DragonLancer
Hero
For me it is the mythology factor. Monsters, spells, great heroes...etc. Thats my attractive to me than contemporary or sci-fi games.
Why is Medieval fantasy the standard?
- Thread starter Tinker Gnome
- Start date
Johnny Angel
Explorer
WizarDru has covered much of what I have to say on the subject, but let me add that as far as I am concerned, the standard RPG fantasy campaign is not Medieval, it is Renaisance. I don't read a lot of fantasy fiction, but I suspect that that's where you need to turn for answers. Adventure fiction arose at a time when guns were common, and often reflected this fact. But during the rise of the pulps during the early years of the 20th century, sword-and-sorcery type stories arose as a distinct genre with its own rules and reader expectations. It didn't happen because somebody wrote the rules down, and I'd probably have to trot out the meme theory to account for it, but there it is. The best account of these rules I have ever seen comes from The Tough Guide to Fantasy Land by Diana Wynne Jones -- on the conceit that it's a guide for tourists visiting a fantasy realm. It should be read by all fans of the genre and also of RPGs. Here's a sample entry:
Again, I'm not an authority on the genre, but I think you can find most definitive elements in Tolkien and Robert E. Howard -- it's amazing how much of D&D already seems to be present in the Conan stories back in the 30's. Firearms were fairly standard in adventure fiction, from The Three Musketeers to Alan Quartermain, yet a genre broke away that even to this day shows a deep-seeded antipathy toward modernism, and modern technology in particular. It wasn't nostalgia for the middle ages in Europe. Nobody objected to anachronisms like tobacco, tomatoes or potatoes. Medieval Europe was defined by the heavy influence of The Catholic Church, but fantasy fans don't expect to see any of that -- they expect anthropomorphic pantheons. So, why is modern weaponry a deal-breaker?
World War I.
What I'm calling Modern Weaponry is actually pre-Modern. But it's useful to note that people associate certain kinds of weapons with modernity. Matchlock rifles were being used for millitary purposes by the 1400's, and the cannon before that. Bombs and incendiary devices have also long been available. However, these were put to unprecedented use in World War I. More importantly, it was fought by a whole generation of young men who were at least two generations away from the last serious war. They've been hearing about the glory of war all their lives. They ship out expecting a safari of some kind and then they were told to dig trenches in the dirt where they would sit for months while if they were lucky they would live to see their friends torn apart by shrapnel, endure the constant whistles and explosions of artillery shells, listen to the screams of soldiers who could take weeks to die in wracking pain from mustard gas-- bleeding inside and out, yellow blisters bubbling up all over their skin, their eyes sealing shut with crust, their throats slowly closing until one day they can't breathe at all -- and a whole generation collectively said "This is the Glory of War?"
So, a new genre of fiction arose -- one in which those weapons percieved as modern, whether they were genuinely modern or not, were banished. War was always horrible, of course, but by taking modernity out of the equation people could still escape into the fantasy of the glorious battle won by the mettle of its combatants instead of by the grim attrition of artillery.
These days, anybody who's forgotten about the horrors of war can simply look it up on the internet, and a lot of people are beginnig to question this banishment of anything that smells of modern weaponry in a genre that happily admits medieval feudalism alongside enlightened despotism, colonial or merchantile goods such as silks or spices in a pre-colonial or pre-merchantile world, post-modern convivial attitudes toward other races right along with races much more divergent than the racial divisions that have caused such strife in the real world, keenly up-to-date ecofeminist attitudes toward nature, and physicians who are remarkably prescient about the medicinal value of, say, moldy bread over that of bleeding by leeches.
The endurance of the fantasy genre is that it represents a flight away from modernism. While there is some utopian science fiction that also represents a flight from modernism, science fiction, especially what they call Cyberpunk, is often a kind of discourse on how bad modernism could get if things continue as they have been. The established fandom for fantasy has inherited, unconsciously, the genre's grudge against the modern world and yearning for a golden past that never existed.
Again, I'm not an authority on the genre, but I think you can find most definitive elements in Tolkien and Robert E. Howard -- it's amazing how much of D&D already seems to be present in the Conan stories back in the 30's. Firearms were fairly standard in adventure fiction, from The Three Musketeers to Alan Quartermain, yet a genre broke away that even to this day shows a deep-seeded antipathy toward modernism, and modern technology in particular. It wasn't nostalgia for the middle ages in Europe. Nobody objected to anachronisms like tobacco, tomatoes or potatoes. Medieval Europe was defined by the heavy influence of The Catholic Church, but fantasy fans don't expect to see any of that -- they expect anthropomorphic pantheons. So, why is modern weaponry a deal-breaker?
World War I.
What I'm calling Modern Weaponry is actually pre-Modern. But it's useful to note that people associate certain kinds of weapons with modernity. Matchlock rifles were being used for millitary purposes by the 1400's, and the cannon before that. Bombs and incendiary devices have also long been available. However, these were put to unprecedented use in World War I. More importantly, it was fought by a whole generation of young men who were at least two generations away from the last serious war. They've been hearing about the glory of war all their lives. They ship out expecting a safari of some kind and then they were told to dig trenches in the dirt where they would sit for months while if they were lucky they would live to see their friends torn apart by shrapnel, endure the constant whistles and explosions of artillery shells, listen to the screams of soldiers who could take weeks to die in wracking pain from mustard gas-- bleeding inside and out, yellow blisters bubbling up all over their skin, their eyes sealing shut with crust, their throats slowly closing until one day they can't breathe at all -- and a whole generation collectively said "This is the Glory of War?"
So, a new genre of fiction arose -- one in which those weapons percieved as modern, whether they were genuinely modern or not, were banished. War was always horrible, of course, but by taking modernity out of the equation people could still escape into the fantasy of the glorious battle won by the mettle of its combatants instead of by the grim attrition of artillery.
These days, anybody who's forgotten about the horrors of war can simply look it up on the internet, and a lot of people are beginnig to question this banishment of anything that smells of modern weaponry in a genre that happily admits medieval feudalism alongside enlightened despotism, colonial or merchantile goods such as silks or spices in a pre-colonial or pre-merchantile world, post-modern convivial attitudes toward other races right along with races much more divergent than the racial divisions that have caused such strife in the real world, keenly up-to-date ecofeminist attitudes toward nature, and physicians who are remarkably prescient about the medicinal value of, say, moldy bread over that of bleeding by leeches.
The endurance of the fantasy genre is that it represents a flight away from modernism. While there is some utopian science fiction that also represents a flight from modernism, science fiction, especially what they call Cyberpunk, is often a kind of discourse on how bad modernism could get if things continue as they have been. The established fandom for fantasy has inherited, unconsciously, the genre's grudge against the modern world and yearning for a golden past that never existed.
Dr. Strangemonkey
First Post
Medieval as Alterity
I have to agree with the majority of Wizard Dru's post. The ideological component of the middle ages as a touchstone for fantasy should not be underestimated.
There is no doubt that the middle ages mean something in a larger sense than simply being a refferant to a very long, varied, and critical period of human history.
On the one hand there is the rejection of modernity, but there is also the sense that by returning to the middle ages an alternate reality might be claimed. One that would expose and possibly rectify the problems of the current reality and history.
That idea shows up again and again from SCA, Tolkien's second world aesthetic, many meta-theories on mideaval history, mideaval history, and to the very idea of Role-Playing itself.
So that the middle ages become not simply a stance for rejection and imagination but also a means of analysis.
One point of disagreement I have with both WizarDru and Johnny Angel is the nature of historical anachronism within FRPGs.
On the one hand there is a wide variety of diversity in FRPG and that is certainly reflect in the level anachronism.
On the other hand, there is also an extremely high degree of variety within the historical conditions and interpretations of the period. The period itself is fairly controversial, I, for instance, share the view with many other scholars, including CS Lewis, that the Renaissance is a primarily literary period with some notable and distinct aesthetic and ideological movements but otherwise not various enough to acquire a distinct period. Similarly, there are massive debates over the quality of life, law, and hygiene in the period and plenty of evidence for either side or both sides of the mideaval was awesome vs. mideaval sucked ass debate.
Both were probably true to varying degrees and at this point both count as highly suspect myths that are probably most useful for what they reveal about the politics and ideology of the people espousing them.
On the gripping hand, it's hard to judge anachronism when you are talking about games that often harken back to the literature and mythology of the period as much as they do the history. In fact, I believe many of these games use the histories as literature in their attempt to not so much mythologize the period as narratize it, and that's perfectly cool by me.
History can't exactly be seperated from storytelling or vice versa and neither of them can really be seperated from play and imagination, and that's all right.
I have to agree with the majority of Wizard Dru's post. The ideological component of the middle ages as a touchstone for fantasy should not be underestimated.
There is no doubt that the middle ages mean something in a larger sense than simply being a refferant to a very long, varied, and critical period of human history.
On the one hand there is the rejection of modernity, but there is also the sense that by returning to the middle ages an alternate reality might be claimed. One that would expose and possibly rectify the problems of the current reality and history.
That idea shows up again and again from SCA, Tolkien's second world aesthetic, many meta-theories on mideaval history, mideaval history, and to the very idea of Role-Playing itself.
So that the middle ages become not simply a stance for rejection and imagination but also a means of analysis.
One point of disagreement I have with both WizarDru and Johnny Angel is the nature of historical anachronism within FRPGs.
On the one hand there is a wide variety of diversity in FRPG and that is certainly reflect in the level anachronism.
On the other hand, there is also an extremely high degree of variety within the historical conditions and interpretations of the period. The period itself is fairly controversial, I, for instance, share the view with many other scholars, including CS Lewis, that the Renaissance is a primarily literary period with some notable and distinct aesthetic and ideological movements but otherwise not various enough to acquire a distinct period. Similarly, there are massive debates over the quality of life, law, and hygiene in the period and plenty of evidence for either side or both sides of the mideaval was awesome vs. mideaval sucked ass debate.
Both were probably true to varying degrees and at this point both count as highly suspect myths that are probably most useful for what they reveal about the politics and ideology of the people espousing them.
On the gripping hand, it's hard to judge anachronism when you are talking about games that often harken back to the literature and mythology of the period as much as they do the history. In fact, I believe many of these games use the histories as literature in their attempt to not so much mythologize the period as narratize it, and that's perfectly cool by me.
History can't exactly be seperated from storytelling or vice versa and neither of them can really be seperated from play and imagination, and that's all right.
Johnny Angel
Explorer
The Renaissance didn't form out of a vacuum, nor did it happen all at once, but the validity of the label is as solid as the validity of any historical label. Periods are convenient ways of talking about the progress of history. The thing about the Renaisance that I feel makes it difficult to dismiss as just a transition to modernity is that people were even at the time talking about it as a new era.
The reason that I say that most fantasy campaigns are largely Renaissance is that they have printing, they take oceanworthy ships for granted, silks and spices are found in abundance, literacy is widespread, bright colors are common and affordable, eyeglasses and telescopes may be found, and extraordinary machines are often allowed so long as they fit a DaVinci aesthetic. Yes, the Renaissance was a continuation of the middle ages, but the term is a more accurate description of D&D's milieu. Of course it would be more accurate still to say that D&D is paleolithic/neolithic/ancient/medieval/renaissance/early-modern/modern/postmodern. But I think Renaissance is a much more convenient label.
This is not given to us piecemeal, though some discussion of the relative periods represented by various weapons appears in the supplements. Generally we are given these disparate elements as a set. But I find it fascinating how, given the liberties that are commonly allowed, things like firearms are seen as out of place, introduced apologetically, like the primitive arquebus in the 2nd edition PHB. As I said earlier, it's because fantasy arose as a response to that aspect of modernity in particular.
Of course, there are going to be anachronisms, and most people will be perfectly happy with the standard package. It's standard because it's good stuff for a lot of reasons. It makes for great adventure stories, a genre which by the way is very 19th century. But for my own games I favor of ferreting out tacit assumptions of the genre and standing them on their heads -- starting first and foremost with the notion that everyone is supposed to have British accents.
The reason that I say that most fantasy campaigns are largely Renaissance is that they have printing, they take oceanworthy ships for granted, silks and spices are found in abundance, literacy is widespread, bright colors are common and affordable, eyeglasses and telescopes may be found, and extraordinary machines are often allowed so long as they fit a DaVinci aesthetic. Yes, the Renaissance was a continuation of the middle ages, but the term is a more accurate description of D&D's milieu. Of course it would be more accurate still to say that D&D is paleolithic/neolithic/ancient/medieval/renaissance/early-modern/modern/postmodern. But I think Renaissance is a much more convenient label.
This is not given to us piecemeal, though some discussion of the relative periods represented by various weapons appears in the supplements. Generally we are given these disparate elements as a set. But I find it fascinating how, given the liberties that are commonly allowed, things like firearms are seen as out of place, introduced apologetically, like the primitive arquebus in the 2nd edition PHB. As I said earlier, it's because fantasy arose as a response to that aspect of modernity in particular.
Of course, there are going to be anachronisms, and most people will be perfectly happy with the standard package. It's standard because it's good stuff for a lot of reasons. It makes for great adventure stories, a genre which by the way is very 19th century. But for my own games I favor of ferreting out tacit assumptions of the genre and standing them on their heads -- starting first and foremost with the notion that everyone is supposed to have British accents.
WizarDru
Adventurer
Well, my whole point was that common perception today rarely jibes with confirmed actuality. I agree there was significant diversity at any given time period...that's part of my point, actually. We enjoy, generally speaking, fantasy that highlights particular aspects of the stories we enjoy. JA's post was, to me, extremely insightful...particularly with the idea about WW I. The genre of Medieval fantasy is like a smorgasbord (to paraphrase "Big Trouble in Little China")...we take the elements we like, and divorce them from the elements that are inconvienent to our stories and our view. And that's just fine, in my opinion.Dr. Strangemonkey said:
Desdichado
Hero
While that is very interesting and insightful, I think it is ill-served by completely ignoring pre-WW1 "medieval romances" that were popular at the turn of the century and before.Johnny Angel said:
Regardless of what the actual Middle Ages were like, there has long been a perception that they were a Romantic time period. They ignored the realities of disease, rampant classism and the like as well, because it wasn't convenient for the type of stories that people wanted to hear (or tell.) Although the details of modern fantasy have changed somewhat, and they are also typically more fantastic rather than transparently romantic Medieval, the clear roots of modern fantasy as the medieval romance exist long before WW1.
Last edited:
Johnny Angel
Explorer
Johnua Dyal wrote:
It's a good point, though I find that it raises the same issues again. How soon before? The Renaissance kicked off a long period of viewing the Renaissance as The Dark Ages, a fall from the golden past of antiquity. But an alternate view of the Middle Ages as a golden past was clearly common enough by the time Twain wrote A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court that he could assume his audience was familiar with it. If the medieval romances you're talking about arose after, say, the Civil War or even The Napoleonic Wars, that would tend to support my thesis.
It's a good point, though I find that it raises the same issues again. How soon before? The Renaissance kicked off a long period of viewing the Renaissance as The Dark Ages, a fall from the golden past of antiquity. But an alternate view of the Middle Ages as a golden past was clearly common enough by the time Twain wrote A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court that he could assume his audience was familiar with it. If the medieval romances you're talking about arose after, say, the Civil War or even The Napoleonic Wars, that would tend to support my thesis.
As we've been discussing over in Classics of Fantasy, the entire fantasy genre harks back to medieval romance, e.g., King Arthur. John D. Rateliff's article on William Morris's The Well at the World's End (1896) explains:
Morris not only served as Tolkien's personal role-model as a writer but is also responsible for fantasy's characteristic medievalism and the emphasis on what Tolkien called the subcreated world: a self-consistent fantasy setting resembling our own world but distinct from it. Before Morris, fantasy settings generally resembled the arbitrary dreamscapes of Carroll's Wonderland and MacDonald's fairy tales; Morris shifted the balance to a pseudo-medieval world that was realistic in the main but independent of real-world history and included fantastic elements such as the elusive presence of magical creatures.
Ironically, Morris did not intend to help create a new genre but was seeking to revive a very old one: He was attempting to recreate the medieval romance -- those sprawling quest-stories of knights and ladies, heroes and dastards, friends, enemies, and lovers, marvels and simple pleasures and above all adventures. The most familiar examples of such tales to modern readers are the many stories of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, but these were merely the most well-known among a vast multitude of now-forgotten tales. Morris deliberately sat down to write new stories in the same vein and even something of the same style, right down to deliberately archaic word choice. But just as the creators of opera thought they were recreating classical Greek drama a la Aeschylus and wound up giving birth to a new art form instead, so too did Morris's new medieval tales belong to a new genre: the fantasy novel.
Morris not only served as Tolkien's personal role-model as a writer but is also responsible for fantasy's characteristic medievalism and the emphasis on what Tolkien called the subcreated world: a self-consistent fantasy setting resembling our own world but distinct from it. Before Morris, fantasy settings generally resembled the arbitrary dreamscapes of Carroll's Wonderland and MacDonald's fairy tales; Morris shifted the balance to a pseudo-medieval world that was realistic in the main but independent of real-world history and included fantastic elements such as the elusive presence of magical creatures.
Ironically, Morris did not intend to help create a new genre but was seeking to revive a very old one: He was attempting to recreate the medieval romance -- those sprawling quest-stories of knights and ladies, heroes and dastards, friends, enemies, and lovers, marvels and simple pleasures and above all adventures. The most familiar examples of such tales to modern readers are the many stories of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, but these were merely the most well-known among a vast multitude of now-forgotten tales. Morris deliberately sat down to write new stories in the same vein and even something of the same style, right down to deliberately archaic word choice. But just as the creators of opera thought they were recreating classical Greek drama a la Aeschylus and wound up giving birth to a new art form instead, so too did Morris's new medieval tales belong to a new genre: the fantasy novel.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
