[1] similar to reality. But that the actual under-the-hood stuff (where all the shenanigans come from) is quite different.

[1] not entirely similar--if an Earth 12th-century alchemist came to Quartus[2] and watched someone get injured and heal, they'd be shocked. Because on Quartus, hit points are meat, and people (and animals) do have a (limited) healing factor. Lingering injuries only result when one is at death's door (ie 0 HP in the game abstraction) and then stabilized. And your clothing and gear is metaphysically part of you (as far as this healing factor is concerned), which is why spells and effects struggle to affect attended objects but are capable of destroying unattended ones just fine. It's also part and parcel of how magic items, spell slots, and most other "fantastic" abilities are manifest and why they have limited "charges."
[2] the name of my setting's primary planet, being the 4th planet out from the "star" Eua. Which isn't really a "star" as in a lump of very hot, fusing gasses. It's a crystal, shedding light because pure luminous anima (of many aspects) is injected back into the Mortal plane from the center of the Celestial City in the Astral plane corresponding to that point. Note that light is not electromagnetic radiation caused by accelerating charges; it's a combination of various aspects of anima that produces a "visible" state on objects that it touches. Plants don't photosynthesize, they absorb fire-aspected (and other aspects) anima through their leaves. They can do this in the dark in areas rich in fire-aspected anima, including underground. Etc.

[KorvinStarmast]

Agreed. Which is why I'm not talking about gates, but about spaceships, which are indeed a thing in D&D 5e. ? Walk me through this one. Are you referring to BG3?
In which case, I have to disagree: teleportation isn't a gate/portal/wormhole. It's transportation through the same plane. It isn't distance over time, and the teleported being does not experience travel. It's simply distance, and a delta 'location'..

[Tanarii]

? Walk me through this one. Are you referring to BG3? It isn't distance over time, and the teleported being does not experience travel. It's simply distance, and a delta 'location'..
Traditionally (edit: in pop physics culture) the term FTL travel includes wormholes or other "teleportation" effects.

But importantly to this tangent on "will it break real world physics" ... uh, not sure. It's been a while for me. Of course, pop-physics people like to talk about wormhole ftl travel possibly being possible in the future etc etc. But I can totally see there being the potential for causality issues too.

[MoiMagnus]

? Walk me through this one. Are you referring to BG3? It isn't distance over time, and the teleported being does not experience travel. It's simply distance, and a delta 'location'..

I'd note that not experiencing travel and not having a time dimension are fundamentally different.
You could "teleport" at 1 mile per hour, but feeling like you arrived instantaneously, so basically a time-travel but only toward the future, that also moves you through space.

And in fact, that's what travel at "almost light speed" would be IRL, the travel is near instantaneous for you but can take multiple years for an observer. Though to build a medieval fantastic world, it's probably better to reject the theory of Relativity. The impossibility of having a well defined notion of absolute time (and having instead spacetime as an indivisible concept) can be quite annoying, especially if one want time to be synchronous across all planes of existence.

[ProsecutorGodot]

? Walk me through this one. Are you referring to BG3?

There are space traveling people and vehicles in dungeon of the mad mage and rime of the frostmaiden.

[Unoriginal]

There are space traveling people and vehicles in dungeon of the mad mage and rime of the frostmaiden.

And the Neogis are explicitly interstellar travelers. I think the Giffs are too, but I don't recal the wording of their lore.

[KorvinStarmast]

There are space traveling people and vehicles in dungeon of the mad mage and rime of the frostmaiden.
Ok, thanks, I don't have them memorized (and have not played through them) but I did take a loot RotF this weekend and yeah, I'd forgotten about that.

[Talakeal]

To the OP, it seems like your issue is a mix of the "Guy at the Gym" "But Dragons!" and "Rules as Physics" fallacies. Are you familiar with these?



This really isn't player facing 99% of the time, because they have fixed abilities. But it's very important for me to keep things consistent when worldbuilding and deciding how the world reacts to things and what the PCs would know automatically.

I do warn them up front that trying to pull real world science into things beyond the surface level won't work because that's not how the world works. So no inventing gunpowder (at least by following real world formulas), because chemistry is different. No summoning a neutronium golem because there is no such thing. Etc. And I dislike use of information (such as modern science) that the character can't have. There are laws and principles, they're just not (beyond the surface level) the ones that exist in real life. Because those are incompatible with magic.

Class abilities work basically as stock. But why they work and how they work (at the fiction level) is different. Druid players don't have to go through the process of dealing with the spirits for their spells; that just happens in the background. One of those things the character knows that the abstraction handles for the player.

So, from a player perspective, this stuff irks me because it is generally used to, seemingly arbitrarily and spontaneously, shoot down player ideas more often than not. Like, the last time we had a discussion like this, a guy told a story about how his players come up with a plan to deplete the air in a dungeon using strategically placed fires, and was told that wouldn't work because Oxygen doesn't exist in D&D and elemental air doesn't work like that. That would seem like a very cheap and unfair roadblock for me.


From a design perspective, it just reads as a weird form of hubris.

IRL we do not understand all of the laws of nature. There are many places where we know that they are contradictory or run contrary to logic, and just put in question marks. We don't also don't know how or why the laws of physics exist, and we can't say for certain that they truly are universal (let alone multiversal). Heck, just the other day a friend was telling me about an article he read theorizing that dark matter was caused by interactions between our universe and a parallel universe.
To me, if seems both a lot more productive and a lot more honest to spend my time thinking about how the exitence of multi ton flying fire breathing predators effects the fictional world's society and ecology than going back to square one and rewriting the fundamental laws of physics (which I, or anybody else for that matter, don't fully understand in the first place) to show how such a thing is possible.


[1] not entirely similar--if an Earth 12th-century alchemist came to Quartus[2] and watched someone get injured and heal, they'd be shocked. Because on Quartus, hit points are meat, and people (and animals) do have a (limited) healing factor. Lingering injuries only result when one is at death's door (ie 0 HP in the game abstraction) and then stabilized. And your clothing and gear is metaphysically part of you (as far as this healing factor is concerned), which is why spells and effects struggle to affect attended objects but are capable of destroying unattended ones just fine. It's also part and parcel of how magic items, spell slots, and most other "fantastic" abilities are manifest and why they have limited "charges."

Yeah, this is exactly the sort of weirdness that would turn me off from a game.

So, what does this actually look like in world? What happens if I try and surgically amputate the arm of someone with a lot of HP? If everything (including clothing?) regenerates, how has the world not figured out a method of harvesting goods that puts them into what is effectively a post scarcity society?


You weren't playing the same game that everyone else was, so you were wise to make that choice.

Not sure if I agree there, are you reading "checked out" as left?

In retrospect, I imagine I was (apologies for using Ron Edwards terms) playing a simulationist game where I was trying to get immersed in the world and inhabit my characters head, the DM was coming from a narrativist perspective trying to tell a mythic saga, and the other players were coming from a gamist perspective and didn't care about either and just wanted to hang out and roll dice.

That sort of conflict of goals isn't normally game breaking.


My reading of it was not that Tanarii wanted to do something like use RL chem to invent gunpowder, but rather that because the character does not have the "inventor class" they can't invent anything. Like you have a hand crossbow, a crossbow, and a ballista, so you get the idea to build a extra large ballista. Nope, you aren't an inventor so you can't ever invent anything. It's like the old mistake that since an AD&D thief has the "climb walls" ability then only thieves can ever climb walls, or the 3.5e "fling ally/enemy" feat chain that means you can no longer toss creatures at each other without the game's permission slip.

Its the sort of thing about exclusionary exception based game design that created the "air breathing mermaid" meme. You set the rules up to imprint on players that without a specific ability saying they can do a thing, they can't even try. Games with inclusive exception based design tend to be more open skill based systems where buying abilities makes the character better at stuff or unlocks special abilities earlier than normal.

I was absolutely NOT trying to use real world knowledge. I merely wanted to play a character who could invent things with their IC skill and knowledge and being told it was impossible in Glorantha.

Its not just an "air-breathing mermaid" problem but also an extreme guy at the gym thing, where mundane abilities are literally impossible unless the game rules or the DM gives you permission to do ordinary things.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, from a player perspective, this stuff irks me because it is generally used to, seemingly arbitrarily and spontaneously, shoot down player ideas more often than not. Like, the last time we had a discussion like this, a guy told a story about how his players come up with a plan to deplete the air in a dungeon using strategically placed fires, and was told that wouldn't work because Oxygen doesn't exist in D&D and elemental air doesn't work like that. That would seem like a very cheap and unfair roadblock for me.


AKA you don't trust me. Which is fine--we're not playing together. And you have a long history of bizarro-world experiences, so I don't blame you.

But here's the thing. A plan like that depends highly on context. And allowing it or disallowing it is entirely up to DM fiat, because whether the dungeon has vents or not isn't necessarily determined in advance. So you're always going to have to trust the DM on any plan like that.

Personally, I wouldn't say that elemental air doesn't work that way, because that would be a surface-level change, visible to everyone. Which would fail my basic criteria. And personally, I tend to look for reasons why the players' actions could work. But there are things I do rule out in advance, openly, up front.
1) anything that requires significant, deeper-than-surface knowledge of modern physics or chemistry or biology. Because if I have a coherent world, those cannot apply directly. Furthermore, the character can't know about them (DC: Nope), because I've set the state of the in-world knowledge elsewhere.
2) Gunpowder or anything like it (chemical explosives) don't work. Period. That's entirely an aesthetic thing. Can you do something similar with crystals and magic? Probably. But no guns. Ain't gonna happen. And again, it doesn't matter what you know as a player about chemistry. However the world works, it doesn't work to allow those things.



From a design perspective, it just reads as a weird form of hubris.

IRL we do not understand all of the laws of nature. There are many places where we know that they are contradictory or run contrary to logic, and just put in question marks. We don't also don't know how or why the laws of physics exist, and we can't say for certain that they truly are universal (let alone multiversal). Heck, just the other day a friend was telling me about an article he read theorizing that dark matter was caused by interactions between our universe and a parallel universe.
To me, if seems both a lot more productive and a lot more honest to spend my time thinking about how the exitence of multi ton flying fire breathing predators effects the fictional world's society and ecology than going back to square one and rewriting the fundamental laws of physics (which I, or anybody else for that matter, don't fully understand in the first place) to show how such a thing is possible.


I happen to have a PhD in physics (computational quantum chemistry). And it doesn't even take that to know that magic violates all the basic rules on which those laws are predicated. So yes, I can safely say that magic and real-world natural laws are incompatible at the root level. So my choices are
1) accept that it's all an inconsistent mush and that magic can do anything (which has all the inconsistency and "shooting down non-magic solutions" problems you mention, along with exacerbating the magic/non-magic divide)
2) Try to back-form a semi-consistent set of phenomenological laws that do fit. And this is something I personally find very interesting. Metaphysics is my jam. And I have the advantage that I have full flexibility to set the dials however I want and don't have to worry about the deep dark parts.
3) Accept that it's different but don't actually flesh it out. Accept that everything of any note is magical (aka fantastic) and go from there.



Yeah, this is exactly the sort of weirdness that would turn me off from a game.

So, what does this actually look like in world? 1) What happens if I try and surgically amputate the arm of someone with a lot of HP? 2) If everything (including clothing?) regenerates, how has the world not figured out a method of harvesting goods that puts them into what is effectively a post scarcity society?


1) You can't, not without reducing them to 0 HP (depleting their stores of internal anima/knocking them out) first. And that's a known thing. And yes, it's different. Yes, people with strong souls are hard to kill or otherwise affect.
2) That's not how it works. For many reasons that can't be captured in a short forum post. Mainly revolving around subtleties.

Would this model work for other people in other settings? Probably not. But that's not something I care about. I don't postulate that this is the model--it relies on some rather substantial differences between my cosmology and metaphysics and the stock one. Both of which are very different from real-world metaphysics. Does it work for me, my setting, and my groups? Absolutely.

That's the wondrous thing. By accepting that the fictional world is not just the real world with an arbitrary patchwork of exceptions hacked in (which is what the "real-world + magic breaks the rules" thing does, in many jenga-tower ways), worldbuilders are free to set the dials to something that works for them. You lose the ability for internet "experts" to tell you you're doing things wrong, but that's a feature, not a bug. Especially since internet "experts" aren't. And you lose the ability to use Guy at the Gym as a reason to deny things. Because you're already untethered from that, by design. People have whatever capabilities the setting says they should. Which can be anything.

In essence, it's freeing. It allows people to actually do cool things, and doesn't come down to who can pull wool over the DM's eyes by appealing to "real world logic". And puts the responsibility for allowing/disallowing cool things right where it has to belong--on the DM. Where it always was, but without the possibility of blaming "realism" or anything else.

[Unoriginal]

I happen to have a PhD in physics (computational quantum chemistry). And it doesn't even take that to know that magic violates all the basic rules on which those laws are predicated.

Can confirm. I know that and academics-wise, what I have is a bachelor's degree in English and Medieval French.

[Telok]

So, wildly divergent basic physics (can't invent a bigger xbow because spirits, humans regenerate like d&d trolls untill they randomly stop, thick heavy smoke does not inhibit breathing, gravity for jumping is plot based instead of constant, etc.) are a thing that really super absolutely needs to be hammered home in session zero and preferably laid out in a document given to the players before character generation. It obviously does not need to be an intricate "these are the secret fundamental forces of the universe" stuff, just (at a minimum) what the usual above average adventurer would know & care about.

Things like "this world doesn't have a sun or a day/night cycle" shouldn't be sprung on players in the middle of the third session when the player has a 'thief in the night needs darkness to use most abilities' character in play.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, wildly divergent basic physics (can't invent a bigger xbow because spirits, humans regenerate like d&d trolls untill they randomly stop, thick heavy smoke does not inhibit breathing, gravity for jumping is plot based instead of constant, etc.) are a thing that really super absolutely needs to be hammered home in session zero and preferably laid out in a document given to the players before character generation. It obviously does not need to be an intricate "these are the secret fundamental forces of the universe" stuff, just (at a minimum) what the usual above average adventurer would know & care about.

Things like "this world doesn't have a sun or a day/night cycle" shouldn't be sprung on players in the middle of the third session when the player has a 'thief in the night needs darkness to use most abilities' character in play.

I absolutely agree. And do so, for all the things that are relevant. Including the fact that there are 2 moons, and that's normal.

I will note that because I rarely describe any attack other than the fatal one, the hp is meat thing rarely comes up. And it's not really regeneration as much as it's preventing the gross injury to begin with. Hit someone and leave them above half hp and they won't show any visible effects. Below half and they show superficial cuts and bruises and clothing damage. That's where borrowing the 4e term "bloodied" comes in handy. At zero, lingering injuries occur for NPCs (not for PCs, not due to world stuff but because my groups don't find that fun, which takes precedence). And yes, you can measure "soul power" (effectively hit dice) in universe, although the tools to do so easily are a monopoly of one organization, at least in the main area.

[KorvinStarmast]

. And yes, you can measure "soul power" (effectively hit dice) in universe, although the tools to do so easily are a monopoly of one organization, at least in the main area. Wait, I don't recall the details, so

1. Do they use a dipstick?
2 {in Dil's voice} Watch where you are putting that thing, pal! It's cold! :smalleek:
she had a less than pleasant visit with the ObGyn in Tarad'Am recently

[PhoenixPhyre]

Wait, I don't recall the details, so

1. Do they use a dipstick?
2 {in Dil's voice} Watch where you are putting that thing, pal! It's cold! :smalleek:
she had a less than pleasant visit with the ObGyn in Tarad'Am recently

Lol.

Remember how the Adventurer's Guild had you register, with those pads, and then they declared you "C Rank" or whatever? That's what those measured. Effectively resonating with the soul energy. It's not very precise (being limited to saying if you're in certain bands), but it was measuring "soul power". Only calibrated for humanoids though. The tech it's based on is old. Of course, the Old Empire did it the initial calibration the hard way--repeatedly torturing a whole bunch of people until they were dying while watching the readouts, healing them up, then doing it again (repetition is essential for science!). Yeah, late-stage Old Empire wasn't exactly concerned with research ethics.

[KorvinStarmast]

Remember how the Adventurer's Guild had you register, with those pads, and then they declared you "C Rank" or whatever? That's what those measured. Effectively resonating with the soul energy.
Ah, yeah, forgot about that.

Of course, the Old Empire did it the initial calibration the hard way--repeatedly torturing a whole bunch of people until they were dying while watching the readouts, healing them up, then doing it again (repetition is essential for science!). Yeah, late-stage Old Empire wasn't exactly concerned with research ethics. A goodly amount of what our Navy knows about cold water survival and its effects on people includes some research done by and for the Kriegsmarine ~ or so our water survival instructors told us...

[Talakeal]

AKA you don't trust me. Which is fine--we're not playing together. And you have a long history of bizarro-world experiences, so I don't blame you.

But here's the thing. A plan like that depends highly on context. And allowing it or disallowing it is entirely up to DM fiat, because whether the dungeon has vents or not isn't necessarily determined in advance. So you're always going to have to trust the DM on any plan like that.

I am actually pretty trusting person, and I take people at face value. For what its worth, from our interactions on this forum, I don't think you are dishonest or acting in bad faith.

But, I don't think anyone is 100% trusting or 100% worthy of trust, and this is a situation where it FEELS like being cheated even if you know the DM is being above board.

Let me use an example which I have brought up on this board before:


My players encountered three griffons. One player wanted to ride them away and abandon the adventure. I told them that in my world griffons were smaller creatures used for hunting rather than riding and couldn't support their weights. ALL of the players, including those who wanted to finish the adventure, thought I just pulled it out of my butt on the spot in an attempt to railroad them into staying within the confines of the adventure.

Now, it was clearly written beforehand in my setting information that in my world griffons are smaller and used for hunting and hippogriffs are larger and used for riding.

Furthermore, even playing by the book D&D, griffons require being bonded from birth, an expensive custom made saddle, and six months of specialized training before they will accept a rider.

On top of that, nobody in the party had riding or animal handling skills, and several of them had chosen a trait that gave them a huge penalty to their social interactions with natural creatures.

But it still felt like I was cheating them to every single player.

Imagine how much worse that feeling would have been if, instead of griffons, I told the players that it was impossible to ride horses in my campaign world?



I happen to have a PhD in physics (computational quantum chemistry). And it doesn't even take that to know that magic violates all the basic rules on which those laws are predicated. So yes, I can safely say that magic and real-world natural laws are incompatible at the root level. So my choices are
1) accept that it's all an inconsistent mush and that magic can do anything (which has all the inconsistency and "shooting down non-magic solutions" problems you mention, along with exacerbating the magic/non-magic divide)
2) Try to back-form a semi-consistent set of phenomenological laws that do fit. And this is something I personally find very interesting. Metaphysics is my jam. And I have the advantage that I have full flexibility to set the dials however I want and don't have to worry about the deep dark parts.
3) Accept that it's different but don't actually flesh it out. Accept that everything of any note is magical (aka fantastic) and go from there.

I guess you and I just have very different worldviews and have our immersion broken by very different things.



1) You can't, not without reducing them to 0 HP (depleting their stores of internal anima/knocking them out) first. And that's a known thing. And yes, it's different. Yes, people with strong souls are hard to kill or otherwise affect.

See, I have trouble even picturing what that looks like to the character. What is stopping flesh from being cut?

I am not going to be able to enjoy a game if I can't visualize what is happening around my character, and if you drop something like that on me, we are going to have to have a multi hour long conversation exploring the implementation and exploring all of the implications on the world. Which is likely going to bore the other players, and if it happens during the game instead of during a session 0 / pitch session, is going to completely derail whatever game it occurred in.


That's the wondrous thing. By accepting that the fictional world is not just the real world with an arbitrary patchwork of exceptions hacked in (which is what the "real-world + magic breaks the rules" thing does, in many jenga-tower ways), worldbuilders are free to set the dials to something that works for them. You lose the ability for internet "experts" to tell you you're doing things wrong, but that's a feature, not a bug. Especially since internet "experts" aren't. And you lose the ability to use Guy at the Gym as a reason to deny things. Because you're already untethered from that, by design. People have whatever capabilities the setting says they should. Which can be anything.

Yeah, this does kind of boil down to a battle of egos.

I don't know though, if the DM shoots me down because my plan has a logical hole in it feels very different from being shot down because the DM made a unilateral decision about how the world works.



In essence, it's freeing. It allows people to actually do cool things, and doesn't come down to who can pull wool over the DM's eyes by appealing to "real world logic". And puts the responsibility for allowing/disallowing cool things right where it has to belong--on the DM. Where it always was, but without the possibility of blaming "realism" or anything else.

The thing is, "cool" is totally subjective.

Uncharitably, I would say that in this case "cool things" means "matches the DM's preferred aesthetic".

For me, "badass normal" is a much cooler archetype than Superman, but that sort of character is explicitly disallowed by "Guy at the Gym". Just like in my example upthread, for me I thought it would be cool to play a clever tinker, whereas the DM thought it would be much cooler to play a priest of the forge god.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I am actually pretty trusting person, and I take people at face value. For what its worth, from our interactions on this forum, I don't think you are dishonest or acting in bad faith.

But, I don't think anyone is 100% trusting or 100% worthy of trust, and this is a situation where it FEELS like being cheated even if you know the DM is being above board.

Let me use an example which I have brought up on this board before:


My players encountered three griffons. One player wanted to ride them away and abandon the adventure. I told them that in my world griffons were smaller creatures used for hunting rather than riding and couldn't support their weights. ALL of the players, including those who wanted to finish the adventure, thought I just pulled it out of my butt on the spot in an attempt to railroad them into staying within the confines of the adventure.

Now, it was clearly written beforehand in my setting information that in my world griffons are smaller and used for hunting and hippogriffs are larger and used for riding.

Furthermore, even playing by the book D&D, griffons require being bonded from birth, an expensive custom made saddle, and six months of specialized training before they will accept a rider.

On top of that, nobody in the party had riding or animal handling skills, and several of them had chosen a trait that gave them a huge penalty to their social interactions with natural creatures.

But it still felt like I was cheating them to every single player.

Imagine how much worse that feeling would have been if, instead of griffons, I told the players that it was impossible to ride horses in my campaign world?



People feeling cheated because they didn't read the setting materials is entirely on them. My sympathy is very limited. If I wanted to play in Generic Fantasy World #12345, I'd play a FR module. There's a reason I worldbuild, and if I'm not allowed to, you know, actually change anything then that's kinda pointless.



I guess you and I just have very different worldviews and have our immersion broken by very different things.


And it's a very good thing that neither of us can impose on the other.




See, I have trouble even picturing what that looks like to the character. What is stopping flesh from being cut?

I am not going to be able to enjoy a game if I can't visualize what is happening around my character, and if you drop something like that on me, we are going to have to have a multi hour long conversation exploring the implementation and exploring all of the implications on the world. Which is likely going to bore the other players, and if it happens during the game instead of during a session 0 / pitch session, is going to completely derail whatever game it occurred in.


Whereas for me, the whole "HP's just plot armor" thing fails verisimilitude tremendously in equally hard ways. Unlike you, I can put that aside, but it's going to stand out as a glaring hole in the universe's metaphysics. Because you have things like "tanking a dragon's breath in the astral plane with no cover and not getting singed". Or "belly flopping off of a skyscraper and walking it off, knowing you'll be better in the morning." Or not actually getting hit by that poisoned dart...but still being paralyzed by the poison.

People with more HP just are that much more durable. How that exactly manifests may be subject to discussion, but it's a fact about the world.



Yeah, this does kind of boil down to a battle of egos.

I don't know though, if the DM shoots me down because my plan has a logical hole in it feels very different from being shot down because the DM made a unilateral decision about how the world works.


DMs are always making unilateral decisions about how the world works. That's the entirety of their job. Especially those who are also world-builders. And there's no escaping it. There's a reason that the first section of the DMG is Master of the World. Nothing in the world exists outside of the DM's fiat. And it's entirely fiat.



The thing is, "cool" is totally subjective.

Uncharitably, I would say that in this case "cool things" means "matches the DM's preferred aesthetic".

For me, "badass normal" is a much cooler archetype than Superman, but that sort of character is explicitly disallowed by "Guy at the Gym". Just like in my example upthread, for me I thought it would be cool to play a clever tinker, whereas the DM thought it would be much cooler to play a priest of the forge god.

"Matches the DM's preferred aesthetic" is everything. Nothing exists outside of that. That's the power (and great responsibility) of the DM position. Having a consistent aesthetic for a setting is critical to having something worth playing in. The only other options are
a) matches the developer's aesthetic. This is bad because the developer is even further away and less accountable.
b) matches no aesthetic and is just a mishmash of inconsistent messes. That's something I refuse to play in, let alone DM for.

I can't DM well in a setting I'm not enthused by. It just won't happen--it'll be a robotic mess that will bore everyone. Because for me, exploring the setting from the viewpoint of the characters is 99% of the fun. Being surprised by things, learning things about the setting that must be true due to revealed play facts.

And before I went to play a clever tinker (or any other character), I'd feel it incumbent on me to check if that was actually a thing in the setting. For me, setting constraints are binding over just about everything else. For instance, if someone wants to play a gunslinger character in my setting, that's a no-go. Just no. Why? Because there isn't gunpowder or guns. And never will be. Due to a conscious decision that the aesthetics of a gunpowder fantasy setting aren't what I want.

[ZRN]

I'd be curious to hear if the people saying "D&D magic is an unworkable mishmash that can't be reconciled with a logical world with any kind of consistency or verisimilitude" have in mind some other system of magic that does the job well.

Like, okay, "mumble fake Latin and wave bat guano and sometimes it creates a fireball" doesn't make any kind of sense, but neither do the (often more elegant) rules of magic in most fantasy lit I can think of. Dragons can fly in a million different fantasy settings and almost none of them even attempt a physics-based explanation of how.

Certainly a lot of systems, like the Brandon Sanderson stuff I mentioned earlier, is designed in a way that makes magic feel more like a coherent part of the world with comprehensible effects on history, society, technology, etc. But at heart they're all pretty nonsensical.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd be curious to hear if the people saying "D&D magic is an unworkable mishmash that can't be reconciled with a logical world with any kind of consistency or verisimilitude" have in mind some other system of magic that does the job well.

Like, okay, "mumble fake Latin and wave bat guano and sometimes it creates a fireball" doesn't make any kind of sense, but neither do the (often more elegant) rules of magic in most fantasy lit I can think of. Dragons can fly in a million different fantasy settings and almost none of them even attempt a physics-based explanation of how.

Certainly a lot of systems, like the Brandon Sanderson stuff I mentioned earlier, is designed in a way that makes magic feel more like a coherent part of the world with comprehensible effects on history, society, technology, etc. But at heart they're all pretty nonsensical.

D&D magic can be reconciled with a logical world with at least a modicum of consistency and verisimilitude. What it can't be is reconciled with modern physics. Nor can any magic system.

So if your benchmark for making sense is "is compatible with modern science", no magic system can meet that benchmark; they'll all be nonsense.

There's also the extra constraint of playability. Which is something other (literary) magic systems don't have to deal with.

[ZRN]

D&D magic can be reconciled with a logical world with at least a modicum of consistency and verisimilitude. What it can't be is reconciled with modern physics. Nor can any magic system.

So if your benchmark for making sense is "is compatible with modern science", no magic system can meet that benchmark; they'll all be nonsense.

Yes, agreed. So my question is, what's worse about D&D's magic system than other systems, for the people on this thread who seem to have a big problem with it?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, agreed. So my question is, what's worse about D&D's magic system than other systems, for the people on this thread who seem to have a big problem with it?

I think mainly that D&D has no intrinsic, fictional limits or constraints, only mechanical ones. D&D spells can do anything, the only constraint is that some things don't have spells written for them yet. Which both leaches any possible thematic nature from it (because constraints give thematic power) and makes it impossible to balance or explain.

It also makes it way harder to make anything internally consistent, because it's just a pile of arbitrary exceptions.

Edit: effectively, from a fictional standpoint, D&D doesn't have a magic system. It just has a bunch of arbitrary magical things piled up. It can be jiggered into something more coherent, but not without changing things and leaving a lot of it to "well, this is just how the game works".

[Sneak Dog]

Yes, agreed. So my question is, what's worse about D&D's magic system than other systems, for the people on this thread who seem to have a big problem with it?

It's not much a system. It's mostly a pile of spells. No limitations, strengths, weaknesses, costs for magic as a whole. We've spells requiring any combination somatic, verbal and material components. As far as I know this is arbitrarily determined per spell though.

There's some design tendencies, like arcane casters not being masters of life. No raising dead for them. Wait. Bards get to plunder magical knowledge from any class... Is there even a divine/arcane distinction in 5e? It's even left its vancian casting roots.
I don't know why spells are prepared in the setting in 5e. Used to be prepared casters had to cast a spell 90% of the way as their preparation in the morning and hold the last 10% of the spell to complete it and unleash the magical effects. Your spell slots were how many you could hold partially cast simultaneously in your head. So you had to fill specific slots with specific spells because to prepare them to use on a whim, you were actually casting them most of the way already. Spontaneous casters instead petitioned their deities at the start of day (see Durkon in the comics), and sorcerers... right. Sorcerers were unknowledgable conduits of magic that just didn't know many spells, but could channel them rather efficiently through themselves?

It feels like an iterated upon mechanical pile of unique features, with minimal narrative support and minimal overarching mechanics to bind it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think mainly that D&D has no intrinsic, fictional limits or constraints, only mechanical ones. D&D spells can do anything, the only constraint is that some things don't have spells written for them yet. Which both leaches any possible thematic nature from it (because constraints give thematic power) and makes it impossible to balance or explain.

It also makes it way harder to make anything internally consistent, because it's just a pile of arbitrary exceptions.

Edit: effectively, from a fictional standpoint, D&D doesn't have a magic system. It just has a bunch of arbitrary magical things piled up. It can be jiggered into something more coherent, but not without changing things and leaving a lot of it to "well, this is just how the game works".
At the risk of agreeing with Ron Edwards, he did refer to D&D and AD&D as incoherent. The above may contribute to the reasons that he did so.

beyond lightning bolt and fireball, the system is and has always been "toss those noodles at the wall and see if they stick" in concept.

[Anymage]

Yes, agreed. So my question is, what's worse about D&D's magic system than other systems, for the people on this thread who seem to have a big problem with it?

Personally speaking, two things.

First is that when spells and skills are two separate systems that don't necessarily talk to each other, you have a lot of spells that can only be countered by other magic instead of mundane means. Meanwhile, most fantasy has muggles trumping magic one way or another, and from a game balance perspective you want muggles to have ways to counter casters and practical niches that they can be the best at. Otherwise, what's the point in ever being a noncaster?

Second, and I admit that this is too much of a sacred cow to expect to see it change, jack of all trades casters like the wizard cover too much conceptual ground and it's hard to properly plan around their capabilities. Either to be sure that they will have a clutch ability when you want them to show it off, or that they won't have the one silver bullet that happens to upend all your plans. A pyromancer or a mentalist or a healer can all be strong while having their own respective niches, while a druid or post-Tasha's bard can quickly pick just the right answer off a long list if they have a bit of advance warning.

[Segev]

"HP as plot armor" is just that. However, it is important to remember that some of hp is always meat. That means that, if you take hp damage, you at least get a superficial scratch or a light bruise. It need not be serious, and it need not be "haha I can take a sword to the chin and have it ting off my fabulous face!" (Though it CAN be.)

When you take 1 hp of piercing damage and 20 hp of poison, or are paralyzed by poison, or the like, you still got the pinprick required to inject the poison.

When you survive the dragon breath in the middle of an open field, you did SOMETHING to mitigate it. Something desperate and hard to repeat that you can only do the like of a few more times before you run out of luck or skill. And you probably did get burned, just not enough to stop you.

If dramatic circumstances dictate that plot armor cannot or will not apply, then don't apply it. Treat the arm-severing of a helpless victim as ignoring hp.

[Willie the Duck]

At the risk of agreeing with Ron Edwards, he did refer to D&D and AD&D as incoherent. The above may contribute to the reasons that he did so.

beyond lightning bolt and fireball, the system is and has always been "toss those noodles at the wall and see if they stick" in concept.

Edwards wasn't a lone kook in the wilderness reacting in a vacuum to a non-existent 'issue.' He merely noted a thing that was (D&D being a dog's breakfast of disparate bits thrown together), went about commenting upon it in the worst possible way (and fostering a forum* that acted similarly), over-estimated how much of a problem the average gamer had with the perceived issue, and overestimated games with more coherent structural premises' comparative ability to deliver the actual goal of enjoyable play. Tl/dr- his characterization of D&D wasn't wrong per se, it's just the 'what does this mean and what (if anything) need be done about it' part he fumbled.
*which I'll state I think is ancient news and people still grinding their axes over it should move on.

[Tanarii]

At the risk of agreeing with Ron Edwards, he did refer to D&D and AD&D as incoherent. The above may contribute to the reasons that he did so.
Definitely not. He was referring to the fact that it combined elements of Gamist, Simumlationist, and Narrativist elements under the (since debunked) GNS model, as opposing to focusing on one. Nothing to do with underlying rules structure of the in-universe world. Not to mention being utterly silly thing to think in the first place, brought about by his desire to have exclusively Narrativist games, because clearly those are the most superior type and the only kind that don't cause brain damage in their players.

Incoherent 1: the design fails to permit one or any mode of play. In its most extreme form, the system may simply be broken - too easily exploited, or internally nonsensical, or lacking meaningful consequence, to pick three respective possibilities for Gamism, Simulationism, and Narrativism.
Incoherent 2: more commonly, the design presents a mixed bag among the modes, such that one part of play is (or is mostly) facilitating one mode and other parts of play facilitate others.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/6/

[ZRN]

I think mainly that D&D has no intrinsic, fictional limits or constraints, only mechanical ones. D&D spells can do anything, the only constraint is that some things don't have spells written for them yet. Which both leaches any possible thematic nature from it (because constraints give thematic power) and makes it impossible to balance or explain.

It also makes it way harder to make anything internally consistent, because it's just a pile of arbitrary exceptions.


I get this argument, but I'm still wondering what game systems (that allow for expandability) DON'T have these same issues? Like, if I'm playing DungeonWorld or FATE or whatever, I'm still picking spells or supernatural powers from a provided list, and the DM or designers or both can always add more spell/magic options. Is it just that most systems have fewer or more limited spells for any particular character, so there are fewer weird bits to explain?

I'm not even trying to be argumentative here; someone with more non-D&D experience than me give me an example of a system that really gives you a sense for how magic and its limitations fit into the game world.

[ZRN]

Personally speaking, two things.

First is that when spells and skills are two separate systems that don't necessarily talk to each other, you have a lot of spells that can only be countered by other magic instead of mundane means. Meanwhile, most fantasy has muggles trumping magic one way or another, and from a game balance perspective you want muggles to have ways to counter casters and practical niches that they can be the best at. Otherwise, what's the point in ever being a noncaster?

Second, and I admit that this is too much of a sacred cow to expect to see it change, jack of all trades casters like the wizard cover too much conceptual ground and it's hard to properly plan around their capabilities. Either to be sure that they will have a clutch ability when you want them to show it off, or that they won't have the one silver bullet that happens to upend all your plans. A pyromancer or a mentalist or a healer can all be strong while having their own respective niches, while a druid or post-Tasha's bard can quickly pick just the right answer off a long list if they have a bit of advance warning.

These are both valid system complaints about D&D (and I largely agree), although I still feel like this is less the fault of the magic system as a whole and more the fault of the way specific classes were designed.

[KorvinStarmast]

over-estimated how much of a problem the average gamer had with the perceived issue I meant in my post that the D&D magic system is "noodles against the wall" in character, and I may have not expressed my thought clearly enough. (An example is the clone spell, which was invented/introduced by Arneson (per one of Kuntz' recollections of playing in an Arneson high level adventure) which comes right out of sci-fi. See also psionics, sci fi ported into swords and sorcery (and freely admitted to that being the case in an interview, Kask and Gygax discussing it together with an interviewer).

Incoherent 2: more commonly, the design presents a mixed bag among the modes, such that one part of play is (or is mostly) facilitating one mode and other parts of play facilitate others.[/I] IIRC, that's the kind of incoherent he assessed D&D, or rather AD&D IIRC, as being, and where I was coming from in using that somewhat loaded term.

If we base my attempt to use that term in the context of this discussion, and my observation on D&D magic {still} being 'noodles tossed against the wall, see what sticks' in nature - which it is, see how the splat book spells keep adding more noodles to the wall, some of which stick - the OP seems to me, from post #1, to desire a consistent, Simulationist basis for magic. Since it isn't (in 5e) accurately within the bounds of being simulationist (or simulationist enough) as we have all been discussing since post #1, I think that my use of 'incoherent' fits if I use it with a mostly Edwardsian connotation.
(Digression into GNS and Big Model issues probably don't help us stay on topic, so I'll not pursue that further).

[Talakeal]

People feeling cheated because they didn't read the setting materials is entirely on them. My sympathy is very limited. If I wanted to play in Generic Fantasy World #12345, I'd play a FR module. There's a reason I worldbuild, and if I'm not allowed to, you know, actually change anything then that's kinda pointless.

Players don't like reading assignments. It may not be fair to DM's or setting designers, but it is what it is. Most DM's struggle to get players to read a few page handout, and I have known people who will play a game system for decades and pride themselves on never having read read any of the setting materials.

On the other hand, I also know a lot of DM's who refuse to read PC backstory, so it goes both ways.


Whereas for me, the whole "HP's just plot armor" thing fails verisimilitude tremendously in equally hard ways. Unlike you, I can put that aside, but it's going to stand out as a glaring hole in the universe's metaphysics. Because you have things like "tanking a dragon's breath in the astral plane with no cover and not getting singed". Or "belly flopping off of a skyscraper and walking it off, knowing you'll be better in the morning." Or not actually getting hit by that poisoned dart...but still being paralyzed by the poison.

People with more HP just are that much more durable. How that exactly manifests may be subject to discussion, but it's a fact about the world.

HP are a fairly incoherent abstraction as written. I don't play with it a "plot armor" either.

That being said, such "surviving inescapable death" situations are so rare that I have only had them come up a handful of time in all the years I have been playing, and I have had no problem narrating them away with "pulp action hero" style stuns and good luck. For me, this is so much less immersion breaking than saying everyone is Wolverine. YMMV.

But then again, maybe I just don't play whatever "high level" sort of game that people are always talking about that also leaves anyone who can't spam plane-shift in the dust.


"Matches the DM's preferred aesthetic" is everything. Nothing exists outside of that. That's the power (and great responsibility) of the DM position. Having a consistent aesthetic for a setting is critical to having something worth playing in. The only other options are
a) matches the developer's aesthetic. This is bad because the developer is even further away and less accountable.
b) matches no aesthetic and is just a mishmash of inconsistent messes. That's something I refuse to play in, let alone DM for.

I can't DM well in a setting I'm not enthused by. It just won't happen--it'll be a robotic mess that will bore everyone. Because for me, exploring the setting from the viewpoint of the characters is 99% of the fun. Being surprised by things, learning things about the setting that must be true due to revealed play facts.

You aren't wrong per se, and I think this is reasonable and not really worth getting into a forum argument over. I just think this feels kind of... one sided maybe?

Yeah, the DM has to keep the game alive, and the GM is more important than any one player, but at the same time, it is still is a collaborative game where everyone needs to be able to add their own touch. I certainly have enjoyed games more when the DM was willing to accommodate strange player concepts, and thinking back at my own DMing, there are lots of times I regret saying "no" to a player concept but I can't recall any times when I regret saying yes.

Well... except maybe the Phoenix form story...

And considering stuff like aesthetics and system mechanics exists in everyone's imagination anyway, there doesn't really need to be a consensus. As I have said in the CMD threads, if you have solid combat rules, it really doesn't matter if one guy imagines fighters as Conan and one person imagines them as Goku.

Now, something drastic and readily apparent about the world like invention being impossible, fire not consuming oxygen, or people being immune to lasting injury should probably be discussed before the game, and both sides need to think about how important it is to them and if it is worth having a player leave the game over.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And considering stuff like aesthetics and system mechanics exists in everyone's imagination anyway, there doesn't really need to be a consensus. As I have said in the CMD threads, if you have solid combat rules, it really doesn't matter if one guy imagines fighters as Conan and one person imagines them as Goku.


It matters a lot if you don't have consensus. The game needs a shared mental model of what's going on. Without that, nothing else holds together and you're gunning for frustration and conflict. Not just in combat--combat actually needs it less than other areas. If the DM and the players don't have the same mental model about how their actions translate into the fiction layer, they're discarding most of what makes a TTRPG special. Board/war games can do combat better; video games have better mechanics, graphics, sound, and writing. But only TTRPGs let you interface with the fiction layer and make changes possible. Without a shared mental model, you ain't got none of that.

That's why I'm so big on having good character/world fit--without that there's nothing to build on. The characters have to fit into the world in order for the world to react to them naturally. And the world pre-exists the characters (and must, otherwise it's nothing but a cardboard backdrop, something I find intolerable). And in my particular case, the world absolutely does pre-exist the characters--it's a living world build mostly from the actions of all the PCs in the previous parties. So unless we have a shared concept of the world, it all falls apart.



Now, something drastic and readily apparent about the world like invention being impossible, fire not consuming oxygen, or people being immune to lasting injury should probably be discussed before the game, and both sides need to think about how important it is to them and if it is worth having a player leave the game over.

A few things:

For a person of the 12th century (or even before relatively modern times), the idea of fire consuming oxygen would be utterly incomprehensible. Sure, you can smoke someone out. But choke them by depleting air of vital substance? that's alien to them. So maybe that's not so drastic or readily apparent about the world?

I won't defend invention being impossible--that's an aesthetic I don't like. But that's a matter of taste. But I'm pretty sure that it's an open fact about the world. And if you refused to do your prep work, my sympathy is minimal. I'm not going to cater to people who demand things that the world isn't set up to support. Because the world's integrity is my job. It's the vast majority of my job--deciding how the world reacts. And part of that is "the world's setup doesn't allow that". Sure, if you'd said at session 0 "I want to be an inventor!", the GM should have said "That's not a concept Gloriantha supports well, here are alternatives..." that might have been better. But each world gets to set its immutable facts, and players don't get to override those unilaterally.

And I never said people are immune to lasting injury in my world. It's just that it only happens
1) when you're brought to 0 HP[1]. Which for most people (since almost everyone has 1 HD-worth of HP) isn't actually all that hard. So lasting injuries are less common than on Earth, but still quite well known among the general populace. There are certainly tougher people, just like there are in real life (people who shrug off major hits). The scale is just a bit wider than on Earth.
2) and only for NPCs. This second point is explicitly a game convention, a patch on the underlying physics. It's not that PCs are immune because of something special to them--it's just that my play groups don't find lasting injuries to be fun, so we ignore that for them. For explicitly game reasons.
I've actually used lasting injuries as a "success at a cost" parameter for NPCs when the party wants to keep them alive but didn't kill them in melee combat. You want to question that bandit that you crit in the back with a crossbow bolt? Great. You can, but he's going to be a paraplegic.

But this is why you can't, say, "aim for the head" and auto-kill people just by narrating your attacks differently. Basically, it's keeping the mechanics in sync with the fiction. And thus promoting the shared mental model that is so critical to smooth groups.

[1] and really are because the body is healing, but in its rush to prevent death, things like broken/missing limbs/bones, compromised functionality, etc are healed over without fixing them.

[Talakeal]

I won't defend invention being impossible--that's an aesthetic I don't like. But that's a matter of taste. But I'm pretty sure that it's an open fact about the world. And if you refused to do your prep work, my sympathy is minimal. I'm not going to cater to people who demand things that the world isn't set up to support. Because the world's integrity is my job. It's the vast majority of my job--deciding how the world reacts. And part of that is "the world's setup doesn't allow that". Sure, if you'd said at session 0 "I want to be an inventor!", the GM should have said "That's not a concept Gloriantha supports well, here are alternatives..." that might have been better. But each world gets to set its immutable facts, and players don't get to override those unilaterally.


The DM in question was being very secretive, he didn't tell us what game we were playing until we sat down to the table and didn't let anyone being the rule book. There was no way I could have done prep work. But that guy and his eccentric GMing habits are another topic entirely.

IIRC it was actually during session zero. My point was, when I found out that the universe worked on mythicism and spiritual fiat rather than any sort of science or logic, it killed my immersion and enjoyment of the game.


Board/war games can do combat better; video games have better mechanics, graphics, sound, and writing. But only TTRPGs let you interface with the fiction layer and make changes possible. Without a shared mental model, you ain't got none of that.

Hard disagree there. Most games have good writing or graphics or mechanics, a few have two of the three, but all three is virtually unheard of. But there are still tons of other aspects that make RPGs better than video games, most of them revolving around continuity and freedom of expression which, imo, is actively hindered by having a GM who rigidly enforces tone and aesthetic.


It matters a lot if you don't have consensus. The game needs a shared mental model of what's going on. Without that, nothing else holds together and you're gunning for frustration and conflict. Not just in combat--combat actually needs it less than other areas. If the DM and the players don't have the same mental model about how their actions translate into the fiction layer, they're discarding most of what makes a TTRPG special. Board/war games can do combat better; video games have better mechanics, graphics, sound, and writing. But only TTRPGs let you interface with the fiction layer and make changes possible. Without a shared mental model, you ain't got none of that.

That's why I'm so big on having good character/world fit--without that there's nothing to build on. The characters have to fit into the world in order for the world to react to them naturally. And the world pre-exists the characters (and must, otherwise it's nothing but a cardboard backdrop, something I find intolerable). And in my particular case, the world absolutely does pre-exist the characters--it's a living world build mostly from the actions of all the PCs in the previous parties. So unless we have a shared concept of the world, it all falls apart.

As I said, you aren't wrong per se.

But I have seen this sort of thinking lead to bad places, like tyrant GMs who micromanage every tiny aspect of the game and then wonder why their players don't engage with it, and I have generally seen better results with a little bit of flexibility.


And I never said people are immune to lasting injury in my world. It's just that it only happens
1) when you're brought to 0 HP[1]. Which for most people (since almost everyone has 1 HD-worth of HP) isn't actually all that hard. So lasting injuries are less common than on Earth, but still quite well known among the general populace. There are certainly tougher people, just like there are in real life (people who shrug off major hits). The scale is just a bit wider than on Earth.
2) and only for NPCs. This second point is explicitly a game convention, a patch on the underlying physics. It's not that PCs are immune because of something special to them--it's just that my play groups don't find lasting injuries to be fun, so we ignore that for them. For explicitly game reasons.
I've actually used lasting injuries as a "success at a cost" parameter for NPCs when the party wants to keep them alive but didn't kill them in melee combat. You want to question that bandit that you crit in the back with a crossbow bolt? Great. You can, but he's going to be a paraplegic.

I don't think we need to go into an in depth analysis of your healing system for this forum discussion. Although I would expect to do exactly that every time you bring a new player to the table.

But isn't 2 exactly the sort of thing you said you didn't want in your game?

[PhoenixPhyre]

The DM in question was being very secretive, he didn't tell us what game we were playing until we sat down to the table and didn't let anyone being the rule book. There was no way I could have done prep work. But that guy and his eccentric GMing habits are another topic entirely.

IIRC it was actually during session zero. My point was, when I found out that the universe worked on mythicism and spiritual fiat rather than any sort of science or logic, it killed my immersion and enjoyment of the game.


Which is fine--not all genres appeal to all people. But that's purely a matter of personal taste, and taste is not worth talking about. The GM being secretive is a separate issue.



Hard disagree there. Most games have good writing or graphics or mechanics, a few have two of the three, but all three is virtually unheard of. But there are still tons of other aspects that make RPGs better than video games, most of them revolving around continuity and freedom of expression which, imo, is actively hindered by having a GM who rigidly enforces tone and aesthetic.


Careful of the strawman. You can set tone and aesthetics for the world without "rigidly enforc" them. But in general, the big benefit is the open-ended nature and engagement with the underlying fictional world at a deeper level than possible for video games. And for there to be open-ended behavior and deeper engagement, you [I]need a shared model of the world.

If you want freedom of expression, write a book. Any shared medium is going to be restricted by the shared nature of the fictional world.



As I said, you aren't wrong per se.

But I have seen this sort of thinking lead to bad places, like tyrant GMs who micromanage every tiny aspect of the game and then wonder why their players don't engage with it, and I have generally seen better results with a little bit of flexibility.


Tyrant GMs (or players) are orthogonal. Tyrants will tyrant regardless. Being more flexible just changes how they're tyrants.



I don't think we need to go into an in depth analysis of your healing system for this forum discussion. Although I would expect to do exactly that every time you bring a new player to the table.

But isn't 2 exactly the sort of thing you said you didn't want in your game?

I'll note that so far, this has come up in game (and made a difference to the outcome) exactly...twice? In almost 10 years and over a dozen groups? The most recent was the "shooting them in the back" scenario mentioned above. Most of my modeling is done so I can propagate world state forward and figure out cultures and stuff; it's rarely directly visible to the players. They don't care (or need to care) about how the world works below the game abstraction, because I also tend to stop at the game abstraction. So they'll see crippled NPCs; how they got crippled is a different matter. And you can't cut a full-HP assailant's arm off...because that doesn't fit the abstraction that the game UI (ie the mechanics) provides. The modeling is 99% for me. But has been super productive in helping me describe things in ways that fit the abstraction (leading to less ludo-narrative dissonance, which is good, while at the same time creating an internally consistent, living world, which is also good). Ignoring these models leads to dissonance between description and the existing internal model.

#2 is a compromise. All shared media require compromises. In this case, it's just ignored. In the fiction, this particular set of PCs is just so heroic that they come through ok (as a low-probability event, which happen all the time). If someone wants a scar or a lingering injury, the world is set up to provide those. But it's not required by the model.

[Talakeal]

Careful of the strawman. You can set tone and aesthetics for the world without "rigidly enforc" them. But in general, the big benefit is the open-ended nature and engagement with the underlying fictional world at a deeper level than possible for video games. And for there to be open-ended behavior and deeper engagement, you [I]need a shared model of the world.

If you want freedom of expression, write a book. Any shared medium is going to be restricted by the shared nature of the fictional world.


That's what I have been trying to say, just coming at it from the opposite direction.

It sounds like we are in agreement then?





#2 is a compromise. All shared media require compromises. In this case, it's just ignored. In the fiction, this particular set of PCs is just so heroic that they come through ok (as a low-probability event, which happen all the time). If someone wants a scar or a lingering injury, the world is set up to provide those. But it's not required by the model.

Agreed. But that's how I feel about of the abstract wackiness of the HP system.

I just think its much easier to roll with it like that than it is to try rewriting the underlying fiction of how injuries work to better match up with the rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's what I have been trying to say, just coming at it from the opposite direction.

It sounds like we are in agreement then?


Mostly, I think. Enough that we're in the "ok, we probably disagree on the details, but that's ok."




Agreed. But that's how I feel about of the abstract wackiness of the HP system.

I just think its much easier to roll with it like that than it is to try rewriting the underlying fiction of how injuries work to better match up with the rules.

I happen to like doing metaphysics. And for me, this particular model has been very productive in explaining a bunch of other world facts. It's less about modeling HP than modeling "what are souls? What is the difference between body and spirit?" Which all happens to explain lots of other things including HP/damage in one coherent model. Which is really useful for me, because it means I know how lots of things work for the price of a small change.