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

[Prince of Happiness]

Most medieval problems, like the plague, food shortages, religious conflict, social unrest, etc, make for encounters that are too political or too boring (the cleric casts Cure Disease...again) to actually base an entire game off of.

Tangentially, Cure Disease really wouldn't matter against serious plague epidemics. It only cures the instance of the disease, not grant permanent immunity/vaccinations.

 

[GreatLemur]

Personally, I think Third Edition's near-complete abandoment of all pretensions of "medievalism" was one of the best decisions WotC ever made.

While it would certainly be possible to try, I don't generally play D&D campaigns set on Earth. It seems extremely silly to suggest that a fantasy setting ought to look or work anything like tenth-century Europe.

 

[Delta]

As for heretical, if you want authentic medieval catholicism in your D&D game, that's in it's own way going far out of the normal for D&D that it's almost not even D&D anymore (I know, I tried it once, see my prior post, trying to avoid too much religious discussion, but it's safe to say that the beliefs were distinctly different enough to be very disorienting for modern players).

Perhaps now, but the more I study OD&D the more clear it is that clerics were presumed to be medieval Christian crusader-types. There is no deity choice to be made; practically all the spells come from Biblical miracles; the only holy symbol is the Cross; weapons must be blunt like some European crusading clergymen. Even when Supplement IV Gods, Demigods, and Heroes came out, there was no general discussion about how clerics would serve any of those entities.

To me, this is the biggest worldbuilding problem inherent in D&D. A political/technological worldview and cleric class built on medieval Europe -- with a pantheistic sensibility later tacked onto it. Meanwhile, the initial monster list is in the majority built up from Greek mythology -- while leaving out the Greek deities or priests from any published campaign setting.

More on my blog: http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2007/03/class-trouble-ii-clerics.html

 

[jolt]

The seeds of the Renaissance period were planted during the crusades. At this point, the Europeans invasion of the Holy Land brought them into contact with spices and other trade good material that they had never seen before. Also, they saw a nation/culture with a more advanced mathematical system as well as a greater knowledge of anatomy and medicine.

Unfortunately, the Black Death nipped in the bud any immediate benefit this might have had to the european subcontinent (2/3 of your population getting wiped out stymies a lot of things).

After the Black Death passed, you quickly (historically speaking) arrived at the Birth of the Renaissance, generally held to have started around 1450 in Florence, Italy. One of the biggest results that came about was the rise of the mercantile class. Before this time, there was no mercantile class. You had people doing that work, but as a socio-economic class, they didn't exist. With trade and commerce expanding greatly, you not only had a rediscovery of the arts (painting, literature, music, etc.) and old technology rediscovered, but also a willingness of those with money to act as patrons to would-be scholars, artists and scientists.

Now, going back to the core books, the authors have made one assumption about your reading: Greyhawk. Although never presented as a full-fledged setting in the books themselves, they've stated many times that Greyhawk is the "default" setting that the rules are trying to portray.

How medieval do you think Greyhawk is?

Unfortunately, there have been no publications for Greyhawk since early 2E (except for Living Greyhawk and I don't know how much info that gave or even if it's still around. I don't think it is; can anyone confirm this?) so many gamers don't know squat about it.

jolt

 

[EditorBFG]

A New Question

It seems the vast majority of opinions are the D&D is not really medieval, and perhaps never was.

Which begs the question, is that really a bad thing? I mean, the options do exist out there for making it medieval (This being perhaps the best one), but someone pointed out the D&D was about as medieval as Hyboria or Lankhmar. Which is as it should be, right? D&D is designed to simulate fantasy, not history.

Yeah, sometimes I'm not sure what to make of the steampunk/anima/WoW look of D&D, or repeating crossbows and alchemist's fire, etc. But D&D is a fantasy toolset.

So my question, is there any reason why it should be medieval?

 

[Sejs]

It seems extremely silly to suggest that a fantasy setting ought to look or work anything like tenth-century Europe.

Particularly when you start to include things like multiple races with wildly different lifespans, a pantheistic faith base with actual, demonstratable power, and omega factors like sorcerery that can crop up completely untrained even amongst the working classes.

Rationally integrating the aspects of the game into a medival setting would end up with a setting that was ... wait for it ... only superficially medival in the end.

Funny how that works.

 

[jolt]

Perhaps now, but the more I study OD&D the more clear it is that clerics were presumed to be medieval Christian crusader-types. There is no deity choice to be made; practically all the spells come from Biblical miracles; the only holy symbol is the Cross; weapons must be blunt like some European crusading clergymen. Even when Supplement IV Gods, Demigods, and Heroes came out, there was no general discussion about how clerics would serve any of those entities.

To me, this is the biggest worldbuilding problem inherent in D&D. A political/technological worldview and cleric class built on medieval Europe -- with a monster roster built up in the majority from Greek mythology (if you look at the inital OD&D monster list).

And let's not forget the blatant Tolkien ripoffs either. But I agree, OD&D was basically medieval europe with a fantasy overlay. However, I believe that this has become less so with each edition of the game. Now, the rules aren't trying to simulate medieval Europe at all, their trying to simulate Greyhawk; D&D's "generic" setting.

jolt

 

[Anti-Sean]

Anyone who ever thought it was suppossed to cleave anywhere close to Earthly reality from the 7th to the 15th centuries must have been looking at Gygax's polearm listings too closely and missed the point.

 

[gizmo33]

Now, the rules aren't trying to simulate medieval Europe at all, their trying to simulate Greyhawk; D&D's "generic" setting.

If Greyhawk is largely just the same campaign world that existed in 2E times, and the rules weren't an uncomfortable fit for the campaign world then, then why are they now? What are the significant cultural differences between Greyhawk and the 2E (supposedly "medieval") rules.

 

[pawsplay]

I don't think I called medieval architects medieval sorcerers. But feel free to make stuff up to support your argument. I did say that their work was not particularly revolutionary, nor was it a significant technological advance because much of it it wasn't new - the Romans, for example, used flying butresses, medieval architects were frequently simply copying stuff that had been done before.

Now you're dissing on medieval cathedrals. I am so done with you.