How do you feel whenever a "grounded" or "scientific" explanation is given to the fantasy elements of a setting? e.g.
>Elves and Dwarves are just different species of humans
>Dragons only have four limbs (two wings and legs) because evolution has never produced a two winged, four legged animal
>Curses are basically just diseases

>>96175847 (OP)
Bored.

>>96175847 (OP)
I don't care.

>>96175847 (OP)
"Sure, why not?"
Cause if that's how they want to do their setting, then that's cool with me.

>>96175847 (OP)
>Dragons only have four limbs (two wings and legs) because evolution has never produced a two winged, four legged animal
My dragons are invertebrates.

>>96175847 (OP)
How do ypu feel about your last game night?

>>96175945
Food poisoning

>>96175847 (OP)
If it's done well it can be cool. It can otherwise be boring, pedantic, and useless if just being a detail that is tacked on and has no real importance or relevance to anything.

>>96175847 (OP)
Having an in universe explanation for the cool thing you want to add to your setting is infinitely more interesting than just dropping the cool thing on it and forgetting about it.
The thing is, you have to keep it to yourself until players ask about it. Otherwise you're just making your game even worse to a bunch of already uninterested people with your lore dumps.

>>96175847 (OP)
I have grounded explanations for most things in my setting for cohesion, but they don't really come up unless a player specifically asks.

Trying too hard to justify stuff just encourages mudcore guys to pick at it even harder. If you shrug and make up a brief explanation, there's not much to work with. If you try to explain it fully, you're going to leave even more holes open.

What's the point in justifying your dragons via evolution when some greaseball scratching his big belly starts questioning you on how large its wings would need to be to support its flight anyway?

>>96176686
Easy. I don't play with randos or assholes

>>96175847 (OP)
"Okay cool. Does this make some kind of meaningful difference in the game?"

>>96175847 (OP)
Depends on the setting and the vibe its going on and wheter or not its an existing IP which has it added to, or a original one it starts out with a grounded flair

It makes it mundane.

>>96175847 (OP)
How many of those threads you've posted just this week? Three? Four?

>>96176727
... then why are you inventing justifications for strangers?
Are you by chance schizoid and off your meds?

>>96175847 (OP)
It's irrefutable proof that "science and fantasy are the same!!" faggots are sub-human mongrels when they pretend it doesn't completely mangle the thematic whimsy

>>96177429
This bait is just a barren hook

>>96175847 (OP)
You can keep your fantasy setting internally consistent with fantasy science or whatever
>b-but it's not realistic
It's fantasy. Realism is boring. Dragons don't need gigantic wings or hollow bones or whatever irl bullshit that lets birds fly in the atmosphere of planet earth to be able to accomplish the same thing in your realm of generica

>>96175847 (OP)
Hypothetically I might be intrigued that the GM is trying to make the world more grounded and offer more ways to easily understand and interact with the world using our existing knowledge.
More likely, especially going by your examples, annoyed that the GM is a smug retard trying to preemptively "acktually" away any but the most rigorously bland of ideas.

>>96175847 (OP)
Yes anon, we have all read Dungeon Meshi

>>96175847 (OP)
I think FUCK OFF NIGGER GO DIE

Everyone below this post is a worthless shitposter or feeds the shitposter. Let this thread rot, this subhuman is using the stale bait to start an endless semantic argument.

[/thread], hopefully.

>>96175847 (OP)
I think it's okay as a mental exercise, but it's far too autistic and boring for an actual setting. It's basically "take the magic out of a setting, is it still interesting", and the answer is always no.

>>96175847 (OP)
In my settings Gods walk among other beings, death isn't definitive and everyone has magic to a certain degree, so I don't use science for anything. I love when I get a "grounded" player and make he think that he is in control or that he understand everything just to make an elder God mindrape him or an ancient magic being just bend the laws of reality in front of him.

>>96175847 (OP)
>only have four limbs (two wings and legs) because evolution has never produced a two winged, four legged animal
Lack of creativity

>>96175847 (OP)
>Jannies kept the thread
>Yet deleted my post

DO NOT INTERACT with OP, he's a well known shitposter. You have better things to do than to get dragged into a pointless semantic argument.

>>96175847 (OP)
Most of the time its shit and destroys what the fantasy or mythological creature is. That terrible dragon "documentary" that tried to science them up was one of the worst things made for the Discovery or Nat Geo channels. And every pseudointellectual mudcore midwit latched onto it and spread it here despite its idiocy.

It is perfectly fine to keep a thing fantastical, magical, and/or supernatural, and in fact giving it a bit of fantasy science will actually enhance it by "grounding" the fantasy world in verisimilitude. D&D has always done this for its settings, sometimes good (3.x Draconomicon, Lords of Madness, and others) and sometimes badly (quite a bit of 1e and 2e, AD&D and not).

Like dragons being capable of flight because they have a supernatural organ near their heart that spreads elemental power throughout their body, with elemental air making them capable of flight in bodies very much not capable of Earth flight. Fire (or other) breath attacks by literally vomiting up elementally infused blood/bile. And their magic spells and supernatural powers being fueled by the large amounts of elemental energy.

One simple organ now accounts for why dragons are the way they are, and none of it is based on Earth physics or non-fantastical explanations so as to keep the fantasy.

That is how you handle "sciencing" fantasy creatures and supernatural powers, not by mudcore grounded idiocy, but keeping the fantasy by providing fantastic explanations.

>>96175847 (OP)
I think is great, brings me back the feels of good old films from the 50s and 60s, where the MCs are scientists trying to bring new knowledge to Mankind.

It's like solving a case in a Sherlock Holmes' film, you have 3,000 years of mysteries and magic, but at some point people of that world have to find the answers of the reality of their world.

The only problem that I see with this, it's the lack of creativity of current writers, instead of creatin new theories about how the worlds and its laws work, they jusy copy the current most popular one.

I actually tried to do a setting with this once but never got very far.
>Elves, Dwarves, etc are descended from different hominid subspecies like Neanderthals and Denisovans.
>Six limbed dragons exist, but it's a mutation propagated through selective breeding for flying cavalry and they're only kept around as a hobby for rich people since airplanes were invented.
>There are vampires and werewolves, but they're just people with weird diseases. Lycanthropy is either a zoonotic form of canine parasitic cancer that gradually changes the victim's cells into dog parts, not necessarily in any particular order, or possibly some kind of virus that forcibly activates dormant junk DNA from early mammals in peoples' genome and slowly turns them into furry, carnivorous beasts.

Even had an adventure scenario that's a heist/spy story about various factions trying to steal a "cursed" artifact that belonged to a legendary king from archeologists who rediscovered it. Turns out the curse is that it's made of radioactive material and everyone wants to study its impurities to find where it came from because it could lead to an undiscovered uranium deposit.

>>96176727
>realistic grounding for fantasy elements is based
>no, not like that though!

>>96178008
The best explanation is that earthly birds can fly because they have wings, but dragons, being mystical beasts, have wings because they can fly.