Anachronisms in Fantasy

[jester47]

I disagree. D&D is not fantasy full stop, it's mostly a specific subgenre of fantasy - swords & sorcery fantasy.

In swords & sorcery fantasy, SUVs and trains are an anachronism because they present suspension of disbelief problems when put alongside medieval-level technology. In Lord of the Rings, there was no magic train - nor any motor scooters - to take the hobbits to Mordor, and if you think this would have improved the story, then keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate, so to speak.

So no, I think the direction this thread is heading in is wrong, and it's obviously been infested by Eberron fans.

Rounser, we are talking about two different things. The problem with this whole thread is semantics. You are incorrectly using the word "anachronism." An anachronism is somthing that is out of place in a time line. An SUV in greyhawk is not an anacronism. Its just a little (or maybe a lot in your opinion) weird. Good clerics casting divine spells after the cataclysm and before the War of the Lance in Dragonlance IS an anachronism because it violates the agreement that clerics cant do that in that time period.

You are using anachronism to mean somthing that you don't think shoud belong in fantasy. There are many words to describe what you mean but "anachronism" is not the one. The phrase you are looking for is Non sequitur. Its not anachronisms that drive you crasy, its non sequitur elements. An SUV in Greyhawk is a non-sequitur. It could have a very valid and magical reason for being there, but as the setting goes the SUV does not fit into the unspoken expectations set by the source material.

The noir/pulp elements of Eberron are not non sequiturs because that is set up in the background, art, and style of the setting. However having soldiers of the Third Reich show up is a non sequitur.

An I agree with you that a DM has to be very careful when dropping a non sequitur into the game as it can and often does destroy the versimilitude. But done carefully and sparingly, both anachronisms and non sequiturs can add somthing to a game.

non sequiter: An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.

anachronism: The representation of someone or somthing as existing or an event as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order.


Aaron.

 

[ptolemy18]

You can't avoid the anachronisms, of the D&D worlds, I'll break some bubbles for all of us:
....
3. Forgotten Realms: Rote rip-off's of all of the Finnish Gods (and then some); GUNPOWDER; Mongols, China, Japan, Egypt.
.....
9. Dragonlance: Draconians, Minotaur-run continent that is a direct ripoff of imperial Rome.

What's so "anachronistic" about direct rip-offs of historical cultures? All fantasy, except the most extremely "made from the ground up" weird settings, are more or less a rip-off of SOME past cultures. Most D&D worlds are just a rip-off of European historical fantasy to some extent.

If you're going to have a god who's just like the Egyptian Set, but name him Sarvadon The Dark One, then you may as well just name him Set... it doesn't really matter...

Jason

 

[rounser]

It's completely a matter of taste, which is fine - as long as you don't dress someone else's tastes up as "destroying the mythic resonance of the game". That's pretty rude.

No it's not. Not everyone thinks of the game in the same way I do. I just think compromising the game's mythic themes too much with high technology is a mistake.

The problem with this whole thread is semantics.

I know - it seems that for some people in this thread, if you can't actually argue a point effectively, you can at least attempt to claim victory through semantics. "Yeah, I sure showed him."

 

[Captain Tagon]

No it's not. Not everyone thinks of the game in the same way I do. I just think compromising the game's mythic themes too much with high technology is a mistake.

Exactly what mythic themes are you referring to. And what constitutes high technology?

 

[rounser]

Exactly what mythic themes are you referring to. And what constitutes high technology?

Specific examples; the magic wand versus magic machine gun or magic carpet versus magic jetpack examples I cited earlier. Wands and flying carpets have mythology backing them up, and strong associations with magic which contemporary devices such as machine guns and jetpacks don't share.

As far as high technology goes, I was using it as a way of describing "technology too advanced to believably fit in a pseudo-medieval D&D setting in any prominent way without challenging suspension of disbelief or being considered lame". What this constitutes depends on the person - for me, tanks being common is kind of lame. A single gnomish tank as an oddity somewhere in the world is no problem though.

And the good old Apparatus of Kwalish is like a da Vinci device, and carries those themes with it, unlike a train or robot. You may view them differently - in fact, I'm betting on it.

 

[Captain Tagon]

Specific examples; the magic wand versus magic machine gun or magic carpet versus magic jetpack examples I cited earlier. Wands and flying carpets have mythology backing them up, and strong associations with magic which contemporary devices such as machine guns and jetpacks don't share.

What 'fantasy' settings exactly have these jetpacks and/or machine guns that you are so worried about. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but it seems that most of your argument is against settings that don't actually exist, or gross exaggerations of current settings.

 

[rounser]

What 'fantasy' settings exactly have these jetpacks and/or machine guns that you are so worried about.

Indeed, they were extreme examples to drive home a point.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but it seems that most of your argument is against settings that don't actually exist, or gross exaggerations of current settings.

PC constructs and magic trains aren't as bad as machine guns and jetpacks, but they're on the nose, and approaching the same ballpark, IMO. Obviously not to you - one person's "yuck" is another's "cool".

Besides, those examples were cited when arguing against one of Eberron's stated design goals or themes, which is to reflect some of the repercussions of a magical world - a goal I consider as likely to kill the goose which lays the golden eggs. Those examples were to help illustrate that I don't agree with that direction.

 

[Geoff Watson]

Indeed, they were extreme examples to drive home a point.

PC constructs and magic trains aren't as bad as machine guns and jetpacks, but they're on the nose, and approaching the same ballpark, IMO. Obviously not to you - one person's "yuck" is another's "cool".

Unfortunately, those examples, rather than helping your point, detract from it by making you appear to be ignorant of what you are arguing about.
("Waah! Eberron has MACHINE GUNS! Thats BAD! I haven't read the book but I'll still argue about it!!!!!!")

Geoff.

 

[rounser]

Unfortunately, those examples, rather than helping your point, detract from it by making you appear to be ignorant of what you are arguing about.

You really don't understand that examples don't have to exist in reality in order to illustrate a point, do you? I wasn't attacking Eberron directly, but rather one of the design philosophies which has been described as being behind it.

And that second paragraph of yours just shows a desperate attempt at ridicule rather than anything which might be called a proper argument; maybe I've hit a nerve.

 

[drnuncheon]

No it's not.

Yeah, it is. You're saying that everyone who enjoys Eberron is guilty of "destroying the mythic resonance" of D&D. Add it to the fact that you've basically hijacked a thread where someone wanted anachronisms in his game, and you're basically telling him "you're playing the game wrong". So, if that's not rude, what is?

J