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

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Not bad. But the lack of a dry moat and lack of Gillot's Tower shout to the local in me. Being able to resupply the castle from the river was an an essential part of the design, after all.

I'm just impressed anyone outside the area has heard of Rhuddlan Castle. Of the castles in the Edward 1 Ring of Stone, it's the forgotten one.
This particular map came about because of the Dwimmermount project. In the original campaign, James Maliszewski used the Keep on the Borderlands Keep Map for Muntberg. Obviously he can't reuse Borderlands for the commercial version and wasn't sure what to use it in its place. I knew that there was something close and it was one of King Edwards castles which led me to Rhuddlan Castle.

If I had to redo I would add a moat connecting the steam to the west and the river to the south surrounding the outer bailey. Since Dwimmermount is now open content, I may just use it for something else. Thanks for your comments they will be useful if I update the map.
 
Speaking of Shad videos, this one is really good for going into the importance of farmlands/cultivated lands surrounding a castle and how the size of a population should be reflected in the size of cities






(you know, for those who care about immersion vs handwaving)
 
On the subject of "medieval authenticity" is also what do you mean by "medieval". Like a castle built in 700AD is very different than one built in 1400AD, but both would be medieval.
Absolutely, any historical game would need to be a lot more specific about what period people are covering. I'd see Malestrom Domesday as one of the most "authentically medieval" games around, but it's a lot earlier than people using the term normally mean. Unless specified otherwise, I generally assume that people using "medieval" in a RPG context are mostly talking about the Late Middle Ages.

Even with much shorter historical periods there's a risk of flattening differences. The Victorian Period lasts just under 64 years. But the differences that took place over that time were immense. Ignoring that is like suggesting life now is the same as life in 1970.
 
History-of-Dungeons-and-Dragons-750x500.jpg

Can we say that George Lazenby was Rules Cyclopedia?
 
Changes to culture overall have become more rapid as communication technology has changed though. Those days, a "fashion" is unlikely to last a few years, in the period properly termed the Middle Ages it's more likely to last a generation or more. Just as military advancements were slower by far, and mostly clustered towards post-Hastings.

In my own gameworld I've wrestled with rationalizations of having civilizations of differing technological levels, something that would not have happened historically. But it's a staple of fantasy to have archetypes drawn from different periods..you often want your Viking culture extant to your late Medieval Hundred Years War kingdoms, mixed with Barbarian tribes.
 
Speaking of Shad videos, this one is really good for going into the importance of farmlands/cultivated lands surrounding a castle and how the size of a population should be reflected in the size of cities






(you know, for those who care about immersion vs handwaving)

I may ne wrong... wasnt the hornburg a formerly Dwarven fortress?
Would explain the short battlements.
 
Changes to culture overall have become more rapid as communication technology has changed though. Those days, a "fashion" is unlikely to last a few years, in the period properly termed the Middle Ages it's more likely to last a generation or more. Just as military advancements were slower by far, and mostly clustered towards post-Hastings.

In my own gameworld I've wrestled with rationalizations of having civilizations of differing technological levels, something that would not have happened historically. But it's a staple of fantasy to have archetypes drawn from different periods..you often want your Viking culture extant to your late Medieval Hundred Years War kingdoms, mixed with Barbarian tribes.
Resources available and national technology was synonymous. The more resources to be had, the better the tech.
Poorer nations fielded levies in cheap, homemade, armor. Richer ones had professional armies that they hired out as mercs in times of peace.
 
My question when this topic comes up tends be "Who actually expected D&D to be authentically medieval?" I've never been under any illusions on that score. Anyway, that's really neither here nor there I suppose.
 
My question when this topic comes up tends be "Who actually expected D&D to be authentically medieval?" I've never been under any illusions on that score. Anyway, that's really neither here nor there I suppose.
I don't see that as fair.
It's not about expecting to be authentic, it's about asking how is it authentic or not.
Its a question over an assumption... one which quite a few of us are actually interested in.
 
I wasn't suggesting that it might not be an intereating question. Sorry if it came across like that. I have two degrees in Medieval stuff, so its not a question I personally ask a lot, but it's interesting, sure. For my part the two things are pretty seperate in my head.

The list of ways in which bog standard D&D is not authentically medieval is, mostly, all of them. Different specific products do it more or less of course. D&D is pastiche by deaign though, and works best when ypu lean into that rather than away frorm it. IMO, naturally.
 
There's never any sectarian violence in Greyhawk or even D&D?
There is, I guess. But it's not a case of "this religion can't really work with any other and prevents its adherents from engaging meaningfully with the gouvernment regulations". At least it's not for the non-CE religions:smile:.

The point is, "integrating" monotheistic religions into polytheistic settings has lots of pitfalls, as both Judaism and later Christianity showed:wink:.

The point is, "integrating" monotheistic religions into polytheistic settings has lots of pitfalls, as both Jd
Kevin Crawford begs to differ.
Actually, Kevin Crawford is my go-to example when someone tries to prove me it is:thumbsup:.
As in, "if Kevin Crawford's games fail to work as generic games, your odds are so minuscule I don't see the point in trying to calculate them":shade:.
And I'd like to remind you that KC actually says he's aware not all his customers want to use the system, so he does his best to guarantee the games would be useful for people running the with other systems. As it happens, I'm a pitch-perfect example of such a customer who occasionally backs his KS campaigns:grin:!

I guess I have to say this part because how folks replied to this assertion in the past. I am not claiming that all RPG are universal system. It will take some work use an edition of D&D to run a hard science fiction campaign compared to Traveller. However within a broad range like fantasy most RPGs are more flexible than what you and others give credit for.
"Some work" is an understatement. In fact, I remain unpersuaded D&D can be used to run a hard SF campaign, period.
Yes, T20 is one of the two editions of Traveller that I refuse to even play, and the only one that I can't really be persuaded to. The other one, that I could play, is HERO Traveller, but it's scarcely ever mentioned these days.


If you get a bunch of people to play D&D, any edition, and plop them down in a setting like Harn without any Session Zero discussion, then Lucy, you’re gonna have some ’splainin’ to do. :hehe:
OK, the idea is intriguing, but other than getting you some infamy by appearing in threads about That GM, it won't accomplish anything:tongue:!
Worst of all, it won't get you a functional campaign!
 
Last edited:
I wasn't suggesting that it might not be an intereating question. Sorry if it came across like that. I have two degrees in Medieval stuff, so its not a question I personally ask a lot, but it's interesting, sure. For my part the two things are pretty seperate in my head.

The list of ways in which bog standard D&D is not authentically medieval is, mostly, all of them. Different specific products do it more or less of course. D&D is pastiche by deaign though, and works best when ypu lean into that rather than away frorm it. IMO, naturally.
I am arguably more interested in world building than I am in gaming. So, for me, the more I know, the more glaringly obvious it is that D&D is gaslighting people. lol.
I think it all comes down to interests more than anything.
I didn't see your post as the Peter Griffin "Who the hell cares?!?" meme that some people use to invade topics they don't like. So it's all good. i just dont thing there are any expectations about it... just "how do we make it better?"
 
My inclination would be "how to make it a better game by way of verisimilitude" rather than simply "how to make it more medieval". I don't think that making the game more medieval is a particularly worthwhile goal in and of itself. Some of the hot topic issues would help if handled correctly I think. For example, a better economic model and some more reasonable demographics could be helpful to rationalize the size of cities versus the surrounding hinterlands. That same item would also probably do some good on the character facing strongholds and followers side of things too. More attention paid to the makeup of villages and towns, especially when it comes to professional services would also be keen, especially for a more OSR game that's really putting some emphasis on resource management. Those issues get a lot of press, and in many cases people are way to keen on historical detail over playability or usefulness.

The areas that interest me more on a personal level, and here we are talking world building, is laws and festivals. A lot of RPGs pay almost no attention to law and order, which I find strange given how many laws a party of armed adventurers would usually be breaking when they tramp around the countryside killing and looting (not even murderhobo games, just more normal D&D). Even areas 'outside of civilization' would usually be claimed by at least one or more likely more than one competing entity that at least putatively 'controls' a given area. Adding in a some laws and politics that actually impact the players would add a whole additional level for a party to interact with the game world. Medieval law tended to be pretty different from place to place to depending on who had the authority, and the party would need to know if the duke or the abbot, for example, exercised legal authority over place X.

Festivals is more of a color and story telling thing for me. Some settings do this really well, but not the core D&D ones for the most part. Medieval life was full of festivals and pageants and fairs. Those serve to tie together larger areas socially, serve as a wonderful clearing house for rumors, illustrate some of the additional layers of the society (and possibly religion) in question, and do a marvelous job adding some life to the backdrop a setting is aiming to provide.
 
My inclination would be "how to make it a better game by way of verisimilitude" rather than simply "how to make it more medieval". I don't think that making the game more medieval is a particularly worthwhile goal in and of itself. Some of the hot topic issues would help if handled correctly I think. For example, a better economic model and some more reasonable demographics could be helpful to rationalize the size of cities versus the surrounding hinterlands. That same item would also probably do some good on the character facing strongholds and followers side of things too. More attention paid to the makeup of villages and towns, especially when it comes to professional services would also be keen, especially for a more OSR game that's really putting some emphasis on resource management. Those issues get a lot of press, and in many cases people are way to keen on historical detail over playability or usefulness.

The areas that interest me more on a personal level, and here we are talking world building, is laws and festivals. A lot of RPGs pay almost no attention to law and order, which I find strange given how many laws a party of armed adventurers would usually be breaking when they tramp around the countryside killing and looting (not even murderhobo games, just more normal D&D). Even areas 'outside of civilization' would usually be claimed by at least one or more likely more than one competing entity that at least putatively 'controls' a given area. Adding in a some laws and politics that actually impact the players would add a whole additional level for a party to interact with the game world. Medieval law tended to be pretty different from place to place to depending on who had the authority, and the party would need to know if the duke or the abbot, for example, exercised legal authority over place X.

Festivals is more of a color and story telling thing for me. Some settings do this really well, but not the core D&D ones for the most part. Medieval life was full of festivals and pageants and fairs. Those serve to tie together larger areas socially, serve as a wonderful clearing house for rumors, illustrate some of the additional layers of the society (and possibly religion) in question, and do a marvelous job adding some life to the backdrop a setting is aiming to provide.
I agree.
I think in context of more medieval is akin to more believable. At least, that's how I approach it.
Laws is a good one... kind of depressing, but good. Laws in the Middle games meant a yoke for the commoner and no repercussions for the upper classes. In general, if you start to lay down the laws to players,they all end up wanting to play a noble in the end because it really sucked to be a commoner, and as commoner adventurers, they would not get to keep their toys.
 
In general, if you start to lay down the laws to players,they all end up wanting to play a noble in the end because it really sucked to be a commoner, and as commoner adventurers, they would not get to keep their toys.

Although that's if you kept the same laws of a world where adventuring as a profession, did not exist and there was no call for monster hunters. The existence of fantasy elements will, reasonably, alter the development as a society. What if adventurers, within a traditional Fuedal class system, are regarded as a class unto themselves much like the Japanese Burakumin - the "untouchables", those that are recognized as performing an essential duty for society but exist outside of the traditional heirarchy? What if the Church sponsors an Adventurer's guild, that provides a high-rish/high-reward option for those both at the lowest echelons of society and those nobles who are disenfranchised, lost their standing/family wealth, or are extraneous children (the "seventh son") without claim to an inheritence. Or as an option for criminals to absolve their sins?

I think there are a lot of options to explore that are both realistic and take into account the different situations the presence of supernatural elements in a setting would alter the direction of history.
 
"Some work" is an understatement. In fact, I remain unpersuaded D&D can be used to run a hard SF campaign, period.

Can I call "Armor Class" "Electronic Counter Measures?" At what point does it stop being D&D? Can spell level be tech security clearance?

I really liked XXVc.
 
There's never any sectarian violence in Greyhawk or even D&D?
When you have a world in which the Gods themselves can, or in some cases come in person, say to a worshiper "No, dummy, that's not how I meant it. LIGHTNING BOLT!" Conflicts on dogma tends to not happen. Religion in those cases are less about belief and faith, but rather fact.

Some setting, like Eberron, which tries to keep the Gods as questionable at best, despite giving out Divine power, I believe that they HAVE had sectarian conflicts.
 
At what point does it stop being D&D?


Personally, if you have six stats on a range where "human average" is defined by the median value of 3d6, armour class and hit points (by any name) and a class and level system founded upon the accumulation of abstracted "experience points", you''ve got D&D
 
I agree.
I think in context of more medieval is akin to more believable. At least, that's how I approach it.
Laws is a good one... kind of depressing, but good. Laws in the Middle games meant a yoke for the commoner and no repercussions for the upper classes. In general, if you start to lay down the laws to players,they all end up wanting to play a noble in the end because it really sucked to be a commoner, and as commoner adventurers, they would not get to keep their toys.
Well, there's nothing saying the party has to be commoners, or all commoners. To build on TristramEvans TristramEvans post, if 'adventurers' as a thing existed, they would be covered by the laws somehow. I'm more familiar with English Common law and Church law than some of the continental versions, so that's the background for my comments here.

I suspect the easiest way to handle this is to have Adventuring Writs, which could be issued by whomever has control over the area in question, with the additional proviso that Royal Writs outrank lesser writs. The writ would allow group X to go to Y and perform A B and C pursuant to achieving outcome Z, with provisos about duration, treasure found, etc etc. The writs could quite different from one to the next, and you could have temporary, or seasonal writs, writs deliminated by area, ranging up to royal writs of no duration allowing adventuring where ever.

Disputes over writs get dealt with at the level they are issued, unless there's an issue of high versus low justice, because not everyone had the right of high justice. So two groups disputing a local writ about exploring the Misty Woods might settle that in the Abbot or Earl's court, whereas issues of royal writ would get settled either in royal court or once every however many months by roving justices. There would also be issues about value, especially as regards Royal proclamations about certain sorts of treasure and artifacts that the crown lays claim too unless specifically allowed under a royal writ.

The farther you get out into the wild the more dodgy this gets. There would still be writs, as someone always claims a given territory, however provisionally, but these writs of the Deep Wild (lets call them) would more in the way of Letters of Marque, if I was writing it anyway.

On a more general note, a lot of medieval law was based on trial by jury, which is not at all like modern trial by jury. You could also do some really cool stuff with trial by oath and trial by ordeal, both of which have some nice handholds to work in some stuff about your setting's pantheon.
 
Last edited:
If you've got monsters, adventurers who can deal with them might well be like travelling players or celebrities. Kings might court them to clear out the cockatrices and basilisks.

I guess your run into the question of whether you can be cinematic and fantastical and authentically medieval. But if you got a travelling tournament circuit going an travelling monster slaying circuit might be possible.
 
If I were going to route of Writs I'd probably also employ a reputation mechanic of some kind. There would be pretty furious competition to employ the most famous, or infamous, adventurers as court accessories in addition to any actual adventuring. The higher the party's reputation the more nobles (or guilds, or whatever) would be competing for their services. I like the idea of tying the publicity side of things into the festival and tournament circuit too.
 
Although that's if you kept the same laws of a world where adventuring as a profession, did not exist and there was no call for monster hunters. The existence of fantasy elements will, reasonably, alter the development as a society. What if adventurers, within a traditional Fuedal class system, are regarded as a class unto themselves much like the Japanese Burakumin - the "untouchables", those that are recognized as performing an essential duty for society but exist outside of the traditional heirarchy? What if the Church sponsors an Adventurer's guild, that provides a high-rish/high-reward option for those both at the lowest echelons of society and those nobles who are disenfranchised, lost their standing/family wealth, or are extraneous children (the "seventh son") without claim to an inheritence. Or as an option for criminals to absolve their sins?

I think there are a lot of options to explore that are both realistic and take into account the different situations the presence of supernatural elements in a setting would alter the direction of social development.
Sure there is, but ultimately, people will be people. If you have an elite class, they will want to protect their position at all cost. An adventurer would be a folk hero, and historically... it didn't normally go to well for those types of people.
 
Personally, if you have six stats on a range where "human average" is defined by the median value of 3d6, armour class and hit points (by any name) and a class and level system founded upon the accumulation of abstracted "experience points", you''ve got D&D
If you were to design a game, and then some dope came along and copied so much of it that it clearly resembles your game and called it a "Hearbreaker" would it then be your game? would you then be responsible for whatever direction they decide to go with it?
Or, if you liscenced out the game engine of your game and called it something else... would every game made with that liscence be your game as well?
Are all the multitudes of video games using an unreal engine also the Unreal FPS game?

I think it has to go beyond familiarity, or use of a rules system, to be called something specific like D&D.
 
Well, there's nothing saying the party has to be commoners, or all commoners. To build on TristramEvans TristramEvans post, if 'adventurers' as a thing existed, they would be covered by the laws somehow. I'm more familiar with English Common law and Church law than some of the continental versions, so that's the background for my comments here.

I suspect the easiest way to handle this is to have Adventuring Writs, which could be issued by whomever has control over the area in question, with the additional proviso that Royal Writs outrank lesser writs. The writ would allow group X to go to Y and perform A B and C pursuant to achieving outcome Z, with provisos about duration, treasure found, etc etc. The writs could quite different from one to the next, and you could have temporary, or seasonal writs, writs deliminated by area, ranging up to royal writs of no duration allowing adventuring where ever.

Disputes over writs get dealt with at the level they are issued, unless there's an issue of high versus low justice, because not everyone had the right of high justice. So two groups disputing a local writ about exploring the Misty Woods might settle that in the Abbot or Earl's court, whereas issues of royal writ would get settled either in royal court or once every however many months by roving justices. There would also be issues about value, especially as regards Royal proclamations about certain sorts of treasure and artifacts that the crown lays claim too unless specifically allowed under a royal writ.

The farther you get out into the wild the more dodgy this gets. There would still be writs, as someone always claims a given territory, however provisionally, but these writs of the Deep Wild (lets call them) would more in the way of Letters of Marque, if I was writing it anyway.

On a more general note, a lot of medieval law was based on trial by jury, which is not at all like modern trial by jury. You could also do some really cool stuff with trial by oath and trial by ordeal, both of which have some nice handholds to work in some stuff about your setting's pantheon.
Yep, but the society has to also match the laws. So if you want to have a frontier kingdom, like many games do, then you would have to look at how much power it would sap from the crown to have non sanctioned adventurers dealing with their problems for them. The king would have to somehow take credit and point out how the mighty adventurers were there under the king's behest and not as part of some outside factor... or "gasp" mere commoners doing the work of Knight Errants! Their blood is RED! not Blue!
As a society increases in scope, this laxes much... so you could easily have Privateers and adventurer counterparts with no upset to the natural order of things. In these cases, the government is a machine and you fill in the cogs as an adventurer. So long as the threat is dealt with and the wheel churns, then no one minds if it is the powers that be or not... they are less approachable and less hands on anyways.
Even then, if you have a larger nation and you rely on adventurers to do a lot of the dirty work close to the core, what about when you are dealing with the Earls and the Marquis (Governors) who have to stand against the tide at the borders? They are more vulnerable and similarly would not like an upstart coming and disrupting their big fish in a small pond routine.

I'm not claiming this to be the be all and end all of things. Even if it was a rule, there are always exceptions. It's just something to consider when worldbuilding. In most cases, this gets hand waived away and the kings are often even jubilant of the adventurer deeds because we filter things that way... but, we are not politicians holding power by a razor's edge...
 
Yep, but the society has to also match the laws. So if you want to have a frontier kingdom, like many games do, then you would have to look at how much power it would sap from the crown to have non sanctioned adventurers dealing with their problems for them. The king would have to somehow take credit and point out how the mighty adventurers were there under the king's behest and not as part of some outside factor... or "gasp" mere commoners doing the work of Knight Errants! Their blood is RED! not Blue!
I think your scenario here might own more to Le Morte D'Arthur than it does anything to do with the actual Medieval period. This is even more true on the frontier. Scope doesn't change the period, nor are most fantasy settings outside the scope of the medieval period for the most part. Kings tended to be quite happy to take the credit for anything at all, and weren't picky about spinning their publicity or about methods employed.
As a society increases in scope, this laxes much... so you could easily have Privateers and adventurer counterparts with no upset to the natural order of things. In these cases, the government is a machine and you fill in the cogs as an adventurer. So long as the threat is dealt with and the wheel churns, then no one minds if it is the powers that be or not... they are less approachable and less hands on anyways.
Even then, if you have a larger nation and you rely on adventurers to do a lot of the dirty work close to the core, what about when you are dealing with the Earls and the Marquis (Governors) who have to stand against the tide at the borders? They are more vulnerable and similarly would not like an upstart coming and disrupting their big fish in a small pond routine.
Again, size doesn't really change anything. If you want realistic medieval design then go with that, don't suddenly switch to something Elizabethan when it suits. More land and more population mean more nobles generally, and more great nobles with which to vex a king, but it doesn't 'not work' simply based on scale. As for the border lords, they would be responsible, generally, for maintaining the security of their demesne. They would be the one's hiring adventurers to do stuff in the borderlands rather than the king, unless events of kingdom level importance were in the offing. I would probably posit, were this my own world, that the real business for adventurers would be on the frontier in many cases, working for those very frontier lords, and less in the more settled interior. Of course, if you haven't a 'settled interior' then it's all fair game.

Medieval government was not quite the 'machine' you seem to be describing, at least not generally, not even with Parliament in play in England, or most places on the continent. That's quite general of course, there will always be exceptions. For example, if you wanted to use the late medieval Italian model you get something very different than the English or French model, even of the same period. The German model would vary yet again, and would be at least somewhat familiar to anyone who's played WHFRP. There are lots of options when it comes to building the the political hierarchy, and lots of scales to chose from.

I'm not claiming this to be the be all and end all of things. Even if it was a rule, there are always exceptions. It's just something to consider when worldbuilding. In most cases, this gets hand waived away and the kings are often even jubilant of the adventurer deeds because we filter things that way... but, we are not politicians holding power by a razor's edge...
Well, I'm not sure you've proven it to be the end of all things in any case, so we are in agreement there. This was a question of layering on additional Medieval verisimilitude, which as I demonstrated above isn't too much of a challenge, and done correctly can add some lovely depth and detail to a campaign without being too much additional work. Not just for world building, but as a tool to get players to engage more with the world around them. When players can't just blithely trip through the countryside doing what they like when and where they like, they might actually have to engage with some NPCs or face consequences for their decisions. Sure, you can handwave it, I do that myself in many games, but that wasn't the question at hand.
 
Can I call "Armor Class" "Electronic Counter Measures?" At what point does it stop being D&D? Can spell level be tech security clearance?

I really liked XXVc.
Sure you can, but what does that have to do with my post?

So I guess the question might be why AsenRG doesn't consider XXVc. to be Dungeons & Dragons.
...where did I say that? Or is Buck Rogers XXVc hard sci-fi somehow:shade:?
 
I think your scenario here might own more to Le Morte D'Arthur than it does anything to do with the actual Medieval period. This is even more true on the frontier. Scope doesn't change the period, nor are most fantasy settings outside the scope of the medieval period for the most part. Kings tended to be quite happy to take the credit for anything at all, and weren't picky about spinning their publicity or about methods employed.

Again, size doesn't really change anything. If you want realistic medieval design then go with that, don't suddenly switch to something Elizabethan when it suits. More land and more population mean more nobles generally, and more great nobles with which to vex a king, but it doesn't 'not work' simply based on scale. As for the border lords, they would be responsible, generally, for maintaining the security of their demesne. They would be the one's hiring adventurers to do stuff in the borderlands rather than the king, unless events of kingdom level importance were in the offing. I would probably posit, were this my own world, that the real business for adventurers would be on the frontier in many cases, working for those very frontier lords, and less in the more settled interior. Of course, if you haven't a 'settled interior' then it's all fair game.

Medieval government was not quite the 'machine' you seem to be describing, at least not generally, not even with Parliament in play in England, or most places on the continent. That's quite general of course, there will always be exceptions. For example, if you wanted to use the late medieval Italian model you get something very different than the English or French model, even of the same period. The German model would vary yet again, and would be at least somewhat familiar to anyone who's played WHFRP. There are lots of options when it comes to building the the political hierarchy, and lots of scales to chose from.


Well, I'm not sure you've proven it to be the end of all things in any case, so we are in agreement there. This was a question of layering on additional Medieval verisimilitude, which as I demonstrated above isn't too much of a challenge, and done correctly can add some lovely depth and detail to a campaign without being too much additional work. Not just for world building, but as a tool to get players to engage more with the world around them. When players can't just blithely trip through the countryside doing what they like when and where they like, they might actually have to engage with some NPCs or face consequences for their decisions. Sure, you can handwave it, I do that myself in many games, but that wasn't the question at hand.
Well, for one, I am not claiming an Elizabethan... anything.
HRE, Paris, City states, even the classical Polis all had a working of government.
I am talking size... nothing more.

As for that last part... not sure you needed to go there, but... meh. The internet is what it is and all that. I'm not in the mood for an aggressive tit for tat, so if that's what you are looking for, you should probably look elsewhere. I am just here to shoot the shit and talk D&D.
 
If you were to design a game, and then some dope came along and copied so much of it that it clearly resembles your game and called it a "Hearbreaker" would it then be your game?

yeah? I mean, there's a line where it stops being one game and starts being another, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.

would you then be responsible for whatever direction they decide to go with it?

Responsible? No.

I don't think so, I don't exactly know what that means in this context.

Or, if you liscenced out the game engine of your game and called it something else... would every game made with that liscence be your game as well?

Yeah.

Are all the multitudes of video games using an unreal engine also the Unreal FPS game?

I don't know enough about videogames to answer that.

I think it has to go beyond familiarity, or use of a rules system, to be called something specific like D&D.

Yeah, I know, you have a different opinion on the matter.
 
Last edited:
Sure you can, but what does that have to do with my post?


...where did I say that? Or is Buck Rogers XXVc hard sci-fi somehow:shade:?
Well, you said that you didn't think a hard sf game could still be D&D. So, if you need dungeons and dragons and magic spells to be D&D maybe not. D&D certainly is cinematic with levels basically acting as heroic plot armour but that's common enough in any form of literature really. The issue is that the story is generally the story of the survivors.

As for XXVc, how familiar are you with it? The setting is primarily transhumans in a partially terraformed solar system. I've said many times before that the time line on the terraforming is pretty short because the setting needs to be in the 25th century. But there's no ftl, no aliens, and only one instance of psychic powers and that's telepathic cats on Mercury who are pretty under the radar. There are a couple races that are questionable, the Spacers with their cybernetic symbiote skin that allows them to live in space and the Storm Riders who inhabit the upper atmosphere of Jupiter. But yes, Buck Rogers XXVc. is remarkably hard sf.
 
OK, the idea is intriguing, but other than getting you some infamy by appearing in threads about That GM, it won't accomplish anything:tongue:!
Worst of all, it won't get you a functional campaign!
That’s my point. You tell someone ”D&D”, the assumptions they sit down at the table with are not the same as if you told them “an authentically medieval campaign using the D&D rules”.

There was a time when everyone made their own settings, so there were few assumptions. 40 years later, there’s a lot of assumptions based on decades of similar settings and the primacy of the Forgotten Realms. These assumptions do not allow for authentically medieval play.
 
Well, for one, I am not claiming an Elizabethan... anything.
HRE, Paris, City states, even the classical Polis all had a working of government.
I am talking size... nothing more.

As for that last part... not sure you needed to go there, but... meh. The internet is what it is and all that. I'm not in the mood for an aggressive tit for tat, so if that's what you are looking for, you should probably look elsewhere. I am just here to shoot the shit and talk D&D.
It wasnt supposed to be aggressive, sorry if it came across like that. As far as the machine part goes, I wasn't suggesting that there werent governments, only that they werent the machines, by which i gather you mean bureaucracy, which is not a particularly medieval concept. It depends on period and location of course, its just not by any means a general feature of governments in the period.

Size doesn't require us to posit elements outside the period was my point. I feel like we're possibly talking past each other here, at least a little bit, but Im not sure about exactly what.
 
My question when this topic comes up tends be "Who actually expected D&D to be authentically medieval?" I've never been under any illusions on that score. Anyway, that's really neither here nor there I suppose.
Maybe the subtitle of OD&D: "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns..."
 
Maybe the subtitle of OD&D: "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns..."
If people weren't constantly kvetching about how 'not medieval' D&D was we wouldn't have this thread. :grin: Personally, I'm happy with what it is, which is medieval-inspired pastiche. (medieval adjacent? You get the idea) What it isn't is particularly authentically medieval in any significant way though, except in ways that are already filtered through fantasy fiction.
 
What it isn't is particularly authentically medieval in any significant way though, except in ways that are already filtered through fantasy fiction.
I contend that the fantasy embodied by the lists that are a part of various editions of D&D are not authentically anything other than that it is fantasy. D&D is a pastiche that managed to become it own thing if one uses all of its elements. But also adaptable because as a pastiche to make it feel more like or even accurately support a subgenre is more of a work of omitting elements than creating new ones.
 
I contend that the fantasy embodied by the lists that are a part of various editions of D&D are not authentically anything other than that it is fantasy. D&D is a pastiche that managed to become it own thing if one uses all of its elements. But also adaptable because as a pastiche to make it feel more like or even accurately support a subgenre is more of a work of omitting elements than creating new ones.
I don't think I could say that any better.:thumbsup:
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top