Tropes that need to die

[Hussar]

Make sure you're using the terms correctly. A lot of animals have been tamed, without being domesticated. Domesticated animals are rare. Large and useful domesticated animals even rarer. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel describes the difference. People have been attempting to domesticate some species for decades, without success. Now, magic may make a difference, but in a world where there are deities that like nature in its wild state that would probably come with a risk.



Arguably in a world of active deities, spellcasting mortals capable of destroying significant parts of armies, and strange monsters, things do get really silly if you just slap those things on top of a normal medieval society. Considering how reliable magic is, it either has to be incredibly rare or the effect on the economies is going to be marked. Depending, of course, on what magic is allowed to do.

BTW, I think the term is being misused. I think they're suggesting you can tame a hippogriff, and using the terminology incorrectly. I certainly don't believe in hippogriff farms.

Ok, totally not a natural sciences kind of guy. To me, tamed and domesticated are pretty much the same thing. If you can raise it, train it, and then breed it, it's domesticated as far as I'm concerned.

See, these conversations go pretty much exactly the same way. If people want faux Europe, then fair enough. They've had their way with D&D for thirty years. Every baseline setting is Middle Earth with a bit more magic.

I just find it stretches my suspension of disbelief when every attempt to bring in any sort of consequence to the setting based on what's in the rule books is automatically doomed to failure simply because it doesn't fit the archetype.

I'd much rather either change the rules so they DO fit the archetype, or pick a new archetype.

I mean, look at hippogriffs. We can take their eggs, they'll hatch without the mothers (since you can sell the eggs, it's pretty obvious they'll hatch), you can train them to do all sorts of things, including carry riders. But, somehow, they refuse to breed in captivity.

And this same thing is true of EVERY SINGLE creature in the Monster Manual. In a setting where you can actually change reality with a WISH, no one in the history of the setting has figured out how to breed creatures.

I just wish there was a setting or two out there that actually took D&D concepts into account. Eberron goes a long way towards this, although I think they didn't go far enough.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I just wish there was a setting or two out there that actually took D&D concepts into account.

Gygax described, in the 1e DMG, why most settings do not, and I think that he is correct in his reasoning. Such a world would simply be too hard to "get" for the casual gamer.

I think this is why you aren't going to see a published setting that really does what you would like; the risk of low sales is too great. 2e's Spelljammer or PlaneScape may actually come closest.....? (I'm not a big PlaneScape guy.)

HOWEVER, there is nothing whatsoever preventing anyone from running games in a world that uses the materials in whatever way they like. And, I think, it would be interesting to see what you come up with, and how the logic of your setting hangs together. And, of course, what role the PCs have within the setting you create.


RC

 

[BryonD]

There is one shield-surfing elf; the rest fight in familiar formations just like the humans and orcs, they wear familiar if fanciful armor and wield weapons at home on a medieval European battlefield, and they live in trees, caves, chalets, and pavillions.

Exactly right. And, even more importantly, the shield surfacing elf is a quintessential PC. There is a big difference between the expectations of the PCs and the expectations of the backdrop.

 

[Bluenose]

Ok, totally not a natural sciences kind of guy. To me, tamed and domesticated are pretty much the same thing. If you can raise it, train it, and then breed it, it's domesticated as far as I'm concerned.

See, these conversations go pretty much exactly the same way. If people want faux Europe, then fair enough. They've had their way with D&D for thirty years. Every baseline setting is Middle Earth with a bit more magic.

I just find it stretches my suspension of disbelief when every attempt to bring in any sort of consequence to the setting based on what's in the rule books is automatically doomed to failure simply because it doesn't fit the archetype.

I'd much rather either change the rules so they DO fit the archetype, or pick a new archetype.

I mean, look at hippogriffs. We can take their eggs, they'll hatch without the mothers (since you can sell the eggs, it's pretty obvious they'll hatch), you can train them to do all sorts of things, including carry riders. But, somehow, they refuse to breed in captivity.

And this same thing is true of EVERY SINGLE creature in the Monster Manual. In a setting where you can actually change reality with a WISH, no one in the history of the setting has figured out how to breed creatures.

I just wish there was a setting or two out there that actually took D&D concepts into account. Eberron goes a long way towards this, although I think they didn't go far enough.

I am to a very large extent in sympathy with your view. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, familiar is a lot easier for most players to deal with. Sticking a veneer of magic on top of an otherwise normal medieval-cliche European world has the advantage, at least for Europeans, of not needing much explanation. Simply, they're easy for people to get into.

One thing I noted a couple of years ago, when WotC were talking about their 'three books and you're done' approach for settings, was that it enabled them to try different things. If you commit your company resources to an unusual setting, there's a very good chance it won't do well. So you get company after company turning out generic medieval fantasy settings as their first product, and those that put out unusual settings often find they simply don't sell well enough to keep producing for them. WotC have no intention of providing additional material for something that's rather a sideline anyway, so aren't in the same position.

As for hippogriffs, and breeding, and domestication of animals, there's a lot of science involved which I won't bore people with. I will suggest that while magic obviously would provide capabilities not available on Earth, that could just as well be applied to making domestic animals wild as to make wild animals domestic. Some gods would certainly prefer the second, and I suspect most druids would too.

 

[jmucchiello]

I wonder if magical medieval Europe really does form the baseline for most casual players these days? Or if it does, wouldn't it be the MME depicted in Peter Jackson's take on Middle Earth, complete with shield-surfing elves?

I could easily see a casual players expectations being shaped by a combination of Avatar: The Last Airbender, Naruto, and World of Warcraft.

note: not necessarily a bad thing.

You are misunderstanding me. It's not what the casual gamer considers "normal fantasy" to be. It's what the casual gamer considers "normal" to be. Medieval Europe exists. You learn about it in school if you pay attention.

The casual gamer is told there are knights and kings and castles and dragons and instantly he understands that feudalism existed and that there wasn't much of a mercantile class and all those other "facts" that make up "the past".

The casual gamer can imagine two dirt roads crossing with an inn, a blacksmith, a small temple, and a couple farm houses being called a village. And he also immediately understands that the people in this village rarely visit/communicate with the people in the next village.

This is why in most games dwarves are just stocky, bearded guys who mine and elves are just youthful, lithe humans with pointy ears. It's simple, easy to grok, and doesn't interfere with just playing the game. The casual player doesn't want to remember the proper six step ritual greeting made between a supplicant and a priest of Rada found in Mythology of Radamondo, supplement 7 in a series of 10.

It's not just what is familiar fantasy but familiar in general.

EDIT [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION]: Players not of European ancestory might not see Knights and such as "normal" but the basics of human society don't vary that much compared the potential variance caused by cheap healing at the local temple and other magics. The game goes from "medieval fantasy" to "future fantasy" real fast.

 

[Mallus]

There is one shield-surfing elf; the rest fight in familiar formations just like the humans and orcs, they wear familiar if fanciful armor and wield weapons at home on a medieval European battlefield, and they live in trees, caves, chalets, and pavillions.

Yeah... I'm overstating this.

No, it's not a bad thing at all, but it makes it more important to be clear from the outset what the inspirations are for a particular campaign.

Absolutely.

You are misunderstanding me. It's not what the casual gamer considers "normal fantasy" to be. It's what the casual gamer considers "normal" to be. Medieval Europe exists. You learn about it in school if you pay attention.

I'd argue what most people "know" about real historical eras comes from fictional depictions, unless they're antiquity/history buffs or live somewhere the past is more present ie, a place where you can see a 1000 year old structure out your window or down the street.

The casual gamer can imagine two dirt roads crossing with an inn, a blacksmith, a small temple, and a couple farm houses being called a village. And he also immediately understands that the people in this village rarely visit/communicate with the people in the next village.

This is why in most games dwarves are just stocky, bearded guys who mine and elves are just youthful, lithe humans with pointy ears.

What does the 1st quote have to do with the 2nd? The 1st ostensibly describes the real, rural, historical world, the 2nd describes common fantasy fiction tropes (well, they're tropes in folklore, too, but I'm guessing more people are familiar with popular fantasy fiction than folklore). Are you sure you're not talking about what's "normal fantasy"?

It's not just what is familiar fantasy but familiar in general.

Like I said above, I'm pretty sure what's familiar to most people about the past is effectively fantasy.

 

[Stoat]

Like I said above, I'm pretty sure what's familiar to most people about the past is effectively fantasy.

I'd certainly say that few campaign settings published by TSR or WotC look much like any historical period I'm familiar with. Maybe some of those greenbacked splatbooks TSR did in the 90's, but that's about it.

I'd say that settings like Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms take a "Ren Faire" approach. They use trappings that are stereotypically associated with medieval Europe but retain an essentially modern mindset and don't quibble a whole lot about historical detail. Anachronism and inauthenticity are the order of the day.

 

[Mallus]

Anachronism and inauthenticity are the order of the day.

Just the way Gary Gygax intended it!

 

[TwinBahamut]

I'll echo the sentiment that the common image people have of the middle ages is more based on fantasy and fiction than it is any historical truth. There are all kinds of falsehoods, half-truths, and faulty assumptions of day-to-day medieval life that are propagated in fantasy and fiction that many people take as being reflections of actual history. If you have any kind of lengthy conversation on ENWorld about historical accuracy this becomes very, very apparent. The basic assumptions behind fantasy settings always diverge heavily in all manner of important ways from the historical truth, and this goes back as far as the setting of Middle Earth itself.

Generally, people are just less familiar with the actual history of medieval Europe than they are with Arthurian legend, videogames, and Disney movies.

 

[pemerton]

I'd argue what most people "know" about real historical eras comes from fictional depictions, unless they're antiquity/history buffs or live somewhere the past is more present ie, a place where you can see a 1000 year old structure out your window or down the street.

I'd say that settings like Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms take a "Ren Faire" approach. They use trappings that are stereotypically associated with medieval Europe but retain an essentially modern mindset and don't quibble a whole lot about historical detail. Anachronism and inauthenticity are the order of the day.

I agree with both these quotes.

The classic fantasy literature (at least of my RPGing generation) is REH's Conan and Lord of the Rings. Conan is obviously modernist in its themes and style - the (pseudo-)history is just colour. Lord of the Rings is a bit trickier to categorise - I'm one of those who regards it as somewhat reactionary in its themes and perhaps also in its style. But in any event, the world it depicts also has little to do with either the reality or the values of actual pre-modern Europe.

As far as fantasy gameworlds go, the thing that is most striking to me is that nearly all posit more-or-less modern systems of justice and administration, including a police force ("city watch") and a prison system, and posit religious and other authority figures with value systems taken straight from a right-minded 19th century ethics textbook. And I'm sure there are many other anachronisms that those with other specialisations would notice.