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

[DragonLancer]

For those that do*, why do you prefer a medieval fantasy milieu for your D&D games? Why do you want castles and kings and thatch roofed villages, knights and towers and chain? Why do you not want firearms or printing presses, trains or airships?

When 9 year old me was introduced to the idea of D&D in the early 80s, it was always billed as a medieval fantasy and that is how I view it even. I like the concept of castles and kings, knights in plate facing dragons and monsters...etc. Modern fantasy and D&D doesn't fit that anymore but I continue to play it as such.

D&D isn't perfect though. It's part medieval with knights and castles, part renascence, part pirates of the Caribbean and it's a weird hodgepodge but it works. Once you introduce even airships it becomes something else entirely and I hate the idea of magic as technology (one reason why I never got into Eberron). It's not medieval fantasy once you do that. I don't like firearms but since we tend to include galleons which have canons (again, that weird but workable hodgepodge) I can accept that up to a point but it does remove some of that medieval fantasy for me.

Lord of the Rings, King Arthur, Conan, Tarzan, 3 Musketeers.

Lord of the Rings, the films especially, are what I see a D&D version of medieval fantasy looks like. It's not our Euro-centric medieval but it carries that fantasy vibe the right way. The Arthurian legends are a great source of inspiration too. Conan while not medieval is the prime concept of the D&D Barbarian and that is why it works into the setting.

 

[payn]

The gun issue for me is mostly mechanical. They were not included early on and nobody quite agrees how to do so. Some folks want like 2D20 damage to be realistic and able to empty entire magazines every round. When you put them more in line with crossbows, folks dont like it.

My fantasy taste has been mostly sword and sorcery over the years. I have been warming a little to stuff like Eberron. I still just like the classics though. For me, I dont believe in the one game to rule them all. I like having different systems for sci-fi, fantasy, horror, etc.. So, mixing them up is something im a bit sensitive to.

 

[Reynard]

Some of you aren't very good at reading and/or following direction.

 

[Belen]

Why do you not want firearms or printing presses, trains or airships?

I view those items as more real world or modern technology that do not feel fantastical. For example, it is one reason I did not like Legend of Korra or the later Mistborn books.

That technology also means that there is less "wonder" around because distances are easier to travel, places are more connected, and it often changes the core assumptions of a fantasy world.

The one exception was my wife's Halfling Musketeers games.

 

[Stormonu]

Some of you aren't very good at reading and/or following direction.

I point you to Captain Barbarossa.

 

[Umbran]

For those that do*, why do you prefer a medieval fantasy milieu for your D&D games? Why do you want castles and kings and thatch roofed villages, knights and towers and chain? Why do you not want firearms or printing presses, trains or airships?

Because the game rules, still largely attached to their design roots, are better at doing the pseudo-medieval than they are at pseudo-Renaissance or pseudo-Victoriana. IMHO, of course.

I just think there are better systems for managing the technologies of later periods, or the tropes of adventure fiction set in the later eras.

 

[mamba]

I prefer a wild, unexplored world, Points of Light style. Medieval offers that to me, by the time we get to industry, trains and airships that is no longer the case.

It also makes for a grittier setting where things are more up to the individuals, both of which I prefer.

 

[reelo]

One feature of a typical medieval society, as inspired by feudal age western Europe, is that it lacks a strong central government. There's no police or standing army, so people are apt to ask wandering adventurers for help when they have problems that need to be solved with righteous violence.

That also means that nobody has the power to object when those adventurers go plundering historical ruins.

That is absolutely not true. Feudal societies were heavily shaped by laws. Even a lowly villein or cottar could seek justice at a manorial court.

In fact, I would argue that "D&D fantasy" is actually not medieval at all, precisely because it does NOT have proper feudalism. But that is because proper feudalism does not lend itself to roving bands of adventurers.


As for my personal taste, I would love for D&D to be more "Early Medieval". Meaning, a period where an old empire (like Rome) has crumbled, and where people like in pre-feudal societies. Villages, small towns, emerging kingships, feuding tribes, migration,etc...
Basically, 5th to 9th century Europe, but with magic and monsters.
The High Middle Ages are far too rigid already. [emoji28]

 

[Umbran]

I prefer a wild, unexplored world, Points of Light style. Medieval offers that to me, by the time we get to industry, trains and airships that is no longer the case.

The Weird West would like a word.

It also makes for a grittier setting where things are more up to the individuals, both of which I prefer.

Interestingly, the term "gritty" entered into American slang with this meaning during the industrial revolution. Before that, it was only used to refer to literal and actual sand and bits of stone and dirt.

If it isn't a medieval term, maybe we don't need medieval setting to have it?

 

[MGibster]

I think we all understand D&D is not really medieval. But it kind of fits that Renaissance Fair vibe where you might see examples of fashion and technology spanning centuries, multiple cultures, and filled with things that never really existed at all. It's medievalish in the same way Medieval Times and the Excaliber casino is medieval.