At what point did PF jump this shark of medieval fantasy that D&D didn't. Lets see...
Guns: Check.
Giant Robots: Check.
Brain Sucking Aliens: Check.
Technology That Existed After The Middle Ages: Check.
Gunslingers: Fail. My medieval fantasy is safe in D&D.
Personally I think you can fit most options into any style game, it just depends on how flexible you're imagination is. For instance,I'm working on an Age of Legends style game. Gunslinger won't be availible to start with because it doesn't really fit the setting. If I decide to throw in an Atlantis like power that does have guns and gunslingers, I don't see how this will dramatically alter what I'm going for. I also have no problem with players taking the class as long as they RP interest and trying to learn it.
I love me some steampunk in my fantasy, the best amalgamation I know is in the classic PC game Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura, it had technological understanding as an opposite to the world of magic, and Gill Bates stole the steammachine from the dwarves, epic.
I just have the feeling that they change to world a bit too much, new races, new technology and everything, a GM has to implement everything in you world, so that PCs who use it don't act as a freakshow.
...a GM has to implement everything in you world, so that PCs who use it don't act as a freakshow.
Why? A GM has the power to say what goes in and what doesn't, even with Golarion. If PCs don't like it, then they can pony up and run their own game. I saw a post in another thread where some one said that they ban Gnomes and Halflings from all their games because they hate them, even if their players complain, and would ban the other non-human races if the GM could get away with it. The GM is the player who sets the stage and are within their rights to say yes or no to what they want to run.
Ending here before I start ranting about PCs who believe that the GM must run the game that they want to play.
|
Tolkien's writings, maybe except Hobbit, are dreadfully boring and uninspired. No character development, little in the way action and mind-numbing focus on purely academic stuff such as genealogy and linguistics. Oooh this tree here, it grew up from an acorn that fell down from a tree that has a story of it's own, and the trees that were before it remember blah blah bleh.
While I can see that criticism applied to the Silmarilion, I don't really think it applies to either The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. I was reading Lord of the Rings and following it well by the time I was ten. While he can occasionally go a bit florid with description, it rarely lasts more than a paragraph.
Question to the OP, what did you see in UM?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't the Expedition to the Barrier Peaks 1e?
I dont see PF as losing that fantasy it bring many into one. As other has stated it up to the GM to allow and not allow in the game. In games I have been in we got a WoW like banking system so we dont always have gold on us and if we die then whats in the bank cant be looted by the party. We always have money to access if we leave town to go to another.
Wasn't the Expedition to the Barrier Peaks 1e?And Greyhawk had a gunslingin' god!
Has first edition given up on being fantasy?!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has first edition given up on being fantasy?!Wasn't the Expedition to the Barrier Peaks 1e?And Greyhawk had a gunslingin' god!
Blackmoor, which actually predated D&D, had a crashed alien spaceship. So sci-fi has been in D&D since before it was D&D.
I swear this game has gone downhill ever since Chainmail.
Tolkien's writings, maybe except Hobbit, are dreadfully boring and uninspired. No character development, little in the way action and mind-numbing focus on purely academic stuff such as genealogy and linguistics. Oooh this tree here, it grew up from an acorn that fell down from a tree that has a story of it's own, and the trees that were before it remember blah blah bleh.
I always knew you were a sensible fellow. You're dead-on.
LotR trilogy: hobbit found a evil ring, travels to a volcano to destroy it, does so. Insert 3,000 pages of excruciating descriptions for every tree, rock, cloud, lake, or cave he passes on his way.
I get it that the works are historically significant, but they're certainly not a good read. By the time I got to LotR I'd read tens of thousands of pages worth of good books, many of which were likely derived from his. Maybe if I'd read LotR first like so many others I'd hold it in some special place in my heart. But no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also important to remember that Gygax didn't like LotR much himself. There's a dragon magazine article in which he admits to enjoying Vance's writing more, and using Tolkien's vocabulary for races etc to gin-up sales to the mid 70s Tolkien fad crowd.
As for LotR being boring, slow, dry and otherwise terrible... That's all true, but it wasn't written that way by accident imo; JRR was writing in the vein of epic poetry, most of which comes from pre-literate societies, and function in a completely different way that what we think of as entertainment.
I'm not saying anyone has to enjoy it, but complaining about 3,000 pages of excruciating descriptions (no insult Anguish) is like complaining about it having swords in it. At some pretty essential level that's just what it is.
Edit: Oh yeah, the thread topic... D&D has always been more pulp fiction than high fantasy imo, back to 1E; you don't like steampunk, don't play steampunk :)
After looking through some of the books (namely UM and UC), it has occurred to my group that PF has pretty much given up on being a fantasy game and just gone "screw it, let's go Steampunk". Especially after UC. I mean, just look at the picture of the Spellslinger Wizard... Not that this is a bad thing, just an observation and a thread to see if anyone else has noticed this and what people's thoughts are on it. Personally, I quite like it.
Yep. I do agree. It is something I have had to clarify with some players that want to play gunslingers or bomb alchemists. I do not run steampunk, firearms are extremely rare, one nation uses them, and they do not cross centuries of tech, they are at a level of tech.
I kept right away from Eberron for this reason, but once in a while the attempt to merge fantasy with the wild west, with the colonial age comes along. I'm just tired of it, and would rather focus on the game and keep it medieval with monsters.
Although I have been thinking about a mesopotamia game, or viking dark ages.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really enjoy some things.
I dislike others.
Across many fields of experience and entertainment.
I don't really feel it valuable or interesting to insult other peoples pleasures with a tone of absolute and condescending self-assurance.
I would hope that others might consider this when writing about popular authors.
One of the downsides of the "splatbook" effect is that it makes it a little bit likelier that your gaming group is going to dissolve. Turning PF into Steampunk with Dragons and Abolitionist Countries and Ninja-Paladin Multi-Class To Lorekeepers Oh My makes it likelier that everyone will find something that they want that others don't want in a game.
This can be managed by a GM willing to write a good setting pitch...
But it does mean that "Hey, let's play D&D..." now needs more explanation. It's now "Hey, let's play D&D with Tengu gunslingers..." "Uh, can't we just have elves and dwarves 'n stuff?"
It raises the amount of system awareness needed to play the game.
Steampunk has come to be a broad term in an of itself too. It is now something like mixing various themes of tech levels that would not normally go together. Like high future and past or whatever. Or just little bits. Like having hot air balloons in France carrying ships but otherwise everything else is normal.
At what point did PF jump this shark of medieval fantasy that D&D didn't. Lets see...
Guns: Check.
Giant Robots: Check.
Brain Sucking Aliens: Check.
Technology That Existed After The Middle Ages: Check.
Gunslingers: Fail. My medieval fantasy is safe in D&D.Personally I think you can fit most options into any style game, it just depends on how flexible you're imagination is. For instance,I'm working on an Age of Legends style game. Gunslinger won't be availible to start with because it doesn't really fit the setting. If I decide to throw in an Atlantis like power that does have guns and gunslingers, I don't see how this will dramatically alter what I'm going for. I also have no problem with players taking the class as long as they RP interest and trying to learn it.
A lot of that technology existed -before- the era we call "medieval" as well, pretty much only advanced firearms and some of the vehicles are exclusively more advanced than the technology of that era would allow. D&D has pretty much always had brain-sucking aliens and giant robots.
The firearm was first invented in China in mid 10th century whereas the era we call "medieval" starts 5th century and ends 15th century, which means guns are perfectly acceptable. Unless you are one of those "not my fantasy" types. Even D&D had guns.
To deny any of this is to bury your head in the sand, which looks silly
A lot of that technology existed -before- the era we call "medieval" as well, pretty much only advanced firearms and some of the vehicles are exclusively more advanced than the technology of that era would allow. D&D has pretty much always had brain-sucking aliens and giant robots.
The firearm was first invented in China in mid 10th century whereas the era we call "medieval" starts 5th century and ends 15th century, which means guns are perfectly acceptable. Unless you are one of those "not my fantasy" types. Even D&D had guns.
To deny any of this is to bury your head in the sand, which looks silly
Oh I am aware that guns existed even before the Middle Ages (which is another reason I have a problem when people say that they shouldn't exist in fantasy). I was talking about longswords, rapiers, and full plate which appear at the very end of the High Middle Ages (10th - 13th century) at the earliest. Now if you limit weapon selections to things like shortswords, viking swords, and knight swords you are closer to the Middle Ages.
But since we have to drag guns into this, the guns that are usually presented are usually late Renissance to early modern. UC does at least make a nod to earlier firearms, like the fire lance, but it also has things like the Pepper Box which was in use during the American Civil War. I so no problem having them in PF along side magic.
If some one wants to try to do a "Middle Ages game" then they should be just as strict about all the other equipment that they're letting in as they are about guns, though guns and cannons should still be around. What I was trying to point out that PF has done with my earlier comment was that the only thing PF has that D&D didn't was have a class that revolves around guns. I personally can't see how that makes D&D "Medieval" and Pathfinder "Steampunk". Hell, D&D had Spelljammers, Grafts, and even one book that had WWI style planes.
|
|
Yeah, I blame Forgotten Realms for force-feedind D&D with Tolkien elves, classical high fantasy and constant pathos, among other things. Greyhawk and Blackmoore had a more zany, quixotic atmosphere and owed their existence to Vance and Howard more than Tolkien. From spellcasters witholding spell matrixes in their mind, to telekinesis and the barbarian class, D&D and in addition PF, had different roots than many do realise.
In a way, to go on a tangent, part of the reason for the Old School Renaissance(of RPGs, check Lamentations of the Flame Princess, fer instance) is to get back that early atmosphere. Aliens, Mythos influences and character mortality being just some parts of that tradition.
I think it's interesting to see Paizo upholding those old themes, but it does have the unfortunate consequence of making Golarion and the system as well a complete kitchen sink. I don't mind it myself, but for some players having a Lorienesque elven kingdom being connected by river to a barbarian wasteland full of killer robots can be a bit too much, for example. :D
Edit: Almost forgot to mention it: In my opinion, it's well worth it to keep literary terms out of layman conversation. I could go on a diatribe about how much it irks me to see "steampunk" thrown around like it's going out of style, but it's perhaps best to let scholarly definitions and redefinitions be at rest. People can use whatever terms they feel like using. Not to mention, defining can be risky since there's bound to both students, laymen and peers who disagree on those terms or come from different research traditions. I learned my lesson when I dared to use the "Other" when talking about Lovecraft with a Psychology student.
At what point did PF jump this shark of medieval fantasy that D&D didn't. Lets see...
Guns: Check.
Giant Robots: Check.
Brain Sucking Aliens: Check.
Technology That Existed After The Middle Ages: Check.
Gunslingers: Fail. My medieval fantasy is safe in D&D.Personally I think you can fit most options into any style game, it just depends on how flexible you're imagination is. For instance,I'm working on an Age of Legends style game. Gunslinger won't be availible to start with because it doesn't really fit the setting. If I decide to throw in an Atlantis like power that does have guns and gunslingers, I don't see how this will dramatically alter what I'm going for. I also have no problem with players taking the class as long as they RP interest and trying to learn it.
Guns: Have been in D&D since at least 2nd addition.
Giant Robots/Space Ships/Laser Pistols: again at least 2nd addition (Expedition to the Barrier Peaks)Brain Sucking Aliens: 2E Mindflayers anyone.
Gunslinger: 2E either players handbook or dungeon master's guide had conversions for both Gama World and Boot Hill(Uhhh yeah GUNSLINGERS).
Technology: Again 2e Tinker Gnomes.
Almost all of these predate 3e let alone Pathfinder.
Many people keep forgetting that just because it is in one of the books does not mean it has to be used. Your version of what fits in a fantasy game may be different than mine so I appreciate options being there even if they go unused in my campaigns.
Steampunk has come to be a broad term in an of itself too. It is now something like mixing various themes of tech levels that would not normally go together. Like high future and past or whatever. Or just little bits. Like having hot air balloons in France carrying ships but otherwise everything else is normal.
I refuse to say THAT movie, or Wild Wild West, is SteamPunk, nein! (even if they are)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of us are into RPing because we have vivid imaginations. Some of you just have highly destructive OCD and want to share your torment like a plague. Those with OCD can never be happy; they can just have moments of reprieve from the voices in their head that shout math equations. I used to think I was OCD, then I got into D&D and I felt like the one-eyed man in the valley of the blind.
When I was a kid, you just liked fantasy and sci-fi and read anything you could. D&D was supposed to be a way to actually PLAY the story and it was fun. Then all the damn OCDivas come along and start dividing everything into sub-sub-sub-sub-genres and picking fights about it. Take your nerd gangs somewhere else. I can enjoy Star Trek right along side Star Wars, I can read about John Carter and then read about Aslan, and I can have cowboys vs ninjas in my Pathfinder if I want to.
If you set any limit on fantasy, you are missing the point of fantasy.
Guns: Have been in D&D since at least 2nd addition.
Giant Robots/Space Ships/Laser Pistols: again at least 2nd addition (Expedition to the Barrier Peaks)
Brain Sucking Aliens: 2E Mindflayers anyone.
Gunslinger: 2E either players handbook or dungeon master's guide had conversions for both Gama World and Boot Hill(Uhhh yeah GUNSLINGERS).
Technology: Again 2e Tinker Gnomes.
Almost all of these predate 3e let alone Pathfinder.Many people keep forgetting that just because it is in one of the books does not mean it has to be used. Your version of what fits in a fantasy game may be different than mine so I appreciate options being there even if they go unused in my campaigns.
Hmm... must have missed the conversions in 2ED, I don't remember that. My point was that all of those have been present in D&D since 1st addition in many cases. I was not saying that D&D didn't have any of those elements, I was checking off all the things D&D and PF have in common. Honestly PF is a little light on the brain sucking aliens since they can't use Illithids. The only thing I see as a difference is the class that is based around guns, which I might have just completely missed in 2nd Ed. My wording could have been better, and I can edit it now :(, but if you read below my check list you should see that I'm pro whatever works.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every time an orc dies, I say "That's what I'm Tolkien about!"
Hmm... must have missed the conversions in 2ED, I don't remember that. My point was that all of those have been present in D&D since 1st addition in many cases. I was not saying that D&D didn't have any of those elements, I was checking off all the things D&D and PF have in common. Honestly PF is a little light on the brain sucking aliens since they can't use Illithids. The only thing I see as a difference is the class that is based around guns, which I might have just completely missed in 2nd Ed. My wording could have been better, and I can edit it now :(, but if you read below my check list you should see that I'm pro whatever works.Guns: Have been in D&D since at least 2nd addition.
Giant Robots/Space Ships/Laser Pistols: again at least 2nd addition (Expedition to the Barrier Peaks)
Brain Sucking Aliens: 2E Mindflayers anyone.
Gunslinger: 2E either players handbook or dungeon master's guide had conversions for both Gama World and Boot Hill(Uhhh yeah GUNSLINGERS).
Technology: Again 2e Tinker Gnomes.
Almost all of these predate 3e let alone Pathfinder.Many people keep forgetting that just because it is in one of the books does not mean it has to be used. Your version of what fits in a fantasy game may be different than mine so I appreciate options being there even if they go unused in my campaigns.
If I remember it was in either the first or second Advanced Hard Cover a couple of pages in the back of the book. It was that book that got me to buy Gama World and Boot Hill when I was younger.
Hmm... must have missed the conversions in 2ED, I don't remember that. My point was that all of those have been present in D&D since 1st addition in many cases. I was not saying that D&D didn't have any of those elements, I was checking off all the things D&D and PF have in common. Honestly PF is a little light on the brain sucking aliens since they can't use Illithids. The only thing I see as a difference is the class that is based around guns, which I might have just completely missed in 2nd Ed. My wording could have been better, and I can edit it now :(, but if you read below my check list you should see that I'm pro whatever works.Guns: Have been in D&D since at least 2nd addition.
Giant Robots/Space Ships/Laser Pistols: again at least 2nd addition (Expedition to the Barrier Peaks)
Brain Sucking Aliens: 2E Mindflayers anyone.
Gunslinger: 2E either players handbook or dungeon master's guide had conversions for both Gama World and Boot Hill(Uhhh yeah GUNSLINGERS).
Technology: Again 2e Tinker Gnomes.
Almost all of these predate 3e let alone Pathfinder.Many people keep forgetting that just because it is in one of the books does not mean it has to be used. Your version of what fits in a fantasy game may be different than mine so I appreciate options being there even if they go unused in my campaigns.
They did not have a dedicated Gunslinger Class but a Fighter could easily take a proficiency in wheel lock pistol and was good to go. 2e was simple like that. Guns were cheaper, I had a Fighter in 2E that had a brace of Pistols much like El Douche in Boondock Saints so he could dual wield. Not having the dedicated class made it easier for the most part.
I for one am glad that Pathfinder provides many options to allow me the freedom to run the game setting that I want.
If you are really concerned about keeping a strict setting, make an allowed race/class checklist and get back to enjoying the game.
personally I think that they have done a very good job of adding as much flavour to the game as possible. As others have said it's only a bunch of options, you take what you want from it. If you want pure Tolkien esq fantasy stick with the core book and you are away.
The other options give a creative toolbox for a GM to design a whatever they want without the need for countless pointless or limited sale books, eg oriental book, swashbuckle book, steampunk etc. This way you get more bang for your'e buck and your'e bookshelf remains ligher and wallet fuller.
|
A lot of things can be walled off to certain sections of Golarion.
If you don't like firearms, they are an oddity that exists in Alkenstar or may just be a weird traveler's tale that no one believes.
The robots in Numeria may be limited to a geographical area. Maybe they CAN'T go a certain distance from the ruined spaceships.
As I recall, James Jacobs and others have said that once you start playing, the game is yours as is the game world. So, decide what might work best for your game. As a GM, you can say yes or no to any element of the game. (Maybe in your Golarion, the spaceship crashed on the surface of Akiton and the dwarves in Alkenstar who ended up developing fire arms never did so.)
Please note that the books in the Pathfinder RPG line are toolboxes for *your* game, whatever that might be. Some people may want rifles, robots, and steampunk in their game, leaving out armored knights, romantic chivalry, and feudal society, or somebody else may want a low-tech, low-magic game with an invasion of green-skinned technologically advanced psychics from another planet. The options that we present in the RPG line don't necessarily all apply to Golarion, and they certainly aren't intended to say "You must have this thing that you don't like/want/need in your game."
They're options. Use them--or not, as the case may be.
|
|
Please note that the books in the Pathfinder RPG line are toolboxes for *your* game, whatever that might be. Some people may want rifles, robots, and steampunk in their game, leaving out armored knights, romantic chivalry, and feudal society, or somebody else may want a low-tech, low-magic game with an invasion of green-skinned technologically advanced psychics from another planet. The options that we present in the RPG line don't necessarily all apply to Golarion, and they certainly aren't intended to say "You must have this thing that you don't like/want/need in your game."
They're options. Use them--or not, as the case may be.
I find it amusing that we addressed the same topics a minute or so apart.
Sometimes, a GM should say no to the players. I was in a good gaming group for 20 years and the GM started allowing everything and anything the players wanted -- including some D20 products that allowed for some overpowered characters. I left the group because I tried to stick with the official 3.5 rules and others seem to be playing at the same table with variant rules.
Sometimes, the role of a GM is to set limits. Not every gaming group need use every option -- just make sure that all the players are on an equal footing and know what you will allow and not allow at the table. (So, if you want a gunless Golarion, just say no gunslingers in your own game or say that you reserve the right to approve character concepts if you feel that a ninja is not appropriate to your game.)
Tolkien created a huge fantasy world with languages, cultures, races, and environments. I can't think of any writer that created such a vivid world as LOTR before Tolkien. THere was Robert E. Howard and the Conan books but those are nothing compared to the scale Tolkien created with LOTR. Of course there is myths, tales, mythology etc...But that doesn't go into deep characterization like LOTR did. I started to read THe wheel of time series and just kept thinking to myself this is such a ripoff of LOTR.
|
|
That's because Jordan's WoT comes from the same "the background is more important than the foreground" strain of fantasy as Tolkien.
I'd have Howard, Leiber, Moorcock, Cook or anybody else who writes about the characters first and about their surroundings second. I'm glad that James and Erik have several times stated that they're Not Exactly Thrilled with Tolkien and prefer the "sword & sorcery" subgenre as an inspiration source.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Furthermore, a thought for all those who don't like guns in their D&D/Pathfinder/Fantasy.. how to you resolve naval/siege technology?
Really? They had navies and seiges long before gunpowder. Ramming, galleys, boarding, longships, etc. Trebuchets, catapults, ballistas, you know those. Did you really ask that?
Any reason that the military technology hasn't made it out of the ancient world when the sociopolitical and economic aspects HAVE?
Sure. Sociopolitical and economic aspects of a setting don't have that much to do with a specific military technology. They arise from a broader range of conditions (including magic) than any one technology.
Cannon and even hand-held firearms have been a part of historical warfare as early as the 13th century.. even before the Hundred Year's War, which is decidedly 'low tech' compared to what's available in the Core rulebook equipment lists. Guns/cannon came onto the scene long before other iconic 'fantasy' staples such as full-plate armor. Indeed, why would there even be plate armor in a world where guns were never invented?
The hand cannon came into broad use in the 14th century iirc. It's about as primitive as a gunpowder weapon can be. The weapons in PF are far superior to it. Plate was developed to protect people not just to counter gunpowder. Hand weapons, crossbow bolts and arrows were a problem. Assuming you wanted to live of course. Plate was designed to aid that goal and developed over a long period of time from individual steel plates added to chainmail to reinforce vulnerable points to the full plate armour of the Rennaissance.
Personally. I don't have gunpowder in my game. You can have it in yours. Why would I care? But to go the route of "how could we have seiges / navies / plate armor / pirates / a medieval game without gunpowder is fairly ridiculous. Every bit as much so as the "it's not fanatasy if it has guns". It's a matter of setting and individual preference people. Not a litmust test of "good fun / bad fun".
Some of us have never read Tolkien.[/QUOT]
I tired........twice.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's because Jordan's WoT comes from the same "the background is more important than the foreground" strain of fantasy as Tolkien.
I'd have Howard, Leiber, Moorcock, Cook or anybody else who writes about the characters first and about their surroundings second. I'm glad that James and Erik have several times stated that they're Not Exactly Thrilled with Tolkien and prefer the "sword & sorcery" subgenre as an inspiration source.
Doesn't this all depend upon how important context is?
Isn't it a problem of fantasy writing that less assumptions can be made and more has to be set-up by the writer?
Part of my attraction to Tolkein is his crafting of a world of that my imagination could get lost in, which is also part of the pleasure I get from reading Golarion books.
I also find Tolkein's development of themes and writing/use of language very pleasurable. Just suits me.
On the actual thread topic: I actually think the APs and specific region setting books created quite a consistent world.
Some of us have never read Tolkien.*raises hand*
That'd be me. Though not for lack of trying. I can get almost 3 pages into the Lord of the Rings before I just can't do it anymore.
try the audio books that is how i read books now a days. i audioed the game of thrones I don't think i could of read the whole books
|
|
.. Did you really ask that?...
Personally. I don't have gunpowder in my game. You can have it in yours. Why would I care? But to go the route of "how could we have seiges / navies / plate armor / pirates / a medieval game without gunpowder is fairly ridiculous. Every bit as much so as the "it's not fanatasy if it has guns". It's a matter of setting and individual preference people. Not a litmust test of "good fun / bad fun".
Did you really just not read what I asked, or simply not comprehend it? Not to troll. Seriously. Maybe I simply chose my words so poorly the intent was hard to read.
My point was this: A game that restricts siege technology to the ancient world's technology (ballistae, catapults, etc) but is otherwise basically based on the european midieval era makes less sense than a game based laregely on the midieval era that includes guns & cannon.
A particularly inane example is renaissance era ship styles still equipped with roman-era naval weaponry. Happens quite often in 'guns-free' D&D sea adventures. "A schooner with BALLISTAE!?! Really?"
But we do agree that what's one person's cup of tea isn't necessarily another's. Saying guns don't fit in fantasy is just as wrong as saying guns must be present if the game simulates a timeframe when they were historically present.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I gm, I like my player's to be the heroes. I like them to feel special, that they aren't just run of the mill soldiers or investigators.
So if my settings has few firearms? Go ahead. Play a gunslinger. You are the hero. You are the exception. If you make a name for yourself, you will go down in history as the popularizer of firearms.
You want to pen a theory of evolution in my world where creationism runs rampant? Go ahead. You are the hero.
Want to throw bombs made from volatile compounds, mixing pre-modern chemistry with magic? Go ahead, you are the hero, not a zero. but if armies catch wind of your abilities, you better figure away to not be kidnapped.
Generally speaking, as long as it won't marginalize other members of the party, other heroes, and doesn't require huge new subsystems on the scale of psionics or Tome of Magic stuff, I am fine with it.
I'm not here to ram a story down my player's throats. I am here to see what they do to my world.
try the audio books that is how i read books now a days. i audioed the game of thrones I don't think i could of read the whole booksSome of us have never read Tolkien.*raises hand*
That'd be me. Though not for lack of trying. I can get almost 3 pages into the Lord of the Rings before I just can't do it anymore.
You know, I just might. I had a similarly hard time keeping interested in reading the Gaiman books for more than a couple of pages (Good Omens was a chore and I never made it a quarter of the way in), but really enjoyed listening to Anansi Boys once my old boss gave it to me on CD. Perhaps I'll enjoy it with a change of format (my expectations are low, however, as I can't pay attention to the LotR movies long enough to get into them either).
Did you really just not read what I asked, or simply not comprehend it? Not to troll. Seriously. Maybe I simply chose my words so poorly the intent was hard to read.
Your intent wasn't all that clear. I just answered the points.
My point was this: A game that restricts siege technology to the ancient world's technology (ballistae, catapults, etc) but is otherwise basically based on the european midieval era makes less sense than a game based laregely on the midieval era that includes guns & cannon.
About 2/3 of the Middle Ages proceeded nicely without gunpowder. When it was present it wasn't a dominant factor. It becomes dominant after the Middle Ages.
A particularly inane example is renaissance era ship styles still equipped with roman-era naval weaponry. Happens quite often in 'guns-free' D&D sea adventures. "A schooner with BALLISTAE!?! Really?
A schooner is a much later vessel than the Renaissance. If you want Age of sails stuff like a schooner we're talking 16-19th centuries. Medieval sailing vessels (say a Cog) were fairly primitive (say two masts, and fore and aft castles) and usually armed only with archers, and maybe ballistas and the odd catapult. Firing arcs were restricted of course. Some of the earliest gunpowder weapons on ahips were galleys btw in the Mediterranean. The big innovations in sailing vessels get going in the late 15th century plus with the Caravel being top dog for a hundred years or so. If you want gunpowder weapons as the primary weapon of naval warfare think Spanish Armada period (late 1500s) or later. Think Christopher Columbus on the Caravel and you're there in looks / ability. If you want pirates a la classic movies, or more current ones, make it 17th century plus.
But we do agree that what's one person's cup of tea isn't necessarily another's. Saying guns don't fit in fantasy is just as wrong as saying guns must be present if the game simulates a timeframe when they were historically present.
Mostly. As I've already said gunpowder is optional to have a feudal / medieval setting. Nothing wrong with it, just not an absolute requirement.
Left "fantasy" for "steampunk"? D&D did it many years ago, my friend.
Spelljammer? Planescape's Modrons? Dragonlance's gnomes? Masque of the Red Death Campaign setting?
This idea is far from being new.