How medieval are your medieval(-ish) fantasy games?

[Mallus]

So for those who do not use a medieval flavor, doesn't this have an impact on immersion?

Nope.

I've found "immersion" is fostered by having a setting full of a) interesting details, b) interesting NPCs to talk to and sometimes kill, and c) opportunities for the players to change it through their actions, for better or worse.

Historical accuracy wouldn't even make into a Top 20 list of things which aid immersion. Frankly, the majority of people I've had the pleasure of gaming with --all educated people-- couldn't correctly identify 'real medieval stuff' if their effing lives depended on it (I include myself in this group).

What D&D and it's ilk have traditionally offered is an ahistorical stew of cool parts, kinda like the setting of the Conan stories. Which is to say a greater focus on authentic times and places would probably damage immersion for a large number of D&D/fantasy-RPG players.

After all the societies at that time were, among other things, a product of the available technologies.

But FRPG settings tend to be constructed out of the juicy bits of many societies, in many eras, both real and fictional, all diced up. And doused in a vinaigrette of engaging, (hopefully) easy-to-play, game-like structures.

Of course magic would change things, but is in your settings magic really so common that it would change how societies work?

In most of them, yes. One of my current homebrew settings takes place on a narrow strip of post-magical-apocalyptic land situated between the interior of the mind of god (dead-ish) and the Astral Sea. The other homebrew takes place in a Renaissance-ish world strewn with ancient magical gates.

Also, what do you societies look like?

They look familiar, except for the weird parts which are equal parts indulging in traditional fantasy tropes and subverting/parodying them.

And how much thought went into creating them?

A lot (too much).

But my societies and settings are first and foremost fiction; literary creations. They're made out of words -- not attempts at modelling the systems of an entire world, or accurately representing an actual historical era/place.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

My medievalish setting are not really very medieval at all. Technology is medieval level and that's about it. Personalities and personal outlooks tend to be modern. Cultures most resemble those from the 1600's or so, old enough to be archaic, but not so old as to be entirely alien. And of course magic throws a monkey wrench into everything. Doing an authentic medieval game would be cool, but it would take more work and research than I'm willing to do.

 

[Stormonu]

So for those who do not use a medieval flavor, doesn't this have an impact on immersion? After all the societies at that time were, among other things, a product of the available technologies.
Of course magic would change things, but is in your settings magic really so common that it would change how societies work?

Also, what do you societies look like? And how much thought went into creating them?

In the games I run, no magic would not. Perhaps one person out of a few hundred might be able to cast a first level spell. The number of wizards who could cast 9th level spells in the entire 5,000+ year history of my home brew could be counted on one hand (with maybe one or two carry-over to my other hand).

My world is as internally consistant as I can make it, but its no where near to realistic. And I like it that way.

 

[Razjah]

I have run games using all of these elements, but never all at once. How medieval I make the world often depends on the genre and what types of adventures and stories I want to have in the game.

Like [MENTION=52734]Stormonu[/MENTION] I try to keep the world internally consistent. But realism will always be dropped in favor of game play and player enjoyment. I may want to see a world where merchants charge a higher price for foreign coin, and a money changer can exchange coins for a lesser fee than the merchants-but too much is reported to the crown which will lead to the PCs being watched. But the players really just want to buy their supplies and move on. The extra book keeping is not worth it.

 

[Derren]

But realism will always be dropped in favor of game play and player enjoyment.

As this has been posted several times, which aspects of real medieval societies do the players not enjoy in your experience?

 

[Obryn]

So for those who do not use a medieval flavor, doesn't this have an impact on immersion?

It's not a medieval setting, so... No.

 

[Razjah]

As this has been posted several times, which aspects of real medieval societies do the players not enjoy in your experience?

Money changing. Taxes (unless they are "invisible" where the players won't even notice their existence). Every kingdom speaking its own language (is fine if they can also speak it, but having 1 designated translator, or having the PCs "waste" points on languages are found annoying), sanitation issues. These types of things are dropped for game play and higher levels of fun for my players.

Tolls and Taxes are another thing. Entering a city may have a tax, but it is often handwaved, or I just tell the players to lose N GP for a tax. Serfdom is another thing I often drop. There are farmers, but not serfs. The PCs are not tied to a specific location, and are not required to pay a percentage of their harvest or profit from their job to the state and church.

My players generally want to follow the adventure. This may be why I prefer Burning Wheel which is far more character focused and can make dealing with the church much more interesting.

 

[Dethklok]

A while ago I asked how modern your modern games were. Now I am on holiday, visiting several cities with very long histories and at the same time reading a lot of fantasy books to keep me entertained on the train. And I noticed, despite generally being set in a medieval like world, the settings tend to be rather modern in the details.

So, how are you medieval like fantasy worlds?
Does every kingdom have its own currency (its all silver, etc. but without the right face on the coin it won't be accepted legally and/or is worth less?
Does every region has its own dialect and every kingdom its own language?
Are serfs bound to the land they live on and property of their lord who can micromanage them as much as he wants (for example who they can/have to mary)?
Is literacy a sign of wealth or nobility as schools hardly exist and lower class children have to work anyway?
Is sanitation and hygene virtually unheard of, with only very big and wealthy cities having a sewer?
Is the church extremely powerful and even the mightiest of kings bowing to their wishes?

All.

I agree with Morrus even the very idea of Adventurers is un-medieval. I'd put High Fantasy at at least early modern (with some trappings of Late Middle) where Adventurers are mercenary companies made up primarily of the younger sons of nobles and merchants.

The Volkewanderung of the Early Middle Ages is a time of pure adventure. With the downfall of the Roman Empire, the chronic migration of barbarian tribes, fledgling Frankish Empires struggling into existence, and violent religious conflicts, peasants probably considered themselves lucky if they were able to live quiet lives devoid of adventure!

I think the medieval mindset and society is sufficiently different from our own that a faithful reproduction would be endlessly jarring.

The main reason I play low fantasy games is to experience this sensation you describe as jarring. For high fantasy, some dice, monsters, and magical weapons are great. For low fantasy, I want to be immersed in a world where the culture, the technology, the economy, the people, the religion, everything follows its own unique pattern.

And given the power level of even moderate level D&D

OK, but why are you using D&D for a period accurate, low fantasy game? There are plenty of games that do that, but D&D isn't one of them.

So for those who do not use a medieval flavor, doesn't this have an impact on immersion? After all the societies at that time were, among other things, a product of the available technologies.

Yes, for me a failure to follow the low level of technology through to its economic and social consequences definitely impacts the immersion negatively. There were many low-tech societies throughout history and today, and few to none of them ever had the individualistic, egalitarian notions of today. Athenian wives were essentially chattel, the Vikings kept their defeated enemies as slaves, and peasants could be killed on a whim by the Chinese Emperor. Even a fantasy world created from whole cloth without reference to Christian Europe of the High Middle Ages is more believable when it recognizes the way poverty and technological restrictions impact human culture.

 

[haakon1]

My world is as internally consistant as I can make it, but its no where near to realistic. And I like it that way.

Here, here!

I'd also like to say, it's not unrealistic for multiple countries to share the same currency (looking at Spanish pieces-of-eight) if it's a reliable currency and has a large share of the world's supply of the precious metal used. There's a reason so many countries have "dollar" or "peso" as their currency (both terms for the same Spanish coin used on 4 continents).

It's also not unrealistic for multiple medieval "countries" to speak the same language. Latin is obvious as the educated language of Europe until at least the 19th century, but there are also vernacular languages that were shared by multiple political entities -- Italy was dozens of rival city states and small countries often speaking the same dialects, and same goes for the Holy Roman Empire (later called Germany). Arabic was the main language from Morocco to Iraq in medieval times, and spoken by traders and adventurers as far as off as Malaysia.

So you don't need to feel inferior for allowing "Common" and not worrying about which country issued a coin. It's a modern construct of the nation-state era to think that language = nation, and nation with an army, currency, and flag = state.

More realistically medieval would be to have multiple languages extant within a kingdom, and the same languages occurring in neighboring countries. For example, circa 1400, and ignoring minor dialect differences:

-- England & Wales = English (vernacular, with heavy regional and class accents), French (aristocratic/trader/military officer vernacular), Welsh (regional vernacular language unrelated to English or French), Cornish (regional vernacular related to Welsh), Irish (subject people/enemy/trader vernacular), Scottish (subject people/enemy/trader vernacular), Latin (language of education, church, and government documents), Danish/Norwegian boksmal (trader vernacular), Dutch (trader vernacular), and Greek (secondary language of education and church).

-- France = French (vernacular of Ile-de-France region), Langue d'Oc (vernacular of the south), Breton (vernacular of Brittany), Arpitan (dialect of Burgundy), Alsatian German (vernacular of Alsace-Lorraine), Basque (regional vernacular), Catalan (regional vernacular), Dutch (trader/neighboring language), English (trader/neighbor/enemy language), Latin, and Greek.

 

[LostSoul]

I run a post-apoc kind of typical D&D game, so no.