D&D General Why Do You Prefer a Medieval Milieu For D&D? +

[Azzy]

Personally, I prefer to steal from pre-Bronze Age Collapse for my own settings—I was into mythologies and ancient cultures before I got into fantasy literature (and before I got into D&D). That being said, I also really like medieval-ish settings because that's the kind of fantasy that I was reading and was the assumed standard of D&D when I was introduced to it.

 

[Incenjucar]

Personally, I prefer to steal from pre-Bronze Age Collapse for my own settings—I was into mythologies and ancient cultures before I got into fantasy literature (and before I got into D&D). That being said, I also really like medieval-ish settings because that's the kind of fantasy that I was reading and was the assumed standard of D&D when I was introduced to it.

I really love the idea of bronze age tech being the default with pockets of "super advanced" civilizations with plate armor here and there near higher-threat dangers.

 

[Laurefindel]

For those that do*, why do you prefer a medieval fantasy milieu for your D&D games? Why do you want castles and kings and thatch roofed villages, knights and towers and chain? Why do you not want firearms or printing presses, trains or airships?

I like all of those things but medieval fantasy is still one of my favourite sub-genre, and it is one that is easily invalidated by modern elements. By definition, a middle age is an age between a bygone antiquity and modern times, so too "modern" elements can quickly ruin this elusive and whimsical "medieval feel". So we tend to double-down on romanticized ideals of elements that we know were omnipresent in medieval times, such as chivalry, melee fighting, feudalism, and science/magic as an occult or monastic thing.

So this goes back to "why seeking a medieval feel"; it has a certain poetic draw I guess, and we have a bunch of sources of inspiration (both in literature and history). There are more and more examples and good sources of more "derivative" fantasy, and I enjoy variety, but medieval fantasy is one of them.

 

[DammitVictor]

Couple of big caveats before I dig into this:

1. "Medieval" isn't actually my preferred flavor of D&D.
2. Thread is on page 8 as of the time I'm writing this and I've only read the OP.

So. Classic pseudo-medieval D&D isn't actually my preferred flavor. I do like firearms and printing presses, I prefer social structures and institutions that are either less medieval or more medieval than D&D assumptions, I'm not all that into the Tolkien Trio, et cetera and et cetera and et cetera.

But why is it so popular?

1. It's traditional and familiar. Which, unlike certain wagging tongues would have it, is not a criticism of people who prefer it. Any speculative setting is going to be chock full of things that don't exist in real life, but in Tolkienesque pseudo-medieval fantasy D&D, even a rookie player is going to know what most of those things are without a glossary and visual dictionary. If you know what a tzimisce, a wraeththu, and a midnight sunstone bazooka are, and why those streams should never be crossed, you should be helping me design my next convention one-shot.
2. D&D's assumptions about how society works create an atmosphere of freedom and agency that more realistic or more utopian settings wouldn't. Player characters are (obscenely) independently wealthy, heavily armed, and free to go wherever and do whatever they damned well please-- see what happens when they try that in a small town.
3. The... anachronistically medieval-ish tech level of D&D-- which sometimes does include printing presses-- is easy to design adventures around. No smartphones, no 911, no jetpacks, no sniper rifles, no spaceships. Forum's full of people struggling with flying PC races, teleportation magic, and all that-- well, at least in classical medieval D&D, those things aren't available to every PC, at will, with convenient financing plans.
4. Kind of a followup on that, but the world being so much bigger than the PCs means that... hiding in any given corner of the world, or emerging from any given corner of the world, could be something the players and the PCs have never heard of, and it wouldn't break the immersive feeling they should have heard of it. If I told you there was an army of grimlocks amassing in the sewers of Amsterdam, you'd feel pretty confident in telling me that there isn't. (I'm not lying; look it up.) If I told you that a guild of svirfneblin artisans were trying to slowly assume control over Waterdeep's economy... even if you grew up in Waterdeep, you'd have to wonder.
5. The iconography of traditional D&D settings is diverse and compelling. Your player characters are Arthur Pendragon, Gandalf, Conan the Cimmerian, Bilbo Baggins, and Joan D'Arc. There's just a much deeper-- and self-reinforcing-- reference pool with D&D, and there are legitimate reasons why one of the most common complaints about modern D&D is that they keep broadening that pool with unfamiliar concepts.

Basically... even aside from the troubling, irrational unwilingness of some D&D fans to venture beyond the most vanilla generic D&D... it's easier to build your own campaign setting and premise using D&D assumptions, and it's easier to onboard even the most eager players if you start from those assumptions. Some people might read an implied criticism in that, but... when you're dealing with a lot of people, and you don't know all of those people intimately well, then the easiest way to have a good time is going to be the most reliable way of making sure everyone has a good time.

 

[Reynard]

Couple of big caveats before I dig into this:

1. "Medieval" isn't actually my preferred flavor of D&D.

I mean...

1. Thread is on page 8 as of the time I'm writing this and I've only read the OP.

Did you?

Snark aside, your post is a good explanation of the potential broad draw of pseudo medievalism in D&D, but I actually want to know why individual people personally prefer that medieval milieu in D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My fantasy preference for D&D and games like is somewhere between the Witcher and Warhammer Fantasy. Full plate, early firearms, kings and peasants (plus magic).

My other favored RPG genre is sci-fi, and there I am open to the full spectrum.

 

[Bitbrain]

why do you prefer a medieval fantasy milieu for your D&D games? Why do you want castles and kings and thatch roofed villages, knights and towers and chain?

Because in addition to my dad making sure I read the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, my mother insisted I also read Beowulf, numerous versions of Arthurian folklore, the Song of Roland, and watch the classic Disney animated film Sleeping Beauty growing up.

The ride of the Rohirrim, King Beowulf setting out to fight the dragon (while knowing full well he’s outmatched and is going to be killed), King Arthur’s glorious but short-lived Kingdom of Summer, Tristan and Isolde, the absolute trainwreck that is Sir Balin, Prince Phillip versus Maleficent, proud Roland blowing his horn so hard he literally bursts blood vessels but still goes on to kill dozens of enemies with mighty Durendal before finally dying… these stories (combined with original series Star Wars) were honestly the foundational fictions I read or watched as a child.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Call me a pedant, but I really hate the use of the term "medieval" to describe Tolkienesque fantasy. Medieval was a real historical period that in no way resembled a typical D&D setting. And it wasn't Tolkien's period of interest. He was an Anglo-Saxon expert, i.e pre-medieval (but much more D&D-like).

And the use of the word "feudal" to describe anything with kings, knights, castles and nobles. Feudalism was a very specific form of government in which everyone had their divinely appointed place, and there was not a place labelled "adventurer".

I would prefer we used terms like "pre-modern" "ancient world" or "pseudo-historical". I don't hate the setting, just the misused terminology.

 

[Tonguez]

Call me a pedant, but I really hate the use of the term "medieval" to describe Tolkienesque fantasy. Medieval was a real historical period that in no way resembled a typical D&D setting. And it wasn't Tolkien's period of interest. He was an Anglo-Saxon expert, i.e pre-medieval (but much more D&D-like).

And the use of the word "feudal" to describe anything with kings, knights, castles and nobles. Feudalism was a very specific form of government in which everyone had their divinely appointed place, and there was not a place labelled "adventurer".

I would prefer we used terms like "pre-modern" "ancient world" or "pseudo-historical". I don't hate the setting, just the misused terminology.

Ancient world has already been coopted by pre-classical bronze age cultures, whereas pre-modern runs the risk of defining modern era (does it end with the Industrial revolution?).
Pseudo-historical is meaningless as it applies to any alt-history.

Maybe post classical period could be used if "classical era" is agreed upon as roughly Iron Age civilisations to roughly the fall of Rome

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Ancient world has already been coopted by pre-classical bronze age cultures,

I mean, not a problem. Conan is this, so is Theros, it works fine for some D&Ds settings.

whereas pre-modern runs the risk of defining modern era (does it end with the Industrial revolution?).

And this works fine for others, such as the Forgotten Realms or Eberron.

Pseudo-historical is meaningless as it applies to any alt-history.

And this works as a catch-all term.

Maybe post classical period could be used if "classical era" is agreed upon as roughly Iron Age civilisations to roughly the fall of Rome