Has Anyone Else Had To Deal With The "Historical Accuracy" Fallacy?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

801 to 834 of 834 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
alexd1976 wrote:

Really I'm just playing Devil's advocate here. I sort shows/movies into a single category when storing them.

I wouldn't put Star Trek under Fantasy. Or Star Trek.

I would, however, put the Dungeons and Dragons movies there.

No, actually, I would put those in the recycle bin, but that's another story. :D

you're still largely basing this on setting.

just because something is in the "future" doesn't make it sci fi or post apocolypse.

Adventure Time takes place in the future after a nuclear(/or other) War(the mushroom wars) happened, still largely fantasy, even with robots and mutants running around.

what matters is what the story emphasizes.


Bandw2 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Really I'm just playing Devil's advocate here. I sort shows/movies into a single category when storing them.

I wouldn't put Star Trek under Fantasy. Or Star Trek.

I would, however, put the Dungeons and Dragons movies there.

No, actually, I would put those in the recycle bin, but that's another story. :D

you're still largely basing this on setting.

just because something is in the future doesn't make it sci fi or post apocolypse.

Adventure Time takes place in the future after a nuclear(/or other) War(the mushroom wars) happened, still largely fantasy, even with robots and mutants running around.

Agreed. Adventure time focuses on magic/the fantastic FAR more than Star Trek does. Technology plays virtually no role.

Worth mentioning-I don't recall ever mentioning time period as a deciding factor.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
alexd1976 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Really I'm just playing Devil's advocate here. I sort shows/movies into a single category when storing them.

I wouldn't put Star Trek under Fantasy. Or Star Trek.

I would, however, put the Dungeons and Dragons movies there.

No, actually, I would put those in the recycle bin, but that's another story. :D

you're still largely basing this on setting.

just because something is in the future doesn't make it sci fi or post apocolypse.

Adventure Time takes place in the future after a nuclear(/or other) War(the mushroom wars) happened, still largely fantasy, even with robots and mutants running around.

Agreed. Adventure time focuses on magic/the fantastic FAR more than Star Trek does. Technology plays virtually no role.

Worth mentioning-I don't recall ever mentioning time period as a deciding factor.

well several people here think fantasy is meant only for the medieval times. :P

also for posterity:
NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Magnets. How does they work? Therefore, fantasy.

Remember Elfquest? It had a magnet and magic! But the magic was more like psychic powers, and then at the end it was revealed that the elves were aliens all along, and you knew it was science fiction because in their original form the elves only had one nostril. One nostril!!

Look, it's been like 30 years, I'm not going to spoiler it.


Bandw2 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Really I'm just playing Devil's advocate here. I sort shows/movies into a single category when storing them.

I wouldn't put Star Trek under Fantasy. Or Star Trek.

I would, however, put the Dungeons and Dragons movies there.

No, actually, I would put those in the recycle bin, but that's another story. :D

you're still largely basing this on setting.

just because something is in the future doesn't make it sci fi or post apocolypse.

Adventure Time takes place in the future after a nuclear(/or other) War(the mushroom wars) happened, still largely fantasy, even with robots and mutants running around.

Agreed. Adventure time focuses on magic/the fantastic FAR more than Star Trek does. Technology plays virtually no role.

Worth mentioning-I don't recall ever mentioning time period as a deciding factor.

well several people here think fantasy is meant only for the medieval times. :P

also for posterity:
NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY

Nah, fantasy can happen whenever. Nuclear bombs and plagues do weird things. For example, 'The Stand' (yes I was King fan)-I might classify that as fantasy, I mean, Randall Flag ACTUALLY HAS MAGIC!

I'm not really sure how to describe a fantasy setting, I just recognize it when i see it. :D

Also, True Scotsman? I know I can Google it, but I try not to seem smarter than I am...


Just read it. Was that directed at me? If so, how? *scratching head*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd just like to add that while I think every concept fits Pathfinder, that doesn't mean that every concept fits every campaign, even if the rules allow it.

That said, I dislike banning stuff, and whenever I do it, I almost exclusively do it for balance reasons. And I think banning stuff just because you don't like it is selfish and annoying. The GM will always have the final say, but he/she should at very f&!#ing least, consult their group before making big decisions about the game and setting.

Admittedly, players are always free to leave the game, but 'My way or the Highway" is an awful way to deal with your friends.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
alexd1976 wrote:
Just read it. Was that directed at me? If so, how? *scratching head*

no at everyone who thinks that "that's not fantasy, that's urban fantasy".

it pretty much sums up everything wrong in the thread.


RDM42 wrote:
Guns exist in whatever category you want to put _Golarion_ in, you mean.

Pathfinder's rulebooks feature guns and gun-focused characters and classes too. Ergo, guns are part of Pathfinder. Guns are as much a part of Pathfinder as Oracles, traits, archetypes, and anything else that came out in the expanded core rules.

As stated before, that doesn't mean every single game played with the Pathfinder rules must include them.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I still say that most of the confusion is from focusing on the two top level divisions (Sci-fi vs fantasy) and ignoring all the subgenres that exist precisely for this reason. "Science fantasy" and "sword and planet" were both coined for a reason.
I'm old school. Not familiar with either of these terms.

You were born before 1912? Because "sword and planet" was coined to cover stuff like ERB's Barsoom stories. And "science fantasy" has been in general use since 1950 or so.

The genre is that old. Not so the term.

wiki: "The genre tag "Sword and planet" is constructed to mimic the terms sword and sorcery and sword and sandal. The phrase appears to have first been coined in the 1960s by Donald A. Wollheim, editor of Ace Books, and later of DAW Books at a time when the genre was undergoing a revival."


Anzyr wrote:


You are entitled to play any concept you want. You just aren't entitled to start as it. =P

Fine, Then you can play as a gunslinger but you cant have a gun until you find one in a crashed spaceship. I plan on the party finding one around level 12.


DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


You are entitled to play any concept you want. You just aren't entitled to start as it. =P
Fine, Then you can play as a gunslinger but you cant have a gun until you find one in a crashed spaceship. I plan on the party finding one around level 12.

Gunslinger starts with one as per the rules. This is not the same as wanting more stats then the rules provide.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


You are entitled to play any concept you want. You just aren't entitled to start as it. =P
Fine, Then you can play as a gunslinger but you cant have a gun until you find one in a crashed spaceship. I plan on the party finding one around level 12.

better be a snazzy gun


kyrt-ryder wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I still say that most of the confusion is from focusing on the two top level divisions (Sci-fi vs fantasy) and ignoring all the subgenres that exist precisely for this reason. "Science fantasy" and "sword and planet" were both coined for a reason.
Wasn't D&D Spellcasting ripped straight out of a Science Fantasy series?

The Dying Earth? Pretty much fantasy. Altho, true it is supposedly set in the far future there are no SF aspects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


You are entitled to play any concept you want. You just aren't entitled to start as it. =P
Fine, Then you can play as a gunslinger but you cant have a gun until you find one in a crashed spaceship. I plan on the party finding one around level 12.
Gunslinger starts with one as per the rules. This is not the same as wanting more stats then the rules provide.

The rules allow you to set any number you like for character point buy, too. I want 102 points. Why cant I have 102 points? You are harshing my concept, dude! ;-)

There is really no difference between :

No guns are made in this world, due to the tech being middle medieval. There may be a chance to find one later, a relic of a different civilization.

vs

You can only start with a 20 point build.

Each is a game set up the DM has decided. Each will reduce some choices a player has to start.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


You are entitled to play any concept you want. You just aren't entitled to start as it. =P
Fine, Then you can play as a gunslinger but you cant have a gun until you find one in a crashed spaceship. I plan on the party finding one around level 12.
Gunslinger starts with one as per the rules. This is not the same as wanting more stats then the rules provide.
The rules allow you to set any number you like for character point buy, too. I want 102 points. Why cant I have 102 points?

i'll do you 1 better, you can have 103, but you HAVE to use all of them.


DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


You are entitled to play any concept you want. You just aren't entitled to start as it. =P
Fine, Then you can play as a gunslinger but you cant have a gun until you find one in a crashed spaceship. I plan on the party finding one around level 12.
Gunslinger starts with one as per the rules. This is not the same as wanting more stats then the rules provide.

The rules allow you to set any number you like for character point buy, too. I want 102 points. Why cant I have 102 points? You are harshing my concept, dude! ;-)

There is really no difference between :

No guns are made in this world, due to the tech being middle medieval. There may be a chance to find one later, a relic of a different civilization.

vs

You can only start with a 20 point build.

Each is a game set up the DM has decided. Each will reduce some choices a player has to start.

It doesn't reduce the number of concepts they can play. You can play your concept. You just can't play it with all 18's off the start.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:

It doesn't reduce the number of concepts they can play. You can play your concept. You just can't play it with all 18's off the start.

You can play your concept. You just can't play it with a gun off the start.

:-p


DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

It doesn't reduce the number of concepts they can play. You can play your concept. You just can't play it with all 18's off the start.

You can play your concept. You just can't play it with a gun off the start.

:-p

The rules say you start with a gun. The rules don't say you start with 18 in each stat. If you honestly cannot see the difference between these two things, I will further elaborate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

DrDeth, I think you think you're exposing huge holes in Anzyr's GMing style, but, um...

...well, you aren't. You just aren't. Everyone here can see perfectly well that there's a huge difference between "I want to play a gunslinger" and "I want to play Boccob, God of Magic". You can play whatever flavor you want, but power level is limited for reasons other than theme or setting.

So let's just cut this pedantry. This simply isn't proving anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

It doesn't reduce the number of concepts they can play. You can play your concept. You just can't play it with all 18's off the start.

You can play your concept. You just can't play it with a gun off the start.

:-p
The rules say you start with a gun. The rules don't say you start with 18 in each stat. If you honestly cannot see the difference between these two things, I will further elaborate.

The rules say the DM can allow or disallow any classes or tech level for his campaigns.

The rules say the DM gets to set the point buy.

In both cases you will have limitations on a character concept. And that's perfectly Ok- every game has limitations on character creation.

But the issue is when people say "Well, *MY* limitations on character creation are perfectly OK and reasonable, but others are stifling to the Player's creative concept."


Bandw2 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

star wars in definitely Sci fi fantasy. it's MOSTLY fantasy with a high tech overlay. the difference between sci fi and sci fi fantasy is the difference between star trek and star wars. In star trek you have things that work and are explained, everything works with physics or it;s own interpretation of physics. in sci fi fantasy, technology is never explained and everything just works, almost as if by magic. ;)

the setting is futuristic but it is still largely a fantasy story.

Star Trek has Q and numerous other inexplicable entities like him.

Only one sentient android (to start)-revealed to be exceptionally rare, has one similar (Lore) revealed later and makes a daughter. Three in total, in the whole setting.

while true star trek focuses on and explains how these things work, the technology is the focus. there is Q, who is revealed to be an inter dimensional being he however usually pits the crew agaisnt technological hurdles.

We also have the Borg, which are a personification of letting technology control people.

first generation was definitely more sci fi fantasy now that i think about it. It did talk on technology and how it didn't do everything for us, but largely still had simple themes.

General episodes were about technology and what they could do to people however, how technology could do us harm and yet also do good. It took place during the cold war and thus during the nuclear scare so you have to also watch it with that mind set.

A line i always remember is "how can we have the power to destroy an entire planet, and yet be so helpless?"

You havent watched much star trek if you think most episodes 'revolve around the technology"


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Anzyr wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

It doesn't reduce the number of concepts they can play. You can play your concept. You just can't play it with all 18's off the start.

You can play your concept. You just can't play it with a gun off the start.

:-p
The rules say you start with a gun. The rules don't say you start with 18 in each stat. If you honestly cannot see the difference between these two things, I will further elaborate.

I agree with Anzyr, the difference here is 14s in all stats is to 18s in all stats as gettign your gunslinger pistol is to starting with a revolver/energy pistol


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Certainly there is a difference in degree. But both are limitations to a character concept. Anytime you have set character building rules you have limited a character concept. Sometimes a lot, sometimes a little.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

star wars in definitely Sci fi fantasy. it's MOSTLY fantasy with a high tech overlay. the difference between sci fi and sci fi fantasy is the difference between star trek and star wars. In star trek you have things that work and are explained, everything works with physics or it;s own interpretation of physics. in sci fi fantasy, technology is never explained and everything just works, almost as if by magic. ;)

the setting is futuristic but it is still largely a fantasy story.

Star Trek has Q and numerous other inexplicable entities like him.

Only one sentient android (to start)-revealed to be exceptionally rare, has one similar (Lore) revealed later and makes a daughter. Three in total, in the whole setting.

while true star trek focuses on and explains how these things work, the technology is the focus. there is Q, who is revealed to be an inter dimensional being he however usually pits the crew agaisnt technological hurdles.

We also have the Borg, which are a personification of letting technology control people.

first generation was definitely more sci fi fantasy now that i think about it. It did talk on technology and how it didn't do everything for us, but largely still had simple themes.

General episodes were about technology and what they could do to people however, how technology could do us harm and yet also do good. It took place during the cold war and thus during the nuclear scare so you have to also watch it with that mind set.

A line i always remember is "how can we have the power to destroy an entire planet, and yet be so helpless?"

You havent watched much star trek if you think most episodes 'revolve around the technology"

Marathoned the first generation a while back, before that i just watched the other ones when they were on. It was there, but definitely had several episodes about other things that were prudent at the time.


DrDeth wrote:
Certainly there is a difference in degree. But both are limitations to a character concept. Anytime you have set character building rules you have limited a character concept. Sometimes a lot, sometimes a little.

This is the D&D equivalent of someone saying "I never break a promise" and another guy saying, "Well, what if you promised to do something and then Hitler showed up and was all, If you do that, I'll eat a baby! What would you do then, smart guy???" Or someone saying, "Nothing pisses me off more than that g&~$%!n Annoying Orange" and the other guy saying, "Oh, yeah, what about Hitler? I guess you love Hitler then!"

Congratulations. You've "disproven" an extreme. Sadly, this argument has made absolutely no contribution to the actual discussion and in fact has served only to slow down said discussion with pointless semantics.

Huzzah?

EDIT: This post was a bit more hostile than I wanted to be, so revised slightly. I apologize.


RDM42 wrote:
You havent watched much star trek if you think most episodes 'revolve around the technology"

Depends on the era, to some extent. But yeah, a whole lot of Star Trek technology is pretty much just wizards casting spells with computers and technobabble instead of instead of spellbooks and incantations.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Chengar Qordath wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
You havent watched much star trek if you think most episodes 'revolve around the technology"
Depends on the era, to some extent. But yeah, a whole lot of Star Trek technology is pretty much just wizards casting spells with computers and technobabble instead of instead of spellbooks and incantations.

okay i've been unclear, it's about technology in general and how it impacts human lives. not if everything is perfectly explained.


Bandw2 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
You havent watched much star trek if you think most episodes 'revolve around the technology"
Depends on the era, to some extent. But yeah, a whole lot of Star Trek technology is pretty much just wizards casting spells with computers and technobabble instead of instead of spellbooks and incantations.
okay i've been unclear, it's about technology in general and how it impacts human lives. not if everything is perfectly explained.

Forget perfectly explained.

If you got a random word generator to spit out a bunch of science related terms and strung them all together in a grammatically correct way you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the drivel you wrote and the explanations for the "technology" star trek uses.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Star Wars is TEXTBOOK Space Opera. Galaxy spanning empires, good vs evil, humans, aliens, high technology, virtuous heroes and despicable villains, redemption, panoramic history, etc.

The Space Opera's first huge example is EE Doc Smith's 'The Lensmen Series', which featured all of those elements...as well as telepathy, telekinesis, extra senses, and a order of superhuman agents of unimpeachable virtue gifted with a device that could not be duplicated by any technology, that allowed those not naturally gifted with those powers access to them.

I would be hugely surprised if the Jedi Order was not based in some part on the Lensmen.

==Aelryinth


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
You havent watched much star trek if you think most episodes 'revolve around the technology"
Depends on the era, to some extent. But yeah, a whole lot of Star Trek technology is pretty much just wizards casting spells with computers and technobabble instead of instead of spellbooks and incantations.
okay i've been unclear, it's about technology in general and how it impacts human lives. not if everything is perfectly explained.

Forget perfectly explained.

If you got a random word generator to spit out a bunch of science related terms and strung them all together in a grammatically correct way you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the drivel you wrote and the explanations for the "technology" star trek uses.

not sure how that added anything to my explanation. tribbles were a comment on over population, just to name a famous example.

and several episodes were about how politics will never be overcome with technology.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
You havent watched much star trek if you think most episodes 'revolve around the technology"
Depends on the era, to some extent. But yeah, a whole lot of Star Trek technology is pretty much just wizards casting spells with computers and technobabble instead of instead of spellbooks and incantations.
okay i've been unclear, it's about technology in general and how it impacts human lives. not if everything is perfectly explained.

Forget perfectly explained.

If you got a random word generator to spit out a bunch of science related terms and strung them all together in a grammatically correct way you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the drivel you wrote and the explanations for the "technology" star trek uses.

not sure how that added anything to my explanation. tribbles were a comment on over population, just to name a famous example.

and several episodes were about how politics will never be overcome with technology.

Or that in several cases technology will end politics absolutely. extinction is good like that.

==Aelryinth

Dark Archive

kestral287 wrote:
Some are good, some are bad, some are restating the obvious.

Some are committing a logical fallacy right after literally pointing us to a 24x36" poster defining fallacies we shouldn't commit.

"Appeal To Emotion [guilt]"
http://i.imgur.com/3A8Zjbw.png

There should have been more Mexicans in Frozen so everyone feels included.

[yes, i just committed at least 2 logical fallacies myself]


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

and i thought this thread would fade to obscurity.

801 to 834 of 834 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Has Anyone Else Had To Deal With The "Historical Accuracy" Fallacy? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion