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

Rothe said:
yeah! Psst... you do know that S4 was the mothership? The connection is clear, Erol Otus =dungeonfunk.

I can see this! It's quite obscure, but if you listen very closely to Mothership Connection they're singing "Swing low, sweet chariot of Sustarre stop, and let me ride."

True story.

Erol Otus definitely brings the funk. As shown on the cover for X2, Castle Amber, that colossus is definitely tearing the roof offa that sucka.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hussar said:
I'm a bit confused actually. I've been assured time and time again by many that D&D owes its roots to writers like Howard and Lieber. Conan and Fafrd are about as removed from medieval as you can be. Other than a very thin veneer, it's certainly not medieval.

Yet, now I'm being told that earlier editions are very medieval in flavour.

Color me confused.

Of course, I'm still trying to figure out how this
Characters.jpg
ISN'T dungeonpunk.

That is not dungeonpunk. Dungeonpunk is, to me:

Rainbow colored mohawk halfling paladins
Suits of armor that look like they were designed for startrek. While the armor above is definately stylistic, it is a medieval (in the case of the halfling? fighter) or Sword & Sorcery (the drow fighter) style.

I also don't see the minimum 50 straps, pouches, and buckles on these characters that most 3.x characters are drawn as having [I believe these are the evil party from one of the Slave Lords modules, yes? They are supposed to be weird, btw. This weird, I might add, is toned down quite a bit from what would be considered weird in 3.x].

That wizard looks totally fitting for a Sword & Sorcery world. The guy in the middle, is a bit weird, but he is probably supposed to be some sort of "exotic from the east".

The girl laying on the ground looks like a jester dressed in Motely.
 

Sword & Sorcery (the drow fighter) style.

Anyone else see the irony in that statement? :p

So, I guess that something like this:

97180.jpg


is Dungeonpunk because it was drawn for 3e, but something like this:

verminaard01.jpg


isn't, despite the spikes and horns and various other goodies.

The funny thing is, fashion is weird. There's all sorts of funky stuff throughout history. How is 50 buckles any different than a corset or 15 petticoats? True, no one wore something like that, but, that doesn't mean they couldn't. The technology certainly existed that would allow someone in the 12th century to make Hennet's outfit. I'm fairly sure that someone, somewhere, in all that time, probably made something that looked just as stupid as that.
 



Heh, I probably have to turn in my geek license or something, but I've never actually read B1. Played B2 a million times, but never B1. :/

OTOH, I 110% agree with you about the amount of medieval in anyone's game. It's what you happen to put into it. I ran pretty medievel games and I ran one campaign based on War of the Worlds.

D&D is great ain't it? :)
 




Ah, I suppose I should clarify my examples of Dungeon Punk in 3.x.

Here:
PHB35_PG51_WEB.jpg

Notice the 50+ buckles & straps, the weird tatoos, and clothing bristling with spikes.

Here is another example:
PHB35_PG43_WEB.jpg

Notice that this "Paladin"'s "armor" seems to be made more for looks than protection, but looks more sci-fi than fantasy (unlike the chainmail bikini). Also pay attention to the excessive eye makeup and the punky hair above the sweatband. She looks more like she wants to be an 80s rock star than fight evil. And again, I draw attention to clothes adorned with spikes, and tatoos on her body. Although I must give her credit-- she resisted the urge to dye her hair rainbow colors.

Also, if you care to look in your 3.5 MM, you will see that the Satyr has a nipple ring.

This is what I mean by dungeon punk.
 

Remove ads

Top