Good posts about why D&D is not authentically medieval?

[Shipyard Locked]

Over the years I've encountered numerous blog or forum posts explaining in useful detail exactly how the standard D&D setting/experience is not authentically medieval. I would really like to re-read some of that material right now, but I'm drawing a blank on where to find it.

Does anyone remember or have links to good examples of this writing?

 

[David Johansen]

Back in the middle ages they only played D&D with d6s Airfix Robin Hood sets and plastic monsters from China.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Found this one which looks pretty comprehensive - https://blogofholding.com/?p=7182

 

[David Johansen]

huh, one thing that occurred to me while reading that is that D&D has wilderness because there are monsters. One of the common critiques is that you really didn't have wide open wilderness in Europe but throw in a few chimeras, hydras, manticores, and dragons and there probably is some land that's up for the taking by anyone tough enough to take it.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Even there I think you'd generally see vassals granted land for slaying monsters within rather than just claiming it as independent lords. Overt agic would be more of a gamechanger though; you'd either see noble families having their own wizards (much like sending a son off to the church) or you'd see the kind of shakeup caused by the rise of the merchant.

 

[robertsconley]

The D&D system is neither medieval or anti-medieval, however D&D campaigns may be medieval or anti-medieval. Which is which is the decision of the referees running the campaigns, not the authors of the rule system.

From personal experience is not a lot of work to run a medieval campaign with D&D. Many elements from Medieval mythology are present in the various list that make up the system. Making a medieval campaign more about ignoring elements that don't fit rather the coming up with new lists of classes, items, magic, monsters, etc. It also slightly easier to do with classic editions compared to later editions.

 

[TristramEvans]

Seems like ti would be simpler to list the (scarce) ways it is authentically medieval. There seems very little in the game that has any basis in historical reality.

At best, there's a "medieval veneer" spread over the game with the assumptions of a fuedalistic social structure, the technology level (with blends together about 1000 years of real world history simultaneously), and the "fashions" (which tend more to early Hollywood medieval than adopting any of the trends of a particular era)

I mean, Xena Warrior Princess is more authentically Greek than D&D has ever been authentically medieval

 

[David Johansen]

Even there I think you'd generally see vassals granted land for slaying monsters within rather than just claiming it as independent lords. Overt agic would be more of a gamechanger though; you'd either see noble families having their own wizards (much like sending a son off to the church) or you'd see the kind of shakeup caused by the rise of the merchant.

But really, that guy who slew the dragon can probably draw his own followers and doesn't need the protection of a king. In time, the king might come to miss the dragon.

 

[Moonglum]

If your D&D campaign does not have character archetypes and social structures and technologies based on some part of the European middle ages, then it is your fault, not the game's. I play my quasi-historical medieval european campaigns using systems other than D&D, but it is for a variety of arbitrary personal reasons and not because they are better in any obvious sense. There are a variety of games that purport to present a more historical medieval europe or japan than you find in D&D, and some of them are even pretty good at helping DM's run such campaigns. But the gears and levers that make the systems in these games work are not obviously better at this task; they just went to the effort of pasting a bunch of wikipedia articles about guilds and witchcraft and the papal schism into a game book. They are basically a game plus a campaign guide cooked together. D&D's core books do not include campaign guides (at least not in the sense I mean here). They never have. You are supposed to shape your own campaign through the places and NPCs and events that you dream up. If you are lazy, or just prefer it, you can throw the whole kitchen sink of monsters and items and spells and character classes into your campaign, and the result will very predictably look like the standard dogs-breakfast of demi-human triple-class characters throwing chain lightning to defeat a pack of xorns. But all of that is on you. You could have just as well made a campaign with carefully defined limits on what does and doesn't appear in the setting and ended up with a game that feels more like the historical 14th century France than anything you'll find in Ars Magica or Chivalry&Sorcery or another game tailored to this idea.

 

[Armchair Gamer]

The absence of both Church and Empire means that while a campaign may be medieval technologically, it's not likely to bear much political, religious, cultural, or philosophical resemblance to medieval Europe.

 

[Shipyard Locked]

Just a quick note guys, I'm not criticizing baseline D&D. I'm just looking for links to old posts on one particular topic related to it that anyone is free to take more or less seriously.

 

[Moonglum]

The absence of both Church and Empire means that while a campaign may be medieval technologically, it's not likely to bear much political, religious, cultural, or philosophical resemblance to medieval Europe.

The point I was trying to make, perhaps in too long-winded of a fashion, is that your D&D campaign has a Church and and Empire if you decide it has those things, and doesn't if you don't. Beyond a few atmospheric titles for levels (which have no functional meaning, beyond those you give them), the game's core materials are and always have been totally agnostic about the formal structures of religion and civil power. All the things that make a game setting exquisitely medieval in every detail are on top of what D&D treats as core rules, not a substitute for them.

 

[David Johansen]

Friedrich Heer's The Medieval World might be a good starting point. He's less interested in the wars than the actual social movements of the time.

I guess the rigid hierarchical structure of society. The Feudal vows that bind lord and vassal. The power of the church being greater than kings. The very limited literacy among the population cementing the power of the church. All the little things people did to get around the limitations. The crazy traditions, and fads. Really, D&D's probably too sensible for the middle ages in Europe.

 

[robertsconley]

The absence of both Church and Empire means that while a campaign may be medieval technologically, it's not likely to bear much political, religious, cultural, or philosophical resemblance to medieval Europe.

Then add a Catholic Church and a Roman Empire. It not any more work than it was adding the Church of Veritas, or the Bright Empire to my Points of Light.

 

[Brock Savage]

Old school Gygaxian D&D is more akin to the mythical American Wild West than anything Medieval. Some yokels in coonskin caps venture out into the wilderness, clear the land of aboriginals and dangerous beasts, then become lords of the land.

Hell the gold piece economy is so out of whack with Medieval Europe it's nuts. Honestly there are a lot of elements in an authentically Medieval setting that I find incredibly boring.

 

[The Butcher]

See, this is why Howard invented the Hyborian Age.

I mean, Xena Warrior Princess is more authentically Greek than D&D has ever been authentically medieval

I think OD&D as written has less, and less blatant anachronisms than Xena, but I'm not even sure this sort of comparison makes any sense at all. (Xena's world is very Hyborian Age-y BTW.)

 

[Endless Flight]

I’d rather play a Conan game than a D&D game, but that’s not the subject of this thread. I digress!

 

[Moonglum]

It's hard not to talk past each other in this sort of discussion because a big slice of the gaming community associates D&D with a specific style of characters and campaigns, perhaps for the obvious reason that this is all they see in the published campaign materials they use. I also think something as simple as the artwork hugely impacts what people imagine D&D 'is'. If your 5E PHB contained exactly the same words but was filled with medieval woodcuts and Albrecht Durer sketches I believe many people would interpret it differently. The other slice of the community sees D&D as a game with a rules set but not a rigid implicit setting, and they are baffled as to why you think you couldn't or shouldn't use it to game in 15th century Verona or Richard III's England or whatever. For some reason these two sorts of people seem to be immune to each other's arguments.

 

[Endless Flight]

I liked the artwork in the original 2nd edition for that reason, but many people would probably disagree with me. Haven’t seen anything quite like it since.

 

[TristramEvans]

I think OD&D as written has less, and less blatant anachronisms than Xena

My comparison to Xena wasn't really about what has less, rather what has more - as in more Greek culture is inserted into Xena than actual medieval cultural elements are existant in the D&D rules. And the comparison was specifically chosen because no one would claim Xena is "authentic" at all - D&D simply has next to nothing medieval present, except some weapons and some armour cherrypicked from the 4th to 15th centuries

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

The point I was trying to make, perhaps in too long-winded of a fashion, is that your D&D campaign has a Church and and Empire if you decide it has those things, and doesn't if you don't. Beyond a few atmospheric titles for levels (which have no functional meaning, beyond those you give them), the game's core materials are and always have been totally agnostic about the formal structures of religion and civil power. All the things that make a game setting exquisitely medieval in every detail are on top of what D&D treats as core rules, not a substitute for them.

I think there's still some definite assumptions hardbaked into the rules and even more so the published supplements (settings like Greyhawk, dungeon scenarios etc.). It's not that you couldn't run a feudal medieval campaign in D&D. You absolutely could. In the same way I could easily run one in Tunnels and Trolls. But in both cases there's not a lot of support for it in the core rules as they are. Compared that to something like Pendragon which is explicitly focused on running Arthurian legend.

It's the difference between a tool kit and an emulator. Neither's better, but they offer very different things. Tool kits will allow you to do anything, but you may need to put a significant amounts of work in to do so. Emulators are much much less flexible, but require less work to do their specific genre.

Just a quick note guys, I'm not criticizing baseline D&D. I'm just looking for links to old posts on one particular topic related to it that anyone is free to take more or less seriously.

Likewise. In fact I think this is one of the interesting points in that blog post I linked:

But it’s worth taking a step back from the medieval-fantasy cliches that overran later D&D publications, and playing the original, more coherent setting: A swords-and-sorcery world, empty of government, where anyone can pick up a sword, become a hero, and live the American dream.

For that author at least, it's about looking as what made the OD&D setting unique as much as anything else.

 

[Armchair Gamer]

Then add a Catholic Church and a Roman Empire. It not any more work than it was adding the Church of Veritas, or the Bright Empire to my Points of Light.

True, although you’re pushing against a lot of game assumptions with the former.

 

[Simlasa]

Old school Gygaxian D&D is more akin to the mythical American Wild West than anything Medieval. Some yokels in coonskin caps venture out into the wilderness, clear the land of aboriginals and dangerous beasts, then become lords of the land.

That's definitely how the majority of D&D games I've played in have felt. Towns full of hotels and restaurants and general stores. No elements of feudalism or a monotheistic church looming over everyone.
Warhammer Fantasy and LotFP's semi-official 30yrs war setting meshes a bit better with the sort of stuff we commonly encounter.
I expect a lot of Players would feel alienated if there was a hard push for 'medieval authentic' setting details.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

That's definitely how the majority of D&D games I've played in have felt. Towns full of hotels and restaurants and general stores. No elements of feudalism or a monotheistic church looming over everyone.

And that's something I think is one of its strengths. D&D does that kind of "frontier town" adventuring feel really convincingly. In fact the only game I think does it better (in terms of setting not rules) is Palladium Fantasy.

Warhammer Fantasy and LotFP's semi-official 30yrs war setting meshes a bit better with the sort of stuff we commonly encounter.
I expect a lot of Players would feel alienated if there was a hard push for 'medieval authentic' setting details.

It's certainly something I think you'd need a lot of player buy-in for, especially the stuff surrounding social class. Very few players are going to be willing to play peasants who always defer to the Knight in the party. It's noticable that those games that do deal with that kind of rigid social stratification often have everyone playing the same social class (knights, samurai etc.) which avoids the issue.

 

[David Johansen]

Chivalry and Sorcery did the whole social class and hierarchy thing in 77. It didn't supplant D&D in any case. Still, one idea I always find useful from C&S is hierocentric exchange. Patronage as the source of rewards. Rather than putting treasure in the dungeon have the lord reward the PCs for success. The only thing is that players have generally been taught to distrust their patrons. It takes a while to unteach that paranoia.

 

[TJS]

True, although you’re pushing against a lot of game assumptions with the former.

EEehhh. I've often thought that D&D Clerics make more sense against the background of a Pseudo-catholic church. It explains why they all have the same spells based off legends of Catholic Saints.

Then you have the old gods in the woods for the Druids.

Polytheism may be a staple of D&D but it's never really made a whole lot of sense as portrayed.

Symbaroum is a good example of how to re-interpet D&D tropes through a lens that is much closer to something historically European.

 

[AsenRG]

EEehhh. I've often thought that D&D Clerics make more sense against the background of a Pseudo-catholic church. It explains why they all have the same spells based off legends of Catholic Saints.

Then you have the old gods in the woods for the Druids.

Polytheism may be a staple of D&D but it's never really made a whole lot of sense as portrayed.

Symbaroum is a good example of how to re-interpet D&D tropes through a lens that is much closer to something historically European.

Care to tell us about Symbaroum?

 

[robertsconley]

True, although you’re pushing against a lot of game assumptions with the former.

It Lord Vreeg's law in action, if you usedthe D&D list, then your setting will look like a D&D fantasy world.

If you want things to look medieval, then you need to alter the lists so it doesn't. Assuming that one is not going for historical but rather a fantasy medieval setting, then the referee will need to go through the various lists like cleric spell list and makes sure it reflects how miracles and divine abilities were viewed in western European along with variants reflecting other cultures of the time.

Looking at the original list of cleric spells it obvious that Gygax was influenced by Christian mythology. Out the list I would say the following would not make the cut for a Christian Cleric.

Detect Magic, Find Traps, Hold Person, maybe Speak with Animals, Locate Object, maybe Speak with Plants.

 

[robertsconley]

For Magic Users a quick stab at it result in the following.

Yes I kept Levitate but not Fly.

 

[TristramEvans]

If I was doing a spell list for Clerics based on medieval legends, I'd probably, based on that list, cut it down to the following:

 

[TJS]

Care to tell us about Symbaroum?

Symbaroum has different types of magic: Wizardry, Theurgy and Witchcraft are the main ones. Theurgy is similar to D&D clerical magic and is the province of monotheistic priests of the god Prios. Only the clergy of Prios learn Theurgy. Witchcraft is the province of ...well witches who are associated with the barbarian tribes which are being colonised by the Ambrians who worship Prios. And of course Wizardry is what you would expect. So broadly they're based off the D&D tropes of Clerics, Druids and Wizards. (Although Druids less explicitly than the others).

By making Theurgy a tradition of magic, which is associated with the clergy of a particular god, it becomes less necessary for that god to actually exist. It's a tradition that exists because it belongs to a particular institution. So you have your cake and eat it too - you can have clerical faith based magic, but also fanatical inquisitors and witchhunters and cynical church poltics and reformers etc - because it's not clear there actually is a god out there to take away anyone's power.

And it means faith actually matters, which you can't really have a Medieval feeling setting unless it does.

 

[AsenRG]

Symbaroum has different types of magic: Wizardry, Theurgy and Witchcraft are the main ones. Theurgy is similar to D&D clerical magic and is the province of monotheistic priests of the god Prios. Only the clergy of Prios learn Theurgy. Witchcraft is the province of ...well witches who are associated with the barbarian tribes which are being colonised by the Ambrians who worship Prios. And of course Wizardry is what you would expect. So broadly they're based off the D&D tropes of Clerics, Druids and Wizards. (Although Druids less explicitly than the others).

By making Theurgy a tradition of magic, which is associated with the clergy of a particular god, it becomes less necessary for that god to actually exist. It's a tradition that exists because it belongs to a particular institution. So you have your cake and eat it too - you can have clerical faith based magic, but also fanatical inquisitors and witchhunters and cynical church poltics and reformers etc - because it's not clear there actually is a god out there to take away anyone's power.

And it means faith actually matters, which you can't really have a Medieval feeling setting unless it does.

That's a smart trick indeed.

 

[Altheus]

They don't hang the ranger for poaching. Crime used to be spotty in enforcement but savage when someone got caught. Evidence was a bonus.

"Hey, there's a stranger with a bow, and we're looking for a poacher. Get the rope!"

 

[Bourbonjack]

For a long time I've felt that "classical" D&D was more like a frontier Western with a thin coating of Ren Faire "medievalism".

Many people who complain about D&D not being "medieval enough" are really just using some vague historical generalizations to support their argument to change something they don't really like. Often these folks don't really understand what they'd be getting if their D&D suddenly went Full Historical. Half the party burned at the stake and the other half branded as outlaws might be a common result.

 

[Séadna]

So just to get it clear in my head, OD&D is basically the wild west except with cowboys replaced by wizards and Conan and the unsettled environment is fantastically harsh since it's full of various monsters. Clerics might be explained by some centralised religion "off map".

So you have various Preachers, Conans and Wizards being sent or heading themselves into this new territory to stake a claim there, sometimes looting the abandoned towers etc of previous adventurers and sometimes taking jobs from current big names in the area. Again there might be an empire off-map but any settlements here are free settler villages or adventurer strongholds.

One interesting thing the link mentions is that dungeon wealth comes out as about that of high-level PCs (if I am reading it right). So the common take of dungeons as ruins of previous empires like in the Dying Earth doesn't really work. They're just previous PCs/adventurers. To use the Wild West analogy they're abandoned ranches.

 

[TristramEvans]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about D&D "not being medieval enough", and I've seen a lot of complaints on forums over the years.

I've seen many complaints about realism, but that's not the same, and everyone has their own idea about whats realistic in the context of a fantasy world.

But presumably if the D&D campaign being run was set up to reflect some specific period of history, the characters you played would be completely different anyways. See the green book supplements for 2nd edition as prime examples.

Note that if magic as it exists in D&D were to be applied to a otherwise historical setting, I doubt very much anyone would need to worry about "witch burning" - they would have been integrated into society as a resource like any other.

 

[AsenRG]

So just to get it clear in my head, OD&D is basically the wild west except with cowboys replaced by wizards and Conan and the unsettled environment is fantastically harsh since it's full of various monsters. Clerics might be explained by some centralised religion "off map".

Basically yes, though your setting sounds more fun;thumbsup:.

 

[Armchair Gamer]

EEehhh. I've often thought that D&D Clerics make more sense against the background of a Pseudo-catholic church. It explains why they all have the same spells based off legends of Catholic Saints.

Then you have the old gods in the woods for the Druids.

It depends on which version of D&D you're using. Up through AD&D 2E or so (clerics vs. specialty priests being the breakpoint), you're pretty much correct. 3E onwards, the game both gives clerics a much broader spell list and places more emphasis on choosing a patron deity or at least domains as a fundamental element of the character.

Polytheism may be a staple of D&D but it's never really made a whole lot of sense as portrayed.

From Dragonlance onward, D&D has tended towards Henotheistic Symbiotic Pluralism.

 

[Faylar]

For Magic Users a quick stab at it result in the following.

Yes I kept Levitate but not Fly.

View attachment 23496

Gonna disagree here... fire and elenental spells were the domain of sorcery. Druids as D&D have them are pure fabrication. A sorcerer from the cultures the druid was derived from would use elemental magic over the other druid tropes.
This lent to stories of deeds by legendary magicians like Merlin.
I always thought Gygax did a decent job pulling spells from celtic mythology as much as christian.

Im paraphrasing a mythology book I read recently about a celtic sorcerer they think contributed to Merlin stories...
"He joined the battle and started to chant and dance wildly, his blade cutting down foes and, frothing from the mouth like an animal posessed of disease. Then, he went calm, raised his hand... and unleashed a ball like firey pitch at his enemies."

Keep in mind that Merlin was first written about in 1136 but was a composite of legendary figures before that. This places him as a medieval figure.
Spells attributed to those legends include fireball, lightning bolt, walls of flame, shaping earth to create things, and even opening all locks in a city.

 

[Moonglum]

I think the main thing here is that it is unusual, maybe even rare, for a gaming group to go all-in on development of a campaign in enough detail that you have any detailed sense of how the surrounding society works. If what you want out of a game session is a 'saturday night episode' of your favorite adventure show, then naturally you are not going to recreate the politics of the medieval catholic curia.