D&D 5E (2014) What’s So Great About Medieval Europe?

[Tallifer]

What is so interesting about the (very much pseudo) medieval tableaux that keeps the community stuck at that well?

 

[Zardnaar]

Here is the list of land Medieval Era units in the popular video game Sid Meier's Civilization 6

• Skirmisher
• Warak'aq
• Berserker
• Samurai
• Khevsur
• Crossbowman
• Crouching Tiger (cannon)
• Domrey
• Pikeman
• Impi
• Courser
• Black Army
• Knight
• Mamluk
• Mandekalu Cavalry
• Winged Hussar
• Keshig

Except the cannon and the elephant, D&D should offer me an effective way to play all these archetypes 5 years in.

You can't even be a proper Jaguar or Eagle warrior for Huitzilopochtli's sake.

5E not the most creative.

2E had that stuff.

 

[ccs]

Then we add cultural appropriation to the mix.
Basically, it's bad form for traditionally colonial cultures to borrow cultural elements from colonized/ minority cultures. White North American's shouldn't be using the myths and legends of Mesoamericans or the Chinese or the Arabians.

Some random thoughts on this;

But I can appropriate the Japanese, Koreans, Pacific Islanders, Africans (including Egypt), India, Greeks, Russians, assorted eastern Europeans, assorted Scandinavian/Nordics etc?
(none of wich I'm culturally tied to other than vikings probably raided my long ago Scottish ancestors at some forgotten point)
Sweet. I've still got enough cultures to bastardize into D&D versions left on the list to last me a life time.

What if I weren't a white North American?
Would I have your blessing to appropriate the Messoamericans/Chinese/Arabians then?

I find it particularly funny that you declare that I, as a white North American, shouldn't be using Messoamerican stuff - but you don't say anything about the Native Americans in what's the USA/Canada.
Well, you kinda do in the previous sentence. But you specifically call me out for the Messoamerican. Sorry, that's on the Spanish in the 1600s.

Can western Europeans/British use Messoamericans/Chinese/Arabians?

Have you heard of this little thing called The Roman Empire?
If I were to avoid borrowing from places they colonized, that became essentially minorities within the Empire, that'd cut out most of what D&D is based on.
Or were you talking about places my culture had colonized?

Sorry, as a white North American since I'm apparently from an inherently evil "colonial culture" & thus the bad guy, what makes you think I give a kobolds crap about borrowing from them?

But if I don't include stuff from other cultures? Then I get branded xenophobic & get crap for it....

 

[ccs]

oops, duplicate post.

 

[Minigiant]

5E not the most creative.

2E had that stuff.

AD&D 2E had some of it.
Little of it was balanced.

D&D warriors were too tilted to European style combat and gear and fantasical versions on nonEuropean warriors were wonky. An Impi loses armor and gets +1 AC more from his shield for trouble.

 

[Zardnaar]

AD&D 2E had some of it.
Little of it was balanced.

D&D warriors were too tilted to European style combat and gear and fantasical versions on nonEuropean warriors were wonky. An Impi loses armor and gets +1 AC more from his shield for trouble.

Not designed to be balanced. Last I saw Impi didn't wear plate armor.

Games D&D though not Impi vs Elephants.

2E Barbarian book had magical paint granting metal armor AC.

You could do it if you wanted to.

As I said 5E isn't that creative, the creative golden age was long ago.

You can go 3pp for that stuff.

 

[Minigiant]

Not designed to be balanced. Last I saw Impi didn't wear plate armor.

Games D&D though not Impi vs Elephants.

2E Barbarian book had magical paint granting metal armor AC.

You could do it if you wanted to.

As I said 5E isn't that creative, the creative golden age was long ago.

You can go 3pp for that stuff.

Well that's the point.
3e, 4e, and 5e weren't creative in theme. They barely or didn't attempt to make nonEuropean character adventurer archetypes.

1e and 2e weren't creative in balance. They often had official variants in Dragon or book within 5 years. But little of it was playable along with the base game.

I hope in 6e, D&D will have balance rules for knights, berserkers, samurai, gladiators, mamluks, mandekalu, impi, jaguar knights, and khesigs 5 years after release.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well that's the point.
3e, 4e, and 5e weren't creative in theme. They barely or didn't attempt to make nonEuropean character adventurer archetypes.

1e and 2e weren't creative in balance. They often had official variants in Dragon or book within 5 years. But little of it was playable along with the base game.

I hope in 6e, D&D will have balance rules for knights, berserkers, samurai, gladiators, mamluks, mandekalu, impi, jaguar knights, and khesigs 5 years after release.

It's probably to niche.

Social medias also painted them into a corner. Just easier to not make it.

I remember explaining D&D to a group of Polynesians in 1997 in an army barracks. Dragon had Polynesian weapons in it.

They thought that was cool. These days no Dragon and someone will complain.

 

[akr71]

Because it has huge tracts of land.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Reasons why we might prefer a pre-modern setting for heroic fiction:

1) Muscle-powered weaponry is more heroic than guns.
2) The reduced power of the state.