I think the goblin example misses the main reason why goblins are integrated into society in ttrpgs: because people wanna play funny little anklebiters who build weapons out of junk that only someone who is either actively suicidal or a goblin would ever use.
I think excess is worse. For instance, the dragon that St. George slew was always depicted as being smaller than a horse. The dragons now appearing in fantasy are larger than a reasonably sized castle. A flying animal the size of a jumbo jet is scary if you can stomach the unrealism of it, but is it at all believable to try and attack a jumbo jet with a sword? You wouldn't even be able to reach above the wheel, and wouldn't do any damage to that either. So the need for people to try and help establish a things realism only increases as the excesses they include in their monsters increases. Note the cuthuluh mythos doesn't have this problem, everything is beyond human comprehension, and seeing the unreality actually damages the psyche. Ie it helps to prove your point.
right? a typical fantasy dragon is not an antagonist, it is as unavoidable to a medieval society as a hurricane would be those beasts by virtue of their sheer size should have hide so thick (not to mention their "scales as hard as steel") only the heaviest ballistae would have a shot at piercing it and every artillery piece is single use unless it can be moved out of the way before the dragon swoops in a medieval kingdom should be able to achieve a pyrhic victory against a fantasy dragon only if it attacked into their fortifications and they made bolstering their defenses their only priority for years instead we get a couple dudes with swords and bows beating it to death: that's not cool or awesome, that sounds like the punchline to a bad joke
Ah yes, power creep rears its ugly head. If only we had some heroes who could slay that franchise ruining monster. Controlling expectations going in is a good way to keep the mystery and threat level high.
Huge dragons aren't that unrealistic, bats and pterosaurs both use 4 limbs to take off so the upper weight limit is higher than birds. The largest pterosaur im pretty sure could probably fly around the earth in a single flight. Wikipedia says Hatzegopteryx thambema wingspan 10-12 m (33-39 f), is the biggest, and the highest estimated weight 250 kilograms (550 lb). Its beside the point but useful if you need to protect your phone for iPad kids :)
Pterosaurs are a good example of a flying creature that's heavier than modern birds, but if I remember my high school geology classes the atmosphere of prehistoric earth was very different than it is today. So, in that case, a setting that allows for particularly large flying creatures might benefit from some world building along those lines.
I think your thinking of the carboniferous(the best time period imo) with 30% oxygen, getting high on oxygen with large, terrifying bugs does sound like fun. Or amphibian paradise?? Idk (Also the bug where large coz there stupid and have stupid lungs)
3:47 The level of mystery that a DM employs in their game is essential for building tense encounters with unusual creatures. From the point you make of creatures being detailed like a lecture I feel can only emerge from creatures that already have stereotypes attached to them and the DM sticks to them (dragons and trolls) or from a DM who doesn't apply mysteries to their creatures for players to discover before or during combat. However, if a player too very often tells you that a creature you the DM chose to put in the game can't be x because of y stats or z behaviors like your example of the troll, you may have a problematic metagamer and/or rules lawyer who you should talk to to determine whether they're still fit for your D&D group.
That's a good point. The stereotypes that get applied to monsters can hamper the tension and atmosphere of the game and, well, don't rules lawyers ruin everything.
That "essay" is shit. And it sounds more like a hot-take with underlines of "oh no, make everything fairy-tales again, where everything is narrative make-believe and players have no hard rules to question or even hope for anything!"
You don't like fairy tales? I find that the fairy tales and folk beliefs that informed peoples' world view hundreds of years ago do conform to internal logic and reason. It's just not the logic of the scientific method.
@@d6damage93 I am saying this content is not worth the name of "an essay". It has very little examples and weak argumentation. Also, it goes do far into narrative roleplay thatvit isn't a gamę aby more. In a game you need rules to play fair, and cracking the rules for maximum efficiency is a skill cherished since ancient times. Potion making or even coocking irl are good examples od that.
This is going to be one of the long comments I made while watching the video, because from the title and the comments I can already see this is going to be a trip. Currently I'm 0:16 in and I already have a problem. Want to talk about how people that like realism may overuse the trope of fantasy biology? Cool, bring it. But verissimilitude? This isn't just a hard fantasy/magic/sci-fi thing, every work of fiction worth their salt aims at having a good verissimilitude. The prime example of a very mystical, mysterious, and magical work that does that? Lord of the Rings. So I don't see how liking verissimilitude, aka liking internal consistency is related to this because even the most wonder-inspiring stories have it, even if the logic is "no logic" or "dream logic". 1:15 to 3:45 Ok, this is a decent string of arguments for taking care of when to apply more scientific based worldbuilding and when NOT to. Sometimes you don't need science to explaining things, magic can take that role, but I would like to put the caveat here that sometimes, it does. It all depends on the kind of story and fantasy can work very well with those elements depending on the type of story (themes, characters, settings, etc) you are constructing. 3:55 Oh boy we are entering the thing I made a video about it! To be fair my video didn't go as in-depth as I would've liked but my point summarized (and adapted for this video) is: While the unknown is very much a great catalyst for wonder and horror, you can have it through the known as well, just like you can use the unknown to solve problems in the narrative. The thing is, it takes a lot more effort to do wonder and fear through knowledge and solve problems with mystery than the reverse. Plus, this idea that magic = mystery and wonder, and science = knowledge and solution is something that arrived somewhat recent from fiction, in reality real life magical and spiritual practices have been a way to transmit knowledge and demystify (hehe) the world from many years. This separation of science and the supernatural is quite recent and very western, not an universal thing. 5:33 to 7:40 confuses me to no end. Your title implies that fantasy biology is stupid but your video has a more nuanced and balanced take on it. So here is my question to you: Aside from clickbait, what do you gain from having such an appellative title? What do you lose putting a more accurate title? Was the the reactions worth it? The video isn't bad but lack of depth in certain examples, not great starting statement, decent points that could have been presented better and a ragebait tittle doesn't help. I just don't think pulling this kind of stunt is healthy to conversations like this that require a bit of nuance. But do whatever you want.
Let me start by saying thanks for your comprehensive response. In regard to the point about verisimilitude, I was coming from the perspective of knowing the rules before you can break them. Breaking world logic is a writing tool, like any other. The question is how to do it well. In your second point you bring up a fair caveat, it is very dependent on the type of story you want to tell. I definitely agree with your third point. This video is primarily a response to recent trends, particularly in WotC's D&D content, which in my opinion, in an attempt to make their settings more appealing they have reduced certain creatures and races to fairly basic interpretations that most players will recognize because they closely conform to real world concepts they learned in school. The reason I went with the title and framing of the video is I find that nuanced discussions tend to get lost in the shuffle. Maybe I have too low an opinion of the average viewer's attention span and desire to be reasonable, but I think leading with a controversial statement is a strong way to start a discussion.
@@d6damage93 Thanks for taking time to respond. About verisimilitude, yeah, I agree on that regard. I'm a bit outdated on WotC since the OGL debacle but I don't doubt they are reducing or taking away stuff to make it more appealing because it sounds exactly what a company like Hasbro would do. Regarding the tittle, I do get wanting to make a topic more appealing and even going for a controversial statement, but I feel like that can be done while still being true to the core points of the video. It's not easy, at all, and it's not like yours is the worse example and well, it did work since I'm here lmao. I just feel like there is a fine line between a provocative title and one that ends up being too far from what the video is about. It's a balancing act.
But "it's magic" is just as ridiculous, is it not? How exactly does a frigging centaur work? It has two rib cages! How did that evolve? And if they were "made by the gods" how are they still alive? They'd need to eat an absurd amount of food for their combined human and horse mass. They would eliminate all food sources in weeks. I'm a massive fan of the supernatural encroaching on real biology, and magic having a physical effect on things, but "it's magic" is just as annoying as a too in-depth examination of monsters.
First rule of stabilizing magic and supernatural beings: What is important about a supernatural creatures abilities is consistency, niot nescesarelly how it is compatible with RL laws of physics.
I think the goblin example misses the main reason why goblins are integrated into society in ttrpgs: because people wanna play funny little anklebiters who build weapons out of junk that only someone who is either actively suicidal or a goblin would ever use.
That's fair. The game does need to take what players want into account.
I think excess is worse. For instance, the dragon that St. George slew was always depicted as being smaller than a horse. The dragons now appearing in fantasy are larger than a reasonably sized castle. A flying animal the size of a jumbo jet is scary if you can stomach the unrealism of it, but is it at all believable to try and attack a jumbo jet with a sword? You wouldn't even be able to reach above the wheel, and wouldn't do any damage to that either.
So the need for people to try and help establish a things realism only increases as the excesses they include in their monsters increases. Note the cuthuluh mythos doesn't have this problem, everything is beyond human comprehension, and seeing the unreality actually damages the psyche. Ie it helps to prove your point.
right? a typical fantasy dragon is not an antagonist, it is as unavoidable to a medieval society as a hurricane would be
those beasts by virtue of their sheer size should have hide so thick (not to mention their "scales as hard as steel") only the heaviest ballistae would have a shot at piercing it
and every artillery piece is single use unless it can be moved out of the way before the dragon swoops in
a medieval kingdom should be able to achieve a pyrhic victory against a fantasy dragon only if it attacked into their fortifications and they made bolstering their defenses their only priority for years
instead we get a couple dudes with swords and bows beating it to death: that's not cool or awesome, that sounds like the punchline to a bad joke
Ah yes, power creep rears its ugly head. If only we had some heroes who could slay that franchise ruining monster. Controlling expectations going in is a good way to keep the mystery and threat level high.
Huge dragons aren't that unrealistic, bats and pterosaurs both use 4 limbs to take off so the upper weight limit is higher than birds. The largest pterosaur im pretty sure could probably fly around the earth in a single flight.
Wikipedia says Hatzegopteryx thambema wingspan 10-12 m (33-39 f), is the biggest, and the highest estimated weight 250 kilograms (550 lb).
Its beside the point but useful if you need to protect your phone for iPad kids :)
Pterosaurs are a good example of a flying creature that's heavier than modern birds, but if I remember my high school geology classes the atmosphere of prehistoric earth was very different than it is today. So, in that case, a setting that allows for particularly large flying creatures might benefit from some world building along those lines.
I think your thinking of the carboniferous(the best time period imo) with 30% oxygen, getting high on oxygen with large, terrifying bugs does sound like fun. Or amphibian paradise?? Idk
(Also the bug where large coz there stupid and have stupid lungs)
3:47 The level of mystery that a DM employs in their game is essential for building tense encounters with unusual creatures. From the point you make of creatures being detailed like a lecture I feel can only emerge from creatures that already have stereotypes attached to them and the DM sticks to them (dragons and trolls) or from a DM who doesn't apply mysteries to their creatures for players to discover before or during combat. However, if a player too very often tells you that a creature you the DM chose to put in the game can't be x because of y stats or z behaviors like your example of the troll, you may have a problematic metagamer and/or rules lawyer who you should talk to to determine whether they're still fit for your D&D group.
That's a good point. The stereotypes that get applied to monsters can hamper the tension and atmosphere of the game and, well, don't rules lawyers ruin everything.
That "essay" is shit. And it sounds more like a hot-take with underlines of "oh no, make everything fairy-tales again, where everything is narrative make-believe and players have no hard rules to question or even hope for anything!"
You don't like fairy tales? I find that the fairy tales and folk beliefs that informed peoples' world view hundreds of years ago do conform to internal logic and reason. It's just not the logic of the scientific method.
@@d6damage93 I am saying this content is not worth the name of "an essay". It has very little examples and weak argumentation. Also, it goes do far into narrative roleplay thatvit isn't a gamę aby more. In a game you need rules to play fair, and cracking the rules for maximum efficiency is a skill cherished since ancient times. Potion making or even coocking irl are good examples od that.
This is going to be one of the long comments I made while watching the video, because from the title and the comments I can already see this is going to be a trip.
Currently I'm 0:16 in and I already have a problem. Want to talk about how people that like realism may overuse the trope of fantasy biology? Cool, bring it. But verissimilitude? This isn't just a hard fantasy/magic/sci-fi thing, every work of fiction worth their salt aims at having a good verissimilitude. The prime example of a very mystical, mysterious, and magical work that does that? Lord of the Rings. So I don't see how liking verissimilitude, aka liking internal consistency is related to this because even the most wonder-inspiring stories have it, even if the logic is "no logic" or "dream logic".
1:15 to 3:45 Ok, this is a decent string of arguments for taking care of when to apply more scientific based worldbuilding and when NOT to. Sometimes you don't need science to explaining things, magic can take that role, but I would like to put the caveat here that sometimes, it does. It all depends on the kind of story and fantasy can work very well with those elements depending on the type of story (themes, characters, settings, etc) you are constructing.
3:55 Oh boy we are entering the thing I made a video about it! To be fair my video didn't go as in-depth as I would've liked but my point summarized (and adapted for this video) is: While the unknown is very much a great catalyst for wonder and horror, you can have it through the known as well, just like you can use the unknown to solve problems in the narrative. The thing is, it takes a lot more effort to do wonder and fear through knowledge and solve problems with mystery than the reverse.
Plus, this idea that magic = mystery and wonder, and science = knowledge and solution is something that arrived somewhat recent from fiction, in reality real life magical and spiritual practices have been a way to transmit knowledge and demystify (hehe) the world from many years. This separation of science and the supernatural is quite recent and very western, not an universal thing.
5:33 to 7:40 confuses me to no end. Your title implies that fantasy biology is stupid but your video has a more nuanced and balanced take on it. So here is my question to you: Aside from clickbait, what do you gain from having such an appellative title? What do you lose putting a more accurate title? Was the the reactions worth it?
The video isn't bad but lack of depth in certain examples, not great starting statement, decent points that could have been presented better and a ragebait tittle doesn't help. I just don't think pulling this kind of stunt is healthy to conversations like this that require a bit of nuance. But do whatever you want.
Let me start by saying thanks for your comprehensive response.
In regard to the point about verisimilitude, I was coming from the perspective of knowing the rules before you can break them. Breaking world logic is a writing tool, like any other. The question is how to do it well.
In your second point you bring up a fair caveat, it is very dependent on the type of story you want to tell.
I definitely agree with your third point. This video is primarily a response to recent trends, particularly in WotC's D&D content, which in my opinion, in an attempt to make their settings more appealing they have reduced certain creatures and races to fairly basic interpretations that most players will recognize because they closely conform to real world concepts they learned in school.
The reason I went with the title and framing of the video is I find that nuanced discussions tend to get lost in the shuffle. Maybe I have too low an opinion of the average viewer's attention span and desire to be reasonable, but I think leading with a controversial statement is a strong way to start a discussion.
@@d6damage93 Thanks for taking time to respond. About verisimilitude, yeah, I agree on that regard.
I'm a bit outdated on WotC since the OGL debacle but I don't doubt they are reducing or taking away stuff to make it more appealing because it sounds exactly what a company like Hasbro would do.
Regarding the tittle, I do get wanting to make a topic more appealing and even going for a controversial statement, but I feel like that can be done while still being true to the core points of the video. It's not easy, at all, and it's not like yours is the worse example and well, it did work since I'm here lmao. I just feel like there is a fine line between a provocative title and one that ends up being too far from what the video is about. It's a balancing act.
100% I hate the obessesion with a "Scientific" explanation of D&D monsters. They are monsters, no need to explain in biological terms. ITS MAGIC.
But "it's magic" is just as ridiculous, is it not?
How exactly does a frigging centaur work? It has two rib cages! How did that evolve? And if they were "made by the gods" how are they still alive? They'd need to eat an absurd amount of food for their combined human and horse mass. They would eliminate all food sources in weeks.
I'm a massive fan of the supernatural encroaching on real biology, and magic having a physical effect on things, but "it's magic" is just as annoying as a too in-depth examination of monsters.
First rule of stabilizing magic and supernatural beings: What is important about a supernatural creatures abilities is consistency, niot nescesarelly how it is compatible with RL laws of physics.
solid reasoning.