Some people get all upset about it in their rpgs.
I don't mind it too much, anarchronism. Of course if the game has been sold to me by the publisher or GM as "historically accurate!" then it's just begging for me to pick at it. Like when the movie King Arthur had that intro about how this King Arthur movie was totally historical and real, dudes - they just set themselves up for everyone to have a go at them. If they'd just started it out like the other thousand Arthur stories, nobody would have cared - look at First Knight.
But the anachronism itself, I don't care much.
Sometimes what seems like anachronism is really just people being stupid and comedic. People calling their characters "Domestos" or whatever isn't anachronism as suc, it's just stupid comedy - for example, in an ancient Greece campaign you could have a warrior called Ajax or a fast female runner called Nike. That wouldn't be anachronistic, but it would be stupid and comedic.
That annoys people a lot, when players or GMs set up the game as stupid comedy to begin with. Unless you are a real armour expert, Pendragon's presentation of Arthur and his knights in gothic plate won't make you laugh. I mean, who cares, really?
If you set the game or your character up as stupid comedy to begin with, it has no place to go but down. The way I see it, enough stupid comedy just comes up naturally in play, we don't need to plan for it
The anachronism doesn't bother me. As I said, people insisting that this game or campaign will be totally historically accurate, honest - well, often it's just an excuse for being a cocksmock. For example, we often see in these stories of GMs attempting to be "historically realistic" all sorts of nonsense about women.
"You can't be a warrior if your character is female, they won't accept you."
"Okay, she'll dress as a man."
"Rightyo, you and the party are captured and thrown into prison. There they strip you off and discover your gender. You are repeatedly raped. Roll Save vs Poison against STD and pregnancy."
"You are such a dickhead sometimes, GM."
"But," says the GM, perplexed, "having your character stripped and raped in prison is historically accurate! I had to have the NPCs do that! I couldn't have anachronism!"
Maybe so. But sometimes, being historically accurate is not fun, and is just an excuse for the GM to fuck with you, or parade his little pet issues before you. I mean, if the party with a wizard in it is on its way to slay a dragon, and as they pass the peasants the GM makes a big deal about how everyone in the fields are male and everyone inside the houses are female and in the village square the town militia practicing drill are all male, then I would not admire the GM for his "historical accuracy", but instead say, "sounds like a personal problem. You should see the chaplain."
It's a game.
I don't mind it too much, anarchronism. Of course if the game has been sold to me by the publisher or GM as "historically accurate!" then it's just begging for me to pick at it. Like when the movie King Arthur had that intro about how this King Arthur movie was totally historical and real, dudes - they just set themselves up for everyone to have a go at them. If they'd just started it out like the other thousand Arthur stories, nobody would have cared - look at First Knight.
But the anachronism itself, I don't care much.
Sometimes what seems like anachronism is really just people being stupid and comedic. People calling their characters "Domestos" or whatever isn't anachronism as suc, it's just stupid comedy - for example, in an ancient Greece campaign you could have a warrior called Ajax or a fast female runner called Nike. That wouldn't be anachronistic, but it would be stupid and comedic.That annoys people a lot, when players or GMs set up the game as stupid comedy to begin with. Unless you are a real armour expert, Pendragon's presentation of Arthur and his knights in gothic plate won't make you laugh. I mean, who cares, really?
If you set the game or your character up as stupid comedy to begin with, it has no place to go but down. The way I see it, enough stupid comedy just comes up naturally in play, we don't need to plan for it
The anachronism doesn't bother me. As I said, people insisting that this game or campaign will be totally historically accurate, honest - well, often it's just an excuse for being a cocksmock. For example, we often see in these stories of GMs attempting to be "historically realistic" all sorts of nonsense about women.
"You can't be a warrior if your character is female, they won't accept you."
"Okay, she'll dress as a man."
"Rightyo, you and the party are captured and thrown into prison. There they strip you off and discover your gender. You are repeatedly raped. Roll Save vs Poison against STD and pregnancy."
"You are such a dickhead sometimes, GM."
"But," says the GM, perplexed, "having your character stripped and raped in prison is historically accurate! I had to have the NPCs do that! I couldn't have anachronism!"
Maybe so. But sometimes, being historically accurate is not fun, and is just an excuse for the GM to fuck with you, or parade his little pet issues before you. I mean, if the party with a wizard in it is on its way to slay a dragon, and as they pass the peasants the GM makes a big deal about how everyone in the fields are male and everyone inside the houses are female and in the village square the town militia practicing drill are all male, then I would not admire the GM for his "historical accuracy", but instead say, "sounds like a personal problem. You should see the chaplain."
It's a game.
