Chivalry & Sorcery question

[mmadsen]

D&D has never been about creating complex, believable societies, or emulating historical or even fantastical reality. World-building in D&D (and this is especially emphasised in 3E) is really about _setting a stage_ where the actions of the characters can be played out. Everything in the DMG is subordinated to this task. Hence the extensive treasure tables, but no lists of day-to-day wages for various occupations; the random encounter tables but no discusion of ecologies or geography; and so on. You don't need to know how much a bartender makes per month to slay dragons, nor do you need to know how many cows/precious stones/virgin sacrifices that dragon eats.

I understand your point, hong, and I agree that the game doesn't need to dwell on earnings, tax rates, etc. On the other hand, setting the stage is much easier when you have some idea how a typical ancient or medieval society works. How does policing work in a medieval city? How does the military work? What happens to a group of adventurers who show up at the city gates?

If you want to set up some political intrigue, it's good to know who wields what power, and what they might be fighting over. How does money work? Are there bankers? How do they protect their money? What's a merchant caravan like?

I don't think I could've answered any of those questions as a kid playing D&D, but that info would've helped me set the stage for our heroes.

 

[hong]

I understand your point, hong, and I agree that the game doesn't need to dwell on earnings, tax rates, etc. On the other hand, setting the stage is much easier when you have some idea how a typical ancient or medieval society works. How does policing work in a medieval city? How does the military work? What happens to a group of adventurers who show up at the city gates?

Well, the answers to these questions would have to be "it depends".

It's not like the DMG doesn't provide _any_ information at all on these things. It's just that it doesn't go into any more detail than is absolutely necessary.

Also, the problem with providing lots of background detail is that it sometimes goes counter to the overall campaign tone that the DM wants to create. The Middle Ages weren't a particularly nice time in which to live, but you may not want to emphasise that. Instead, you may want to emphasise the great deeds that characters are capable of doing -- fighting off evil monsters, establishing your own realms, and so forth.

I think that what's left out of a campaign world is just as important as what's included. The bits that you leave out are those that you purposefully want to de-emphasize, the better to convey the particular tone that you have in mind. Again, let's look at LOTR: nowhere in the books is the daily routine in Minas Tirith, or Gondor as a whole, described in detail. Tolkien could quite easily have included that, but I assume he didn't want to. That would have been because he didn't want readers getting bogged down in minutiae, as opposed to the dramatic sweep of the narrative. Interestingly, the reverse occurs in the chapters taking place in the Shire, where he purposefully describes in detail the gossip and other social interaction between the hobbits. This is because here, he _does_ want the reader to become immersed in detail. He wants us to identify with the hobbits, and the best way of doing that is to show how their daily lives are much the same as ours.

And again, you can translate this to the gaming context. It's quite acceptable to gloss over mundane details, if they're not important to the direction of the campaign. It just depends on where you want to go.

 

[Walter_J]

Greetings!

Hong makes some very excellent points, which I would definetly consider before adding the "daily details" to a setting. If you do want to add the details, however, then first and foremost I recommend relying on yourself and the knowledge of your setting to answer your questions. Look at the conditions and situations enough and ask yourself "why" or "what if" and you'll find the answers.

Doing research on historical earth is excellent for ideas and inspiration, but grossly overated for actual use in a fantasy setting because historical earth did not have to deal with the existence of monsters, magic and non-human races (in order of least to most impact.)

The existence of monsters, argueably, would have the least social impact. It isn't hard to reason that for thousands of years on earth people believed in monsters. Simply put, if you believe a forest is haunted by demons you will live as if the forest is haunted by demons.

Magic, well, that is something every GM has to look at and consider regardless of setting.

The existence of non-human races and the impact that would have on the human condition (and the non-human condition) I think depends on how much fantasy do you want in your fantasy games. Do they get along? Do they live apart? Racism? Tolkein strongly suggests that the races really don't get along very well and tend to keep to themselves, but that's Middle Earth and another world might be quite different.

Point being, what type of societies would develop in a world of magic, monsters and multiple non-human races?

Just food for thought.

good gaming,
Walter

 

[TruffleGrubber]

While in most cases you are correct, Walter, research on Historical Earth helps quite a bit in the setting the good Kaptain is talking of- Hârn, which is low-fantasy. Is it necessary? Definitely not- I've ran quite a few games in Hârn over the years without doing any great research, however Hârn has a way of getting into your blood and piquing your interest in doing the research the more you run it (at least it did me). It is important to note that one can take the comparison to Medieval England too far when applying it to Hârn, but a greater understanding of the societal structure of the period will, IMHO, add alot to the games one runs in Hârn.

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Thanks, Trufflegrubber. The more historical research I do, the more real, alive and consistent my campaign setting (Harn or otherwise) becomes both to me and my players.

 

[Victim]

It's one thing to believe that forest is haunted by demons, avoid it, and fear attack. It's another thing to have the demons in the forest teleport into your house, get in sid eyour mind, and do gruesome things to you and your family.

It's one thing to believe that a dragon lives on that mountain, because you can see it glow sometimes. It's another thing when it strafes the city, burning down city blocks in one go, and having to pay an insane "dragon tax" to prevent future attacks, so that you're forced between watching your family slowly starve or watching them get burned alive by the dragon.

It's one thing to believe in magic. It's another thing to watch flying "adventurers" and elite guards battle in the skies, throwing fire and lightning around like normal people throw stones. It's another thing to get robbed by an invisible person. It's another thing to watch an usurper die just because the ruling archmage says "Die!"

It's one thing to believe in ressurection, and another to know that you can get one if you have about 750 gold pieces.

Dnd worlds will probably end up with only a tenuous link to medieval earth.

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Dnd worlds will probably end up with only a tenuous link to medieval earth.

And that's exactly what's wrong with them.

 

[Victim]

No, that's exactly what's right with them. I don't want to play a historical simulation of a pretty crappy life for my recreation.

Besides, why would the world necessarily be at a Middle Ages time period? One of the most defining features of the age was the power and influence of the Church. In a polythiestic setting, that who defining point is destroyed and something different would exist. The ability to actually draw upon divine power in even small ways would still probably change everything. Even if there is one unified church, the ability of misguided or evil people to gain power from demons and the worship of the Devil would probably result in something to that Zoroasterism idea of a good god and an evi one locked in a struggle (? - been a while since my ancient history classes, I may be off) than a "Jesus saves" dea.

Besides, the smallest bit of magic would probably change everything. It's influence beginning from it's first discovery would have a cascade effect; changes would pile upon changes and very different societies would evolve.

What does Conan or Rivendale have to do with the Hundred years war?

 

[TruffleGrubber]

No, that's exactly what's right with them. I don't want to play a historical simulation of a pretty crappy life for my recreation.

Then you want High Fantasy and are willing to sacrifice some internal consistency in the gameworld for it, which is fine, I play/run games like that and enjoy the hell out of them. But when you take a setting and inject the power, say, clerics have in D&D3e some things break down. The setting won't hold up to close scrutiny. So you've got to work a bit harder at the suspension of disbelief. And hell, when your bearded 35 year old gamemaster is roleplaying a nubile 18 year old female illusionist, the aforementioned suspension of disbelief seems trivial.

Your statement, however, implies that if I choose to play a low fantasy setting with some basis on medieval earth, I'm must be playing characters with 'a pretty crappy life', which is not true. Relative to our modern Standards, yep, but relative to the setting, well depends on your social station, kind of like it does in modern day. And we must be considering two different Conan's (you imply in the last statement of your post that Conan- the setting of Hyboria, would be a fantasy setting you would want to play in), because by our standards the Conan I'm familiar with had a pretty crappy life (and in his youth it was definitely crappy even by the standards of the setting).

In my book Setting, Character and Conflict make the game. If any of the three are lacking, or have glaring problems then the game has problems. I think, with a good group, a well developed low-fantasy setting can be just as fun (if not more so) as a well developed high fantasy setting. It's a matter of taste and what you are in the mood for. All of the long term games I run are Low-Fantasy (Harn) but I do enjoy running (and playing in) shorter term High Fantasy Games (KoK is my current favorite High Fantasy setting).

Besides, why would the world necessarily be at a Middle Ages time period? One of the most defining features of the age was the power and influence of the Church. In a polythiestic setting, that who defining point is destroyed and something different would exist.

This is not entirely true. While it is true that the society would definitely be different than our Middle Ages, the society could still have some of the societal structures of the middle ages (such as manorialism/feudalism), in which case knowledge of our Middle Ages would be quite useful.

 

[mmadsen]

What does Conan or Rivendale have to do with the Hundred years war?

I don't think Conan has too much to do with the Hundred Years War, but his Hyboria bears quite a resemblance to our ancient world, combining deepest, darkest Africa, pharaonic Egypt, tribal Afghanistan, medieval southern Europe, and Viking northern Europe.

And Rivendale lies in a Middle Earth that obviously resembles medieval England, whether or not it includes an analog to the Hundred Years War.

The magical elements don't eliminate the basic natures of these places. Running a game in Conan's Hyboria, I'd still want to know how ancient kings ran their kingdoms, how justice was meted out, who wielded what power, what those in power fought about or spied on each other to learn, how the military worked, how merchants traded goods, how thieves stole those goods, etc.

There's a lot of background material that isn't bland and is quite applicable to adventuring.