This is one of those circular, unwinnable discussions...Joy!
Originally posted by vincegamer
I\'m scared by what I started.
lol
As long as no one is under the delusion that there is either a right or wrong answer, then intellectual debate along these lines is just food for the mind:bouncy:
Chinese food mind you, we\'ll be hungry again in an hour or twolol
IMO fantasy worlds are intellectual concepts created (normally) by an author to serve his/her plot. I think that the fact that they generally break certain accepted \'laws\' is part of the definition of fantasy.
Terry Pratchett\'s work is greatly underrated I feel because his fantastic ideas are obscured to a certain extent by his humour. I think that a lot of people dismiss his work because of this. After all, there is a long tradition of humourless SF. It\'s almost part of it\'s definition. (I know SF isn\'t the same as fantasy, but there is a huge overlap IMO).
I personally don\'t think that proportionalism (is that a word?) fundamentally affects the \'basics\' as you suggest.
Speaking also from experience, of fencing, I can assure you that a lightweight sword does work, and perhaps work best against heavy armour. Heavily armoured knights are incredibly effective...against other heavily armoured knights. Agincourt is a classic demonstration of how a heavily armoured force can be devastated by an opposing force armed merely with sticks (cunningly forged into longbows, but sticks nonetheless). Would an unmounted armoured knight fair well againt a skilled opponent armed with an epee?
At the end of the day, it\'s art. Picasso never suffered from a diversion from realism. You pays your money and you takes your choice....Personally, I find the Fianna type model no less acceptable or believable than the Thrud-based barbarians:flip:
