RPG - Arthur Pendragon's conquest of Rome

[Spoonist]

There are so many things wrong with your unrealistic brit-wanking that it really does not matter if you would have the most realistic setup at all, because the premise is so outrageously stupid....in short, I cannot tell you anything, no anecdote, nothing, because your made-up history would make any such anecdote to have happened at all. Why is this not going through your head? I could tell you the most elaborate armor setup. But it won't matter, because your Brits are already immune to weapons.

(Nitpick. "My" brits will not be immune to weapons, ~40% of the briton army will die in the campain, its a point that Arthur's pride helps the fall of his kingdom).
So because you know that I will use the information in a fairytale, the real life actual historical questions and discussion would be somehow 'tainted'? Thus regardless if there is no mention of the fairytale you would refuse the discussion because of that 'taint'? Pray, tell me, how would a discussion on whether throwing axes was used by all teutonic tribes or uniquely so by the franks, or, whether saxons used their horses in battle and not just for logistics, tell me how such discussion "would not matter" just because they might be used in a fictional context?
Just to make my point perfectly clear. If I took up my purely historical questions as discussions in the History forum, without a single trace of the hypothetical, just pure hard historical Q&A. Would you or would you not be predisposed against it?

The 2005 King Arthur is a good example how an idiotic premise can ruin an otherwise excellent movie - the movie was very well done and except for the use of the lorica segmentata in a throwaway scene and Guinevere's outfit the costumes were mostly accurate. Heck, they even made an excellent representation of late Roman infantry and heavy cavalry. It also did a great job with Roman mentality and the scope of the empire. However - and this is the same problem I have with your story - it was such a sloppy job on the history and made so many easily avoidable mistakes - that the movie ended up completely worthless.

So you can find redeeming things in a crappy movie just because they have some correct historical data, Also if said crappy movie would not have "made so many easily avoidable mistakes" it could have been better. I am similar myself, I also watch crappy movies just because they got some historical data right or feature eras that I like. I get the feeling that if we would have this conversation in real life we would have resolved it in 10 minutes, but because it is in this format we could go on forever without any result. (Why I say the movie was crappy was the shitty script, the 2d characters, the portrayal of the pictish, the idiotic end battle resolution and that they claimed in the hype to have a more "realistic" Arthur giving a false pretense).

The best historical representation is useless if the story does not fit.

So, why I am confused about your position is that you go from opinions like these in regards to movies:
-I like it when hollywood get historical tidbits correct.
-If hollywood movies would get more historical data correct they could be better.
-Even if it is a fictional movie it is nice if hollywood get the props right for the era.
To opinions like these in regards to this topic:
-If the premise is unrealistic, it does not matter if you have a realistic setup.
-Do not demean history by having an unhistorical premise/hero.
-It would make a better story if you limit the heroes to what was historically possible.

Or are you in some strange way trying to say that if the scenario is fictional it is better to treat history fictionally as well? So that the 2005 movie King Arthur would have been better if it had not tried to be accurate and should have gone full fantasy like the 1995 First Knight? (Another crappy movie). That would be an argument that would be internally consistent.

Where I think that we might have the point of dissention could be that it is a game. Now I am a gamer. Are you a gamer?
If I play a boardgame like britannia I love it that it is based on some historical data. That they comply with the migration period and the archeological finds. But that it does not limit my actions to act exactly according to history. I can have my dubliners try to go for the welsh coast, it will probably cost me the game but I can do it.
Playing Crusader Kings I love that they have the names and arms of all the noble families in the scenarios, and that they have bothered to have religions etc in the engine.
Or when playing Hearts of Iron that the officers and politicians are from real history and that they try to get it as realistic as possible.
However I do not play these games to "simulate" history, I don't want soviet to win WWII every time, I don't want to be limited by history. I play them because I love the historical scenarios but I also love to change them through my actions as a player. If I play William "the conqueror" (aka the bastard) in 1066 I don't want to be limited to his future, but I love to have his past. If I play France in 1936 I want to be able to extend the maginot line, but if I play them in 1939 I want the maginot line to be as it was historically. Even if by doing these things I change history, so that after a while it is no longer plausible, like a lasting Molotov-Ribbentrop (sp?) pact.
If you are not a gamer I do not expect that you will understand what I am asking for.

Then any advice I can give you will not help you at all, as you are going to ignore it either way.

If you had said something like you hate my guts, or, you can't be bothered right now, or, that era is not within my field of expertise, or, I don't know the answer to that question... Then at least I would have understood you. But right now your only argument so far against discussing gaul/italy in the 520's is that you know that the fairytale of Arthur Pendragon is somehow involved, no matter how remotely.

[Thanas]

There are so many things wrong with your unrealistic brit-wanking that it really does not matter if you would have the most realistic setup at all, because the premise is so outrageously stupid....in short, I cannot tell you anything, no anecdote, nothing, because your made-up history would make any such anecdote to have happened at all. Why is this not going through your head? I could tell you the most elaborate armor setup. But it won't matter, because your Brits are already immune to weapons.

(Nitpick. "My" brits will not be immune to weapons, ~40% of the briton army will die in the campain, its a point that Arthur's pride helps the fall of his kingdom).
So because you know that I will use the information in a fairytale, the real life actual historical questions and discussion would be somehow 'tainted'? Thus regardless if there is no mention of the fairytale you would refuse the discussion because of that 'taint'? Pray, tell me, how would a discussion on whether throwing axes was used by all teutonic tribes or uniquely so by the franks, or, whether saxons used their horses in battle and not just for logistics, tell me how such discussion "would not matter" just because they might be used in a fictional context?
Just to make my point perfectly clear. If I took up my purely historical questions as discussions in the History forum, without a single trace of the hypothetical, just pure hard historical Q&A. Would you or would you not be predisposed against it?

I would not, because then I would know that you would respect the answers and not use them as "Brit-wank-fulfilling fantasy."

So you can find redeeming things in a crappy movie just because they have some correct historical data, Also if said crappy movie would not have "made so many easily avoidable mistakes" it could have been better. I am similar myself, I also watch crappy movies just because they got some historical data right or feature eras that I like. I get the feeling that if we would have this conversation in real life we would have resolved it in 10 minutes, but because it is in this format we could go on forever without any result. (Why I say the movie was crappy was the shitty script, the 2d characters, the portrayal of the pictish, the idiotic end battle resolution and that they claimed in the hype to have a more "realistic" Arthur giving a false pretense).

The same problems are with you Brit-wank 101 scenario.

So, why I am confused about your position is that you go from opinions like these in regards to movies:
-I like it when hollywood get historical tidbits correct.
-If hollywood movies would get more historical data correct they could be better.
-Even if it is a fictional movie it is nice if hollywood get the props right for the era.
To opinions like these in regards to this topic:
-If the premise is unrealistic, it does not matter if you have a realistic setup.
-Do not demean history by having an unhistorical premise/hero.
-It would make a better story if you limit the heroes to what was historically possible.

The difference is one of scale. I am sorry if your idiotic mind cannot comprehend that. Gladiator did not result with the gladiators slaughtering the Praetorian guard, did it?

Or are you in some strange way trying to say that if the scenario is fictional it is better to treat history fictionally as well? So that the 2005 movie King Arthur would have been better if it had not tried to be accurate and should have gone full fantasy like the 1995 First Knight? (Another crappy movie). That would be an argument that would be internally consistent.

Not knowing about the last one, I cannot answer it.

Where I think that we might have the point of dissention could be that it is a game. Now I am a gamer. Are you a gamer?

If by gamer you mean "I am an idiot who cannot comprehend the differences of scale that make a story internally consistent", then no, I am not a gamer.

If I play a boardgame like britannia I love it that it is based on some historical data. That they comply with the migration period and the archeological finds. But that it does not limit my actions to act exactly according to history. I can have my dubliners try to go for the welsh coast, it will probably cost me the game but I can do it.
Playing Crusader Kings I love that they have the names and arms of all the noble families in the scenarios, and that they have bothered to have religions etc in the engine.
Or when playing Hearts of Iron that the officers and politicians are from real history and that they try to get it as realistic as possible.
However I do not play these games to "simulate" history, I don't want soviet to win WWII every time, I don't want to be limited by history. I play them because I love the historical scenarios but I also love to change them through my actions as a player. If I play William "the conqueror" (aka the bastard) in 1066 I don't want to be limited to his future, but I love to have his past. If I play France in 1936 I want to be able to extend the maginot line, but if I play them in 1939 I want the maginot line to be as it was historically. Even if by doing these things I change history, so that after a while it is no longer plausible, like a lasting Molotov-Ribbentrop (sp?) pact.
If you are not a gamer I do not expect that you will understand what I am asking for.

Oh, I understand it perfectly. You are making an idiotic universe that is not self-consistent with any form of reality.

If you had said something like you hate my guts, or, you can't be bothered right now, or, that era is not within my field of expertise, or, I don't know the answer to that question... Then at least I would have understood you. But right now your only argument so far against discussing gaul/italy in the 520's is that you know that the fairytale of Arthur Pendragon is somehow involved, no matter how remotely.

No, idiot, it is because you consistently refuse to have a universe that is internally consistent. If it is internally consistent, then the advice I give you cannot be of any use because none of it would apply. Or Arthur would have died in Brittany, gored by a francisca.

That we have been going over this the last few posts amazes me, you truly are one of those who make the clicheé of gamers a reality.

[Spoonist]

Just to make my point perfectly clear. If I took up my purely historical questions as discussions in the History forum, without a single trace of the hypothetical, just pure hard historical Q&A. Would you or would you not be predisposed against it?

I would not, because then I would know that you would respect the answers and not use them as "Brit-wank-fulfilling fantasy."

OK, then I will do that instead of this useless discussion.

The same problems are with you Brit-wank 101 scenario.

Which I fully agreed to. Why do you bring it up again?

...like the 1995 First Knight?

Not knowing about the last one, I cannot answer it.

Good for you, that was not a good movie.

Where I think that we might have the point of dissention could be that it is a game. Now I am a gamer. Are you a gamer?

...no, I am not a gamer.

If you are not a gamer I do not expect that you will understand what I am asking for.

Oh, I understand it perfectly. You are making an idiotic universe that is not self-consistent with any form of reality.

Exactly, but then you do not understand at all the value of adding reality to such a universe.

No, idiot, it is because you consistently refuse to have a universe that is internally consistent.

Since it is a fairytale I could have the franks in Tigers and the romans in T-34's and still make it internally consistent without even trying hard. Which is a moot point, you just don't get it that it increases the experience to have parts of the scenario from real history.

That we have been going over this the last few posts amazes me, you truly are one of those who make the clicheé of gamers a reality.

Agreed on both accounts, but probably not the way you think. But remember that it was you who continued this when I said that it was futile and that we should let this topic die, I am humoring you now, not the other way around.

[Thanas]

So what, you were just trolling with the last few posts?

I'll remember that one.

[Spoonist]

So what, you were just trolling with the last few posts?

I'll remember that one.

What?

I seriuosly don't get you Thanas, again, no I was not trolling. Not then, not now.. First I was trying to explain the background for my request, then I was trying to explain my own reasoning and then when you continued the subject I was trying to see how you reason to find some common ground from which we could see eye to eye. To me you are being unreasonably touchy and are getting mad at a self fulfilling prophesy.

Can some other poster explain where Thanas is getting this from? Maybe Ghost Rider who was also disagreeing with me? Was I not clear enough about purpose and intentions? What in my posts made him think that I was trolling him? Thanas is obviously thinking I'm yanking his chain, while I thought I was showing his authority of the subject respect by continuing to answer him even after I had repeatedly said that I would drop the "what if" side of the topic. Or is this some kind of strange irony that I simply don't get?

Now since you are ignoring the source of the legend (Le Morte d'Arthur) and ignoring the parable of the hollywood script I'm deducting that you are unwilling to do a suspension of disbelief in this case. Fine by me.
But then instead maybe you could just help me with a few questions I have on the era? Point me to sources so that I can research some of this myself?

I know that for people who have actually invested the time and the effort into the actual research, that it feels like a sell-out to do the speculative what-if scenarios. I also realise that this is the equivalent of the italians winning WWII on their own or ST vs SW. So just scratch that bit, if you don't want to play, you don't want to play, I respect that.

With that said, since this topic seems to rub you the wrong way for some reason I see no point in pursueing this any further. If you don't want to help, you just don't want to help. Lets leave it at that and let this topic die.

This is all some 7, 6 and 5 posts ago. If I was not clear enough I would love to know, since I can't honestly see it and thus I might do something similar again.