Quote from: jeff37923 on April 23, 2024, 02:28:24 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 23, 2024, 12:18:39 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 22, 2024, 11:46:37 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 22, 2024, 03:17:00 PMIt occurred to me that the main thing holding back the Wokification of all media products is what we might call anthropological realism...

Before I touch this subject, I'd like you to define "anthropological realism" because I have not been able to find a definition online.

As ForgottenF put it above, (1) writing fantasy as if it were history, to which I'd add (2) employing races, sexes, cultures, and religions logically as derived from the inspiring mythos or cultures from which the given fantasy comes.

It doesn't make sense to have Africans in Rohan, for example. In fact it defeats the whole purpose. LotR is a European fantasy, the Rohan are an Anglo-Saxon horse culture; the other races of man are geographically and culturally peripheral.

OK, but doesn't that go back to before Tolkien? In Beowulf there was Grendel, and even Grendel had a mother. In it's most basic form, that is "anthropological realism" in that it is a copy of western family structure.

It appears so. The difference between Beowulf and LotR would then be quantitative.

Quote from: Fheredin on April 22, 2024, 04:55:07 PM

QuoteThis is not to object to media products being transformed into propaganda. I'd agree that they're already always propaganda. Refusing to indoctrinate someone is indoctrinating them into neutrality, just as refusing to teach children religion is teaching them nullifidianism. The Wokists have that right: most everything reinforces one political narrative or other.

I would beg to differ on this one, and I think it's better to approach this from a Christian Apologetics angle than from politics or the history of gaming. I will try to circle back after I make my point.

There's one key difference between Atheism and Theism. If you push the Atheistic universe to it's conclusion, you must assume that logic, mathematics, and ethics are self-assembling.  If you push the Theistic universe to its logical conclusion, these could be self-assembling, but it is more consistent with the universe for them to be directly provided by God.

The problem is that since the 1930s and Godel's theorems of incompleteness, we have known that mathematics especially doesn't fit into neat self-assembling boxes. Without this, ethics and epistemology follow suit. This is why pseudoscientific ethics typically resort to non-answers like survival and reproduction and secular ethics fall apart under scrutiny. In this sense I think that it's more accurate to say that as our culture abandoned Christian ethical ideals, it lost the moral fiber to resist Marxism. Marxism also failed--it became Wokeness by switched away from economic arguments to racial and gender arguments--but because the Christian moral authority was exiled from public life and there were were no other moral authorities to call it out, Marxism evolved into Wokism.

And here we come to the rub; Christianity is getting targeted by the Woke because it retains the moral authority to call Wokism out. No one else really does.

So, no, I don't agree with the sentiment that teaching children nothing is actually teaching them nullifidianism. You either teach children functional worldviews or you don't. And if you didn't, chances are they will become Woke, not because they actually believe any of the ideas, but because the only thing which is real to them is the opinions of their peers.

I stand corrected. Then, my stronger point is that the mind of a political animal abhors a vacuum--something must be sucked into it.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 23, 2024, 04:37:01 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 23, 2024, 03:53:14 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 23, 2024, 03:11:48 PMActually, I think Tolkien's influence has trapped the fantasy genre in an uncreative rut where 99% of it is just Tolkien fanfiction with the serial numbers filled off. Dwarves, orcs, and elves inspired by Tolkien are everywhere in fantasy. Dark lords and heroic quests to save the world are a dime a dozen. A pseudo-medieval aesthetic inspired by Tolkien is the default.

As an old Studio C skit hilariously illustrated, the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Harry Potter are the same story repackaged, despite having completely different aesthetics.

Ehhh, no, that recognition predates Studio C by a long time.  Joseph Campbell was talking about monomyth in the seventies.  It is, in fact, one reason why modern games and media mostly suck.  Because politics comes and goes, but the human condition never changes.  And the "progressives" want to assert that there is no human condition, nor is there anything within us other than the product of culture and politics.  And that is why they fail...

Campbell invented the monomyth structure by examining various myths and stitching together originally unrelated scenes into a vaguely coherent storytelling template, but it's not actually an accurate reflection of universal human psychology or storytelling (read the ATU fairy tale index for comparison). That's not to say that humans don't have universal psychological biases, we obviously do.

My criticism is unrelated to wokeness and is a pure criticism of writers becoming increasingly uncreative and just aping Tolkien. That's been a problem even before wokeness.

First, Campbell may have been the first to codify the concept, there has been a ton more scholarship that analyzes and explores the concept further.  So, despite the evidence-poor assertion of a couple of randos on the Internet (including the page you linked), Campbell's framework has been pretty useful overall.

Secondly, you've changed your argument on Tolkien several times in this thread.  First his tropes have trapped the writers that followed by establishing a pattern to be slavishly followed; then he's inventing evil overlord tropes that clearly predate him (Ming the Merciless?  There are many others...). Lucas was expressly and consciously  copying the serials of the 1930s and 40s, which predate LotR by decades.

Honestly, your whining about the lack of good writing in modern media due to Tolkien seems predicated on a cartoonishly simple generalization.  Somehow others must be copying Tolkien, and not copying who Tolkien copied.  As brilliant as he was, Tolkien was also heavily influenced by ideas that came before him, and those ideas were expressed in a lot of other media.  So perhaps they were all reacting to ideas that were much older?  Nah, they must just be copying him...

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on April 23, 2024, 10:02:49 PMLike you said, once you're past the point of the polearm, the weapon is useless. Kinda makes me laugh whenever you see guards in medieval fantasy armed with spears where there are only one or two other guards to support them.

That's not true. First of all, it's still six pounds of solid oak, or as it's sometimes known, heavier than a quarterstaff. Second, you can usually choke up on the grip, depending on the type of weapon, and use it as an axe or spear. Third, many of them were constructed with a butt spike. So if you get inside their reach, they might still stab your foot, or your abdomen. Polearms are so versatile that smaller versions were often used as dueling weapons, or carried by knights or man-at-arms. Very long ones were used in formation, but palace guards aren't going to carry a ten foot long partisan.

Cthulhu by Gaslight is one that was not bad.

Also there was Masque of the Red Death for 2e and 3e D&D. Victorian era Earth.

Rebel Moon Part 2 was laughably bad. I guess they were trying to go for something not-quite-steampunk with the coal powered spaceships and hand-cranked weapon turrets, but it seemed really dumb. Even worse was that everyone with a gun seemed to want to get close enough to hit people with the body of the gun rather than just shooting them. Still, I did laugh (at it), so not a total loss of time.

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 22, 2024, 01:59:41 AMWhen I was playing RPGA games of AD&D2e, that spell was the bane of my existence.

We accidentally aged the groups dwarf to death with Haste.

"Driverless cars" are a true wonder.

Quote from: Domina on April 23, 2024, 06:02:44 PMIs there some reason this had to be a video rather than a few paragraphs of text?

Pundit always posts his thoughts as videos.  You know this.  Your question is Irrelevant at best.  If this is the quality of your contributions to this site, maybe you should go back to trolling.  Oh, wait, you are...

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on April 23, 2024, 10:02:49 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on April 23, 2024, 12:30:40 PMAD&D reach is really only used in charging situations, otherwise it isn't much of a factor. Speed factors are rather funny because they completely ignore strength considerations. GURPS does that fairly well. A reach weapon, such as a long spear or polearm loses a lot of effectiveness when not used in formation. Against a single weapon of that type, a swordsman can deflect and slip past, and unless the reach weapon user can retreat quickly, that swordsman will be inside the weapon's effectiveness forcing the pole weapon wielder to drop it and draw a shorter weapon.

Yeah, the effectiveness of a spearwall and how a ling of points can keep the enemy away. I can't remember if it's the case in AD&D, but I know in 3e there were rules for polearms where if the enemy was adjacent, the weapon can't be used since it's too long. Like you said, once you're past the point of the polearm, the weapon is useless. Kinda makes me laugh whenever you see guards in medieval fantasy armed with spears where there are only one or two other guards to support them.

Historically, guards were frequently equipped with halberds, bills and partisans (and sometimes very long two-handed swords). I think people underestimate just how difficult it is to get inside the reach of a polearm, especially one with cutting potential. The big advantage of a long weapon in single combat is its ability to change line of attack quickly. A smaller movement of the hands produces a larger movement at the tip of the weapon, so when your swordsman charges, he runs a serious risk of the billman taking a step back and cutting at his legs before his shorter weapon gets into reach. When used in both hands, a shorter polearm can also be choked up on to fight at what is basically sword-distance, and a big heavy weapon like a halberd is not going to be easy to effectively control with a sword blade. Sure, a pike is next to useless without a formation to back it up, but even a short spear (of the 7 to 8 foot length which is typical of one-handed spears across history) is surprisingly nimble in single combat.

Here's an interesting video. Unfortunately it's edited quite choppy, but starting at around 1:50, there's a show of what some close combat partisan techniques might have looked like.


Long cutting weapons (particularly swords it seems) were also popular with bodyguards and other people who might expect to face multiple opponents. By just sweeping a large volume of space with a big intimidating weapon, you can hold several attackers at bay for a while, even if you're unlikely to actually kill any of them. There's an (admittedly not great) attempt to demonstrate that here:


EDIT: You also have to remember that guards are not necessarily gearing up for life or death single combat. A polearm could easily be a very useful tool for crowd control. When performing more "law enforcement" type activities like breaking up fights or making arrests, they'd probably expect to outnumber their opposition and for the felons to be more likely to surrender or run away rather than stand and fight. Real people are a lot less likely to fight the local authorities to the death over a minor infraction than RPG players are. Plus, if you want to put someone down without killing them, a spear haft is going to do the job better than a sword.