Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SirHoneyBadger]

Only the ones thick enough to expect a world with dragons and magic in it, to operate even remotely similar to real-world physics.

And for that matter, the physics are pretty darn close to the real world. Most things *do* work like you would expect them to.

For instance: I allow the abacus, the compass, the astrolabe, the waterclock, and the telescope. Not to mention the repeating crossbow, concrete, plastic-in small quantities only-antibiotics and vitamin pills, and some advanced alloys.

It's only when you get to machines as complicated as a wristwatch, that you really start getting noticed by face-eating demon squids.

So it's really a matter of explaining why there are still dragons and giants around, why humas wouldn't have invented guns, why they'd be running around in suits of armour, etc. rather than trying to just shoehorn in a bunch of anachronism, without any thought behind it.

[madrain]

Some of my favorite fantasy literature does explain dragons using real world physics.

Rather than some silly, say, Wingardium Leviosa bullshit to enforce GM fiat.

D&D especially tends to be silly in the profundity of magic and having it be almost completely separate from the world of technology, as if every human were some mongo who had no inclination to merge the two in useful ways.  Blah on that.

Need I point out that several civilizations have believed guns to be magic, since they had no idea of the physics behind them?

[SirHoneyBadger]

There's a pretty decent explanation of dragons in John Ringo's "Council Wars" series of books. The writing quality is extremely sketchy, at times even amateurish (which is a shame), but he's got some gem-quality ideas.

Ofcourse, dragons in the books are futuristic bioinventions (invented by Disney, no less) that have wings made from carbon nanotubes, but a lot of his ideas (simply great), I freely steal for my own purposes.

I agree with you, madrain, both about D&D, and about Clarke's science/magic theory, but I still don't see any harm-aside from a deflated ego here and there-in placing limitations on what characters can achieve in a fantasy world. Especially considering that the limitations are there in order to explain, and further, the continued existence of that world, and that many other avenues than "invent a bazooka" are open for player ingenuity.

If it were always fun to play without limitations, then we'd be playing Dragon Spaceship (in 3D) instead of Dwarf Fortress (in ASCII).

[Mikademus]

So you like to screw over your players who expect a world to operate even remotely similar to real-world physics.

Thank god I don't play in your game.

I dunno, he shows imagination and consistency (if of an anti-technological sorts), and I think his games would be great fun to play in.

Fact is, we don't want DF to be like our world or it would lose some of its escapistic value. Sure, there will always be some people autistically inclined or lacking imagination to the extent that they panic over even minor unrealistic aspects, but there's always safe, controllable spreadsheets they can enjoy. 

[jaked122]

Artillery that's a good Idea

[SirHoneyBadger]

Thanks for the show of support, Mikademus 

[Ampersand]

Who wants games to operate like real life?

Ampersand Cancels being productive: Sitting on couch.

[madrain]

Who wants games to operate like real life?

Plenty of people, judging from the Suggestions forum.

[Mikademus]

Who wants games to operate like real life?

Plenty of people, judging from the Suggestions forum.

No, they just think they do. They like DF and sees that the game simulates aspects of real life and believe the game would be better still with more realism. It wouldn't (probably quite the opposite), but that is an easy mistake to make.

[Tormy]

Who wants games to operate like real life?

Plenty of people, judging from the Suggestions forum.

Certain parts/elements of the game must be realistic, that is unquestionable. Physics is a good example. However just imagine once we gonna have magic for example, certain spells or rituals should be able to change/manipulate specific physical rules even.

[madrain]

No, they just think they do. They like DF and sees that the game simulates aspects of real life and believe the game would be better still with more realism. It wouldn't (probably quite the opposite), but that is an easy mistake to make.

Not necessarily.  There are still people who dislike the z-levels, but I imagine most people welcome it.  It's a step towards more realism that worked out.  Not everyone is in the dark about what they want, and plenty of people enjoy simulationism.  I tend to prefer more abstraction in my games--having to eat and drink in video games irks me.  But some people like that, as a challenge.

Some people want guns.  I don't think their inclusion would ruin the experience for the people who wanted them unless there was something seriously wrong with them.  It would just ruin it for the people who don't want guns included in the first place.

However just imagine once we gonna have magic for example, certain spells or rituals should be able to change/manipulate specific physical rules even.

Let's hope so!  But then again, being able to manipulate physics will only be fun if it is consistent in some way.  If casting a spell to let you hop around the battlefield always works the same, but you end up in different spots randomly, well, people would probably like it.  If one time you cast it and it results in a cow, and another time you hop, and the next time the world implodes and your savegame is deleted automatically, it would probably see much less use.  So in a way, magic still operates under its own physics.

Tho the concept of wild magic from D&D might be pretty fun if that's how it worked, at least in adventure mode.  :p

[Mikademus]

Who wants games to operate like real life?

Plenty of people, judging from the Suggestions forum.

Certain parts/elements of the game must be realistic, that is unquestionable. Physics is a good example. However just imagine once we gonna have magic for example, certain spells or rituals should be able to change/manipulate specific physical rules even.

I'd argue this too is a common mistake to make when discussing game play. Nothing, and that includes physics, needs be realistic in the sense of working as in our world. However, usually, things must be believable and consistent.

[Tack]

hmmm... implementing barely attached, completely out of phase ideas without having even tenuous links to realism?

if that isn't dwarf fortress, what is?