Science Ruining Fantasy

[drawingfreak]

Do you think our modern understanding of the universe could ruin the magic of a fantasy setting? Has it in your game?

[Zeofar]

No, why? How do you see it ruining fantasy?
(I mean, you realize that fantasy as a genre is relatively new, right?)

[Coidzor]

What? No! Killing catgirls isn't a bug, it's a feature!

Heck, even the genetics angle can open up a quest to figure out why the heck humans can breed with gosh-darn everything.

[Silus]

What? No! Killing catgirls isn't a bug, it's a feature!

Heck, even the genetics angle can open up a quest to figure out why the heck humans can breed with gosh-darn everything.

He's the key to that mystery =O

[Urpriest]

Commoner railguns et al. are bloody annoying.

I don't think physics in principle ruins fantasy, but I do think that people who try to mix in physics with their magic generally do so poorly. One thing I'd love to do eventually is develop a general formulation of physical laws that allows me to describe what sorts of physical laws are needed for a more "magical" universe, and which sorts of "magic" are logically consistent. But I doubt it will ever happen, if only because it's unlikely a university will take kindly to me wasting their resources on such a project.

[Democratus]

No, why? How do you see it ruining fantasy?
(I mean, you realize that fantasy as a genre is relatively new, right?)

Wait, what? Only if you consider Gilgamesh, the Illiad, Journey to the West, et. al. "relatively new".

Fantasy shouldn't be harmed by science because it doesn't generally happen in our world. It happens in a different place and a different universe - where there aren't such limits on what is possible. Fantasy is as much metaphor as simulation.

[Eldan]

Honestly? I just generally feel free to ignore physics whenever. Especially now that I have more lectures on the history of science. Things get so much more interesting if you can steal ideas from the greeks and the 16-18th century.

[Urpriest]

Wait, what? Only if you consider Gilgamesh, the Illiad, Journey to the West, et. al. "relatively new".

Most of those were intended as something more similar to history than to fantasy.

[Democratus]

Most of those were intended as something more similar to history than to fantasy.

Not at all. These were works of entertainment and cultural identity, like books, movies and comics today. Contemporary listeners did not consider them (Illiad, Journey to the West, etc.) to be historical fact even in ancient times.

[dsmiles]

I like SCIENCE!

I like FANTASY!

science + fantasy = steampunk fantasy = Iron Kingdoms (my favorite campaign setting )

Not everybody agrees, though. My group is starting to see it my way, though, after I threw some Alchemists' Fire into the AoE of a grease spell. FWOOSH! Then there was much burning of zombies, and much enjoyment to be had by all.

[Coidzor]

Not at all. These were works of entertainment and cultural identity, like books, movies and comics today. Contemporary listeners did not consider them (Illiad, Journey to the West, etc.) to be historical fact even in ancient times.

I think he might've meant relatively new in the same way that walking upright and speech are relatively new.

[Feliks878]

As a person who has to deal with physics a lot in his daily life, I sometimes fall to this problem.

I see a spell and immediately think about how that "wouldn't really work" because of X Y or Z. Note this isn't dismissing the idea of "Magic" just the idea of a specific spell effect/feat/ability/rule playing out its cause and effect chain as described. It takes a bit of effort, for me at least, to push my suspension of disbelief long enough to accept something that I would normally reject out of hand.


The "classic" (if somewhat dubious) example is the idea that a person who is falling who then decides to dimension door to the ground would, when they finish their teleport, maintain their momentum and have a rather painful impact with the ground. (This was a very popular thing with Nightcrawler from X-Men, with some authors playing it "realistically" and others ignoring this concept totally.) While this may or may not be true (we obviously cannot teleport people in real life to test it) the science behind it seems sound.

Once I get past that it's usually not a big deal. Despite what some people say, playing a game with Gnomes and Goblins and Wizards and Demons isn't enough for some to automatically dismiss real world physics. If it's a real problem with players it's probably good to set down a ground rule about it (basically: Don't try to use physics to justify something that contradicts game mechanics). We did this, more or less. We sometimes bend or break the rule, but usually we stick to jokes about it.

As much as it bothers you, saying "It's magic!" is a valid thing to do in a D&D game. Frankly it's why so many unbelievable things happen.

[dsmiles]

The "classic" (if somewhat dubious) example is the idea that a person who is falling who then decides to dimension door to the ground would, when they finish their teleport, maintain their momentum and have a rather painful impact with the ground. (This was a very popular thing with Nightcrawler from X-Men, with some authors playing it "realistically" and others ignoring this concept totally.) While this may or may not be true (we obviously cannot teleport people in real life to test it) the science behind it seems sound.

Cue GLaDOS: "Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out." Yeah, dim door to save yourself from a fall, doesn't work for me either.

[Spiryt]

The "classic" (if somewhat dubious) example is the idea that a person who is falling who then decides to dimension door to the ground would, when they finish their teleport, maintain their momentum and have a rather painful impact with the ground. (This was a very popular thing with Nightcrawler from X-Men, with some authors playing it "realistically" and others ignoring this concept totally.) While this may or may not be true (we obviously cannot teleport people in real life to test it) the science behind it seems sound.

As there is nothing about changing your velocity or whatever, I'm not sure what would be wrong with it?

You travel to the spot desired, but you are still falling as you were before...

For game purposes, it probably means that you skip few d6 depending on how much height you "avoided" with the spell.

[Boci]

Cue GLaDOS: "Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out." Yeah, dim door to save yourself from a fall, doesn't work for me either.

It could go either way. I can't really see anyone "proving" what happens to their momentum when they cast DD.

[Democratus]

It could go either way. I can't really see anyone "proving" what happens to their momentum when they cast DD.

Well, seeing that they have travelled instantaneously, they have accelerated to a speed greater than light. Thus their momentum would be far greater.

Any travel via teleportation should result in a massive kinetic explosion!

Unless, of course, you wave your hands and say "it's magic" - which means you can ignore anything you like about momentum.

[dsmiles]

As there is nothing about changing your velocity or whatever, I'm not sure what would be wrong with it?

You travel to the spot desired, but you are still falling as you were before...

For game purposes, it probably means that you skip few d6 depending on how much height you "avoided" with the spell.

If you manged it in the first round after falling off the cliff, you'd probably end up with nothing more than a few bumps and bruises, since (assuming earth-like gravity) you'd only fall approx 206-ish meters.

Never mind. That would still hurt.

[Boci]

Well, seeing that they have travelled instantaneously, they have accelerated to a speed greater than light. Thus their momentum would be far greater.

Exactly. And thus you could argue that to prevent that from happening part of the spells effects it to neutralize your momentum.

[Esser-Z]

For the dimdoor fall, okay, you maintain speed...

But who says you have to maintain your velocity? What prevents you from coming out of the door in a different direction, turning, say, falling into horizontal movement and ending up alright?

[Urpriest]

Not at all. These were works of entertainment and cultural identity, like books, movies and comics today. Contemporary listeners did not consider them (Illiad, Journey to the West, etc.) to be historical fact even in ancient times.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. While ancient cultures didn't view myths as falling under the same sorts of requirements for verification as modern history or even their own day-to-day claims, they still viewed them as valid enough to be a legitimate basis for action. Otherwise religions and priesthoods could never have existed.

[dsmiles]

For the dimdoor fall, okay, you maintain speed...

But who says you have to maintain your velocity? What prevents you from coming out of the door in a different direction, turning, say, falling into horizontal movement and ending up alright?

Nothing, if the player says that this is the intent. Just like portal. I fall into a vertical portal, and come out from a horizontal portal. Instant charge attack!

[Coidzor]

That's a bit of an exaggeration. While ancient cultures didn't view myths as falling under the same sorts of requirements for verification as modern history or even their own day-to-day claims, they still viewed them as valid enough to be a legitimate basis for action. Otherwise religions and priesthoods could never have existed.

You do get into a bit of a chicken and the egg debate that no one wants to get into if you follow this rabbit hole though.

[Radar]

Cue GLaDOS: "Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out." Yeah, dim door to save yourself from a fall, doesn't work for me either.

It could, if you were able to open the exit in a different direction, then the entrance (which is nowhere specified). After all, rolling on the ground at 50 km/h might be painful (and harmful), but slaming into the ground at 50 km/h is in most cases fatal.

In general, I like to think, that physics can be applied in a fantasy setting. This way it's much easier to predict an outcome to an unusual action. Besides, there is no better battlecry then "For Science!"

[Crow]

Commoner railguns et al. are bloody annoying.

I don't think physics in principle ruins fantasy, but I do think that people who try to mix in physics with their magic generally do so poorly.

Agreed....

[Feliks878]

Ok, so I went away from a few minutes and came back, and now I see exactly what I was implying, regarding the Dimension Door/Falling debate.


This is exactly the kind of thing that can cause problems. From a "scientific" standpoint a lot of people are saying that the person should take the fall damage they've accumulated, etc.

This is where, as a player, we need to step up and just flat out DISMISS our scientific knowledge. It's magic, maybe it bleeds off the velocity, etc. The point is, having it not save someone from a fall is the kind of "science ruining fantasy" I thought this thread was about, at least from an oblique point of view. While these debates are entertaining from a theoretical perspective (What would really happen if...) they aren't necessarily constructive in gameplay.

[The Big Dice]

If you manged it in the first round after falling off the cliff, you'd probably end up with nothing more than a few bumps and bruises, since (assuming earth-like gravity) you'd only fall approx 206-ish meters.

Never mind. That would still hurt.

The problem is, I can't think of a game that allows for the fact that falls aren't instantaneous. Most games have some kind of Fall X Distance = Take Y Damage formula. Which means a fall of a mile or of a meter take the same amount of time in game.

Gravity and terminal velocity and so on are bringing physics into the same arena as character who are able to ignore conservation of energy.

[Terumitsu]

Actually, I like some science in my fantasy. It gives a good base of what can and cannot happen with and without magic which then lets me make nifty magic laws for fluff. And players who like to RP love fluff. Heck, a game I'm running right now has several insparations from Chaos Theory in it. So far, it seems to me that, when not forced to be overtly adjacent to each other, they can actually be complementary elements.

[Lev]

Science doesn't ruin fantasy as fantasy takes place in universe A while we are in universe B.

[Squally!]

Science doesn't ruin fantasy as fantasy takes place in universe A while we are in universe B.

Why are we in the B universe? I want to be universe 1.

Really tho, science and fantasy can get along just fine, we are playing a science-heavy steampunk game currently, and it all blends together very well. I think the important part is how you handle and describe the science. Its not the stuff we are used to, its what works for teh world.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Ok, so I went away from a few minutes and came back, and now I see exactly what I was implying, regarding the Dimension Door/Falling debate.


This is exactly the kind of thing that can cause problems. From a "scientific" standpoint a lot of people are saying that the person should take the fall damage they've accumulated, etc.

This is where, as a player, we need to step up and just flat out DISMISS our scientific knowledge. It's magic, maybe it bleeds off the velocity, etc. The point is, having it not save someone from a fall is the kind of "science ruining fantasy" I thought this thread was about, at least from an oblique point of view. While these debates are entertaining from a theoretical perspective (What would really happen if...) they aren't necessarily constructive in gameplay.

Not being a scientist or some one who works with physics on a day to day basis, but could one not argue that mabye the DD just plops you in the position you want with out the valocity/speed/momentum that you had before you teleported.

I guess I'm failing to see why they would keep the momentum and what not. I know what your saying about the Nightcrawler thing but, that "fantasy" world worked differently then a typical dnd setting.