Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 5076248" data-attributes="member: 2732">The big problem I have with Guns, and what EGG and I co-wrote in a sidebar of Living Fantasy, is the fact that the adoption of the gun pretty much changed a lot of things that would change the historical background.  (And this has nothing to do with armor penetration).A gun enabled conscripted peasants to have a lot more battlefield power.  While a mage also has that power, a mage (or cleric) is equal to an archer, somebody who has to be trained for years and can't easily be replaced.Once you factor this into play and did research, you see the introduction of gun and cannon changed a lot of things.  You didn't need to have feudalism anymore.  You couldn't have the medieval castle anymore, they would logically have to be converted to star or polygon forts with sloping walls.  And it completely change the dynamics of warfare so you ended up with completely different government structures to handle it.  (It was the end of Feudalism and the rise of the centralized state, and the beginning of leevies instead of knights).So, basically, I don't like guns and I dislike the introduction of them in the modern-steampunk-style use, because if you understand the history of warfare you'd find logic problems with the introduction of them at times.  I think the creators of those types of words aren't providing enough logic to their world.  I like Fantasy with as much realism as possible.  (In other words, avoid simplistic "it's magic" type of explanations).  It's the same reasons I hate seeing the Peter Jackson LoTR movies, because he had two major human settlements without any sort of farmland surrounding them.  How do those people eat.  They aren't importing food from the hobbits.  That sort of stuff took me completely out of the picture.</blockquote>

Verification