Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mordhau" data-source="post: 8391389" data-attributes="member: 7032137">Castles and gunpower existed side by side for at least a century.&nbsp; Gunpower does of course make it easier to storm a castle, but D&amp;D games are rarely based around warfare.&nbsp; Fortifications made of wood never stopped being used, they were used in the Americas for centuries. If you have early cannon then they are expensive to maintain and require baggage trains and the like to move them around.&nbsp; Most D&amp;D settings seem to be set (quite logically) in frontier settings where the threat is not going to be from organised invading armies.&nbsp; A wooden fort to protect from monsters seems quite reasonable.I think the historical aversion to gunpower is mostly based around one thing.&nbsp; Gunpower has become symbolic among military and combat obessesd gamers of the transition from the medieval to the early modern period.&nbsp;&nbsp; (Even though it's actually a pretty bad symbol).There's also perhaps the fact that Gunpowder is also a symbol of the march of history and technological development.&nbsp; It seems break this weird idea a lot of people have of endless medieval timelessness in which empires and kingdoms rise and fall for 1000s of years without any technological progress.&nbsp; Once gunpower appears, people have a hard time time with the idea that history is not going anywere.&nbsp; (i.e people are willing to accept that Plate Armour has been around for millenia, but as soon as primitive guns appear we're only a few hundred years from the industrial revolution).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mordhau, post: 8391389, member: 7032137"] Castles and gunpower existed side by side for at least a century. Gunpower does of course make it easier to storm a castle, but D&D games are rarely based around warfare. Fortifications made of wood never stopped being used, they were used in the Americas for centuries. If you have early cannon then they are expensive to maintain and require baggage trains and the like to move them around. Most D&D settings seem to be set (quite logically) in frontier settings where the threat is not going to be from organised invading armies. A wooden fort to protect from monsters seems quite reasonable. I think the historical aversion to gunpower is mostly based around one thing. Gunpower has become symbolic among military and combat obessesd gamers of the transition from the medieval to the early modern period. (Even though it's actually a pretty bad symbol). There's also perhaps the fact that Gunpowder is also a symbol of the march of history and technological development. It seems break this weird idea a lot of people have of endless medieval timelessness in which empires and kingdoms rise and fall for 1000s of years without any technological progress. Once gunpower appears, people have a hard time time with the idea that history is not going anywere. (i.e people are willing to accept that Plate Armour has been around for millenia, but as soon as primitive guns appear we're only a few hundred years from the industrial revolution). [/QUOTE]

Verification