D&D General D&D is now Steampunk (poll)

[JConstantine]

Superman as punk because it is about hope is a real thing right now.

 

[Desdichado]

That is interesting. You "knew what he meant" but still answered in the negative. Huh.

Technically no, because there is neither steam powered technology, nor the punk theme of dystopian, street level urban rebellion, or anything that's specifically "steampunk." That said, your points are entirely valid, and nitpicking about labels is for losers. I voted yes.

I voted yes. That said, the data from the poll will be useless, because too many people will skim the poll without reading his explanation of what he means by "steampunk."

That said, it's perhaps better or more interesting to talk about the ways in which and reasons why D&D no longer resembles medieval fantasy than to worry about what exactly the label is of what it does resemble. The way the thread started out was almost inevitably going to get bogged down in his use of the steampunk label.

But it is interesting to me that D&D, which was built on a fascination with Medieval history, and which was certainly one of the main pillars of D&D as it was originally designed, and which it looked like for many many years... but which it no longer is assumed to do. Most things convenient about modern life, along with a heavily romanticized "utopian" interpretation of a kind of "ren faire" vibe is what I'd consider it now; any resemblance to actual Medieval Europe is almost on accident now, or just some kind of legacy inertia that hasn't been excised yet.

But this vibe isn't unique to D&D; I'd argue that a lot of this has happened to the fantasy genre as published by Big Publishing, as put into streaming shows like The Witcher or The Wheel of Time, etc. That said, that doesn't seem to be the case for indie published fantasy, much of which outsells Big Publishing, so there's an interesting discussion to be had on what D&D looks like, or maybe what SHOULD D&D look like.

 

[Reynard]

I voted yes.

But you said no.

That said, the data from the poll will be useless, because too many people will skim the poll without reading his explanation of what he means by "steampunk."

True.

That said, it's perhaps better or more interesting to talk about the ways in which and reasons why D&D no longer resembles medieval fantasy than to worry about what exactly the label is of what it does resemble.

Also true.

The way the thread started out was almost inevitably going to get bogged down in his use of the steampunk label.

But it is interesting to me that D&D, which was built on a fascination with Medieval history, and which was certainly one of the main pillars of D&D as it was originally designed, and which it looked like for many many years... but which it no longer is assumed to do. Most things convenient about modern life, along with a heavily romanticized "utopian" interpretation of a kind of "ren faire" vibe is what I'd consider it now; any resemblance to actual Medieval Europe is almost on accident now, or just some kind of legacy inertia that hasn't been excised yet.

But this vibe isn't unique to D&D; I'd argue that a lot of this has happened to the fantasy genre as published by Big Publishing, as put into streaming shows like The Witcher or The Wheel of Time, etc. That said, that doesn't seem to be the case for indie published fantasy, much of which outsells Big Publishing, so there's an interesting discussion to be had on what D&D looks like, or maybe what SHOULD D&D look like.

D&D only resembled the medieval insofar as it overlapped with Chainmail. Otherwise it was straight up sword and sorcery and weird fiction.

Late 1E and early 2E was really the only period where it looked like all the rest of the fantasies on the book shelf. I think we here "remember" D&D as medieval fantasy because those were most of our formative years with the game. But it was really a quite brief period, and even then its medievalism was more of the Renn Faire variety than the historical.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That said, the data from the poll will be useless

Of course it's useless, because the OP clearly has no idea what steampunk means (or medieval for that matter), and appears to be using it as a catch-all for "stuff I hate".

But they as for an explanation of why they are wrong, which is simple - the stuff you are talking about has nothing to do with steampunk.

The closest D&D has ever got to steampunk is Ravenloft, from 2ed onwards. It has Victoriana, and it is dystopian. I can't recall specific mention of steam engines, but I wouldn't be surprised to come across one there.

 

[SkidAce]

But what this means is, D&D has always been a highly selective take on what is "medieval" and what isn't. Every edition has chosen that take differently in one way or another. To claim a betrayal of that spirit only now, when the seed was planted literally before D&D was even a twinkle in Arneson-and-Gygax's eyes, is either disingenuous, or a demonstration of self-deception.

It's always been an amalgamation. A pick and choose, a cornucopia!

In other words, those who claim its set in a specific "setting" have only been correct for the game in which they played.

Each edition may (like you say) have had a flavor, but even that flavor was a mixture of ideas and cool concepts thrown into a campaign bowl.

 

[SkidAce]

Nah, LotR was largely unknown in the US until it was embraced by hippie culture in the early 70s and became suddenly massively popular. It went from there into D&D, not from D&D into the US.

I was there, I can validate.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah Solarpunk and Hopepunk are the two big offenders, at least earlier variations could lean in to the dystopian, anti-establisment vibe of "punk" aesthetic - solarpunk takes it to utopianism abd a complete inversion of the Punk label

I believe those are more leaning into the vibe of "punk" being about rebellion against the establishment.

I think at the time when the establishment and current culture was more into "realistic", "grim and gritty", "dark" and "edgy" Hopepunk was an aesthetic in direct defiance of it.
When much of the prevailing narrative was about bleak dystopias, no-win situations, and the dominance of self-interest, Hopepunk and solarpunk were a refreshing change, named partly after their rebellion against and rejection of the current genres.

I think Hopepunk and solarpunk can be seen in two ways, depending on how one sees the 'punk' of cyberpunk. Either:

• (as Cap'n Kobold suggests) The 'punk' is about the rebellion, and then they are continuing the rebellion by positing a positive future. Or
• The 'punk' was warning about the future through dystopian speculative fiction. In which case it is taking the basic framing, but doing the polar opposite to make a point (and I think Solar/Hopepunk is doing what it does very deliberately, and with a point). This makes it the Man of La Mancha to Cyberpunk's Don Quixote - 'yeah, I see what you did there. Tell you what, let me turn that around and see if this has any resonance.'

Either way, I feel like these two movements definitely got the initial point of cyberpunk, and are reacting to it (whether you agree with either their points or what they did with the -punk genre), so it's hard for me to say they are somehow worst offenders. That differs from much of the -punks (including a lot of later cyberpunk and steampunk that definitely leans more into the 'aesthetically evocative of ____' interpretation of what -punk means.

Totally off topic: I want to save this line forever. The day someone called millennials old and gave them the boomer treatment.
Btw, if they ever gripe about Labubus, remind them about Tamagotchis, beanie babies, trolls, and Hello Kitty throughout the years.

Definitely start with Skibidi Toilet and marvel at the glory of it all.

What I like about Skibidi Toilet is how much it sounds like '23 skidoo,' an easy reminder that a new generation spouting absolute nonsense that only makes sense in context is older than any of us.

It isn't medieval but it is definitely not steampunk.
Do words no longer have meaning?

Based on the news of late, no.

And this sentiment older than Herodotus as old as Theophrastus.

I think D&D used to be loosely Tolkienesque.

D&D was largely inspired by Burroughs, Howard and Lovecraft, but at around the time of the commercial publication of D&D LotR suddenly became hugely popular in the US, so some Tolkien stuff was added in, in pretty much the same way that stuff from Harry Potter, Fourth Wing etc have been added more recently.

Gary always* said that he was more inspired by swords and sorcery than high fantasy. However, if so, he 'grudgingly' added Tolkien-esque elements to the game when it was still Chainmail, which had everything from hobbits to ents to hero characters specifically shooting dragons out of the sky. From there on out, it was a hodgepodge of both, plus plenty of western tropes as many have realized, and such. *Gary (patron saint of inconsistency) never 'always' did anything, but you know what I mean.

Beyond that, it's important to recognize that the game was always otherwise bifurcated. It had an aesthetic veneer that was some combination of fantasy literature (of arguable admixture) and artistic depiction spun from things like the aforementioned Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (or the later romantic movements inspired thereby). It was also a fun little dungeon-crawling game built on top of a multi-era wargame with a fantasy supplement. Various qualities of it can be pointed to and ascribed to fantasy tropes, or to gameplay elements. Take the plate mail and no gunpowder part we've brought up repeatedly. Was that because Howard or Tolkien referenced a cuirass in some story? Or was it because romantic art depicts knights in forests, next to horses, kneeling before maidens, in plate armor -- and swords on their belts but no gun in their hand? Or was it because plate was one of the 3 Chainmail armor types and the magic user class has replaced the cannon (and 'arquibusiers,' acted like crossbowman with slightly different to-hits and weren't especially fun when turned into individual characters)? Probably a mix of all three, but my point here is that a whole lot of things started out from the 'make a playable (and enjoyable) game' framing first, and fidelity to either a historically accurate 'medieval' era or even specific artistic or fiction genres a distant second (if at all).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

One thing worth mentioning: Ed Greenwood was a hippie (and still is). Ergo it's unsurprising that FR is more influenced by Tolkien than other settings (apart from Dragonlance).

 

[Azzy]

1E had monks because karate and ninja stuff was a big craze in the U.S. in the 1970s. It had spaceships and laser guns because some people thought it was fun. It has orcs and halflings and rangers because of Tolkien and dinosaurs because of Jules Verne and Arthur Conan Doyle and vampires because of Dracula and mind flayers because of Lovecraft and Greek gods and monsters because of Bullfinch’s Mythology. The idea that the game originally cared much about genres or elements being “right” for a particular real-world earth time period is silly. If anything, it started out much zanier than it now is, got more rigid, and is now opening up again but is still arguably less eclectic and unapologetically weird than 1E was.

There's also the art of Jeff Dee, Errol Otus, and the like that were decidedly zany and not medieval.

 

[Reynard]

One thing worth mentioning: Ed Greenwood was a hippie (and still is). Ergo it's unsurprising that FR is more influenced by Tolkien than other settings (apart from Dragonlance).

I adored DL as a kid and would even re-read it (it being Chronicles and Legends) well into my 20s. But somewhere along the line I realized that DL was a carefully crafted corporate pastiche of not just Tolkien but all of what was happening in bookstore fantasy at the time. It is much less impressive and satisfying these days.