Topic of the Week - Real-world history in Fantasy
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 10:03 am
Greetings Tyrants,
In the discussion around "Last chance to buy", Dark Princess struck an interesting point. I was about to reply to her post when I thought... this would actually make an interesting topic in itself.
I'm not sure Dark Princess is a minority in this, at least within our community.
The old Warhammer had many references on real world history. Bretts, TK's and Empire come to mind as prime examples, but there were plenty of references throughout the different armies. So the topic of the week is... Do you like these references?
Personally, I'm ambivalent. I'll start with the pro's. I think such references to past cultures add a human element to it, a touch of reality. While reality is a fickle thing in a fantasy setting, these references to something that was "real" helps to make these fantasy cultures feel more substantial. In the case of the Tomb Kings, we could easily replace the pyramids by large squares and trade the symbols for something more neutral.. It would not invalidate the story of Settra or Nagash one bit. But the reference to ancient Egypt gives us something to latch on to. It makes it easier to relate to the ancient glory of a bygone era.
Inventing a story around a character in Brettonia is easy enough, if you like knights, damsels and swords.
By reusing archtypes of history, or our own culture, it helps to identify with the story and create our own within that universe.
To me, the old world felt more real. I could imagine its culture because it reflected our own in so many ways. I could imagine how its economy would work. I could imagine the day of average Joe.
But on the other hand... References to our own history is also a path filled with presumptions, stereotypes and tropes. It keeps building on the same old formula. And with that old formula, also come the same old mistakes. Some of the references aren't all that great.
I remember a very long debate in a roleplaying group where some players were trying to justify an extremely sexist attitude. The gist of many arguments was "But this fantasy setting builds on medieval society, which was sexist, so we're just playing it how it should be". Or "This is historically more correct".
I don't think the inclusion of pyramids is why women aren't playing WFB/AoS in equal numbers, but that discussion struck me as a clear example of the problem with some real-life references.
People latch on to it in different ways and I've seen the ugly side of it once too often.
Another counter argument for real-life references is the lack of freedom. I'd like to reference a story from Paulo Coelho there... I think it was in his book "the Zahyr" where he asked a railworker why railroad tracks have both rails at exactly that distance. It takes a while and a dig through history to figure out that once upon a time the carriages had to be pulled by horses and so the tracks needed a distance that worked well for 2 horses pulling a kart side by side. The point being that nobody bothered to rethink the system since and nobody really knows why things are the way they are except that it's a rule that must be followed.
Such references to history have a tendency to become rules, and even now, centuries later we're still abiding cultural rules of ancient Egypt because... well... "that's how it should be"?
I was confronted with this in WFB was when I tried to design a small campaign focused around my army and the Dwarf army of a friend. I thought it would be fun to engage each other in a more narrative, immersive story where we'd challenge each other's story lines with actual battles. This wasn't to be a showdown between the two, but a chance to make our stories feel more alive, more tangible by bringing them onto the table and letting the dice influence things.
Except.. his army was stuck in some mountains and mine was stuck on Naggaroth. So, I could invade the Dwarfs to get me some slaves, I thought. Except, now my army had to cross the entirety of Brettonia, cautiously pass the Wood Elves of Lorien and then march through mountains to reach him. And somehow I'd have to carry our boats across the land because we wanted to play a landing of the boats. Why? Well because the Lore said so.
Of course we could say "expeditionary force" and "island or peninsula with rich loot that every wants" to force our two armies together. But it always felt so forced and never seemed to truly respect the nature of our armies.
Well.. I welcome a more open playing field. But I admit, I find the new lore more difficult to relate to. In fact, I have yet to be charmed by the new lore even though I read every book
In the discussion around "Last chance to buy", Dark Princess struck an interesting point. I was about to reply to her post when I thought... this would actually make an interesting topic in itself.
Darkprincess wrote:Well I don't know if it's just me, but I find that the fantasy incarnations of real-world history is one of the most appealing parts of the hobby. I guess that puts me in the minority.
I'm not sure Dark Princess is a minority in this, at least within our community.
The old Warhammer had many references on real world history. Bretts, TK's and Empire come to mind as prime examples, but there were plenty of references throughout the different armies. So the topic of the week is... Do you like these references?
Personally, I'm ambivalent. I'll start with the pro's. I think such references to past cultures add a human element to it, a touch of reality. While reality is a fickle thing in a fantasy setting, these references to something that was "real" helps to make these fantasy cultures feel more substantial. In the case of the Tomb Kings, we could easily replace the pyramids by large squares and trade the symbols for something more neutral.. It would not invalidate the story of Settra or Nagash one bit. But the reference to ancient Egypt gives us something to latch on to. It makes it easier to relate to the ancient glory of a bygone era.
Inventing a story around a character in Brettonia is easy enough, if you like knights, damsels and swords.
By reusing archtypes of history, or our own culture, it helps to identify with the story and create our own within that universe.
To me, the old world felt more real. I could imagine its culture because it reflected our own in so many ways. I could imagine how its economy would work. I could imagine the day of average Joe.
But on the other hand... References to our own history is also a path filled with presumptions, stereotypes and tropes. It keeps building on the same old formula. And with that old formula, also come the same old mistakes. Some of the references aren't all that great.
I remember a very long debate in a roleplaying group where some players were trying to justify an extremely sexist attitude. The gist of many arguments was "But this fantasy setting builds on medieval society, which was sexist, so we're just playing it how it should be". Or "This is historically more correct".
I don't think the inclusion of pyramids is why women aren't playing WFB/AoS in equal numbers, but that discussion struck me as a clear example of the problem with some real-life references.
People latch on to it in different ways and I've seen the ugly side of it once too often.
Another counter argument for real-life references is the lack of freedom. I'd like to reference a story from Paulo Coelho there... I think it was in his book "the Zahyr" where he asked a railworker why railroad tracks have both rails at exactly that distance. It takes a while and a dig through history to figure out that once upon a time the carriages had to be pulled by horses and so the tracks needed a distance that worked well for 2 horses pulling a kart side by side. The point being that nobody bothered to rethink the system since and nobody really knows why things are the way they are except that it's a rule that must be followed.
Such references to history have a tendency to become rules, and even now, centuries later we're still abiding cultural rules of ancient Egypt because... well... "that's how it should be"?
I was confronted with this in WFB was when I tried to design a small campaign focused around my army and the Dwarf army of a friend. I thought it would be fun to engage each other in a more narrative, immersive story where we'd challenge each other's story lines with actual battles. This wasn't to be a showdown between the two, but a chance to make our stories feel more alive, more tangible by bringing them onto the table and letting the dice influence things.
Except.. his army was stuck in some mountains and mine was stuck on Naggaroth. So, I could invade the Dwarfs to get me some slaves, I thought. Except, now my army had to cross the entirety of Brettonia, cautiously pass the Wood Elves of Lorien and then march through mountains to reach him. And somehow I'd have to carry our boats across the land because we wanted to play a landing of the boats. Why? Well because the Lore said so.
Of course we could say "expeditionary force" and "island or peninsula with rich loot that every wants" to force our two armies together. But it always felt so forced and never seemed to truly respect the nature of our armies.
Well.. I welcome a more open playing field. But I admit, I find the new lore more difficult to relate to. In fact, I have yet to be charmed by the new lore even though I read every book