| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
not really, i didn't allow goblins for my rise of the runelord campaign, REGARDLESS of how much of a rebel they are or how much they know how to read and write. I, as a GM, didn't want to roleplay any and all explanations of why there was a goblin in the group and why he wasn't being stabbed, or all the conversations they have to have with the guards to gain access to the city.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
not really, i didn't allow goblins for my rise of the runelord campaign, REGARDLESS of how much of a rebel they are or how much they know how to read and write. I, as a GM, didn't want to roleplay any and all explanations of why there was a goblin in the group and why he wasn't being stabbed, or all the conversations they have to have with the guards to gain access to the city.
Yeah Goblins were one of the few races I didn't allow when I ran RotRL. I would have maybe preferred our group to stick with more common Varisian races, but was okay with everything else. Which was good since the party ended up consisting of a Kitsune, Nagaji, Kobold, and Changeling
Having disallowed races/classes is fine, but I do think GM should make it clear why they are disallowed, and be pretty flexible overall on what can be included. And if the majority of players are dead set on playing certain races/classes that don't match the specific game, than perhaps another storyline should be pursued or someone else should take up the DMing.
Contributor
|
not really, i didn't allow goblins for my rise of the runelord campaign, REGARDLESS of how much of a rebel they are or how much they know how to read and write. I, as a GM, didn't want to roleplay any and all explanations of why there was a goblin in the group and why he wasn't being stabbed, or all the conversations they have to have with the guards to gain access to the city.Yeah Goblins were one of the few races I didn't allow when I ran RotRL. I would have maybe preferred our group to stick with more common Varisian races, but was okay with everything else. Which was good since the party ended up consisting of a Kitsune, Nagaji, Kobold, and Changeling
Having disallowed races/classes is fine, but I do think GM should make it clear why they are disallowed, and be pretty flexible overall on what can be included. And if the majority of players are dead set on playing certain races/classes that don't match the specific game, than perhaps another storyline should be pursued or someone else should take up the DMing.
For the record, I would totally want to play a changeling in RotRL.
Of course, I'd also inform the GM that I know it front-to-back first. If I were still allowed in, I'd ask him to make the changeling heritage "relevant" in book 3.
But that's just me. ^_^
|
Kirth, I get what you're saying about everyone having input into the campaign theme, but I don't think you have to have a full conversation at each stage to prevent DM dictatorship.
For example, the last time I gave potential players 5 different campaign theme options, I was told any of them would be fine. I couldn't even get a clear preference from anyone - a vote would have been ridiculous.
It's rare for one of the GMs in my gaming circle to suggest more than one campaign idea at a time because usually all the potential players are happy with any campaign idea.
And in the handful of cases I can recall where a character concept is discarded, it's not a GM veto but a player deciding that they want a character that's less unusual for the setting.
Characters that violate setting expectations tend to be characterized by the ways in which they violate setting expectations. In GoT, for example, Brienne of Tarth and Arya Stark both spend a lot of time exploring the fact that they violate the setting's gender roles. In some ways that makes them interesting characters, but it also might be less fun for someone who is trying to tell a story about a dishonoured knight who failed to protect her liege lord and doesn't want a spotlight on the knight's gender.
The frog-man in Red's campaign is primarily defined by the fact that he is a magical freak and wants to restore his proper form - and in doing so prove his superiority over the entity that cursed him.
Some people might want to gloss over these details but some find it strains their sense of disbelief that the only frog-man or female knight in the world doesn't raise some eyebrows, or that the exiled samurai just happens to be able to find a magical katana in a country where they don't exist.
And the PC is an outcast Drow who was either banished or narrowly escaped his execution and is now has a 'dead-or-alive' warrant out for him. Or he's the child of renegades who fled drow society for whatever their reasons. Or any of a dozen other possibilities I'm not going to take the time to think up and type out. The child-of-surface-drow option is particularly appealing, because it means he'd know less about drow society than one who grew up among them.I'd largely agree with that, though I generally trust the GM more and am more willing to leave things as "That won't fit - for <spoilers>."
"I don't want you to play a drow because they're the mystery villains, but I'm not going to tell you that.", for example.
Good ideas, but it can be hard to suggest them to the player without spoiling the campaign arc (by giving more details about why drow don't fit). And you still might have a player who doesn't want to play an outcast or exile.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if you are playing Pathfinder or high fantasy in general, then everything Pathfinder fits the theme. All fantasy concepts are equally fictional.
So... your saying that if we're running a stone age campaign, that the technology guide still fits the theme? That's ludicrous.
Yeah Goblins were one of the few races I didn't allow when I ran RotRL. I would have maybe preferred our group to stick with more common Varisian races, but was okay with everything else. Which was good since the party ended up consisting of a Kitsune, Nagaji, Kobold, and Changeling
Having disallowed races/classes is fine, but I do think GM should make it clear why they are disallowed, and be pretty flexible overall on what can be included. And if the majority of players are dead set on playing certain races/classes that don't match the specific game, than perhaps another storyline should be pursued or someone else should take up the DMing.
I agree. Or give a little bonus for the races you want "all humans get one of the bonus traits from...". That's what our RotRL DM get, he said if your PC can pass for human, you get a bonus feat/trait from the sourcebook.
Could I play a Thassilonean? +2 to all stats! Starts with the Thassilonean language! ;-)
And I learned that it is better to just ignore Anzyr. Because of that I don't care about his stance.Yeah, that's where we differ all the way down the line. I do listen to the people I'm interacting with, rather than ignore them, and I do care about their stance.
Normally I do, too. But some are just too troublesome.
Also, if you are playing Pathfinder or high fantasy in general, then everything Pathfinder fits the theme. All fantasy concepts are equally fictional.So... your saying that if we're running a stone age campaign, that the technology guide still fits the theme? That's ludicrous.
Until your cavemen accidentally stumble upon the Barrier Peaks.
>:D
Also, if you are playing Pathfinder or high fantasy in general, then everything Pathfinder fits the theme. All fantasy concepts are equally fictional.So... your saying that if we're running a stone age campaign, that the technology guide still fits the theme? That's ludicrous.Until your cavemen accidentally stumble upon the Barrier Peaks.
>:D
"Are those two ogres banging dull gray metal clubs against each other?
"Yes why?
"... we may want to du
*mushroom cloud*
|
|
My particular beef with the guns/ninja's argument has little to do with "historical accuracy", but I do think that their inclusion in a game like Pathfinder is and has always been a bad idea. It's not that Pathfinder/D&D/Etc. . . is historical Europe, it's that it is Fantasy. I personally do not appreciate the OP trying to cram being black into the same category as guns (or whatever), when the two are not similar arguments at all.
But back to guns/ninja/samurai, etc. . . The issue is that they force non-Fantasy elements into the fantasy game. There is the fact that they have not in however many thousands/billions of years in the setting spread or developed. They have a little, but not significantly. They also do not alter the setting in ways they should. The fact that there are various magic users is accounted for in the setting, so various nations have mages and priests and alchemists in their armies and magical protections, etc. . .
But what nation is not going to want to rip apart a firearm and recreate it. And yet, we have (in Golarion) thousands of years where no one has considered this? And how many thousands of years has it been since the more Sci-Fi technology has been around? And no one has bothered to try to fix and understand it? There is also the fact that the various gods are worshipped and have followers outside of the planet, and that probably means that Torag, Abadar, and others, (heck gamehunters of Eristal) from other worlds should know all about guns and technology, and they just decided not to teach those morons on Golarion? Add in little things like the Baghdad Battery, doesn't help.
No wizard, alchemist, or artificer cleric has discovered how to make them work or create them, or heck even bother trying? Ever? Even though there are spells that just work on firearms, and even specialist wizards and inquisitors that use firearms?
Then there are things like Tien. So, there is a Tien version of Iomedae, who is their basic samurai god of good. But, wait, Iomedae only became an actual deity not too terribly long ago, and Tian Xia has existed just as long as the Inner Sea, so the Tien's have never had a good samurai god until some foreigner they had never heard of until she ascended became one? Or are they two nearly identical deities that have just never interacted, despite the fact that there have been a lot of traveling between the areas for thousands of years, and other deities like Irori have spread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My particular beef with the guns/ninja's argument has little to do with "historical accuracy", but I do think that their inclusion in a game like Pathfinder is and has always been a bad idea. It's not that Pathfinder/D&D/Etc. . . is historical Europe, it's that it is Fantasy. I personally do not appreciate the OP trying to cram being black into the same category as guns (or whatever), when the two are not similar arguments at all.
But back to guns/ninja/samurai, etc. . . The issue is that they force non-Fantasy elements into the fantasy game. There is the fact that they have not in however many thousands/billions of years in the setting spread or developed. They have a little, but not significantly. They also do not alter the setting in ways they should. The fact that there are various magic users is accounted for in the setting, so various nations have mages and priests and alchemists in their armies and magical protections, etc. . .
But what nation is not going to want to rip apart a firearm and recreate it. And yet, we have (in Golarion) thousands of years where no one has considered this? And how many thousands of years has it been since the more Sci-Fi technology has been around? And no one has bothered to try to fix and understand it? There is also the fact that the various gods are worshipped and have followers outside of the planet, and that probably means that Torag, Abadar, and others, (heck gamehunters of Eristal) from other worlds should know all about guns and technology, and they just decided not to teach those morons on Golarion? Add in little things like the Baghdad Battery, doesn't help.
No wizard, alchemist, or artificer cleric has discovered how to make them work or create them, or heck even bother trying? Ever? Even though there are spells that just work on firearms, and even specialist wizards and inquisitors that use firearms?
Then there are things like Tien. So, there is a Tien version of Iomedae, who is their basic...
Ignorant much. What makes a Ninja non-fantasy?
Oh let me guess, your idea of "fantasy" IS medieval Europe right? Knights, and castles, and dragons, and wizards, and the like right? Also with Tolkien rip off elves and dwarves correct? THIS is what I meant by "I hate LoTR stuck fantasies"
Fantasy can be damn near ANYTHING. Who is to say there are no guns in fantasy? Have you not heard of the Dark Tower series from Stephen King? Guess what THE FIRST BOOK IS CALLED. GUNSLINGER. Also Fairy Tail has a pair of gunslingers. And infact, if you look in Golarian, the area that is most well known for Gunslingers makes sense since MAGIC DOESN'T WORK RIGHT THERE. THe kindgom right near the rift (I forgot the name of it) has issues with magic going weird so the military depends on more conventional means.
|
|
Claiming that Guns, Ninja and Samurai [and pretty much anything else Pathfinder's given even the slightest sideways glance at] isn't fantasy is pretty crazy in my mind.
Now, of course you're welcome to say you don't like that stuff in your fantasy, but I sure as hell like it in mine and my fantasy is no less fantasy than yours is.
Really depends. Guns and technological firearms are expressly not fantasy, but part of either the western or the sci-fi genre. Fantasy generally implies more European or romantic, so knights, dragons, wizards, demons, etc, . . . but is not only those. It's just that those sources make up the majority of what is considered Fantasy. However, there are others, such as One Thousand and One Nights (Arabian Nights) are also part of the source material, so Ninja and Samurai, do fit in in a fashion.
Fantasy, as a genre, is distinct from sci-fi, horror, and other genres. Ninja's and Samurai can fit, I just feel that Paizo did it terribly wrong, making the same kind of racist mistake that is common to trying to include anything not "western" in the otherwise pretty westernized fantasy setting. Either they are unique and special, just because, so we have things like the Katana being both special and better than the Longsword or Bastard Sword, just because it's Asian, or kind of reinforcing that they are separate. You don't see a lot of Taldan Ninja's or Mwangi Samurai, but you do see Tian-Min Fighters, Paladins, and Wizards. Tengu Rogues, Hongalesse Barbarians, Cavaliers, and Shamans, etc. . .
All despite the fact that there should have been plenty of crossover.
White Wolf (Onyx Path) has done a similar thing with their Gypsy and Kindred of the East supplements, (and even a bit with their Mummy books too), so it's not just a Pathfinder issue. Later materials, like the Kindred of the Ebony Kingdom (Africa) did start to fix the problem by introducing the new material as similar (within the context), but not exclusive (Asian) or superspeacial just because (Gypsy, Mummy). Pathfinder didn't. A lot of the Tian Xia flavored material was just outright better than the non-Tian Xia equivalent. Ninja was better than Rogue, Samurai, while <debatable> not better than the Cavalier, did focus on circumventing what at the time was the biggest hated aspect of the Cavalier. Katana is just better because it's a Katana, (in all actuality, Katanas are a pretty crappy weapon vs a broadsword <longsword>), but hey, it's a katana, right.
Ignorant much.
Welp, looks like one of us is. :P
Oh let me guess, your idea of "fantasy" IS medieval Europe right? Knights, and castles, and dragons, and wizards, and the like right?
Yep, that's pretty dang close to the definition of Fantasy Genre, yes. Please note I wrote all of the above before seeing your post.
Well, Star Wars is entirely Sci-Fi in setting (you've got space and guns and lasers and stuff), it just happens to be presented in the most cookie cutter fantasy plot possible.
The Warcraft franchise is a better example, but Kalimdor is almost as kitchen sinky as Golarion.
|
|
As an example, Starwars is both Scifi AND Fantasy. Having Sci-fi elements makes it no less fantasy than Lord of the Rings.
Next you're going to tell me Barrier Peaks somehow isn't Fantasy :P
You've already kind of answered your question. Star Wars is pretty notable as being both Sci-Fi and Fantasy. If anything, though, it was originally sold as a Sci-Fi series, highlighting the space ship battles and technology, for example.
And Expedition to the Barrier Peaks was a one off. The one thing that made it at all special was that it was a space ship that had crashed IN A NORMALLY FANTASY SETTING (D&D). If you take the exact same module and run it in d20 Modern (Future), it is not special in any way. As I recall, it was also one of the most contentious old school modules out there, people either loved it or hated it. Now, compare it to other genre style crossovers, like Spelljammer (space ships and superscience), Planescape (hell, anything goes), Dark Sun (desert dystopia), Ravenloft (horror), Oriental Adventures (D&D in the East), Birthright (political intrigue families, and bloodlines), Maztica (antive and mezzo-American), etc. . . and you generally find that each of those had a pretty loyal following. Heck, Ravenloft was a single module that directly spawned an entire setting. A lot of it has to do with 1.) how it's presented, 2.) how it all fits together in the setting as a whole, and 3.) how it's sold.
In Golarion, there are two nations that focus on guns, and it's totally feasible that no other nation has ever conquered them to learn their secrets or kidnapped and tortured the info out of those few, rare snowflakes that travel the world with a firearm cause their class says so. Right? Right? Come on guys/gals, right. . . Yah, uh, no.
Instead, the concept of Golarion/Pathfinder is that each individual little country acts 100% in ignorance of and without interacting with any other kitchensink portion of the map.
Fantasy has nothing to do with Knights, and Wizards, and castles and such.
In fact, nowhere in both the literary definition or the literal definition of fantasy does it state Medieval Europe.
noun, plural fantasies.
1.
imagination, especially when extravagant and unrestrained.
2.
the forming of mental images, especially wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing.
3.
a mental image, especially when unreal or fantastic; vision:
a nightmare fantasy.
4.
Psychology. an imagined or conjured up sequence fulfilling a psychological need; daydream.
5.
a hallucination.
6.
a supposition based on no solid foundation; visionary idea; illusion:
dreams of Utopias and similar fantasies.
7.
caprice; whim.
8.
an ingenious or fanciful thought, design, or invention.
9.
Also, fantasia. Literature. an imaginative or fanciful work, especially one dealing with supernatural or unnatural events or characters:
The stories of Poe are fantasies of horror.
The only requirement for fantasy is that it deals with varying degrees of Supernatural stuff. It is just that people have become rather lazy and unimaginitive and only think of fantasy as the groundwork popularized by Tolkien. The reason Star Wars is considered Fantasy is because of all the Force stuff.
noun
1.
a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc.
Science fiction is simply a form of fiction that utilizes heavy science for its explanation of things or utilizes heavy technology (in the case of stuff like Ender's Game or Star Trek).
So again, nowhere does it state that Guns are not a fantasy thing. Or ninjas.
In Golarion, there are two nations that focus on guns, and it's totally feasible that no other nation has ever conquered them to learn their secrets or kidnapped and tortured the info out of those few, rare snowflakes that travel the world with a firearm cause their class says so. Right? Right? Come on guys/gals, right. . . Yah, uh, no.
Instead, the concept of Golarion/Pathfinder is that each individual little country acts 100% in ignorance of and without interacting with any other kitchensink portion of the map.
Eh, that's more really for sales purposes. You give people the option to include as much, or as little, of the material as they want. You could easily remove the guns or the space ships or the ninjas and not interrupt the rest of the game. If you decide to keep all of it, they you could probably find ten different ways to explain why guns haven't been replicated, why high tech isn't everywhere and so on.
Paizo presented the game as a starting point, an incomplete thought that you can mold how you want and I can do the same and Pixie Dust can do as they please as well.
Heck, just look at all the Modern Fantasy stuff like Dresden Files and Supernatural. Or is Modern Fantasy also not fantasy?
Most of these blanket definitions of what Fantasy is, should be preceded with "in my mind," or "in my opinion,"...
Way too much presenting opinion as fact.
Nope. Not at all. That is not fantasy at all... [/sarcasm]
|
|
Heck, just look at all the Modern Fantasy stuff like Dresden Files and Supernatural. Or is Modern Fantasy also not fantasy?
Like Noir, Westerns, or Horror, it is it's own category, though like other combos (Firefly is both Sci-Fi and Western, Star Wars is both Sci-Fi and Fantasy), it does blend some elements of both. In this case, the genre you are looking for is "Urban Fantasy".
Most of these blanket definitions of what Fantasy is, should be preceded with "in my mind," or "in my opinion,"...
Way too much presenting opinion as fact.
Well that is it :)
I am advocating the freedom of fantasy of any type, not just traditional Medieval Western Fantasy. Fantasy is one of the most diverse genres and to limit it down to such a niche is a disservice to a wonderful genre.
Heck, just look at all the Modern Fantasy stuff like Dresden Files and Supernatural. Or is Modern Fantasy also not fantasy?Like Noir, Westerns, or Horror, it is it's own category, though like other combos (Firefly is both Sci-Fi and Western, Star Wars is both Sci-Fi and Fantasy), it does blend some elements of both. In this case, the genre you are looking for is "Urban Fantasy".
But it is still fantasy. It is like saying Symphonic METAL is not Metal because you only define metal as Speed/Thrash/Black metal. So if you said Guns don't fit as well in MEDIEVAL EUROPEAN Fantasy then I can see that but to remove them from fantasy all together is ignorant.
It comes down to what you and your table want. If you want to define fantasy as only traditional medieval western fantasy and everyone at the table is good with that, then that is your fantasy.
If you want it to mean everything and anything, then that is your fantasy.
I prefer the dial somewhere between those extremes myself, but to each their own.
But it is still fantasy. It is like saying Symphonic METAL is not Metal because you only define metal as Speed/Thrash/Black metal. So if you said Guns don't fit as well in MEDIEVAL EUROPEAN Fantasy then I can see that but to remove them from fantasy all together is ignorant.
Continuing to call people ignorant because they do not adhere to your definitions is rude and undermines your point.
Noir, Western, and Horror are their Own Genres as a whole. "Urban Fantasy" is a sub genre of Fantasy. They are completely different orders of classifications.
I worked in a library in college. Anything with the Fantasy monkier is typically filed under "Fantasy" with a few extra digits at the end to signify its subgenre placement. The exception being things that tend to lean more toward another genre like Star Wars which are often classified more along Science Fiction than Fantasy.
|
|
The definition of the Fantasy Genre is that it involves mythical creatures, the supernatural, and magic, and laws or reality that do not follow ours or can not be understood. You are also ignoring the part where it says "the fantasy genre is predominantly of the medievalist form", "often set in a medieval universe", "Most often the overall theme of the setting is medieval in tone, meaning that some combination of the architecture, clothing, language, and technology resembles the European Middle Ages."
By contrast, we also have Sci-Fi, "Fantasy fiction is frequently confused with science fiction, which might incorporate some of the same tones and themes, but the plot of a science fiction story will also rely on technology that is advanced beyond what we know today.", "It usually eschews the supernatural, and unlike the related genre of fantasy, its imaginary elements are largely plausible within the scientifically established context of the story", "In general, science fiction differs from fantasy in that the former concerns things that might someday be possible or that at least embody the pretense of realism. Supernaturalism, usually absent in science fiction, is the distinctive characteristic of fantasy literature.", etc. . .
Sci-Fi is not Fantasy. Both are fiction, and even speculative fiction. They might be similar, or even close enough in your opinion, (which is fine, but as your opinion), but that's not the definition that anyone else (random individual on the street), is going to assume when you talk about the genre with them, and especially if they are a fan of the genre. Knights, dragons, a generic medieval western setting with castles, magic, faeries, and swords is. It's not exclusive to those things, though by definition it is exclusive to no guns/laser pistols, no space ships, science can not explain everything/most things, and the like. Ninjas and Samurai do fit, in a fashion. But again, it's not what people consider a part of the Fantasy Genre. Fiction, yes. Heroic Fiction. Sure. Anime, certainly.
|
|
But it is still fantasy. It is like saying Symphonic METAL is not Metal because you only define metal as Speed/Thrash/Black metal. So if you said Guns don't fit as well in MEDIEVAL EUROPEAN Fantasy then I can see that but to remove them from fantasy all together is ignorant.
It's not Metal. It is it's own specific thing. It's also not Gothic Metal, for instance, nor is it Classical/Instrumental music.
The definition of the Fantasy Genre is that it involves mythical creatures, the supernatural, and magic, and laws or reality that do not follow ours or can not be understood. You are also ignoring the part where it says "the fantasy genre is predominantly of the medievalist form", "often set in a medieval universe", "Most often the overall theme of the setting is medieval in tone, meaning that some combination of the architecture, clothing, language, and technology resembles the European Middle Ages."
By contrast, we also have Sci-Fi, "Fantasy fiction is frequently confused with science fiction, which might incorporate some of the same tones and themes, but the plot of a science fiction story will also rely on technology that is advanced beyond what we know today.", "It usually eschews the supernatural, and unlike the related genre of fantasy, its imaginary elements are largely plausible within the scientifically established context of the story", "In general, science fiction differs from fantasy in that the former concerns things that might someday be possible or that at least embody the pretense of realism. Supernaturalism, usually absent in science fiction, is the distinctive characteristic of fantasy literature.", etc. . .
Sci-Fi is not Fantasy. Both are fiction, and even speculative fiction. They might be similar, or even close enough in your opinion, (which is fine, but as your opinion), but that's not the definition that anyone else (random individual on the street), is going to assume when you talk about the genre with them, and especially if they are a fan of the genre. Knights, dragons, a generic medieval western setting with castles, magic, faeries, and swords is. It's not exclusive to those things, though by definition it is exclusive to no guns/laser pistols, no space ships, science can not explain everything/most things, and the like. Ninjas and Samurai do fit, in a fashion. But again, it's not what people consider a part of the Fantasy Genre. Fiction, yes. Heroic Fiction. Sure. Anime,...
Where in teh definition of Fantasy do you see any of that? The most "limiting" definition I have found for fantasy is :
FANTASY LITERATURE: Any literature that is removed from reality--especially poems, books, or short narratives set in nonexistent worlds, such as an elvish kingdom, on the moon, in Pellucidar (the hollow center of the earth), or in alternative versions of the historical world--such as a version of London where vampires or sorcerers have seized control of parliament. The characters are often something other than humans, or human characters may interact with nonhuman characters such as trolls, dragons, munchkins, kelpies, etc. Examples include J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, J. R. R. Tolkien's synthetic histories in The Silmarilion, Michael Moorcock's The Dreaming City, or the books in Stephen R. Donaldson's series, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever. See also escapist literature. Contrast with magic realism, science fiction and speculative fiction.
And I am pulling my definition from Dictionary.com, Carson-Newman University, and based upon what I know of the Dewey System from working in a library. Fantasy in it's totality can just about be anything. The fact that YOU define fantasy as requiring all these Medieval things is incorrect. And yes, it is PREDOMINATALY, Medieval. BUT NOT REQUIRED to be so. The reason why Medieval Europe is the most popular setting is because:
1) It is easy to copy what is already shown to work (with all the LoTR clones)
2) It is easy to escape realism in a world nothing like the contemporary world.
3) It gives more leeway to do things since people are NOT very historically accurate with things in the Medieval things vs things that happened in recent history.
But again, popularity does not make it the de facto.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Dark Tower Series is pretty good....
Guns and technological firearms are expressly not fantasy
I do not accept your premise.
This is being stated as fact, when it's 100% opinion.Repeating an opinion over and over, even with an authoritative tone, does not make it fact.
Really depends. Guns and technological firearms are expressly not fantasy, but part of either the western or the sci-fi genre.Nah. They are more common elements of other genres, but firearms are very much part of fantasy.
While that may be true, it seems that firearms (and those who use them) are very frequently in opposition to the elements that make it "Fantasy". For example, the animated film Wizards and more recently Princess Mononoke. Both are fantasy films, but the guns are destroying the fantastic.
Likewise, it is Magical elements that are often in direct opposition to technology in Sci Fi. For example the "force" in Star Wars and the Bene Gesserit abilities in Dune.
Definitely. It just means that "Do guns belong in fantasy?" is a very different question from "Do guns belong in PF?" or "Do guns belong in the kind of fantasy that PF does well?" But the two are often conflated - by those on both sides of the argument.
It's also different from "Do guns belong in this particular setting I'm developing or campaign I want to run?"
While "Do guns belong in fantasy?" is a very different question from "Do guns belong in PF?" and or "Do guns belong in the kind of fantasy that PF does well?" The answer to all those questions is obviously yes. Since you know guns exist in fantasy stories. And they exist in Pathfinder. And since presumably Golarion is the kind of fantasy Pathfinder does well, again the answer is yes, because guns exist there to.
And while the answer to all those questions is unambiguously "Yes.", the question "Do guns belong in this particular setting I'm developing or campaign I want to run?" depends on whether you plan on including them and if one of your players wants to use them. If the answer to either of those questions is "Yes.", then I would submit the answer to that question is "Yes." as well.
|
For example, the animated film Wizards and more recently Princess Mononoke. Both are fantasy films, but the guns are destroying the fantastic.
I can't speak to Wizards, but Mononoke was enhanced by the primitive firearms used by the industrialists, and highlighted the conflict between them and the forest.
For example, the animated film Wizards and more recently Princess Mononoke. Both are fantasy films, but the guns are destroying the fantastic.I can't speak to Wizards, but Mononoke was enhanced by the primitive firearms used by the industrialists, and highlighted the conflict between them and the forest.
I would agree 100%. I did not mean to imply that the guns were destroying the verisimilitude of the fantasy, but that they were used to tell the story of an assault on nature/magic by technology and industry. Guns are not destroying the story, they are the oppositional part of the story.
EDIT:
Wizards wiki page
"Wizards is a 1977 American animated post-apocalyptic science fantasy film about the battle between two wizards, one representing the forces of magic and one representing the forces of industrial technology. It was written, produced, and directed by Ralph Bakshi.[3]"
If you can get over some of the dated stuff, Wizards is well worth watching!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Genre fight! Genre fight!
The elements that make up a particular literary genre are no less arbitrary than the elements of what makes "authentic" jambalaya. First and foremost, it should be acknowledged that the acceptance or prohibition of firearms, technology, democracy, or letterpress printing is quite frankly a matter of taste. If you like them, great. If not, that's ok too. In either event, the settings in which exist the games you run and the games I run are a matter for us and our fellow players to decide, and certainly not something to be making ex cathedra proclamations about.
Going back to the original post and the author's blog, let me raise the same objection I did on his Facebook page: While we avoid getting into quibbles about the historicity of certain items and concepts, allowing cultural elements in our stories to produce the same exclusionary mores (and resultant odious behavior) as those elements did back in the day is not a quest for historical specificity as much as it is a comment on the way in which power relationships impact culture. Westeros is not a misogynist place because England in the era of the War of the Roses was a misogynist place - it's misogynist because that is the result of a culture built on primogeniture and violence as the preferred method of large-scale conflict resolution. When life is cheap, a lot of lives get sold cheaply, and that has less to do with history and more to do with values.