Most fantasy is basically our world in the past with the names changed and dragons tacked on. This is so pervasive that most Game of Thrones viewers believe that show to be an accurate depiction of our own past (it's not even remotely).

So why not cut out the middleman and play in literal fantasy Europe? There are already existing sourcebooks that make excellent setting resources: Kingdoms of Legend has geography and politics and integration with genre cliches, Dark Albion has an inoffensive substitute for Christianity, Blood & Treasure has a ptolemaic planar cosmology, Medieval Players Manual has nitty gritty socio-political details, etc.

Because it only lasts as long as you don't stop for one second and consider that if even one fantasy element was true in our world, there's no possible way that history from that point on would actually resemble anything close to what happened in our reality.

And where on earth did you get the notion that most people who watch Game of Thrones think its an accurate retelling of history?

For the same reason Ellen Kushner sets her novels in someplace other than fantasy-Earth:

"So that if I get one detail wrong I don't get 10,000 letters telling me that the crossbow was banned in 1103 and not 1104, or whatever."

Same thing.  Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack look at the arguments people have over gun stats in games or calling a "magazine" a "clip."  Claim your game is in "fantasy Europe" and 90% of people won't give a fuck and the other 10% will argue about trivialities constantly.

I speak from experience.  Been there, done that, said fuck it.

"The crossbow was banned in FUCK YOU ASSHOLE, that's when it was banned!"

Because it's 'all been done'.  No amount of fantastical addition will open up places to 'explore', no real ruins to delve in, because we 'know' that the world has been explored by other people.

And Gronan?  Guns are what you have on ships.  What you're discussing is a pistol.  

Quote from: Christopher Brady;873561Because it's 'all been done'.  No amount of fantastical addition will open up places to 'explore', no real ruins to delve in, because we 'know' that the world has been explored by other people.

And Gronan?  Guns are what you have on ships.  What you're discussing is a pistol.  

Match lock or wheel lock - it makes a huge difference to the flow of the game. It takes for-bloody-ever to span the damn things, or the fun when a forgetful player sticks the wrong hand into the budge barrel...

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;873555For the same reason Ellen Kushner sets her novels in someplace other than fantasy-Earth:

"So that if I get one detail wrong I don't get 10,000 letters telling me that the crossbow was banned in 1103 and not 1104, or whatever."

Same thing.  Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack look at the arguments people have over gun stats in games or calling a "magazine" a "clip."  Claim your game is in "fantasy Europe" and 90% of people won't give a fuck and the other 10% will argue about trivialities constantly.

I speak from experience.  Been there, done that, said fuck it.

"The crossbow was banned in FUCK YOU ASSHOLE, that's when it was banned!"

But... But... My .380 has an internal magazine that one loads with a clip... And so does the Arisaka that my dad brought home from New Guinea in '44...

Oh, I'm just so confused...

"BAYONET! FIX!" There; solved.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;873550Most fantasy is basically our world in the past with the names changed and dragons tacked on. This is so pervasive that most Game of Thrones viewers believe that show to be an accurate depiction of our own past (it's not even remotely).

So why not cut out the middleman and play in literal fantasy Europe? There are already existing sourcebooks that make excellent setting resources: Kingdoms of Legend has geography and politics and integration with genre cliches, Dark Albion has an inoffensive substitute for Christianity, Blood & Treasure has a ptolemaic planar cosmology, Medieval Players Manual has nitty gritty socio-political details, etc.

But, seriously...

I think that it may be a little too close to home for a lot of people, and that there's the perception that 'everybody knows that' to some degree. You do get a lot of 'trivia buffs', and these can kill a game session in no time flat by arguing over the most ineffectual details.

And yes, I've had people tell me about how "historically accurate" GoT is. "Yep," I say, "it's Scotland. Same feuds, same nasty people, same eternal internal warfare." They are a little shocked by this, as most folks know very little about Scots history...

Actually, it's one thing I reall wish we could see more of. I appreciate the Dark Albion attempt to do a (near) historical attempt at the War of the Roses, and I also like games like Ars Magica which do Mythic Earth settings.

Real history is more interesting than playing in other people's fantasy worlds.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;873581Real history is more interesting than playing in other people's fantasy worlds.

But neither is more interesting than playing in my own fantasy worlds.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;873581Real history is more interesting than playing in other people's fantasy worlds.

To read, not to play in, for a lot of gamers I know.

Well, you couldn't have a fantasy Europe, except maybe the general geography. Even a little magic would change things radically.

You wouldn't have England or France with magic, you wouldn't have an England or France.

Unless you picked a specific point in time where magic suddenly happened and extrapolated from there. Sort of like Randall Garrett's Lord Darcy series, which basically started at Richard the Lion Hearted (he didn't get killed).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;873583To read, not to play in, for a lot of gamers I know.

Well, it takes a certain degree of pressure off if you don't have to be historically accurate in the games you run, admittedly - and reading up on history can be interesting for general fantasy ideas.

However, sometimes I get frustrated by fantasy settings - and seek more authentic experiences, often in time travelling campaigns. Each to their own though, of course.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;873586Well, it takes a certain degree of pressure off if you don't have to be historically accurate in the games you run, admittedly - and reading up on history can be interesting for general fantasy ideas.

In my admittedly small circle, even if the GM is lenient with the historical accuracy, some players are not.

I'd say it's a genre thing. Horror benefits from Earth settings (historical or contemporary) because it thrives under a facade of normalcy. Post-apocalyptic scenarios set in Earth benefit from showcasing the ruins of the world we all know.

But once you've placed an elven kingdom in France and decided Martin Luther was a dwarf, you either embrace a D&D-infused alternate timeline that'll never, ever look like our own (and give up familiarity as you struggle do retain internal consistency) or you just handwave the mounting inconsistencies away, resulting in a fantasy caricature of history (a la WFRP's Old World).

The "avoidance of historical pixelbitching" line is valid (and motivated, among others, Howard's Hyborian Age) but quite a few published settings suffer from similar problems by way of canon cruft. In any case, informing players that you're playing an alternate timeline that does not necessarily follow established history, might save you some aggravation in the future.