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

[EditorBFG]

The repeating crossbow is a historical Chinese weapon, you know. Though the D&D interpretation of it is not really accurate, surprise.

Not accurate, huh? Oh good, I thought I was gonna look stupid there for a second...

Nah, I still look kinda stupid, don't I?

 

[mhacdebhandia]

D&D, at least in its earliest incarnations, was absolutely meant to be based at least superficially in the medieval, or at very least the anachronistic "fantastic-medieval" of Howard, Leiber, Tolkien, Fox, et al.

"Anachronistic" being the operative word, here. There's nothing genuinely medieval about D&D, nor the fantasy it was inspired by, no matter what words they used to make it sell.

For me, though, I get the appeal of settings which are strongly inspired by historical societies. I've created them myself. It just boils down to this: I reject out of hand all criticism of setting phenomena which is based in "But in the Middle Ages, they . . ."

 

[Aeric]

Not accurate, huh? Oh good, I thought I was gonna look stupid there for a second...

Nah, I still look kinda stupid, don't I?

In your defense, if we're throwing out monks as non-medieval, then Chinese crossbows should go with them.

I've found this thread very entertaining and thought-provoking. The best DMs I've ever played with were history buffs, and while none of their worlds even came close to emulating our world's Middle Ages, they always made a lot more sense than others'.

I think once somebody sits down and figures out the social impact of (a) magic and (b) a social class of adventurers flooding the economy with wealth and magic, D&D will be a lot closer to perfection.

 

[Tonguez]

D&D, at least in its earliest incarnations, was absolutely meant to be based at least superficially in the medieval, or at very least the anachronistic "fantastic-medieval" of Howard, Leiber, Tolkien, Fox, et al. Later editions (and even Gary Gygax's own later-period work -- Living Fantasy, Yggsburgh) have moved away from that, towards a more Renaissance or even Enlightenment (with magic replacing steam and gunpowder) model which I, at least, tend to find much less interesting and inspiring.

Most fantasy literature is derived from the mythologised medieval as protrayed in Fairytale. It is not a historic recounting but rather a constructed set intended to create in the mind an image of 'another age, a glorious time of heroes, princesses, witches, wolves and dragons'

Like all mythologies fairytale utilises imagery and motif that help to convey its narrative.

DnD is derived from these narratives and so reflects it motifs but although these motif are cultured they are a-historic, indeed all myth reflects the needs and preoccupations of the present and so DnD whilst borrowing the motif and set dows not in anyway reflect the historic medieval only the imagined medieval as seen through modern eyes

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

D&D technology started out medieval (1974-1983 versions). With Unearthed Arcana and field/full plate it became renaissance, and has slowly advanced ever since.

 

[Faraer]

The original D&D combines large amounts of the historical Middle Ages and Renaissance (both) with 20th-century sword-and-sorcery fiction and wargaming/roleplaying. Those are its three pillars, if you like. The medieval is very visible in the prototypical World of Greyhawk background, while the published modules foregrounded the literary- and game-derived adventure. While not all later authors were as keen amateur historians as Gary, that element is part of the original core of the game.

Although there's been some drift in his ideas, by and large I think Living Fantasy and Yggsburgh write up in detailed and explicit form the sociopolitical assumptions that were in D&D from the start (but which Gary thought his audience would take for granted).

 

[Melan]

I would disagree. D&D has never been "medieval" in anything but the most superficial sense. Almost no one plays the game with a medieval mindset, and the default assumptions in the books certainly don't support that idea, and so on.

<snip>

And why is the game like this? Because we, the people who play the game, have a modern mindset, and anything truly medieval would be so alien to us that it would be very difficult to pull off, and probably not much fun to play.

Very good commentary. To tell the truth, not even the fantasy literature that served as D&D's inspiration was very mediaeval. Conan wasn't a mediaeval personality, and Ffahrd and the Grey Mouser (D&D-style adventurers if there ever was one!) were essentially modern people in a world with a thin fantasy clothing. I mean, Lankhmar is New York and thieves guilds are the Mafia; analogies with Middle Ages cities and guild structures are just misleading.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Although there's been some drift in his ideas, by and large I think Living Fantasy and Yggsburgh write up in detailed and explicit form the sociopolitical assumptions that were in D&D from the start (but which Gary thought his audience would take for granted).

Well, I was a designer for Yggsburgh. What *I* took from Gary's emails about it was that he felt Yggsburgh was a conscious and intentional step forward in technology and sociopolitics from the "default" AD&D assumptions.

 

[Melan]

Fun is paramount of course, but perhaps there is an easy way to make D&D more "authentically medieval."


Character creation would have an element similar to the original Traveller game, wherein players would see how their character was as he/she was growing up.

Have I got a game for you! I give you...
Advunced Peasants and Crapmongers (by our friends at Totalitarian Scum Regime Games)

 

[GreatLemur]

I can think of about a thousand things that haven't changed in 3E, paladins, familiars, Vancian magic, etc. How in the world did a few un-medieval (and clunky IMO) additions (like nose-rings to the artwork) to an otherwise unchanged base consititute a "near-complete abandonment"? In fact, AFAICT the designers appeared to mostly not know (or not care) what the medievalisms really were that they were adopting from 1E/2E for the new game.

Vancian magic is medieval?

I should clarify that I'm drawing a distinction between "medieval" and "fantasy". The "near-complete abandonment of medievalism" I'm talking about is simply the move away from any serious attempts to model historical life, or any use of historical fashion and design in the art (no bucket-headed crusader helmets, no doublet-and-hose outfits, etc.).

Having divinely-empowered warriors riding around and killing orcs with magical swords is not medieval in any sense. It's not a simulation or even approximation of anything that our world ever looked like. So it doesn't make any sense to me to look at WotC's art and say "that nosering is out of place because no one wore nose rings in medieval Europe". This is already quite explicitly not medieval Europe. Hell, I think there's more historical precedent for nose rings than for studded leather armor, anyway.

Hennet's outfit is freaking ridiculous on any planet, though.