Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5761411" data-attributes="member: 177">Well, try this then - somewhere several hundred million years ago, there was a far more important historical development, that led to the fact that there's no such thing as a functional six-limbed vertebrate!&nbsp; Dragons and pegasi don't match real-world history.&nbsp; Do we have to toss them?If you can say evolutionary history need not apply to the fictional world, why not say that technological history also need not apply?&nbsp; Heck, let us be honest - in the history of the game, aggregated over players, would we not expect the most common use of heavy armor has been on some fighter type, on foot, in a dungeon crawl?&nbsp; Never mind that that armor was not intended for or typically used by infantry, much less for small unit tactical incursions in enclosed spaces!But we're going to quibble that the presence of armor requires guns?&nbsp;&nbsp; Really?You seem to be proving my point.If we are looking for historical and cultural accuracy, then yes.&nbsp; If you are arguing for guns because guns go with the armor, then yes, you probably ought to toss out the monks, because they *don't* go with the armor. Though, oddly, they do go with the guns.&nbsp; Go figure.But, since I've said a bunch of times already that form of accuracy and consistency means rather little to me when I sit down to a game, I can have them!&nbsp; I'm worried about integrity of tropes, not integrity of history.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5761411, member: 177"] Well, try this then - somewhere several hundred million years ago, there was a far more important historical development, that led to the fact that there's no such thing as a functional six-limbed vertebrate! Dragons and pegasi don't match real-world history. Do we have to toss them? If you can say evolutionary history need not apply to the fictional world, why not say that technological history also need not apply? Heck, let us be honest - in the history of the game, aggregated over players, would we not expect the most common use of heavy armor has been on some fighter type, on foot, in a dungeon crawl? Never mind that that armor was not intended for or typically used by infantry, much less for small unit tactical incursions in enclosed spaces! But we're going to quibble that the presence of armor requires guns? Really? You seem to be proving my point. If we are looking for historical and cultural accuracy, then yes. If you are arguing for guns because guns go with the armor, then yes, you probably ought to toss out the monks, because they *don't* go with the armor. Though, oddly, they do go with the guns. Go figure. But, since I've said a bunch of times already that form of accuracy and consistency means rather little to me when I sit down to a game, I can have them! I'm worried about integrity of tropes, not integrity of history. [/QUOTE]

Verification