Comments on: Relatively Uncertain: Taking Control of Game Physics

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:49:23 +0000

Thanks -Kaine-. Your last paragraph descibes perfectly the reasons why I enjoy talking and thinking about game physics and metaphysics – because in order for the players to reach the point you describe, they have to have confidence in the consistancy of the game physics and certitude in their understanding of it. It’s a huge compliment to a GM when that happens – hence the satisfaction.

By: -Kaine-

-Kaine- — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:26:38 +0000

Great Article! This is a pretty thorough look into the concept of game physics with some cool ideas. I’ve been keeping a tag on the “How” and “why” in my campaigns for quite a while, but I’ve not really thought it through in quite this level of detail.

I find that knowing how things work enables a kind of consistency that provides a good foundation for building a campaign world on. Of course, you don’t tell the players about it, but they learn the action and reaction of things and slowly gain enough knowledge to make educated guesses about how to take advantage of the physics.

There’s nothing more satisfying that having players devise ingenious proactive plans based on their fragmented understanding of the rules of the universe which enables them to overcome some dangerous opponent. Like you say, What if spells harness the power of sleeping people… once you work that out there are so many interesting applications you can use you confound and confuse your foe!

Really enjoyed this!

Cheers,

-Kaine-
-Kaine-´s last blog ..Volatile Memory

By: l. sprague decamp

l. sprague decamp — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 22:10:06 +0000

[...] Dickenson: The Old English Peep Show. W. Somerset Maughm: Cakes and Ale or the Skeleton in the …Relatively Uncertain: Taking Control of Game Physics …Every campaign needs a game physics, whether the GM knows it or not. And, in fact, they all have [...]

By: vloertegels

vloertegels — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:01:47 +0000

I liked reading this. I will post this on digg. I am sure you will get some thumbs up :)

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:59:56 +0000

@Spaceman: Thanks. Anytime someone admits to a ‘limited understanding of physics’, I immediatly recommend that they hunt up a copy of Isaac Asimov’s “Intelligent Man’s Guide To Science” or the revised version, “The New…” . It explains the scientific principles without the math, making it easily digestable by those who aren’t naturally inclined towards hard science. I use mine all the time to explain things to my less-science oriented players.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:43:18 +0000

@ Richard – that’s pretty much the recipe of Ars Magica, I think.

By: Spaceman

Spaceman — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 05:49:08 +0000

Great article. As the sort of person who has a limited understanding of real physics beyond what I’ve actually experienced, that’s how I think players should understand it. I understand dynamic force and weight loads because I hoist things on rope. A person who works with fires knows how it behaves and so on. It’s so hard to keep player knowledge out of this, but they should discover how the physics work as it applies to their character’s knowledge.

I’m going to have to incorporate this into my games!

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 04:06:02 +0000

I recently played a game set in Carolingian Europe as the Carolingians understood. Physics based of greek books most of the world had never read… what with being written in a language only a couple scholars in the Frankish court actually spoke. Demons were real, magic was powered through prayer.

Anyway, it was a lot of fun.

But most memorable was working through the physics… if Galileo was wrong, then the speed of a falling object increases with its mass. Thus, you can dive off a building to catch anything smaller than you are, and you will reliably fall faster than it.

My DM said it was the most sensible way to understand D&D Magic… just use Aristotelian Physics.

Richard.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:59:02 +0000

Robert, that’s not the amount of timber needed for making steel, that’s the amount for cast iron – that’s an acre of timber for every set of horseshoes, or for about a square foot of ring mail. Steel requires even higher temperatures and about 10 times as much fuel, by weight!

England was once mostly forest, with isolated farmsteads. The countryside is now mostly fields. Ironworking caused the change.

I have to admit that I was surprised by the quantities as well, the first time I heard them.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:11:29 +0000

@Mike: I didn’t know that it took so much wood to make steel, but now that I do it will add yet another hurdle for the PC’s. Another one I usually use is that in such a fantasy realm, with mystical elements and magic, why would chemical reactions be the same as the real world anyway? Even if they somehow found carbon and harvested enough wood, why would mixing carbon with iron produce steel as opposed to a huge explosion :P? I will also have to pick up Ars Magica now, at least I will have a consistent source as opposed to just me ruling on the spot.

The steam power problem I look at the same as with trying to make steel swords: Why bother when there are so many vastly superior fantasy materials to work with? Yeah you can’t make a steel sword, but you can pick up a mithral or adamantine or cold iron one and call it good. If you want something even better, then you either search for a legendary and rare superior material (Starmetal maybe?) or do some VERY high DC alchemy and/or arcana checks to create something superior via magic or alchemy.

Basically the point I try to make to my players is that the stuff in these various fantasy realms exists seperately from, not in addition to, real life materials.