Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5761347" data-attributes="member: 177">Yep.&nbsp; Far back.&nbsp; And also several thousand miles away, and in a different culture than the typical English-language high fantasy.&nbsp; So, I'm not sure that's relevant.I don't argue that there aren't anomalies all over the place.&nbsp; My point is that &quot;the armor was there, so it is equivalent to this year in history, so there should be guns&quot;, tends to fall apart.&nbsp; Whether or not other anomalies exist, the basic setting for most of the standard tropes looks more Middle Ages to me.True.&nbsp; There's lot of anomalies.&nbsp;&nbsp; But, let's face it, most of them are window dressing (almost literally - they're visual, and that's about it).&nbsp; The author names the wrong kind or structure of ship.&nbsp; Big whoop - they still don't pull a Magellan, even if they're using the right kind of ship to do so.&nbsp; And the world doesn't have DaVinci or Copernicus, or massive, economy changing trade that creates the Medicis.The author names the wrong kind of armor - but rather than leading troops with primitive muskets, they're still clashing with sword and shield.Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the whole desire to add guns is that they *not* be mere window dressing, but that they be effective, and functional, not just visual.&nbsp; That's the point at which you risk infringement on the fictional tropes.&nbsp; Not that I'm a trope purist - I'm running Deadlands right now, which is all about trope mash-ups.&nbsp; The thing is that when I sit down to play a game, I'm enacting a fiction, not re-enactign a history.&nbsp; The condition of my tropes is more important than the condition of my historical accuracy.&nbsp; So, telling me, &quot;But it was there in history!&quot; does not give me confidence that the appropriate thought about what it means for the fiction has yet taken place.And, all in all, I find the argument for guns based on historical accuracy or consistency is weak (and ironic) when you are only asking for consistency for your one favorite item, but are fine with the rest of the anomalies.&nbsp; Inconsistent consistency?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5761347, member: 177"] Yep. Far back. And also several thousand miles away, and in a different culture than the typical English-language high fantasy. So, I'm not sure that's relevant. I don't argue that there aren't anomalies all over the place. My point is that "the armor was there, so it is equivalent to this year in history, so there should be guns", tends to fall apart. Whether or not other anomalies exist, the basic setting for most of the standard tropes looks more Middle Ages to me. True. There's lot of anomalies. But, let's face it, most of them are window dressing (almost literally - they're visual, and that's about it). The author names the wrong kind or structure of ship. Big whoop - they still don't pull a Magellan, even if they're using the right kind of ship to do so. And the world doesn't have DaVinci or Copernicus, or massive, economy changing trade that creates the Medicis. The author names the wrong kind of armor - but rather than leading troops with primitive muskets, they're still clashing with sword and shield. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the whole desire to add guns is that they *not* be mere window dressing, but that they be effective, and functional, not just visual. That's the point at which you risk infringement on the fictional tropes. Not that I'm a trope purist - I'm running Deadlands right now, which is all about trope mash-ups. The thing is that when I sit down to play a game, I'm enacting a fiction, not re-enactign a history. The condition of my tropes is more important than the condition of my historical accuracy. So, telling me, "But it was there in history!" does not give me confidence that the appropriate thought about what it means for the fiction has yet taken place. And, all in all, I find the argument for guns based on historical accuracy or consistency is weak (and ironic) when you are only asking for consistency for your one favorite item, but are fine with the rest of the anomalies. Inconsistent consistency? [/QUOTE]

Verification