someone who protested they didn't want the eggs served for breakfast because "Australians don't refrigerate them"
Wait... that's a thing? Never heard that we don't refrigerate them before...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Behind this "Historical Accuracy" fallacy as described lies the fact that the image most people have of the (European) middle ages and by extension of "fantasy fantasy" settings is informed not by actual historical research but the long shadow of nationalist romantic fiction of the 19th century. As these writings attempted to both construct a golden past and a historical justification for their own societies, the result is an idealized "past" for white, industrial age European people, including racial exclusion and the absence of anything reminding people of industrial age technology.
So the fallacy is double: Once taking the fiction for the real thing and secondly accepting the fiction as an authority without reflecting on its origins.
Which is why I prefer leanings toward Iron Age up to Dark Ages Europe, the Middle Ages are too modern for my tastes. Middle Ages Europe is extemely monotheistic and extreme in their thinking, while PF religion is more akin to polytheistic ancient period. I think D&D/PF in general is more a mish-mash of Ancient/Dark Age/Middle Age/Rennaissance and fantasy concepts under the guise of "this is Middle Ages fantasy Europe."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but the long shadow of nationalist romantic fiction of the 19th century
More of it seems to stem from an overstatement of how backwards, isolated, and stupid medieval europeans were. That's hardly the narrative of racial/cultural superiority.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually... if you are speaking of Joan of Ark she actually wasn't all that successful in the long haul... she had one big battle and then pretty much failed at everything else...Beyond Spaniard and Frankish knights, there are Saracens, Ethiopians, Turkish and Egyptians in the Arthurian/Carolingian Legends. And at least one very successful female knight that I can recall.
So, that's.... Yeah.
Firstly, no, I was not referring to Joan of Arc. She has absolutely no part in the legends of King Arthur or Charlemagne.
The female knight's name was Bradamante. She was heralded as an extraordinary knight, saved a Saracen named Rogelio(?) I think and led him to baptism and becoming one of the Kings twelve Peers/Paladins?
Secondly, I'm not sure what your definition of successful is, but Joan of Arc was incredibly successful in both short term and long term. She lifted the siege of Orleans in nine days, after five months without even a victorious skirmish. She created a strategy of seizing bridges along the Loire, captured several large towns without a fight, and accepted the total surrender of Reims four days after arriving with the French army. Less than two weeks later, Charles VII was crowned king, retaining his throne through the end of the Hundred Years War.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has inspired a lot of thoughts for me, but I'm not sure if I'm ready to argue through them. Instead I'll comment that I'm not sure if anybody has brought up Gannibal yet. Abram Petrovich Gannibal was a black kid kidnapped from Russia and given to Peter the Great as a gift. He was also famous poet Alexander Pushkin's great-grandfather, and during his life he rose to high rank in the Russian military and became a noble. After running across his story I thought that it could make a great movie. Unfortunately I'm not in the business of making movies, so I guess I'll just have to hope.
This thread has inspired a lot of thoughts for me, but I'm not sure if I'm ready to argue through them. Instead I'll comment that I'm not sure if anybody has brought up Gannibal yet. Abram Petrovich Gannibal was a black kid kidnapped from Russia and given to Peter the Great as a gift. He was also famous poet Alexander Pushkin's great-grandfather, and during his life he rose to high rank in the Russian military and became a noble. After running across his story I thought that it could make a great movie. Unfortunately I'm not in the business of making movies, so I guess I'll just have to hope.
Too unrealistic. The public would never buy the plot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bradamante is not Arthurian, she's in the Song of Orlando, which is more the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne, and so horridly Italian/French/Spanish in nature, you dastard, you. Trying to pawn a heroic female in Le Morte D'Arthur onto us! As if such a thing could exist!
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bradamante is not Arthurian, she's in the Song of Orlando, which is more the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne, and so horridly Italian/French/Spanish in nature, you dastard, you. Trying to pawn a heroic female in Le Morte D'Arthur onto us! As if such a thing could exist!
==Aelryinth
What the?! I said Charlemagne! Wait, let me check...
Charlemagne... Peers... Paladins...
Yep.
This thread has inspired a lot of thoughts for me, but I'm not sure if I'm ready to argue through them. Instead I'll comment that I'm not sure if anybody has brought up Gannibal yet. Abram Petrovich Gannibal was a black kid kidnapped from Russia and given to Peter the Great as a gift. He was also famous poet Alexander Pushkin's great-grandfather, and during his life he rose to high rank in the Russian military and became a noble. After running across his story I thought that it could make a great movie. Unfortunately I'm not in the business of making movies, so I guess I'll just have to hope.Too unrealistic. The public would never buy the plot.
Not in supermarkets.someone who protested they didn't want the eggs served for breakfast because "Australians don't refrigerate them"Wait... that's a thing? Never heard that we don't refrigerate them before...
Suppose that's true.
Even attempting for a slight semblance of historical accuracy is usually only fun for a small group of people.
As others have mentioned, what you were taught is rarely even all that close to accurate.
Trying to find out what really is accurate, is really really difficult to manage.
However, some few people do enjoy that type of game. I know a guy that spends most of his free time trying to research as much as possible about the Vikings. The reality, rather than the typical stereotypes. He runs a game based on that understanding. He has a small group of similar norse history enthusiasts. They absolutely love it, great for them. I found it simply ponderous.
I at least 2 groups that run a 'historically accurate as most people think it was' game. The novel "The Three Musketeers" and a few others like that are about 90% of their setting material. They absolutely love it, great for them. I found it way too 'soap opera-ish' for my taste. (I'm not sure, but I have a feeling these games aren't all that uncommon.)
I really don't care too much about historical accuracy. However, I am OCD enough that I usually can't keep my mouth shut when someone says, 'It is like this because that's what happened in RL.' They almost always have it wrong and I find it nearly impossible to not tell them about it. If they had just said, 'It is like this because I think it fits the story better.' I would have been fine with it.
I am more likely to care about physics accuracy. Yes, even in a game with magic. It bugs me a fair bit with some of the stuff that happens without magic. Yeah he's just trained really well to load and shoot his muzzle loader 50-60 times a minute. He knows how to land and can survive falling off a 2 mile cliff. He's a tough guy so can jump into the lava if he jumps out quick enough. He's had a lot of rough-and-tumble experience and can now beat a rhino to death with his bare hands. Yeah... No...
You have a magic item, spell, magic power that allows X. Fine. But don't try and tell me it is just experience and training.
Yes, something weird happened and a few people survived the 1 in a million chance. But I have had players that jump off cliffs in full armor with packs because it is faster and easier than climbing down the stairs (plus the GM might have put an ambush in there). They survive every time. They literally can't be killed by the fall because the max damage it can do is less than their hitpoints.
.
Yes, I can call it something else. But many/most people don't. They think it is reasonable. That bugs me.
I don't usually play a completely non-magical character. I would rather play a bloodrager or eldritch knight. Then I can internally justify it as an innate magical ability or something like that.
obviously, golarion has weaker gravity than earth.
So are we now defining magic as 'beyond what's realistic' rather than being something of a supernatural quality which is suppressed by an Anti-Magic field?
Because if that's what we're saying I can agree with Martials having magic, but there's nothing magic about simply getting tougher.
Call it magic, call it chi, call it whatever you want. It's a good counter to the martials can't have nice things because they're not magic argument.
But if they can reliably fall hundreds of feet and walk away or punch rhinos to death, they've got something going for them. Maybe the same kind of something that lets dragons fly even in an antimagic field. Or leys giant bugs work or giant's ignore the square cube law.
So are we now defining magic as 'beyond what's realistic' rather than being something of a supernatural quality which is suppressed by an Anti-Magic field?
Because if that's what we're saying I can agree with Martials having magic, but there's nothing magic about simply getting tougher.
Call it magic, call it chi, call it whatever you want. It's a good counter to the martials can't have nice things because they're not magic argument.
But if they can reliably fall hundreds of feet and walk away or punch rhinos to death, they've got something going for them. Maybe the same kind of something that lets dragons fly even in an antimagic field. Or leys giant bugs work or giant's ignore the square cube law.
Can't we just call them levels and hit dice?
Hit points are not meat points.
Yes I wanna start this again
Can't we just call them levels and hit dice?So are we now defining magic as 'beyond what's realistic' rather than being something of a supernatural quality which is suppressed by an Anti-Magic field?
Because if that's what we're saying I can agree with Martials having magic, but there's nothing magic about simply getting tougher.
Call it magic, call it chi, call it whatever you want. It's a good counter to the martials can't have nice things because they're not magic argument.
But if they can reliably fall hundreds of feet and walk away or punch rhinos to death, they've got something going for them. Maybe the same kind of something that lets dragons fly even in an antimagic field. Or leys giant bugs work or giant's ignore the square cube law.
I feel like i haven't seen you in a while, I always find your Candor refreshing.
Hit points are not meat points.
Yes I wanna start this again
yes their an abstraction of a character's ability to not die, including luck, luck that can keep your from dying from jumping off a cliff.
obviously, golarion has weaker gravity than earth.
I think it's more of a higher atmosphere resistance reducing terminal velocity. Maybe related to much higher atmosphere density, which also helps explain bigger flying creatures.
Luck that can keep total submersion in lava from destroying you?yes their an abstraction of a character's ability to not die, including luck, luck that can keep your from dying from jumping off a cliff.Hit points are not meat points.
Yes I wanna start this again
what's his face from the hobit rode on top of the lava with his shield for a while.
obviously, golarion has weaker gravity than earth.I think it's more of a higher atmosphere resistance reducing terminal velocity. Maybe related to much higher atmosphere density, which also helps explain bigger flying creatures.
this would slow down anything moving in any direction though, including arrows also weather effects would be more extreme, a gentle breeze could knock a building over.
yes their an abstraction of a character's ability to not die, including luck, luck that can keep your from dying from jumping off a cliff.Hit points are not meat points.
Yes I wanna start this again
And you can only stretch luck so far until nobody buys it anymore.
So, next we are going to argue is the problem not enough suspension or too much disbelief?
And you can only stretch luck so far until nobody buys it anymore.yes their an abstraction of a character's ability to not die, including luck, luck that can keep your from dying from jumping off a cliff.Hit points are not meat points.
Yes I wanna start this again
he has exactly 150 hitpoints of luck, and he spent 96 of them on that cliff.
Seriously though, i only explain that people get hit when poison is involved or they get dropped to unconscious, unless it's some crazy meat pile like a giant.
what's his face from the hobit rode on top of the lava with his shield for a while.Luck that can keep total submersion in lava from destroying you?yes their an abstraction of a character's ability to not die, including luck, luck that can keep your from dying from jumping off a cliff.Hit points are not meat points.
Yes I wanna start this againYeah, the Shield was taking 2d6 points of fire damage per round it was in contact, perhaps modified by hardness.
The character himself was likely taking 1d6 per round from convection and contact with hot hot hot metal. At level 2-3 [I'm assuming this is one of the dorfs], he could have handled that for a few rounds depending on how the dice fell.
Had he fallen straight into the lava at that level he totally would have died instantly, whereas at higher level he would not have.
he did just jump on the shield to escape teh dragon and he was on it probably 2-3 rounds.
but if he fell from up high then the hero probably landed on a bit of solid rock floating on the lava.
So... if HP isn't tanking hits, why are dodge bonuses part of AC rather than HP [or DR]?And you can only stretch luck so far until nobody buys it anymore.yes their an abstraction of a character's ability to not die, including luck, luck that can keep your from dying from jumping off a cliff.Hit points are not meat points.
Yes I wanna start this againhe has exactly 150 hitpoints of luck, and he spent 96 of them on that cliff.
Seriously though, i only explain that people get hit when poison is involved or they get dropped to unconscious, unless it's some crazy meat pile like a giant.
your better at dodging effectually, dodging in a manner that makes combat harder for you or allows the enemy to start hitting your defenses hard would be a "hit".
And you can only stretch luck so far until nobody buys it anymore.yes their an abstraction of a character's ability to not die, including luck, luck that can keep your from dying from jumping off a cliff.Hit points are not meat points.
Yes I wanna start this againhe has exactly 150 hitpoints of luck, and he spent 96 of them on that cliff.
Seriously though, i only explain that people get hit when poison is involved or they get dropped to unconscious, unless it's some crazy meat pile like a giant.
Typically crits always hit one way or another where I come from.
Sorry, I didn't intend to get you folks out on this much of a tangent.
I was just responding to the op saying I don't get too hung-up on historical accuracy, but I do get hung-up on other things.
My problem with HP = meat has always been that characters don't increase their bone and muscle density as they gain hit points, however wacky the physics of the D&D world have to be to account for falling damage. Although, in the time it took me to write the previous sentence, I've decided that I'm perfectly fine with CON = meat, and a house rule allowing critical hits to do the regular weapon damage as Constitution ability damage.
And you can only stretch luck so far until nobody buys it anymore.yes their an abstraction of a character's ability to not die, including luck, luck that can keep your from dying from jumping off a cliff.Hit points are not meat points.
Yes I wanna start this againhe has exactly 150 hitpoints of luck, and he spent 96 of them on that cliff.
Seriously though, i only explain that people get hit when poison is involved or they get dropped to unconscious, unless it's some crazy meat pile like a giant.
Typically crits always hit one way or another where I come from.
Generally if he doesn't get knocked unconscious I depict it as him being put into full defense mode as he starts pressing the advantage.
It's my way to not have people wondering about the doom spiral that comes about from bleeding and what not. HP is in part fatigue, luck, positioning. relative HP is how the battle is going for one side or the other. This lets me explain well who has "more hp" by who is "winning" the battle.
My problem with HP = meat has always been that characters don't increase their bone and muscle density as they gain hit points, however wacky the physics of the D&D world have to be to account for falling damage. Although, in the time it took me to write the previous sentence, I've decided that I'm perfectly fine with CON = meat, and a house rule allowing critical hits to do the regular weapon damage as Constitution ability damage.
this is for anyone who want's more of a mechanical show of what is happening. I prefer the simplicity of HP.
It allows you to apply fall damage straight to wounds, or lava, and watch that character break his legs and die.
Con is life energy. There's a difference.
And the soul reinforcing the body is an excellent way of saying why you can survive punishment.
==Aelryinth
if you did use the wound and vigor system, i'd make fall damage 1 point per 5 feet fall, but make it (feet/5)!, if you want realistic damage and it simplifies it somewhat.