D&D General Why Do You Prefer a Medieval Milieu For D&D? +

[Reynard]

I would say that the modern era starts with the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire in 1453, which would lead to the Renaissance. But it's roughly the same period either way.

I would say that there is no such thing as a "start" in history except the Big Bang. Everything developed and evolved from what came before and their are no concrete borders. We just like to draw lines where none actually exist.

 

[Reynard]

In his book Up Front, Bill Mauldin, most known for his work as a cartoonist for Stars and Stripes during World War 2, wrote that most soldiers reading newspapers from back home hated reading that they were at war with the NAZIS and not the Germans. He wrote something like, "Other than an SS Division, I haven't see any NAZIS. Just Germans."

I don't imagine it gives anyone comfort that the enemy isn't at war against the people when they look at the pile of rubble where they used to live before they starting digging the family they used to have out from under it. "We'er not at war with the people" seems like the kind of thing we might tell ourselves so we can sleep better at night. It might be true, but so what?

I mean, sure, if you want to feel better about killing civilians, just paint everyone as villains and monsters.

 

[Aldarc]

I would say that there is no such thing as a "start" in history except the Big Bang. Everything developed and evolved from what came before and their are no concrete borders. We just like to draw lines where none actually exist.

You have to break up historical eras by some metric. Pick your poison.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would say that there is no such thing as a "start" in history except the Big Bang. Everything developed and evolved from what came before and their are no concrete borders. We just like to draw lines where none actually exist.

You kinda need to draw lines though. Categories of some kind are necessary for any sort of productive discussion about anything.

 

[Reynard]

You kinda need to draw lines though. Categories of some kind are necessary for any sort of productive discussion about anything.

Sure. I was being snarky because folks were quibbling over what amount to small academic differences that really aren't relevant. We all know what "medieval" means in the context of the thread subject.

 

[JohnSnow]

It's in the name.

More seriously, after reading all 14 pages of posts, I actually want to answer the question the OP asked, which is why I prefer a "medieval milieu" for my D&D. Firstly, I want to start by quoting from the Mentzer Red Box (emphasis mine):

"Imagine: it is another place, another time. The world is much like ours was, long ago, with knights and castles and no science or technology - no electricity, no modern comforts of any kind.

"Imagine: dragons are real. Werewolves are real. Monsters of all kinds live in caves and ancient ruins. And magic really works!"

To me, those two statements are the very essence of what makes Dungeons & Dragons what it is. The emphasized part is what defines the era, and I'd like to call special attention to "no science or technology - no electricity, no modern comforts of any kind." To my mind, that bumps us to before the "Age of Enlightenment," which means Renaissance, Medieval, or even earlier.

But why "Medieval?" Some of it is that was the setting of the fiction and stories that inspired my love of the fantasy genre. It wasn't all medieval (both Renaissance and pre-medieval stuff was there, and Howard and Leiber are as weirdly anachronistic as Tolkien), but if I accept the premise that the true fantasy aesthetic (for me) is "no science or techology," I start thinking about a kind of fantasy pre-modern "Neverwhen." If the fantasy world I'm imagining is an ancient one, I'm looking at having instituted a sort of "technological stasis" (as Tolkien did).

And the longest period of real-world technological "semi-stasis" (not actual stasis, mind you, but if you squint, it can kinda look like it) lasted from a few hundred years into the iron age (let's say ~600 BCE) to the start of the Renaissance (~1450 CE), which is like 2000 years. That's a full two millennia(!) where steel weapons and armor were in use. That conveniently includes a fallen empire, knights, castles, and a world where many people still believed in magic and monsters. And the medieval period (early to late middle ages) accounts for almost half of it.

After 1450, I can notice (looking back) that the introduction of firearms led (by 1700) to the end of armor. And a couple hundred later, increasingly better science gives us electricity and the rest of the modern age. So while the basic tropes do still mostly hold in the Renaissance, it's hard for me to imagine that a Renaissance-era world (technologically-speaking) could remain in any kind of technological stasis - because it didn't. So I dial the technological advancement back to the last era I can justify things having "paused," which is the "Medieval" period.

But I can acknowledge that technological stasis doesn't have to mean sociological stasis, which justifies a lot of the anachronisms. My brain also goes back and forth over things like the printing press. And of course, magic (even rare and expensive magic) would definitely change things, which is why I generally prefer settings with less reliable and commoditized magic. Because they give me less world-building to do.

Eberron is fun, but it's closer to "Pulp Adventure D&D" than the traditional kind.

And that's why I prefer the Medieval Milieu for my Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's in the name.

More seriously, after reading all 14 pages of posts, I actually want to answer the question the OP asked, which is why I prefer a "medieval milieu" for my D&D. Firstly, I want to start by quoting from the Mentzer Red Box (emphasis mine):

"Imagine: it is another place, another time. The world is much like ours was, long ago, with knights and castles and no science or technology - no electricity, no modern comforts of any kind.

"Imagine: dragons are real. Werewolves are real. Monsters of all kinds live in caves and ancient ruins. And magic really works!"

To me, those two statements are the very essence of what makes Dungeons & Dragons what it is. The emphasized part is what defines the era, and I'd like to call special attention to "no science or technology - no electricity, no modern comforts of any kind." To my mind, that bumps us to before the "Age of Enlightenment," which means Renaissance, Medieval, or even earlier.

But why "Medieval?" Some of it is that was the setting of the fiction and stories that inspired my love of the fantasy genre. It wasn't all medieval (both Renaissance and pre-medieval stuff was there, and Howard and Leiber are as weirdly anachronistic as Tolkien), but if I accept the premise that the true fantasy aesthetic (for me) is "no science or techology," I start thinking about a kind of fantasy pre-modern "Neverwhen." If the fantasy world I'm imagining is an ancient one, I'm looking at having instituted a sort of "technological stasis" (as Tolkien did).

And the longest period of real-world technological "semi-stasis" (not actual stasis, mind you, but if you squint, it can kinda look like it) lasted from a few hundred years into the iron age (let's say ~600 BCE) to the start of the Renaissance (~1450 CE), which is like 2000 years. That's a full two millennia(!) where steel weapons and armor were in use. That conveniently includes a fallen empire, knights, castles, and a world where many people still believed in magic and monsters. And the medieval period (early to late middle ages) accounts for almost half of it.

After 1450, I can notice (looking back) that the introduction of firearms led (by 1700) to the end of armor. And a couple hundred later, increasingly better science gives us electricity and the rest of the modern age. So while the basic tropes do still mostly hold in the Renaissance, it's hard for me to imagine that a Renaissance-era world (technologically-speaking) could remain in any kind of technological stasis - because it didn't. So I dial the technological advancement back to the last era I can justify things having "paused," which is the "Medieval" period.

But I can acknowledge that technological stasis doesn't have to mean sociological stasis, which justifies a lot of the anachronisms. My brain also goes back and forth over things like the printing press. And of course, magic (even rare and expensive magic) would definitely change things, which is why I generally prefer settings with less reliable and commoditized magic. Because they give me less world-building to do.

Eberron is fun, but it's closer to "Pulp Adventure D&D" than the traditional kind.

And that's why I prefer the Medieval Milieu for my Dungeons & Dragons.

Major props for quoting Mentzer. My first taste of D&D was that Red Box.

 

[Baron Opal II]

JohnSnow encapsulates my reply nicely. I have my campaign year tied to 1650, ignoring firearms, for cultural and scientific achievements, but the idea of people in armor, titles, mercenary companies, ruins to explore, and for the most part muscle, wind, and water powered machinery is a big part of the fit.

If I am interested in something more "modern", I tend to perfer far future or science fantasy. Ultimately, I think I want my games set in a Neverwhen distant from my own time and place.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think I'm ever going to understand why so many fantasy fans hate firearms but are fine with other technologies that were contemporary with them.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think I'm ever going to understand why so many fantasy fans hate firearms but are fine with other technologies that were contemporary with them.

Didn't we answer that in this very thread already?