Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ProfessorCirno" data-source="post: 5398002" data-attributes="member: 65637">Oh, and before I forget;Ok, but I think we can both agree it's related to the safety zone.Consider the presence of sci-fi in D&amp;D.&nbsp; When D&amp;D first came out, there was sci-fi elements all over the dang place.&nbsp; And it rightfully so - sci-fi and fantasy mixing together was rather &quot;in&quot; at the time amongst nerd circles.&nbsp; The basis of the game was a group of amoral mercenaries doing it for the gold and wenches.As D&amp;D went on, that changed.&nbsp; Adventurers slowly became main protagonists and/or heroes, and the sci-fi was filtered out.&nbsp; See, the amoral mercenaries and the sci-fi was based on the popular literature at the time amongst nerds, which in that case was abhorrantly terrible pulp books.&nbsp; When those went out of style due to having insurmountable prose, so too did the tropes along with them.So Player A says he doesn't mind Keep on the Borderlands and funny little robots and wizards with laser guns.&nbsp; Player B says &quot;That's not D&amp;D.&quot;&nbsp; The catch?&nbsp; Player A has been playing longer then Player B.See, that's the thing.&nbsp; &quot;It's not fantasy&quot; is such a nebulous statement.&nbsp; Of course it's fantasy.&nbsp; And yes, it's D&amp;D, too.&nbsp; It's just not in your comfort zone.As for aesthetics?&nbsp; A wanderer from a foreign land with a strange exotic weapon?&nbsp; That's like half the D&amp;D characters that have ever been imagined since the dawn of time.&nbsp; The aesthetics really don't change that much if his or her exotic weapon happens to be a rifle instead of a katana.Now let's talk believability.&nbsp; Or verisimilitude.&nbsp; Or suspension of disbelief.&nbsp; See, they all come down to one thing, and that one thing is not how believable the world is; it's the opposite.&nbsp; It comes down to this statement: &quot;This thing here is utterly unbelievable and does not fit in with reality.&nbsp; However, I am willing to forgo this because my desire for &quot;fun&quot; in this case outweighs my desire for &quot;realism.&quot;That's why several of those of us who are totally into guns with our fantasy don't get the complaint of them not being real or breaking suspension of disbelief.&nbsp; As far as I'm concerned, you have castles and dragons going hand and hand - that's far more &quot;belief shattering&quot; then guns are.&nbsp;Again I dispute this, because most of the objections to gunpowder in this thread involve claims that guns were this machines of destruction that never missed, and that a single barrel of gunpowder could destroy entire castles.&nbsp; It's been pretty strongly proven by now that there's a lot of misinformation floating around.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ProfessorCirno, post: 5398002, member: 65637"] Oh, and before I forget; Ok, but I think we can both agree it's related to the safety zone. Consider the presence of sci-fi in D&D. When D&D first came out, there was sci-fi elements all over the dang place. And it rightfully so - sci-fi and fantasy mixing together was rather "in" at the time amongst nerd circles. The basis of the game was a group of amoral mercenaries doing it for the gold and wenches. As D&D went on, that changed. Adventurers slowly became main protagonists and/or heroes, and the sci-fi was filtered out. See, the amoral mercenaries and the sci-fi was based on the popular literature at the time amongst nerds, which in that case was abhorrantly terrible pulp books. When those went out of style due to having insurmountable prose, so too did the tropes along with them. So Player A says he doesn't mind Keep on the Borderlands and funny little robots and wizards with laser guns. Player B says "That's not D&D." The catch? Player A has been playing longer then Player B. See, that's the thing. "It's not fantasy" is such a nebulous statement. Of course it's fantasy. And yes, it's D&D, too. It's just not in your comfort zone. As for aesthetics? A wanderer from a foreign land with a strange exotic weapon? That's like half the D&D characters that have ever been imagined since the dawn of time. The aesthetics really don't change that much if his or her exotic weapon happens to be a rifle instead of a katana. Now let's talk believability. Or verisimilitude. Or suspension of disbelief. See, they all come down to one thing, and that one thing is [I]not[/I] how believable the world is; it's the opposite. It comes down to this statement: "This thing here is utterly unbelievable and does not fit in with reality. However, I am willing to forgo this because my desire for "fun" in this case outweighs my desire for "realism." That's why several of those of us who are totally into guns with our fantasy don't get the complaint of them not being real or breaking suspension of disbelief. As far as I'm concerned, you have castles and dragons going hand and hand - that's far more "belief shattering" then guns are. Again I dispute this, because most of the objections to gunpowder in this thread involve claims that guns were this machines of destruction that never missed, and that a single barrel of gunpowder could destroy entire castles. It's been pretty strongly proven by now that there's a lot of misinformation floating around. [/QUOTE]

Verification