| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
you're that guy who made that article on class tiers...
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only time it should come into play is when you are trying to actually play in a historical setting.
And even then I'd be wary of making this argument, mainly because A) you're ruining another person's fun for no reason and B) you're probably wrong. One of the most common uses of this fallacy, for example, is to excuse the lack of black people in a Medieval European setting. What these people forget is that the Caliphate was the premier mercantile power of the era and there were Middle Eastern and North African Muslims traveling through Europe to sell their wares all the time. We have evidence of the Caliphate trading as far north as Sweden.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion on historical accuracy:
1) Unnecessary details make a game go much slower. Most of the time historically accurate details are unnecessary.
2) Neither the DM nor the players likely know what they hell they're talking about anyway, so it won't be historically accurate even if they try.
3) When dealing with a fantasy world, historical norms cease to make sense. While this is not addressed in the system/setting to a satisfactory extent, that's simply because no-one (anywhere) has the qualifications to follow that evolution in a satisfactory manner. And even if someone did, most groups have house rules that would invalidate assumptions used to reach the conclusion. Thus, not worth it.
4) Little nods to history here and there are entertaining, but group and context dependent.
5) The best use for historical knowledge is to flavor an area so that players can quickly get an idea what it's (roughly) like, not to create total historical accuracy. (e.g. "This area is basically Victorian England, that one is basically revolutionary-era France.")
6) Adhering to high accuracy, historical or otherwise, takes a lot of effort. Too much effort.
7) Can you shut up about the propagation of middle eastern merchants into northern europe for five effing seconds so I can cleave this guy a new one with a blunt axe?
The only purpose that "realism" serves in the fantasy genre is as a shared point of familiarity from which we can then cliff-dive into varying quantities of absurdity.
This is like saying how hard nobles in fantasy land by looking at what it took to be a Real knigth back in the days? Or claiming a historical difference between wizards and sorceres?
Sorry couldent resist, i agree with you this time, this is a common mistake.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only time it should come into play is when you are trying to actually play in a historical setting.And even then I'd be wary of making this argument, mainly because A) you're ruining another person's fun for no reason and B) you're probably wrong. One of the most common uses of this fallacy, for example, is to excuse the lack of black people in a Medieval European setting. What these people forget is that the Caliphate was the premier mercantile power of the era and there were Middle Eastern and North African Muslims traveling through Europe to sell their wares all the time. We have evidence of the Caliphate trading as far north as Sweden.
not only that but Norse viking managed to claim land in the middle east at one point, people walk around all over the place, it was much more connected than people think.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
not only that but Norse viking managed to claim land in the middle east at one point, people walk around all over the place, it was much more connected than people think.The only time it should come into play is when you are trying to actually play in a historical setting.And even then I'd be wary of making this argument, mainly because A) you're ruining another person's fun for no reason and B) you're probably wrong. One of the most common uses of this fallacy, for example, is to excuse the lack of black people in a Medieval European setting. What these people forget is that the Caliphate was the premier mercantile power of the era and there were Middle Eastern and North African Muslims traveling through Europe to sell their wares all the time. We have evidence of the Caliphate trading as far north as Sweden.
And in reference to my previous comment, guns started showing up in europe about the same time as full plate armor.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it depends very strongly upon the kind of game you're trying to run.
One of my favorite games, Ars Magica, is very explicitly a low-fantasy version of historical Europe (with a dash of Asia and Africa thrown in, but from a very European perspective). Part of what most ArM fans consider its charm to be is the fact that it is explicitly supposed to be historically accurate. It avoids the Tippyverse, solves most of the economic issues that plague D&D/PF at a stroke, and -- more interestingly -- encourages role-playing precisely because the you are expected to get your head around playing someone from the 13th century, not from the 20th (or 21st).
Sean Reynolds The New Argonauts does a similar thing for ancient Greece myths; it attempts to be a fantasy version of ancient Greece, instead of a generic winner-take-all mishmash of all of the fantasy tropes. And, of course, 7th Sea tries to do the same thing for the Thirty Musketeers and the Three-Year's War (or maybe the other way around). If there's a specific world-type that most of the group wants to be playing in, then it's rather poor form for that "special snowflake" to insist on breaking everyone else's immersion.
For example, an elf PC or a ninja would be inappropriate in all three games.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interestingly I've seen this more from people outside gaming than inside it (especially the people I game with).
For example, I had a co-worker ask me if people were allowed to play female warriors. Yes, we've currently got a female centurion in a Rome-inspired setting.
I think questions like that come from familiarity with fantasy in the media at large, which does seem to get more hung up on that kind of thing.
I've never seen anyone outside the internet have a problem with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exhibit B: Ars Magica, where the setting tries to get the historical aspects right, leavened with amazing fantasy elements.
It's rather good. But Golarion? Or other D&D settings? Better to ignore history.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) Neither the DM nor the players likely know what they hell they're talking about anyway, so it won't be historically accurate even if they try.
That's the big one for me. In my admittedly limited experience, the person complaining about "historical accuracy" in the game is getting their history wrong more often than not. To bring up the already cited issue of guns, the earliest hand cannons date back to the 14th century, predating several commonly accepted fixtures of the game like full plate armor and rapiers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that the "Historically Accurate" fallacy is a fallacy for an entirely different reason.
Lets assume that...
1. You are playing in a world that is loosely based on Medieval Europe.
2. Lets go a step farther, and let the players be part of specific events in our history.
It would still be wrong to disallow character choices for arbitrary historical reasons like "There weren't any black people in Europe", "There are no gunslingers", etc.
Why?
Because the player characters represent exceptional individuals. Seriously, you can have a wizard who can out think Einstein(20 int), a fighter who is almost as strong as Hercules(20 strength), or a cleric with wisdom greater than Solomon(20 wisdom). This is at level 1. By level 10, these same players are going to be superhuman.
A black person in Medieval Europe would have stood out, but that isn't the same as being non-existent. A good DM can work with the player to give them a plausible origin story. A lot of times when a player wants to do something that is very out of place with the setting, I let them, but NPCs will take an unusual interest in them because they are different.
Going back to the gunslinger. If the player was the only known gunslinger in existence, it would be weird for the NPCs to not notice or ask questions. If fact, the exoticness could be something of a double edged sword. Many enemies might not immediately recognize that the guns are potent weapons. Meanwhile, the gunslinger would be easily identified and found by anyone, friend or foe, who was looking for them.
Of course, some times this is actually valid logic. For example, I run into players often claiming that X is or should be common knowledge(Like troll's weakness to fire). The average level of education in Medieval Europe was much lower than today, and the rules actually do a pretty good job of modeling that(IE only knowledge checks DC 10 or less can be made untrained). In this case, the players are trying to use their standards of modern education to try and convince me to change my fantasy world that is loosely based on Medieval Europe.
TLDR:
Historical Accuracy is a bad reason to force restrictions onto a player about their character.
Historical Accuracy is a good thing to consider when you are world building as it can help make the world feel more realistic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see this as a subset of what might be termed the Special Snowscape Syndrome. Sometimes the DM won't even bother with historical accuracy, which at least, as a standard, is equally accessible to everyone.
Player: "So, I rolled up my fighter, but I'm 1 gp short after buying gear. Can I get a quiver with a few arrows missing and reduce the cost that way?"
DM: "You can't have a quiver at all, because bows do not exist."
Player: "Why not?"
DM: "Isn't it obvious? Of COURSE you can't use a bow in my setting! That makes no sense! How can you have a bow in X'Yunguda Land? Hahahaha!"
Player: "Why are there no bows, when there are crossbows and so on?"
DM: "Setting purity demands that bows do not exist. You obviously lack the creativity to understand this!"
Now, if the player in question has agreed to the campaign, yeah, he's SOL -- he needs to get rid of that bow. But it nevertheless remains a mystery to everyone except the DM why bows somehow can't exist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) Neither the DM nor the players likely know what they hell they're talking about anyway, so it won't be historically accurate even if they try.That's the big one for me. In my admittedly limited experience, the person complaining about "historical accuracy" in the game is getting their history wrong more often than not. To bring up the already cited issue of guns, the earliest hand cannons date back to the 14th century, predating several commonly accepted fixtures of the game like full plate armor and rapiers.
However, no one would confuse a 14th or even 15th century hand cannon with a gun. My understanding, for example, is that these "hand cannons" could not be fired by a single person without a rest. If you're talking about Golarion-style "early firearms," those are self-igniting and therefore are 16th century weapons.....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the player characters represent exceptional individuals. Seriously, you can have a wizard who can out think Einstein(20 int), a fighter who is almost as strong as Hercules(20 strength), or a cleric with wisdom greater than Solomon(20 wisdom).
Er, I know this is a bit off-topic, but...according to whom? Who says Solomon only had a 19 Wisdom? Who says Hercules only had a 20ish Strength? Hell, who says Einstein only had a 19 Intelligence?
Keep in mind that true "genius" level is generally classified at 30 Intelligence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So there's this weird habit a lot of gamers seem to have, though most of us have been guilty of it at some time. When presented with an idea that jars us, or which we don't like but can't figure out why, we'll point out how in history that didn't happen. You see it regarding why people shouldn't be allowed to play gunslingers, why only certain ethnicities of humans should only be allowed in certain parts of the world, etc.
I've thought a lot about this, and the only conclusion I've reached is that when most of us who use this kind of logic have never really examined it.
The "Historical Accuracy" Fallacy
What are your thoughts on this?
What I do see with regard to gunslingers and Asian based themes is that it does not fit into medieval Europe as if they thing D&D fantasy was intended to only be based around that. I would have called it the "not in real Europe" fallacy, but I get your point. :)
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
This "Historical Accuracy Fallacy" is only a fallacy when allusions to history aren't being deliberately engendered. It is perfectly fair to bring up and discuss elements of history if the setting wants to deliberately invoke aspects of a historical period. It's true that most games aren't going to explicitly recreate Arthurian times, but many games do try to recreate certain elements of the genre--the social dynamics, the warfare, the architecture and technology, the beasts or heroes of related myths. If you are using elements of a historical setting in your game, then historical accuracy becomes a relevant topic.
Historical elements can be part of a campaign's theme, and with a theme comes with automatic expectations and internal logic. If the logic of a theme is completely disregarded, then the use of the theme itself becomes practically pointless, and even deceptive. Expectations are part of defining a social contract at the table; they are part of the rules that help define the campaign as something more than "a <rulesystem> game." When these expectations are broken without additional explanation or context, then immersion can be lost, and it is fair to invoke these expectations as part of your rational for not having fun.
The existence of wizards and dragons in ye olde Britain does not automatically render the historical accuracy argument moot--players are able to accept these differences because they've been justified through additional context. The medieval English-style game has quasi-magic swordfighting because it also draws influence from the excitement of wuxia films. The Spartan society is completely equal in gender because we don't want to complicate or exclude from the game with the gender politics of the time. The Native American setting includes heavy armor and firearms to experiment with how the Iron Age might change our expectations of society and to give the game a twist, while reducing the amount of house rules required for equipment.
These are all fine counterarguments to historical accuracy--but that does not automatically make the Historical Accuracy argument a fallacy, any more than good air conditioning makes "How can you live in this city when the weather is so terrible?" a fallacy. Even when historical accuracy doesn't apply, considering the argument helps develop your setting by requiring you to consider plausible reasons why your campaign or setting doesn't follow expectations. "It's not actually Mesopotamia, I'll do whatever I want," is not a satisfying answer for players or readers. In fact, it may be a fallacy of reductionism itself.
In short, the Historical Accuracy Fallacy is only a fallacy when the logical justifications for the difference are deliberately ignored by the argument, or when historical themes and context were never intended or alluded to in the first place. I don't feel like Neal is really considering the underlying motives and merits of historical accuracy arguments.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have had to deal with "historical accuracy" in games, but since I generally DM I take the setting's background as "history." As someone with a degree in history (Indian focus), and a degree in classical civilizations (Roman focus, and four years of Latin under my belt), there are a lot of things your average player doesn't understand about what's "historically accurate" or not, and even I don't understand what's accurate in every situation. There's a reason we have people who still study this stuff and write books about it!
What's most important as a DM is being forward with what's going to be deemed accurate or inaccurate before the campaign starts. Since I use Eberron or Golarion as my world settings pretty much every time, I just use what's given to me as what's accurate. The setting worlds have their own histories, so whatever is available regionally or whatever is a legacy in that world is what flies; if the Taldans use chakrams, cool. If the Ulfen are the first society to discover and use black powder, awesome. That's the world you sign up for.
I do see it often on some forums (not too often here, thankfully), but my players are pretty relaxed on the whole issue. It might be my background in history, too, but I'm pretty bored of the stereotypical "Middle Ages Europe AWRIGH!" setting, and I like the diversity that Golarion and Eberron have.
Gunslingers are an interesting topic, but I'm of the opinion that it's entirely up to the DM and the players as a group to decide how common guns are. In my games, we tend to have guns be an extremely nascent thing, to the point that most gunslingers are considered casters of some kind with staves/wands that do heavy damage. True casters, of course, know the difference, but as an emerging technology they're odd for people familiar with magic instead of mechanics. Same with Eberron, though I tend to imagine guns in that setting being something developed at the end of the Last War and are generally looked at as some kind of a lesser form of brutish alchemy instead of the masterpieces of artifice and magic that airships, warforged, etc. come from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that true "genius" level is generally classified at 30 Intelligence.
The post quoted is the only time I've ever seen that particular cutoff given, so I'm not sure that "generally" is really accurate.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the player characters represent exceptional individuals. Seriously, you can have a wizard who can out think Einstein(20 int), a fighter who is almost as strong as Hercules(20 strength), or a cleric with wisdom greater than Solomon(20 wisdom).Er, I know this is a bit off-topic, but...accordinto whom? Who says Solomon only had a 19 Wisdom? Who says Hercules only had a 20 Strength? Hell, who says Einstein only had a 20 Intelligence?
Keep in mind that true "genius" level is generally classified at 30 Intelligence.
Einstein wouldn't need 30 int. A 3rd level human expert with 16 int, Skill Focus, a trait, and Scholar would have a knowledge (physics) bonus of +15 (3 ranks + 3 class skill + 1 trait + 3 skill focus + 2 scholar + 3 intelligence). That's good enough to answer "really tough" questions on a 15. He's also have one other knowledge at +12, and could potentially have all the others at +10 (11 skill ranks per level as an int 16 human expert, with FCB). If you really want to push it, access to a good library can grab a +2, assists can grab a +2, and 18 int for a total of +20. Take 20 and you hit DC40, which is well beyond any normal knowledge check DC (though this does assume you can use knowledge as a retry-able "research" skill).
I can't say Einstein didn't have 30 int, but I can say that it wouldn't have been necessary. People can get amazingly good at things when they obsess over them.
Exactly how high someone like Hercules or Solomon would need to be is dramatically more vague.
EDIT: Genius is often born more of obsession than talent. Our instinct is to credit talent so that we don't feel lazy in comparison.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, no one would confuse a 14th or even 15th century hand cannon with a gun. My understanding, for example, is that these "hand cannons" could not be fired by a single person without a rest. If you're talking about Golarion-style "early firearms," those are self-igniting and therefore are 16th century weapons.....2) Neither the DM nor the players likely know what they hell they're talking about anyway, so it won't be historically accurate even if they try.That's the big one for me. In my admittedly limited experience, the person complaining about "historical accuracy" in the game is getting their history wrong more often than not. To bring up the already cited issue of guns, the earliest hand cannons date back to the 14th century, predating several commonly accepted fixtures of the game like full plate armor and rapiers.
Yay for steve jackson's obsesively researched "GURPS: HIGH TECH" (also known as "Everything you ever wanted to know about historic firearms. Oh, and some other stuff we don't really care about."
Actually, matchlocks date back to about 1411, guns that "make their own fire" date back to 1515, also about the same time anyone ever said "I didn't know it was loaded!" (Guy "accidentally" shot a prostitute, had to pay 40 florins + 20 per year restitution)
Breech loading matchlocks are described as being "available from the very beginning of matchlock design" and are 3 times the price, prone to explode, and load about as fast as heavy crossbows if I remember correctly.
Starting in 1580, you get flintlocks. You also get rapiers about the same time. So if you object to self igniting guns on a historical basis, you also object to rapiers.
Keep in mind that true "genius" level is generally classified at 30 Intelligence.The post quoted is the only time I've ever seen that particular cutoff given, so I'm not sure that "generally" is really accurate.
I remember it being in the 3.5 PHB. May not be in the Core. They listed the scores and the levels of intellect associated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the player characters represent exceptional individuals. Seriously, you can have a wizard who can out think Einstein(20 int), a fighter who is almost as strong as Hercules(20 strength), or a cleric with wisdom greater than Solomon(20 wisdom).Er, I know this is a bit off-topic, but...accordinto whom? Who says Solomon only had a 19 Wisdom? Who says Hercules only had a 20 Strength? Hell, who says Einstein only had a 20 Intelligence?
Keep in mind that true "genius" level is generally classified at 30 Intelligence.
Einstein wouldn't need 30 int. A 3rd level human expert with 16 int, Skill Focus, a trait, and Scholar would have a knowledge (physics) bonus of +15 (3 ranks + 3 class skill + 1 trait + 3 skill focus + 2 scholar + 3 intelligence). That's good enough to answer "really tough" questions on a 15. He's also have one other knowledge at +12, and could potentially have all the others at +10 (11 skill ranks per level as an int 16 human expert, with FCB). If you really want to push it, access to a good library can grab a +2, assists can grab a +2, and 18 int for a total of +20. Take 20 and you hit DC40, which is well beyond any normal knowledge check DC (though this does assume you can use knowledge as a retry-able "research" skill).
I can't say Einstein didn't have 30 int, but I can say that it wouldn't have been necessary. People can get amazingly good at things when they obsess over them.
Exactly how high someone like Hercules or Solomon would need to be is dramatically more vague.
EDIT: Genius is often born more of obsession than talent. Our instinct is to credit talent so that we don't feel lazy in comparison.
That may be so, but the poster was using Einstein, so I ran with Einstein.
I wasn't saying he had a 30 Int, just citing it for reference. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the player characters represent exceptional individuals. Seriously, you can have a wizard who can out think Einstein(20 int), a fighter who is almost as strong as Hercules(20 strength), or a cleric with wisdom greater than Solomon(20 wisdom).Er, I know this is a bit off-topic, but...according to whom? Who says Solomon only had a 19 Wisdom? Who says Hercules only had a 20ish Strength? Hell, who says Einstein only had a 19 Intelligence?
Keep in mind that true "genius" level is generally classified at 30 Intelligence.
While Pathfinder has push the envelope up a little bit, most of this is still applicable. Oddly enough, this also deals with the historical accuracy fallacy in a way, because once the players pass level 5, they are literally more powerful than anyone in history.
Then look in the bestary. A Great Wyrm Gold Dragon, which is known for being one of the wisest and smartest creatures in existence, has an int of 26 and a wis of 27.
Either way, the average human being has an int of 10, which is more my point than anything. A character with a 20 in any stat is an exceptional human being, and is up there is the greatest this world has ever known.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Historically, guns had a revolutionary effect on our world. They were an equalizer - you didn't require extensive training to be effective en masse with muskets. The large investment in time and money to construct and be proficient in wearing plate armor became redundant.
Of course something outside of our historical perspective is how magic would effect society - even given that magic is rare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that true "genius" level is generally classified at 30 Intelligence.The post quoted is the only time I've ever seen that particular cutoff given, so I'm not sure that "generally" is really accurate.
I think the general consensus is the cutoff is 5th-6th level and the stat cutoff is 24 (+1 from hitting 4th and +3 from age).
If you allow the human racial class, it would be +2 higher, and fit with a 23-24 paradigm for physical stats (23 Str is about the human strength limit on a world record basis).
Someone with a 30 Int is beyond the understanding of anyone on the planet at this time. He could easily be as good or better at an intellectual subject as an expert who has studied it all their lives while having no 0-1 ranks in the subject.
So, yeah, 30 Int is definitely high.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aye crossbows were considered an unholy weapon by the Church, because one trigger pull punched armor and killed nobles and royalty. Longbow archers took years to train, starting from childhood. Crossbows took a few months at best, and were generally better at getting through the heavy armor that allowed the wealthy to dominate the poor.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thac, actually, that started with crossbows. In fact it was so true of crossbows that people wanted to ban them.
They wanted to ban them and in some cases did make them illegal. This discussion right here is actually a good example of why we should just ignore the minor quibbles of historical accuracies when most people don't know the whole story of everything. Just have fun with the game.
Honestly I feel like the "Historically accurate" only comes in when a player goes and breaks a GM's "Tolkien fantasy"
Honestly I feel like the "Historically accurate" only comes in when a player goes and breaks a GM's "Tolkien fantasy"** spoiler omitted **
That said, there's a point there and it's a good one. Most of the time in fantasy RPGs we're not emulating real history or even real history + magic. We're more likely aiming for the feel of fantasy fiction of some sub-genre or another.
Claiming "historical accuracy" when something disrupts that is disingenuous. Be honest - "Guns don't fit the type of fantasy I'm interested in running here." "Ninja's don't fit the type of fantasy I'm interested in running here."
The reason why Tolkien is kind of blamed the most is because nearly ALL fantasy is inspired by Tolkien or Arthurian Legend. "Elves are like humans but prettier, lithe, masters of magic and live forever", "dwarves all have beards and love ale and are smiths and ect", "Humans are the under dog race that lives shorter lives than everyone but took over because "Human spirit" and stuff",... Those were engrained very powerfully after Tolkien.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Elves are like humans but prettier, lithe, masters of magic and live forever", "dwarves all have beards and love ale and are smiths and ect", "Humans are the under dog race that lives shorter lives than everyone but took over because "Human spirit" and stuff",... Those were engrained very powerfully after Tolkien.
Tolkien ripped all that off from Norse mythology and other earlier sources, pretty much wholesale.
Beautiful, immortal magic elves? Check.Bearded dwarves who are supernaturally-awesome smiths? Check.
Humans, short-lived individually, but who are destined as a race to outlive even the gods? Check.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Elves are like humans but prettier, lithe, masters of magic and live forever", "dwarves all have beards and love ale and are smiths and ect", "Humans are the under dog race that lives shorter lives than everyone but took over because "Human spirit" and stuff",... Those were engrained very powerfully after Tolkien.Tolkien ripped all that off from Norse mythology and other earlier sources, pretty much wholesale.
Beautiful, immortal magic elves? Check.
Bearded dwarves who are supernaturally-awesome smiths? Check.
Humans, short-lived individually, but who are destined as a race to outlive even the gods? Check.
Silly Kirth, didn't you know that nothing exists until an English guy writes it?
Yes, but Tolkien is the one who really put all those things together into one world. He pretty much single handedly created Medieval Fantasy as we know it.
More than a few times I GMs going so far as to getting all hurt when players are not playing Dwarves and Elves as what Tolkien laid out.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the whole topic of calling it a fallacy smells of trying to box in what can be and can't be an acceptable form of expression or what can be an acceptable story. No thank you.
Why do people use history-ish settings? It's known and relatable.