• optissima@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’ll expand later when I have my coffee, but here’s a quick rundown:

    1st: that is because we lacked the access to universal answers, if we had access to answers earlier we’d have gotten them.

    1b: Why are you presuming that the religion is a rip from Catholicism, it has similar features but is not the same. It coexists with magic. Other religions (Bhuddism and Islam) allowed the sciences to bloom.

    2: I never claimed that our measuring system was the same as theirs, simply that they do have a standard that is reproducible. It could be ‘1 dingle = the width of a kings foot’ or ‘a wizard created a measuring standard with the length of 1/73rd of a fireball burn circle’ for all it matters.

    3: Wish was the extreme example, but an easy example (all it takes is one pissed wizard one of their 365 annual wishes to ask for ‘maps to be accurate’). In a more expanded consideration, a cartographer could access flight through a spell immediately gains accurate top down views of areas, greatly increasing accuracy and removing one of the huge limitations of mapmaking (getting a vantage point that gives you a good view of an area!). On top of that, it moves at a measurable, fixed, max speed. Just imagine a mideval monk with helicopter access and think about how much more accurate they would be.

    4: Find Familiar scroll is 50gp and a professional cartographer would certainly find that a reasonable investment for having a traveling companion that can accurately follow commands and has a comprehension of measuring. No wizard required.

    • Seeker of Carcosa@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Some good points. I’m just going to continue this discussion because it’s interesting and it helps me prepare my games to consider these things.

      1: Universal answers don’t necessitate universal acceptance, and it can make for more interesting lore when that’s the case. As an example: in the lore of Legend of the Five Rings, it’s common knowledge in the Empire that the official map of the Empire has a massively inconsistent scale, with journeys of similar charted length having up to a threefold difference in travel time. Savvy travellers know to plan accordingly, but no one would ever question Imperial doctrine, as the charting of the Empire was an act of a very real and tangible living god. This is where I got my praying at every temple comment; it’s common for people to avoid accidentally badmouthing the Empire by saying “I took longer than expected as I took every opportunity to honour my ancestors at every shrine on the road.”

      1b: The pantheon of the Forgotten Realms is ever expanding and there are gods in that pantheon that are opposed to Mystra, as well as luddite gods who are oppose the gods of innovation such as Gond. Gondians certainly promote the advancement of science, and Mystrans and Oghmans promote the advancement of magic to a very certain extent, but there are gods in the pantheon who would task its worshippers with direct opposition of these missions, if for nothing else than to piss off their rival god.

      2: This comes back to point 1. Different states will have their own standards of measurement, often using the same name, and the usage of these standards are very often more political than logical. A famous example from history is Napoleon’s height. Napoleon was “5 foot 2 by the French measurement and 5 foot 6 by the English measurement,” which made him a French adult man of average height. It was a common political tool to report him in the British Press as 5 foot 2, thus implying that he was short of stature.

      Imagine the compounding issue of different species interacting in the Sword Coast. A human-majority patriarchal city state may define an inch as the average length of the the second knuckle of an adult human male’s middle finger, while an elvish-majority patriarchal enclave may define it exactly the same but for an elf’s finger. These slight discrepancies aren’t an issue until they can be exploited for political gain; an elvish embassy may be established at a distance no closer than a mile to the Palace of the Magistrates, but there’s roughly a 10 human-yard difference between an elvish mile and a human mile.

      If someone casts a spell asking for a measurement and they are told “10 miles,” is that 10 miles from their perspective, 10 miles from the perspective of whoever invented the measurement spell, 10 miles according to some third “universal” perspective, or something else entirely?

      3: Again from my previous comment, the precise limitations of spells are assumptions and generalisations made for the purpose of codifying into a game. In the actual fiction, spells are quite variable dependent on the caster and their abilities. The only general assumption we can actually make is that a set of repeatable actions yield roughly the same result: if you rub a glass rod with a bolt of fur and sing the chorus of Tubthumping backwards, lightning appears. The reason that in the current edition of the game we have somewhat concrete descriptions of spells is that we as the players require a certain level of abstraction in order to play the game; The GM shouldn’t need to have an idea of wind speed, the aerodynamics of the flier, and all other forces in order to make a quick decision to determine how the flier flies. Some randomness of outcome is still evident on the modern game rules, such as the damage from spells being random and spells like sleep affecting a random number of creatures. Older editions were a lot more meticulous with this.

      Edit: specifically tackling Wish, assuming even a perfect casting would not yield a perfect map. Check out the Coastline Paradox for a real world example of how natural bodies such as coastlines fail to have well-defined length. No amount of arbitrary precision measurement is going to change the facts that coastlines and waterways have fractal dimension.

      4: At least in 5e rules as written (and I dislike this and usually houserule it when forced to play D&D), with the exception of protection scrolls, reading a spell scroll requires caster to have the given spell on their spell list.