Historical accuracy and Fantasy gaming

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by Fish

I mean, the elves baked lembas and the dwarves baked cram. Who grew the grain, milled the wheat?

Who cares?

The book would have been easily twice as long if it stopped every time The Fellowship passed a farm or a mill and said farm or mill was described.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

I agree with your point about Tolkien's inconsistent and patchy world-building, but I can't agree that his work was an overwhelming influence on D&D. Jack Vance's The Dying Earth and Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions were both also very influential.

There's obvious traces of Conan too. The carnivouous apes as just one example.

Fred Brackin

[Fish]

Originally Posted by whswhs

And so? It's an adventure story, focused on a long journey through perilous circumstances and a war.

I'm not trying to get everybody down on Tolkien. My point is, as with Tolkien, D&D is focused on journeys through perilous circumstances and war — and at the beginning of its design history it also lacked any understanding of non-combat situations. It was to the exclusion of almost all else a fantasy combat tactical simulator, and as such it wasn't a historically accurate mechanism.

I would say that D&D is Lord of the Rings; GURPS is the Belgariad. I like them both, but for different reasons.

[Xenarthral]

Originally Posted by Fish

I mean, the elves baked lembas and the dwarves baked cram. Who grew the grain, milled the wheat?

Is it said that they were made of wheat? Or grain for that matter?

Originally Posted by Agemegos

One tends to see a field of wheat, still more an expanse of farmland adequate to feed a city like Rivendell or Edoras.

And I was under the impression that Rohan is generally unforested*/
suitable for herdraising, considering what appears to be the Rohirim
way of life and the way Fangorn Forest obviously stands out
from its surroundings by being one.

*In an early medieval Europe way.

Originally Posted by zorg

I imagine they also have some sort of toilets

I wouldn't put it beyond Tolkien's elves to have dispensed with such
crude and petty things as having go potty.
Alternatively - and comparing it with the matter of sleeping - they just
fart.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Xenarthral

Is it said that they were made of wheat? Or grain for that matter?

And I was under the impression that Rohan is generally unforested*/
suitable for herdraising, considering what appears to be the Rohirim
way of life and the way Fangorn Forest obviously stands out
from its surroundings by being one.

*In an early medieval Europe way.

There are some references to villages and farmers in Rohan. And presumably a lot of the country is full of herders. But from a simulationist standpoint, there is a lot less evidence of ordinary folks than there should be, even on a sparsely populated world like Middle Earth and even considering Tolkien's style. This is consistent with some ancient and medieval epic, but not all (eg. whenever Odysseus meets substantial populations there is evidence of farming and herding. Even the Cyclopes have flocks!) I suspect Tolkien's idealized view of the preindustrial world has more to do with it.

And lembas has to be made from some sort of plant matter which is grown fairly intensively.

[Dalillama]

Originally Posted by Fish

D&D is focused on journeys through perilous circumstances and war — and at the beginning of its design history it also lacked any understanding of non-combat situations. It was to the exclusion of almost all else a fantasy combat tactical simulator, and as such it wasn't a historically accurate mechanism.

I would be inclined to say that this is more because D&D branched off from fantasy wargaming, as a small-scale tactical combat simulator to complement the large scale combat simulators already in use. Most of the large-scale spells reflect that a lot (Fireball & Lightning Bolt, frex, are hugely inconvenient in most dungeon crawls and are much more suited for clashes of armies).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by DAlillama

I would be inclined to say that this is more because D&D branched off from fantasy wargaming, as a small-scale tactical combat simulator to complement the large scale combat simulators already in use. Most of the large-scale spells reflect that a lot (Fireball & Lightning Bolt, frex, are hugely inconvenient in most dungeon crawls and are much more suited for clashes of armies).

This is even more visible if you read Chainmail, where the normal figure represents a small military unit of, say, men, orcs, or elves—but you can also "stack" a figure that represents a single living being, whether a hero or superhero who fights like a one-man army, or a wizard who casts magical spells, or a monster like a dragon. D&D started out by having all "adventurers" treated as figures that represented one person, in the same way the major heroes were treated in Chainmail.

The early games I took part in even had the institution of the "caller": The players would discuss among themselves what their characters could do, but then the caller would sum up all of their decisions as an order to the GM, in effect treating the characters as members of a tactical unit. Player/player dialogue did not represent character/character dialogue so much as tactical planning. When only one player gets to speak, dialogue is limited.

Bill Stoddard

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Fish

My point is, as with Tolkien, D&D is focused on journeys through perilous circumstances and war — and at the beginning of its design history it also lacked any understanding of non-combat situations.

The distinction I'm drawing is that Tolkien focused on those things, but did not exclude background elements—and some of his key scenes can only be described as "non-combat situations": the Council of Elrond, for one. In having NO way to define an ordinary man who wasn't an adventurer (okay, "Level One Fighting Man"—but the progression chart equates that to "Veteran," which sounds like they have more experience than, say, a typical peasant levy), or to represent someone's having skills of social interaction, craft, or artistic creation, D&D had a much more restrictive focus on the quest/adventure stuff that Tolkien had. I really think that Robert E. Howard might be a better comparison, or other straight sword and sorcery authors.

Bill Stoddard

[Gavynn]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

I don't particlarly care about historical accuracy unless the characters are in an actual historical setting. I'm much more interested in internal consistency and a "simulationist" mindset seems to be the best way to achieve this. Studying historical parallels can help create a plausible and internally consistent world.

I have not read all of this thread, but my opinion is similar to Dan's. I fill in the holes in a fantasy game with historic analogs, but am mainly concerned with logical consistency in the game.

[Akicita]

Originally Posted by Collective_Restraint

is it me or the majority of GURPS fantasy gamers seem more preoccupied with historical accuracy in their fantasy games compared to say, D&D (or Runequest, etc.) gamers ?

Didn't see anyone make this point yet (sorry if someone did and I missed it):
I don't think it's a case of GURPS players being more interested in historical accuracy or plausibility. I do think that players concerned about plausibility are more likely to wind up playing GURPS because it accomodates them well.