This enrages the historically illiterate grognard

>using all that metal on superfluous leg protection when your entire groin and stomach is vulnerable

>This enrages the grognard who can't accept that the history of a fantasy world doesn't mirror real-world history

I SWEAR EVERYONE WHO SAYS THIS IS THE SAME PERSON.
I CAN'T BE INSANE.

Nah mate, it's all fine if you account for the changes in population and land use (with attendant social effects) widespread cultivation of the tater will bring compared to the crops grown historically in the regions you are basing your world off.

>that image
>Like I give a fuck nigga, you can cap that shit all day.

It would be okay, and historically accurate, if he was mainly fighting mounted but the fact he's carrying a shooting stick kinda contradicts that.

Dis thread gon be gud

>I don't know what dragoons are, the post

>ebonics
>>>/twitter/

>muh guns in fantasy

To be fair, the particular shooting stick in question is an infantry musket with rest. But yeah, both mounted infantry and proper cavalry carried carbines. Pistols of course were primarily a cavalry weapon and replacement for the lance as the choice implement for the charge.

The leg armor is a bit of a pigs ear in general, and even a cavalry harness contemporary with the weapon and helmet would either have better protection for the thigh and groin or ditch the entire leg set and make do with actual short tassets. Less thigh armor is fine, but not in combination with greaves and sabatons which would be the last things to add to a pseudo-16thC harness. Similar thing with the torso armor, someone with an armet and that much limb armor is not going to leave their gut exposed.

I'm really liking this rise in fantasy gunposting

But I'm not going to do any of that, because I don't care and my players don't care. And even if I did have a player who cared, I'd tell him what I told the economist I play with who was throwing a fit about the setting's economy: "If you're going to ask me to account for real life and historical factors, I'm going to ask you to provide me sources to back up your proposed replacement model that account for faries and dragons. Until then, eat shit."

>real world history
>fantasy setting
Yes ok. Also that gun seems to have a stock that looks very impractical to shoulder while wearing that armor

Me too I like me some kobolds with guns and lizardfolk with grenades (Because they should be oldest races around why not give them most time to get ready)

>fantasy potatoes work like real world potatoes
OK but why. Just like in . It's fantasy. It's not real world.

A dragoon is a soldier that rides to wherever he is going but then dismounts to fight. He would carry infantry weapons such as that musket, but he would move around the battlefield on his horse.

Good man. I said the same thing when my players asked why people walked on their hands and wore hats on their feet in my setting because of a wizards curse.

I'm sorry you can't metagame using your real life autism in my setting. Maybe you should GM instead if you can't handle someone creating a world outside your worldview.

No that's dumb. Try diving into all the autistic intricacies of medieval cuisine, with all its sour juices and bitter herbs and Goddamn cereal everywhere.

If you throw potatoes in then you're missing an opportunity. You're making things too familiar, and too modern.

I would get this scientific thinking out of my head -- it's not like you have to make everything super scientific (dragons are explained in agonising biological detail) or super unscientific (potatoes lol). Science has no bearing on settings.
That would be fine though.

Then why would you have potatoes at all? That's the thing I can't understand. Why do you feel the need to include something so easily not included?

>player points out why your poorly written setting is stupid
>F-fuck you!
I doubt you even said anything like that

>I doubt you even said anything like that
Well, yeah. He said "if".

Fucking die, please.
You’re the exact same kind of poison the other thread OP was.

t. grognard

I said exactly that because the economist was being a triggered child like you who can't accept that you aren't GMing and people are doing things differently. You can scream about how it's a bad setting until you're blue in the face, I'm putting far more effort in than players are and if you don't like it you can run your own game. Or better yet, realize that no one in the group cares and you're being That Guy.

The only thing that this enrages is down in my pants, user. Gib moar Gunknights.

Not OP but i'll big for more anime grills

Strangely, you can evaluate different GMing styles and make arguments as to why some are good and some are bad. And this is a discussion board, we're meant to discuss these things.

Which is exactly why you went to Veeky Forums, to live out your fantasies where you can pretend you're the epic tough guy

...

>we're meant to discuss these things.
Presumably using more than two lines of greentext and a dismissal.

He was one of us and pure...
He deserved better.

Answer then, faggot.

>telling someone to get off your back and eat shit when they're being an ass is being an "epic tough guy" now
I don't want to know what you consider normal behaviour. Complete compliance and avoidance of any and all conflict, no matter how minor?

Passive aggressive/10 you gave it your all I guess

Not that user, but it's a very strange thing to do. We're all anonymous, so acting like there's someone on your back to begin with is not understandable. And you absolutely are inventing some sort of fantasy where you get to deliver what is (presumably) supposed to be a sick burn and then tell people to eat shit. You're not in some righteous position here.

You could (and should) ignore this whole conversation and return to properly debating GMing styles damn you.

Answer what? He can do him, I'll do me. If he wants to put in the work of exploring that part of his setting that's fine, but neither me nor my players find that fun or engaging. Why waste time and effort on something that will never come up just to appease people who aren't playing in my group? I'm also not declaring that nothing in my setting can be scientific, I'm merely stating that an abitrary devotion to only using real life rules in a fantasy setting is ridiculous, especially if that's not what you find fun.

Because potatoes taste good together with meat and some gravy, or with fish. It's something that the players can associate with. Why should I not include it? Because real world potatoes has real world effects that doesn't match up with the fantasy setting?
Well.
Real world orcs or real world dragons or real world magic would probably lead to the setting being vastly different. But it's fantasy so none of that applies.

That is all good if the setting was in the actual middle ages on earth. But it's in a fantasy world that looks nothing like earth and doesn't have all that bitter herb and what not.

It's not arbitrary. Immersion is one of the most important qualities in an RPG, and everyday details are a really easy way to increase it. That's not arbitrary. It has a clear purpose.

You're free to disregard a helpful tool, but your game is worse for it. This won't change just because your players are fine with it.

This is just my opinion, and, sadly, I may be hugely wrong. That shouldn't have to be said, but...
Why do you want your players to associate with it? Is your setting meant to evoke modernity? To me, the supposed benefits are far outweighed by the disadvantages. There's plenty of other things that go well with fish and meat.

You wouldn't use potatoes in a Wuxia setting, would you? It's the same idea. It doesn't have anything to do with the realism of orcs or dragons. It's about the feeling you're trying to evoke.
This whole thread isn't particularly relevant to weird fantasy settings (why would it matter whether knights use guns when you're not trying to recreate a medieval feel?). However, most fantasy settings are heavily historical in tone, as they're ultimately derived from Arthurian shit (with a sprinkling of Tolkien).

So catholic anglosaxons?

I don't usually say it, but to prove you wrong:
dumb frogposter

>D&D is historical!

Yeah it does I have no idea what the belt on his shoulder is for.

>I play D&D!

>I watch anime!

>I visit Veeky Forums!

>I use the internet!

I don't care what is or is not in someone's setting as long as
>it's not a mindless copy paste of a real-life region
>it's internally consistent

Dumb frogposter. They're a blight on Veeky Forums and the internet as a whole.

>我说英语!

Can we go back to being uppity about potatoes, please?

In a vain attempt to get thing back on topic: Firelances.

The first gunpowder weapon, invented c.950. Unlike handgonnes these really were super short-ranged and didn't have copious armor penetration so no worries about rendering knights obsolete. OTOH a flamethrower-shotgun is a neat trick and could be hand in many adventuring situations; setting fire to dryads or vampires, spraying corridors with flame and shrapnel to thin a goblin horde or scaring the crap out of bandits with the smoke, noise and lacerated/charred remains of their mate.

Available in disposable bamboo or reuseable paper/iron pot versions, it's really a one-shot weapon used at point-blank range so it does not tread on the archers toes. At the same time it is actually useful as a supplement to the arsenal of melee types rather than a primary weapon which stops a gunner character feeling hard done by the system when bows outperform them.

Give it a decent kick and a hefty price tag for the blackpowder and I think it could be a worthy inclusion for token firearm that sidesteps concerns that even handgonnes and bombards are too advanced (though the later did have a big impact on sieges relatively early on). If you have plate armor and other Late Medieval stuff then simply have blackpowder be a recent discovery or import, more advanced firearms need more time than they have had by the Present Day of the setting. Add some petards for LOTR-style fun and maybe extremely inaccurate rockets to taste along with flash bombs and smoke pellets for alchemists and rogue types.

Does this represent some sort of compromise?

>cavalry armor
>infantryman's weapon
Either the armor should be much lighter (particularly on the legs), or the guy should be carrying a pair of long-barreled pistols instead of the arquebus and gun-rest fork.

I just go with historical accuracy and don't have any problems. The real world balanced itself.

That said, playing with super early firearms is fun.

She was at his side at the end. He was with his waifu as he left this life. He was one of us yet found peace with his waifu at his side. If only we all could be as lucky.

>I just go with historical accuracy and don't have any problems. The real world balanced itself.
I agree, but as these threads show there are plenty who do not for various reasons.

An individual setting can include blackpowder or not and that is fine. What I find disheartening is this broad trend to either ignore firearms completely or include 1400 or 1500s style guns but then give them ahistorically rubbish stats in the name of balance and style.

The idea behind the Firelance was that A) it's a neat if somewhat niche weapon, and B) it's a way for a setting to acknowledge blackpower without the baggage attached to actual handgonnes or later weapons.

t.reddit.

Who are you quoting?

Last recorded use was at the Siege of Bristol if I recall.

The presence of potatoes, or people who bathe more than once per year, or being able to understand people in some village more than a day's walk from your own village, etc., will not evoke modernity, though. With normal people it works like this: they see knights, and they see swords and axes and barbarians and castles, and then they think about what they consider to be the middle ages. It doesn't matter what the middle ages actually were like because that's not where we are playing. We are playing within people's minds, where the real world is the thing you think about onlh if you absolutely have to.
Also it's funny you mention Tolkien since I think I remember mention of potatoes in LotR.

Did pool get invented as a thing to do with your gun and pool cue thingie after battles?

...

I think the idea was that the greaves would be easier to crouch in for a steadier shot, though obviously the artist knows nothing about how armor is actually articulated

I like everything except the leg armor, and the lack of a visible side arm of some kind. The legs look a little too heavy, even if he's mounted most of the time, and while he could use his arquebus as a club, I'd like to see a mace of some kind, a short sword, or a poniard as a back up.

There were dragoons that used horses more for mobility and setting up musket firing positions than the old fashioned cavalry charge

Once cannons made combat cavalry irrelevant, this is more or less the only way to use cavarly effectively. Well past the D&D ages, of course, but that's how Fightin Joe Wheeler was able to aggressively use his cavalry in the Civil War AND in the Spanish American War. "Get there firstest with the mostest."

Eeee yes... I meant the books though.

I believe its in the books too, but I don't actually have a copy on hand to verify.

Found it. The Two Towers, chapter "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit".
>Sam busied himself with his pans. 'What a hobbit needs with coney,' he said to himself, 'is some herbs and roots, especially taters - not to mention bread. Herbs we can manage, seemingly.'
On the next page he even says that
>Po-ta-toes
And then goes on to mention fish and chips. Seriously, whoever says that potatoes don't belong in generic fantasy settings just, well, confuses fantasy and history.

Early guns are shit. Not (just) because they were bad, but because they are fucking ugly and stupid to use.

This is how the Empire should have dressed in WFB

Its an easy tell to know someone's a redditor if he proports to care about Veeky Forums as a whole entity and through that deep care, gives his posts validity and opinion

I think you'll be happier on one of those boards user

Interestingly tough, he DID change tomatoes to pickles in the Hobbit; and in LOTR tobacco is always pipeweed, almost has he went "well, lads, it's pretty clear what it is, but I'll not use that word because it doesn't sound "ancient" enough and because we'll put out the pretense that America didn't exist, right?"

Who knows? Maybe if he could, he'd have revised that too.

But in generic fantasy world (or LotR), sure, America don't exist, but also, China doesn't exist, Europe doesn't exist, Africa doesn't exist, not even New Zealand exists, because it's a completely different world. A world where, in this case, some root that looked like and was eaten like real world potatoes, but perhaps wasn't 100% exactly like real world potatoes, actually did exist, but wasn't called "potatoes" because the characters in the books doesn't even speak English, because English doesn't exist in that world.
Don't conflate fantasy with reality. This is the basics of... Well, the basics.

I seem to recall he mentioned somewhere, possibly a letter, that he regretted using literal potatoes and mentally changed it to being the English translation for a tuber that is no longer grown. Similar to how Frodo's "real" name was Maura Labingi in Westron. Could be mistaken though and thinking of a different anachronism.

In any case just because the Prof did something, it does not make it a good idea without question. Wanting to avoid the most iconic new world crop and which had a huge impact on Europe once it was actually cultivated en masse is not an inherently unreasonable position that demonstrates a lack of understanding of fantasy.

Nah, there's a lot of people who think you're a retard. Just like real life.

Frogposters are shit and should go back to their containment boards

>people who bathe more than once per year, or being able to understand people in some village more than a day's walk from your own village
Is that unusual for you barbarians?

>antiguns continue to get btfo
>their arguments debunked
>history not on their side
>all they can do is scream "muh romanticism" "muh Tolkien"

Almost always dragoons would carry a shorter musket for ease of transport. Not all carbines are designed to be fired from horseback.

>I don’t mind if other people include guns in their setting but I personally don’t want them in mine.
>REEEE! Stop having fun in ways I don’t approve of!

>I only have Tolkein races in my setting
So you are a grognard AND are lazy

Well, maybe this particular dragoon lives during a time where muskets are fuckhuge. I mean, during the dragoon heydays, infantry muskets generally didn't need or would use a fork, but his does.

New Zealand always exists a little.

Two out of three of those are the medievalist equivalent of fuddlore. You can invest your setting with some air of historicity without going down that path. You're right. We're dealing with a fantastical world. But depending on the group, there needs to be a bit more texture in how the setting works in order to really evoke that feeling.

But, the problem with so many people is that they're obsessed with trying to maintain "verisimilitude" and "realism" when they don't even really know what that is. Real history would be decried as unrealistic if some grognards played in it.

no, vikings bathed almost ritually and of course people could understand dialects many many miles around.

>Muskets were useful in the napoleonic era, therefore all medieval flavored fantasy RPGs should include firearms

It's not that they are obsessed with realism, it's that realism isn't reality. This in turn is not a problem. Playing with a reality concept that isn't the one that the group shares, is.
Even playing in a historically accurate setting isn't... historical, as the actual PCs probably never existed and if they did (e.g. playing historic characters), probably didn't do precisely what the players make them do.