"I think Hydrogen is a rare element" and other science facts.

[Umbran]

We all get some of the science wrong some of the time.
Our experience of the universe is non-quantum, but at its heart, the universe is quantum

So, real physics has two answers for this:

1) Non-quantum physics at macro scales isn't wrong. It is right for the scale at which we are working.

2) Maybe the universe isn't entirely quantum at its heart. With the failure of String Theory to produce any useful results, some are looking at the possibility that gravity and quantum mechanics CANNOT be combined. Which would be wild indeed.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"The square-cube law states that as an object's size increases, its surface area increases proportionally to the square of the scaling factor, while its volume (and therefore mass) increases proportionally to the cube of the scaling factor. This means that the ratio of mass to surface area increases with size, which can have significant implications for strength, stability, and other properties. "

Square–cube law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A good example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing (like the “hydrogen is a rare element” quote).

What the cube law tells you is that if you scale something up (keeping other variables the same) it’s body mass increases much faster than any measure of strength, whether muscle or bone.

Thus a humanoid giant, as found in D&D, wouldn’t have the strength to stand up, and if it did, it’s legs would snap like twigs.

Most people know the answer to the old saw “which can jump higher, and elephant or a mouse?” Even if they don’t know why it is that elephants can’t jump.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

To which the GM should have answered, "Well, do yo figure they get thunderstorms in caves?"

How big is the cave?

 

[James Gasik]

Did this planet have normal outer layers? or is your point here more that a gravitationally bound planet made of entirely of water would have a core of either supercritical fluid or Ice-10(?)?

Ok, so, if you go back to the post I was responding to, it all started with a comment about a game where the GM's "semi-realistic SF campaign" had the players landing on a sun, and the poster believed too many people got their ideas about science from Star Trek or Star Wars.

Micah Sweet replied by saying he doubted either franchise would make a mistake like that without one heck of an explanation.

My comment referred to the planet Naboo in Episode 1: The Phantom Menace, which has a liquid water core (the characters pilot a submarine through it, and it's infested with gigantic sea creatures). From what we see of Naboo in Episodes 1 & 2, yes, it has a perfectly normal outer layer consisting of swamps, forests, plains and seas (while Star Wars planets infamously are single-biome, Naboo does have polar ice caps).

My point is simply that there was no explanation given in the movie for the planet. Whether or not it could exist is a matter of some debate (do a quick Google search for "could naboo exist" and you're immediately met with "yes" and "no" responses, lol), and I'm not an astrophysicist. But watching the movie did not tell me if such a thing could exist.

It's like a debate I had with a friend who is a big Star Wars fan about how midi-chlorians work. He was telling me I was wrong about them, and cited a bunch of EU facts. I told him that I watched the Phantom Menace, and everything I was saying came directly from the movie's dialogue. If people have the "wrong" idea about such things, then it's not their fault that the movie didn't give them all the information. Should a moviegoer be forced to buy tie-in coffee table books to understand the movie they just watched?*

*or go to Wookiepedia, but bear in mind, that's a fan site, not an official source of information. Despite being better than official sources of information, lol.

 

[James Gasik]

There are people who insist that a 3 foot tall humanoid can be intrinsically stronger than a 7 foot tall humanoid.

Science says "nope"...

Science says chimpanzees are stronger than humans.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm good with all of that, and if these issues came up in my game I would address them as needed in as realistic fashion as I can, with player input. For example, I've always assumed that halflings are proportional to humans but smaller, such that the average halfling is weaker physically than the average human. Nothing at any table at which I've played has flown in the face of that belief such that a logic problem arose.

Play 3e. Note that while Halfings do have -2 Strength and are half the size, their carrying capacity is not halved compared to a human, but their lifting and carrying limits are three-quarters of those of a Medium character.

Thus, a Strength 10 human has a heavy load of up to 100 pounds, and a Strength 8 Halfling has a heavy load of 60.

Ok, so humans are stronger, no big deal, but wait! According to the random height and weight charts in the PHB, an average human male is 5' 9" and weighs 175 pounds. The average halfling male is 3' 3" and weighs 35 pounds.

A character can lift and press weight equal to their maximum load over their head. Thus the male human's max press is less than 60% of their body weight. The male halfling can lift 185% of their body weight.

Physically weaker or super strong for their size?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The halfling thing is particularly silly because it was barely even acknowledged until halflings lost the strength penalty, but the strength penalty makes almost no different to the underlying issue, as @James Gasik illustrates well. A STR 8 halfling is still, incredibly, terrifyingly strong for his size, if you actually stop and think about it. It's just that people didn't, or didn't much, until more recently. It's also very weird that people get upset about this with halflings, but not, say, dwarfs, who are also pretty small. Nor, hilariously, does anyone get upset about 130lb STR 18 or more elves who are somehow "wiry" or "willowy" in their strength, rather than super-ripped musclemonsters - and the excuse is always "Well they're not humans* so their muscles can work differently!". But whilst that's fine for elves or dwarves, it's apparently totally wrong for halflings! It's silly shenanigans which has zero to do with science.

* = Also questionable, given they can interbreed with humans, kind of strongly implies they are "humans", actually, if we're going to science-y...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My comment referred to the planet Naboo in Episode 1: The Phantom Menace, which has a liquid water core (the characters pilot a submarine through it, and it's infested with gigantic sea creatures). From what we see of Naboo in Episodes 1 & 2, yes, it has a perfectly normal outer layer consisting of swamps, forests, plains and seas (while Star Wars planets infamously are single-biome, Naboo does have polar ice caps).

What we tend to see with planets is the denser material tends to sink to the centre. So you could hypothesise that the “rock” and or “water” of Naboo are some kind of exotic materials where the rock has lower density. Or there has been a recent (in cosmic terms) catastrophe that has scrambled the planet’s composition.

The thing you learn by studying science is to be very cautious about using the word “impossible”.

There is certainly much more dodgy stuff in Star Wars than Naboo.

 

[Mannahnin]

...50gp worth of otto of roses...

("attar")

 

[Retros_x]

It is very fun to read these anecdotals in the thread, however in my games I use the best physics in the world: Cinematic physics aka. if it would seem plausible in a blockbuster movie, it is possible in my game. It certainly is not realistic physics simulation, but who needs that in their game.