Edition Fatigue

[shadzar]

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION]: It´s hard to explain, maybe because im missing the vocabulary to do so. Still I´ll try:

Medieval society is mostly one thing: absolutelly immobile. Until the Black Death, there was no movement, neither physical nor social, no exceptions.
I´ve read a good amount of TSR/WotC books and no, that stuff isn´t covered at all.

For me, a useable medieval setting should be based on 4 pillars: piety - power - station - corruption. Pendragon does that right, for example, whereas D&D describes the lawless frontiers of the wild west instead.

Power, station, and corruption are definitely there in all editions.

Presence of the gods and directly relating to them is in MOST except for 4th, and emphasis isnt that high in some editions.

Virtue is like alignment and between players and DM to figure out.

To make it as detailed as some may want, would mean that it just doesnt leave itself to be as open for other things and people to design their own settings.

How easy is it to remove those elements if they have such strong connections in those other games that were mentioned as more closely representing "medieval"?

 

[nedjer]

Moving around in medieval times was mainly about privilege. Serfs spent five months of the year sleeping most of the time and didn't have much in the way of shoes for getting about. Odd trip to market if they were lucky.

Merchants, teachers, artists and artisans, warmongers and the godly travelled extensively and were generously supplied with shoes.

So little change in 1000 years

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afY4v0y4fL4"]YouTube - The Armstrong and Miller Farmers market[/ame]

 

[Coldwyn]

Power, station, and corruption are definitely there in all editions.

Presence of the gods and directly relating to them is in MOST except for 4th, and emphasis isnt that high in some editions.

Virtue is like alignment and between players and DM to figure out.

To make it as detailed as some may want, would mean that it just doesnt leave itself to be as open for other things and people to design their own settings.

How easy is it to remove those elements if they have such strong connections in those other games that were mentioned as more closely representing "medieval"?

You´re missing the point a bit. It´s not only what´s missing, it´s also what need to be removed that matters.
To quote myself:

To add further to that, let´s remove the stuff from D&D that isn´t medieval:
- Frontier mentality
- Taming the wildernes
- Low population figures
- Dangerous overland travel
- Individual rights
- Natives & Barbarias

What I´d like to add: - Outlaws vs. Sheriff

Actually, I think that the deities themselves wouldn´t really play a role, not as much as their chruches anyway.

 

[shadzar]

You´re missing the point a bit. It´s not only what´s missing, it´s also what need to be removed that matters.
To quote myself:

To add further to that, let´s remove the stuff from D&D that isn´t medieval:
- Frontier mentality
- Taming the wildernes
- Low population figures
- Dangerous overland travel
- Individual rights
- Natives & Barbarias

What I´d like to add: - Outlaws vs. Sheriff

Actually, I think that the deities themselves wouldn´t really play a role, not as much as their chruches anyway.

Robin Hood dates back as far as 14th centruy, which is within the medieval period.

You wanted to add outlaws v. Sheriff should be removed or be there? Because apparently it was in the medieval period, and as far as the game is concerned, that would be up to the adventure and MANY include the PCs on either side there as plot hooks.

I am guessing by frontier mentality you mean as opposed to living within a build society. Again Robin Hood tells of that very thing, so removing it would mean it doesn't correlate with medieval as it was present. Not everyone lived within the confines of the protection of the city. Thus as to your next point, people expanding beyond the city limits would need to "tame the wilderness".

Population has to deal with the setting again. There are adventures with cities of large populations, but in game terms that can be a problem depending on what you are trying to present. Not something for the game itself to decide, but the adventures and settings to have be decided for individuals rather than trying to force all cities to be England with 1 million residents.

Safe travel...well it is an adventure game featuring monsters, and they didnt exist in historically accurate medieval Europe. As some people would not find it fun to jsut travel and meet peasant and such along the way, why roleplay travel at all if nothing can happen. Travel is presented in the for of a Quest for the Holy Grail manner where you are on an adventure.

Rights people DID have, but just not many. Again being a game, you need to have the ability for players to play it, and if the DM is controlling it so tightly as to what the players can do, you really lose the game.

Natives and barbarians are there in the forms of monsters and humans and demihumans, etc.

Accurate historical representation fatigue in gaming was the thing the miniature wargamers that created D&D were trying to move away from for more freedoms because of the limits set by some of those things you listed. It doesnt mean they are not present, just not as much focus is put on them so that players can play in the types of games they want.

The ame pretty much has to cover ALL the medieval period, as well leave room for other things to fit, so again you couldn't constrain it to every precise detail within the adaptable system. You had room to add those constraints back if you wanted, but others were also free to venture into other ways.

The game never claimed to be perfect 800 AD European Earth, but you could add those elements in your game world if you wanted to, while it allows me to have Fantasy World #1453132542 with the rules of society that I have set for my world.

Again it says pseudo-medieval because it needs to be open enough to not scare away people not wanting to play solely in 1086 England.

Even 4th edition can be placed into a strict year within the middle ages, even though it doesnt give you the info on that. It is up to the one(s) designing the game you are playing in.

These products form TSR might be somethign that would help realize the midle ages you are looking for in older editions, but would probably require some rules conversion for newer editions.

9322 HR1 Vikings Campaign Sourcebook
9323 HR2 Charlemagne’s Paladins Campaign Sourcebook
9376 HR3 Celts Campaign Sourcebook
9370 HR4 A Mighty Fortress Campaign Sourcebook
9425 HR5 The Glory of Rome Campaign Sourcebook
9408 (HR6) Age of Heroes Campaign Sourcebook
9469 (HR7) The Crusades Campaign Sourcebook

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I've heard it argued that the current version is more like super heroes with a fantasy paint job.

Certainly high-level D&D has always been very like superheroes in fantasy constumes from 1E onward.

 

[Coldwyn]

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION]

First of, some things: Whatever your timestamp may say, it´s close to midnight when I start writing this, I´m thru half a bottle of fine japanese whiskey by now, I´m used to communicate in a very precise language and need to translate my thoughts to english, I´ve majored in art history and finaly, can some mod please split that post over to it´s own "Is D&D really Western Europe Medieval" thread?

For simplicitys sake, let´s focus on Greater Germany because it´s easier to look up wikipedia with the locations and dates given.

When I say D&D has a frontiers mentality, I mean that there are little towns/hamlets sitting alone in the wilderness, surrounded by antagonistic creatures.
When I say Outlaws vs Sheriffs, I mean brave heroes going out to solve the problem because the local authorities can´t.

For contrast and context, compare a map of modern Germany with a map of Greater Germany in the middle middle ages and compare what you see. It´s the same.
Now think about the state most Settings in D&D are in an compare that to early to middle 1800 in the US.
So, coming back to that, the local authorities in Greater Germany really tamed the wilderness, made travel and commerce save and reacted to any problem by massive force of arms. Check out the History of Erfurt, for example, a town that around 1300 not only fielded 3 universities but also managed to secure the trade routes between Moscow, Greater Germany and Paris by force of arms.
Now think about your typical D&D towns and inviroments and compare that to the situation west of the Mississippi around 1800. Notice something?
I could go on about travelling distances between places (from villages to full-blown cities) and castles/outposts, but I´m certainly too drunk to do that.

So let´s get over to the social aspects.
The actual middle ages saw Greater Germany very fractured as well as very unified. Fractured because it was, at times, well over a hundred kingdoms and small tiefdoms, unified because they nearly all shared the same outlooks and priciples. That existed on a physical ground a bit smaller than modern day Texas.

Now compare that to D&D, huge tracts of land, all belonging to more or less the same nation(s), settlements without contact to the rest of the world and so on.

by that time, there was no sole rule by a monarchy or other heritary class, it was already shared by the merchant class, like the Fuggers or Medici, still, the serving class (serfs) had to serve, else there´d be punishment. Having said this, we also see the rise of the citizen and the artisan in this era.

Ah well, to cut it short, when you compare D&D to early and middle 1800 USA, then to actual medieval Europe, you see where you land.

Now I gotta get me a refill of that japanese stuff =D

 

[Hussar]

Shadzar - I believe that you are making Coldwyn's point for him. It isn't that setting information for doing Medieval Europe wasn't present, it's that it wasn't present in the core rules. And, his point is, the setting material shouldn't be in the core rules because it makes it difficult to break the game out of that specific setting.

It's all back to the whole Toolbox vs Specific Game debate. Is D&D a toolbox game where you use the mechanics to build your world, similar to GURPS, or is it a specific game where you are expected to play in the baseline world, like Vampire?

 

[shadzar]

Shadzar - I believe that you are making Coldwyn's point for him. It isn't that setting information for doing Medieval Europe wasn't present, it's that it wasn't present in the core rules. And, his point is, the setting material shouldn't be in the core rules because it makes it difficult to break the game out of that specific setting.

It's all back to the whole Toolbox vs Specific Game debate. Is D&D a toolbox game where you use the mechanics to build your world, similar to GURPS, or is it a specific game where you are expected to play in the baseline world, like Vampire?

Because it doesnt force strict adhesion to all historical accuracy of medieval europe, doesnt mean it isnt medieval though is what i was saying.

I dont know from these terms everyone comes up with i just use the old-fashioned ones so to me D&D had to be an dynamic system rather than a static one that forced things like "playing in Elizabethan England". It had to be adaptable but has a focus on a time period.

Probably what throws me off the most is comparing Westerns to Medieval because the connections made in his most recent post I can understand a bit more in regards to "the world". Otherwise i was seeing Clint Eastwood in plate mail, Rooster Cogburn with a battleaxe, and Apache and Comanche living in castles.

The game is medieval, but obviously not the strict adherence that Coldwyn would have liked at the core, or in the published adventures. But it didn't set out to stop you from making it that strictly historical if you so wanted to. That was/IS the beauty of D&D. Heck you can Buck Rogers (TM LW and the DFT) it if you really want and go Spelljamming.

 

[Coldwyn]

Because it doesnt force strict adhesion to all historical accuracy of medieval europe, doesnt mean it isnt medieval though is what i was saying.

I dont know from these terms everyone comes up with i just use the old-fashioned ones so to me D&D had to be an dynamic system rather than a static one that forced things like "playing in Elizabethan England". It had to be adaptable but has a focus on a time period.

Probably what throws me off the most is comparing Westerns to Medieval because the connections made in his most recent post I can understand a bit more in regards to "the world". Otherwise i was seeing Clint Eastwood in plate mail, Rooster Cogburn with a battleaxe, and Apache and Comanche living in castles.

The game is medieval, but obviously not the strict adherence that Coldwyn would have liked at the core, or in the published adventures. But it didn't set out to stop you from making it that strictly historical if you so wanted to. That was/IS the beauty of D&D. Heck you can Buck Rogers (TM LW and the DFT) it if you really want and go Spelljamming.

It may be because it´s easy for me to follow the path of our history.
Without any rancor, when I visited the US, I came up with a feeling of disconnect and I´ve only been able to tell why when I got back home.
If I want to see Classic Culture, I simply go to Rome, Greece or Egypt. If I´m interested in the middle ages, I use some weekends to visit (still complete) towns all around Europe. If I want to know more about the renaissance, I visit France and Italy, take a look at Michaelangelos or DaVincis Workshop and be satisfied, and so on. Maybe this easy availlability of History breeds a certain sense of kinship and belonging with me.

Having said this, D&D is fun. Period. There is, for example, a local german system that, by sticking to what we know about medieval history and its mores, managed to drive D&D from the market. Yepp, you read correctly, we don´t have D&D anymore in germany because sales culdn´t keep up with a more historically correct game.

 

[fumetti]

Now this is a mistake

Page 260 and 261 of the 4e PHB lists travel speeds by terrain and also lists a number of possible methods for overland travel. I don't have my DMG handy, but the PHB mentions that the DMG has additional rules for overland travel, including fatigue rules.

Yep. Missed it. I went through the PHB and DMG and missed it. Two pages in the PHB that does actually address activity in real world, non-combat terms. And weather and starvation are discussed, terms of DC checks, on pg 158-9 of the DMG. So I can't say "removed" anymore, although non-combat is still under-developed in 4E.

Mea Culpa!

Well, so far, nothing has actually been removed since 3e although, to be fair, the random encounters did appear in earlier editions. So, what else has been removed that turns D&D into a one dimensional game?

I'm not making a case that there aren't resources for non-combat activity. For certain, everything has been addressed in the past 30 years. But new players aren't going to be aware of all that, and/or won't have access to those older books. I'm going on the premise that new players will play the new edition--and if certain elements aren't in the new edition, then players aren't going to see them as a part of the game.

4E looks to me like a one-dimensional game because virtually everything is described in in-combat terms. Not in feet, but squares; not in minutes or 1-minute rounds, but in "encounters" (an indistinct measurement that can theoretically be anywhere from one minute into infinity).

Older versions of spells were written perfectly for both combat and noncombat. AoE was in feet/yards, distance was in feet/yards, time was in fixed measurements (one minute rounds or ten minute turns or days, etc). 4E spell effects are almost entirely limited to combat effects. For example, Freezing Burst stats read like just another magical attack. It does not convey that this spell has non-combat use (the flavor description does, but players are warned that flavor text is not to be used in-game).

An experienced player or DM might readily see that powers can be used in noncombat situations (which might require some house-ruling on the specifics). But what will this look like to a new player or DM who doesn't have veterans around to point these things out?