Does D&D even have a component of "midieval" anymore?

[Hairfoot]

Many of these factors are dependant on technology, but the D&D world is more modern than mediaeval, because magic becomes a substitute for tech.

One of the glaring anachronisms of the game is the lack of deformed peasants and ghastly plagues: D&D communities are generally quite healthy. It seems like a clash in a world without hospitals or detailed medical knowledge, but divine magic fills the gap, allowing most people to get by without crippling disease or injury.

Similarly, arcane magic fills the gap for engineering, transport, and communication. Keep in mind that the description of arcane magic implies that it is very complex, and that wizards are very smart: at least the equivalent of real-world scientists and researchers, allowing them to achieve similar technologies.

Then, of course, there are elder races like elves, whose intelligence and longevity provides a reason for memes of advanced, "modern" concepts in the world.

In many ways, the societies of D&D are modern societies with different means.

This doesn't address the topic much, but it's why I dont think there's a clash between having a modern/mediaeval model for games worlds.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I dunno, that's kinda going off the idea that most wizards and clerics are really that altruistic and interested in sharing. I've always loved wizards as the living in a big f***-off tower and an owlbear as a "KEEP OOT!" sign-type myself.

I still don't think that clerical magic would be enough to tilt the balance versus plagues for the simple reason that Cure Disease doesn't confer immunity to a disease leaving the subject just as likely to be infected again, especially if the disease vectors are still around. Wererats with an axe to grind against humanity and clerics of various divine malcontents see to the rest. People just tend to hand-wave a lot of the anachronistic inconveniences of a low-tech society because it's just easier to deal with and also because one cannot necessarily assume that, say a Roman Empire-type society never failed, or that even if the central authority collapsed, certain areas would still be able to manage infrastructure such as roads, aqueducts, sewers, or a postal service.

 

[Hairfoot]

People just tend to hand-wave a lot of the anachronistic inconveniences of a low-tech society because it's just easier to deal with

True. That's why a workable low-magic game is the holy grail for many DMs!

My question for the historians is this: which era and/or culture in history provides the best model for adventuring in the D&D style? Would Vikings be at liberty to rove around, armed, in search of adventure? How about a Roman citizen? My guess is that the default D&D setting - feudal Europe - is the least conducive.

 

[Celebrim]

One of the glaring anachronisms of the game is the lack of deformed peasants and ghastly plagues: D&D communities are generally quite healthy. It seems like a clash in a world without hospitals or detailed medical knowledge, but divine magic fills the gap, allowing most people to get by without crippling disease or injury.

I think that there is too much extrapolation from private experience going on here.

It is certainly true that D&D doesn't explicitly have deformed peasants or ghastly plagues or hospitals. It's equally true that D&D doesn't explicitly say that any of these things are not present. It's entirely up to the DM whether or not there are any of these things.

 

[hong]

Many of these factors are dependant on technology, but the D&D world is more modern than mediaeval, because magic becomes a substitute for tech.

One of the glaring anachronisms of the game is the lack of deformed peasants and ghastly plagues: D&D communities are generally quite healthy. It seems like a clash in a world without hospitals or detailed medical knowledge, but divine magic fills the gap, allowing most people to get by without crippling disease or injury.

I'm more concerned about the complete and utter lack of toilets. I mean, have you SEEN some of these dungeon plans, mang?

 

[jdrakeh]

Sure. I think it's silly to ignore the obvious. The arms, technology, and social structure of Medieval Europe are a big part of the trappings of the game.

A handful of medieval trappings do not a medieval game make. There's plenty of stuff, from Vancian magc to most of the monsters, that isn't at all medieval -- it's pure fantasy. I don't think that D&D has ever been a "medieval roleplaying game", rather I think it has been "high fantasy with some medieval elements" from the start.

 

[pawsplay]

Welcome to the beard fallacy (aka continuum fallacy, heap fallacy.)

Cute, but not what I'm talking about at all.

The problem of defining the Medieval period is a real problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_heap

But in any case, it is the position opposite of mine that has invoked the heap fallacy, by suggesting that the medieval mind cannot cease to be medieval, gradually over the course of centuries, while the Renaissance mind cannot become medieval, by inching toward the medieval period. I raised the question, "Is there not some intermediate state which is neither fully medieval nor fully Renaissance?"

Any time period, chosen arbitrarily, can be described, and those attributes assigned to it used to differentiate it from what came before and after.

But even that is aside the point.

While the medieval mindset, that is, a generalization of a typical person of an era before the major changes of the Renaissance, can be described in certain terms.... we define it in particular terms as to how it is distinct from other states of being. However, the medieval mind and the Renaissance mind also have many characteristics in common.

Labeling something as "Medieval" has the effect of exaggerating difference. In some cases, the exaggeration reaches a point of essentializing something. Rather than "the medieval mind has X tendency" it becomes, "the medieval mind is of this particular nature."

Medieval people weren't dumb, nor was the culture of that era stagnant. It took a lot of "medieval minds" to pave the way for science and humanism.

In any era, give me a million people, and I can find one who would agree with a given philosophy of any other era. Arguing "the medieval mind cannot" is simply mistaken or at least simplistic. Many medieval minds would easily grasp skepticism, individual liberties, secularism, and so forth. "The medieval mind is likely to reject X" can be logically predicted or supposed.

While the condition simply did not exist at the time, I am confident a medieval laborer could be trained to work in a 20th century steel mill with little difficulty. Likewise, forging steel is within the grasp of most modern persons who are willing to devote some time and resources to it.

 

[jmucchiello]

I don't have any claim of expertise but I do know there are some things that are distinctly non-medieval and they exist in just about all editions of D&D. Anyone who believes D&D is supposed to take place in a pseudo-medieval world needs to read pg 35 of the 1st edition player's handbook. (It is the page on starting wealth and equipment purchasing.)

Large sums of lower value coins can be changed to a smaller nuimber of larger value coins, and vice versa, at a relatively small cost -- typically 3% of the transaction. This is done at the money changer's. The money changer will also score as a banker, keeping funds and giving a marker to vouch for the amount. Note that bankers will not usually give any interest.

Bankers will give loans according to the reliability, reknown, status, and material possessions of the individual. An unknown and low-level characrter is unlikely to get a loan without giving security for the value of the amount borrowed. Furthermore, the interest rate will be high -- typically 10% per month or even 5% per week. A well-known and propertied character can typically get large loans at relatively low interest -- 1% per week or thereabouts.

All of this seem anachronistic to medieval Europe as I understand it.

Further on, there is the trader's establishment:

In many campaigns it is necessary for the character to shop in a number of places in order to obtain everything they desire. A few games will have a trader's establishment in which everything, or nearly everything, can be found, but the average costs will be higher because these traders are middle-men.

So, 1e AD&D had bankers, money lenders, department stores and (on the prior page) inns. None of these kinds of establishments existed as such in medieval Europe that I'm aware of. The idea of frontier coinage/inflation is also on these pages (Alaskan gold rush is mentioned as an example). I think someone above mentioned that D&D has always had a Western frontiers vibe. I tend to agree. Medieval trappings start and end with the swords and armor. The introduction to the 1e phb is filled with words like fantasy and swords and sorcery. Feudalism, medieval, renaissance and other historical terms are entirely lacking.

 

[Sejs]

True. That's why a workable low-magic game is the holy grail for many DMs!

My question for the historians is this: which era and/or culture in history provides the best model for adventuring in the D&D style? Would Vikings be at liberty to rove around, armed, in search of adventure? How about a Roman citizen? My guess is that the default D&D setting - feudal Europe - is the least conducive.

Off the top of my head?

Warring States period China.

 

[hong]

Off the top of my head?

Warring States period China.

I love Qin: The Warring States with all of my body etc, etc.