Is D&D even really a medieval fantasy?

[Trask]

Preface: I am not putting down D&D or the way people play it, I'm just making an observation about the game

When I got into D&D a couple of years ago I had an expectation of a medieval fantasy world. I've always adored knights, castles, princesses, dragons, and spooky wizards. But now that I'm well versed in the game as a player and a DM I have to say that I dont think the base system and implied setting of D&D 5e is really a medieval fantasy game at all. Theres nothing essential about its medieval or ancient elements.

Every time I try and create an adventure where the setting is medieval, infused with fairy tale whimsy, etc it feels as though players stick out very strongly. Almost every class has at least some minor magical power, the multitude of races necessitates a cosmopolitan feel to almost every place, and even the way spells work do not jive well with fairy tales at all. (Who ever heard of a witch who could only charm someone for an hour for example?). The way parties tend to hash out and compared with standard quiet towns on the border of the weird wilderness creates a ridiculous image where half the party is about as monstrous looking as they monsters they are fighting.

The monsters of D&D draw upon folklore, but at this point most of them are so far removed from that folklore that it really doesnt matter. Giants in all kinds of medieval myth and tales are incredibly solitary creatures, usually with magical powers for example.

Again, these arent necessarily criticisms but I do think that they are interesting given the way D&D is almost universally portrayed and thought of as a world of knights, castles, kings, and wizards. I actually think that D&D later went on to create settings that I think fit its implied setting much better, and those are very popular (Dark Sun, Planescape for example)

Anyone feel the same? Or have you made D&D work with your concept of a medieval world (or maybe your concept of a medieval world differs from mine)

[JackPhoenix]

D&D never was medieval fantasy, and never really tried to be.

[ad_hoc]

D&D is not the fairytale re-creation game. It also isn't re-creating Tolkien, Game of Thrones, various anime shows, etc.

It is its own thing.

That doesn't mean it isn't medieval fantasy at its core either.

[MilkmanDanimal]

I'm not even sure what "medieval fantasy" is if you're including the concept of dragons in it; if you basically mean "fairy tales", then, no, it's not that. D&D is classic high fantasy, and is Lord of the Rings with just enough details scrubbed out to prevent lawsuits. It's what it's been for 40 years and in the main setting always will be.

[jdolch]

You can play the game however you want. Nothing is stopping you from from playing a low-magic game. Many do.

Also nothing is really saying you can't play a game with only Human Martial Characters in a world where only Humans exist. I don't know how much fun that would be, but you certainly can.

[DMThac0]

D&D was originally a war game/survival simulator using mythological creatures, it has since then become a heroic epic fantasy game using mythological and fantasy creatures.

It is only a medieval fantasy when people try to put a spin on it that feels like it has a real world analog, and since the closest we have is the pre-Industrial Revolution world, that's where the idea has sprouted roots.

[Snails]

D&D is not really medieval fantasy, no. It is really more generic fantasy with lots of medieval ornamentation and random mythologies shoehorned in. It is really its own genre, that more strongly resembles comic book superheroes and Hollywood action movies than medieval fantasy IMHO.

Does King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table really work within typical D&D settings? No.
Does Robin Hood and his merry men traipsing around Sherwood forest really work within typical D&D settings? No.
Does LotR really work within typical D&D settings? No.

Now all these things are plausible kinds of adventures to achieve with the D&D game, given sufficient DM elbow grease. But, no, medieval fantasy is not a natural fit.

And, no, that is not a knock against D&D at all...provided the players/DM are not fooled into thinking D&D is something it is not.

[Consensus]

To me D&D is more of iron age crossed with wild west pretending to be medieval

[mephnick]

D&D was also never meant to be high power demi-gods saving the world from universal threats. It was meant to be adventurers killing monsters, sneaking by monsters, stealing loot and retiring at level 10 with a keep. It's only modern D&D that's made PCs into heroic fantasy Marvel heroes. PCs were absolutely stronger than everyone else, but not to the level of today. The modern settings of dozens of races and "everyone has magic" only started to evolve because of companies putting out thousands of products and trying to justify their existence. The game back in the day was much more reminiscent of Tolkien and hobbit thieves stealing from dragons.

[Snails]

D&D was originally a war game/survival simulator using mythological creatures, it has since then become a heroic epic fantasy game using mythological and fantasy creatures.

It is only a medieval fantasy when people try to put a spin on it that feels like it has a real world analog, and since the closest we have is the pre-Industrial Revolution world, that's where the idea has sprouted roots.

That is very well put.

Gary was not originally trying to create a new kind of simulation of anything. He was a wargamer who wanted to be unshackled from recreating authentic historic battles. He was a wargamer who saw that interesting miniature mass battles could be fun for their own sake, and having a big palette of weird mythogical stuff to throw in excited players and opened up the tactical space to play in. It was incremental changes to a wargame all the way, until Arneson saw that a completely new kind of game could be played with the gaming parts Gary created.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Most settings, even homebrew, tend to be 'medieval' because this is a useful starting point for a campaign.

I don't mean to say that they represent 500-1500 AD Europe, but rather the idea of a rough civilization being formed after the destruction of a much more advanced antiquity and taking place before the philosophical, artistic, and scientific revolutions of a renaissance period. This absolutely fits most D&D. Even Eberron has twangs of it with the destruction of Cyre (and you can kind of think of everything since the fall of the Giants as one big medieval period), though it fits our definition of post-World War Industrialism much better.

Such a timeline allows for ruins that could contain forgotten, priceless relics. In D&D parlance, dungeons. Though I rarely actually see them get played these days, D&D is traditionally about adventurers exploring these places for wealth, power, or to keep these things out of the wrong hands. The system's still built with this in mind, even if it does other things well enough that DM's have been making campaigns about things other than dungeon exploration practically since the beginning.

But because we're all still using the same rules, and the original rules much prefer a medieval period as a sign of upheaval conducive to the existence of dungeons, most games end up medieval.

[Sigreid]

I'd say the default is Tolkien inspired fantasy and Tolkien was a very loosely medieval inspired fantasy.

[PhoenixPhyre]

At least in modern editions, the only thing that D&D emulates or simulates is D&D. It's its own sub-genre of fantasy. Inspired by =/= beholden to or trying to emulate.

Does it promise that you'll be playing faery tales? No.
Does it promise that you can recreate LoTR or similar fiction? No.
Does it promise that you can recreate your favorite (insert media here) character? No.
Does it promise an accurate recreation of historical technologies, societies, or any other such thing? No.

Then what does it promise? The best evidence we have is the blurbs on the back of the core books--that's what the designers are telling people is the reason they should pick up this system. What they'll be able to do with it.



Use this book to create exciting characters from among the most iconic D&D races and classes.

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS immerses you in a world of adventure. Explore ancient ruins and deadly dungeons. Battle monsters while searching for legendary treasures. Gain experience and power as you trek across uncharted lands with your companions.

The world needs heroes. Will you answer the call?




The Monster Manual(TM) presents a horde of classic DUNGEONS & DRAGONS creatures, including dragons, giants, mind flayers, and beholders--a monstrous feast for Dungeon Masters ready to challenge their players and populate their adventures.


Again and again, we see that D&D (especially 5e) is not promising to be a "generic fantasy" game or a "medieval fantasy" game. It's always been its own thing. The references to "medieval" have always been loosely based on the technology level--that it's not Classical age tech (iron and steel are things, as are machines) nor is it modern or futuristic. That you're using swords and axes, not guns or ray guns (although both of those have a long history). It's not trying to evoke a particular medieval faery tale vibe, merely say you're not using spaceships and blasters.

[Anonymouswizard]

Probably the closest description of the 'standard D&D setup' is 'early rennaisance western'.

By which I mean in generaly the technology level (going by arms and armour available) seems to be ~1400-1500, sans firearms and with some regional variation, and the standard world building seems to be closer to a Western with your wandering swordslingers going from town to town, taking down bandits and getting in trouble with the chief constable.

Now the analogy falls apart a bit with dungeons, where we get more into Indianna Jones-style pulp (originally a deadly survival story, but it changed). There will be variations, but that seems to be what D&D and it's ilk are set up to do.

Now there are more mythological games and more historical games out there. Then there's games like The Dark Eye, which is 'D&D but starting from German folklore instead of American pulp fantasy). But in many ways those are more useful in telling us what D&D isn't, which is a well researched pseudo-historical setting.

Then we get into group by group variation, I've played under a GM who wouldn't run D&D if he couldn't have at least flintlocks in his setting.

[mephnick]

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS immerses you in a world of adventure. Explore ancient ruins and deadly dungeons. Battle monsters while searching for legendary treasures.

"Huh. I'm going to use this to run a political thriller space opera." - DMs in 2018

[Unoriginal]

D&D is pseudo-medieval, usually with a technology level around the very late Middle Age/early Renaissance.

You absolutely can have knights in shining armors, kings, and the likes.

But it's also pulp adventures about people exploring dangerous, trap-filled places and getting out with loads of money and an even greater amount of destruction. And it's also the swashbuckling tales of some mysterious folk hiring unlikely mistfits for a job. Etc.


OP, I don't see any way you could argue that D&D isn't fantasy, and that the aesthetic isn't medieval (ableit more in a "it's before industrial revolution but after Antiquity" than in any hystorical way).

As for its magic and setting, yes, as others have said, D&D is its own thing. In fact, each edition is its own thing.

[Trustypeaches]

I've never really thought of D&D as medieval fantasy. At least I never thought of that being the "core" design.

[Trask]

To those saying that D&D doesnt imply fairy tales or medievalism, youre right. But only half so.

The equipment lists definitely paint an imagine and an implied medieval setting. Also look at monster manual, packed full of fairies, nymphs, ghosts, animated swords, cyclopes and all other kinds of creatures from folklore. To say that D&D has NO promise of a medieval setting or fairy tales is untrue, and doesnt explain why me and so many people ive played with have a concept of D&D as such.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Another thing D&D isn't (that a lot of games that are more "historically accurate" or "well-researched" are) is bound to a single setting. It's always been a bit loose. It's explicitly designed as a tool-kit from which DM's can pick and choose. Most of the "kitchen sink" complaints come from confusing particular settings (like FR) with D&D as a whole.

Another thing about D&D is that it's always been happy to include the weird, the odd, the gonzo, the absurd, and the downright cheesy. It's never taken itself seriously. And that's one of the things I like most about it.


"Huh. I'm going to use this to run a political thriller space opera." - DMs in 2018

Right. :wince:

[Tvtyrant]

D&D is a rules set for people who like sword fighting and magic. These rules are setting agnostic, which is why you have Eberron (early industrial revolution), Dark Sun (Post-Apoc Mad Max), Spelljammer (Buck Rogers with spells), Planescape (I don't actually know what the genre is here), Forgotten Realms (literally includes all of the above), and Greyhawk (super wizard world).

To make a properly magic-medieval setting would require toning D&D down a lot. Like instead of any casting you can take the Magic Initiate Feat, which is the equivalent of being a mighty wizard in setting. All of the mythic beasts are gone and the level caps low. The only playable race is humans, everything else is essentially Fey and each thing might show up once in the campaign.

[Waterdeep Merch]

"Huh. I'm going to use this to run a political thriller space opera." - DMs in 2018
It's kind of always been like that, though I'd say the major shift into weirdness occurred somewhere around the 90's. Probably due to White Wolf.

I've met "long time players" that were perplexed when I put them into a dungeon environment for the first time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To those saying that D&D doesnt imply fairy tales or medievalism, youre right. But only half so.

The equipment lists definitely paint an imagine and an implied medieval setting. Also look at monster manual, packed full of fairies, nymphs, ghosts, animated swords, cyclopes and all other kinds of creatures from folklore. To say that D&D has NO promise of a medieval setting or fairy tales is untrue, and doesnt explain why me and so many people ive played with have a concept of D&D as such.

It uses the names of folkloric creatures, but those aren't the same things at all. A D&D troll has nothing (except the name) in common with a folklore troll. And the equipment is only "medieval" if by that you mean "not antiquity and not modern." You have things that didn't happen until the late medieval/early renaissance (rapiers, plate armor, spyglasses) mixed in with things that went out of fashion centuries earlier or never existed. It's not, nor does it claim to be, emulating anything except itself, Ouroboros-fashion.

[Unoriginal]

To those saying that D&D doesnt imply fairy tales or medievalism, youre right. But only half so.

The equipment lists definitely paint an imagine and an implied medieval setting. Also look at monster manual, packed full of fairies, nymphs, ghosts, animated swords, cyclopes and all other kinds of creatures from folklore. To say that D&D has NO promise of a medieval setting or fairy tales is untrue, and doesnt explain why me and so many people ive played with have a concept of D&D as such.

I have no idea what you're trying to get us to say.

Yes, the equipment and the creatures are filled with medieval-inspired things. Which is what make D&D medieval fantasy.

Thank you, you've answered your own question in a way no one can deny to be true.

[Enixon]

"Huh. I'm going to use this to run a political thriller space opera." - DMs in 2018

The fact that so people on game forums try to say these kind of things as implied insults always bugs me considering how many other people have had great games, it just comes across as scoffing at people for "having fun wrong" or something becasue they'd rather do a little bit of tweeking and refulffing for game they and their group already know rather than spend half the campaign teaching the mechanics of a whole new game to their group.

[R.Shackleford]

A lot of settings feel like a renaissance fantasy, but most people looking out would call that a medieval fantasy.

What I mean is that a lot of settings, say Sword Coast or even Eberron, seem to have relatively recently gotten away from their medieval time frame.

A lot of homebrew settings tend to go this route. You still have a lot of the technology and locals that screen medieval fantasy, but with knowledge and technology on the upswing.

[Unoriginal]

It's not, nor does it claim to be, emulating anything except itself, Ouroboros-fashion.

It honestly puzzle me that people would want D&D to be anything but D&D.


I mean, it's a world where you can have blunderbuss-using anthropomorphic hippos in spaceships fighting devils invading from a planar rifts in the background while in the foreground, a willy elf thief-slash-chosen one of a deity, an half-orc wizard, a small-town-hero who get powered by anger and a kobold with the power of music fight a telepathic fish with tentacles who existed before the gods on top of a skull-shaped temple.

Do people play Vampire: the Masquerade and say "it's pretty nice, but I've watched 'Dracula' on Netflix and it wasn't like that, are you sure it's actually a vampire story?".

[Knaight]

D&D was also never meant to be high power demi-gods saving the world from universal threats. It was meant to be adventurers killing monsters, sneaking by monsters, stealing loot and retiring at level 10 with a keep. It's only modern D&D that's made PCs into heroic fantasy Marvel heroes. PCs were absolutely stronger than everyone else, but not to the level of today. The modern settings of dozens of races and "everyone has magic" only started to evolve because of companies putting out thousands of products and trying to justify their existence. The game back in the day was much more reminiscent of Tolkien and hobbit thieves stealing from dragons.

It wasn't particularly medieval even then though. Even putting aside the extent to which early D&D was full of modules that blurred fantasy and sci-fi (there's at least two crashed space ships), one of the core setting features is a fictional pantheon of gods, all widely believed in, each followed largely individually, with networks of shrines, temples, and religious organizations for each.

This tracks exceedingly poorly to medieval social structures.

Then there's the focus on monsters. If you look at more medieval works you don't really see many of them. Take chivalric fiction, where there's the occasional orge or dragon, sure, but also lots and lots of enemy knights and enemy soldiers, where the pile of corpses that some warrior hero has accumulated ends up being something like a dragon, a giant, two ogres, twenty five enemy knights, sixty miscellaneous civilians, and eight thousand Saxon warriors. D&D adventurers meanwhile end up with a very long list of a wide variety of monsters, often with a particularly large pile of orcs and goblins.

Then there's the settings. Yes, the medieval period was in the shadow of Rome in a lot of ways, but by the high medieval period pretty much all of Europe was pretty densely settled, and by the time you start getting to D&D style material culture (e.g. full plate, rapiers, some of the ships) there's a mass deforestation crisis happening (without the development of coal mining basically all the forests would be gone and a lot of people would have died of coal), there's a pretty dense network of towns and cities surrounded by yet more small villages, surrounded by yet more small extended households. D&D settings though? It's all borderlands and wilds, frontiers, ruins long abandoned instead of scraped for resources, with the very occasional city.

That's before getting into the way that the base assumptions of D&D include some really gonzo elements. Planes of existence? The great wheel? Bizarre fantasy monsters based on random sets of poorly made plastic toys? A magic system clumsily pulled from Dying Earth (an odd setting to be sure)? The whole concept of a clean split between divine and arcane magic? That's all really weird, and it's just been copied enough that the weirdness doesn't stand out.

[Keravath]

I think D&D is whatever the players and the DM want it to be.

D&D provides a bunch of rules for how characters can be created, interact at a basic level, and their general capabilities and special abilities. Additional source material may provide the capabilities of a wide range of creatures from an even wider range of sources including ones fabricated wholly for the game. There is additional source material describing some of the settings of D&D. Some of the settings resemble medieval times in some distinct ways but D&D has never been limited to the concepts of medieval fantasy.

Why do folks perceive D&D as medieval
1) In many games the DM chooses that the social organizations are feudal ... there are lords, ladies, knights, kings, and evil villains. These can be a part of both medieval and high fantasy. However, this is only because the DM has chosen to include these in the game.
2) In many games the technological level used in the setting is medieval. There are swords/bows/halberds/crossbows, leather armor, breast plates, full plate, shields. These are all items mostly associated with medieval times. However, settings like Eberron include elemental powered trains and air ships and some settings include firearms. So, although some of the most common D&D settings have aspects of medieval fantasy ... that is not the game itself.

Even the first edition AD&D DMG contained a section on linking Gamma World (sci-fi RPG) and its high tech future equipment into the D&D setting of your campaign.

Perhaps one of the most fairy tale elements of D&D is the name :) ... Dungeons and Dragons.

Anyway, if a DM and players wished to play in a fairy tale land then D&D is sufficiently adaptable to allow for it.

The OP said "D&D is almost universally portrayed and thought of as a world of knights, castles, kings, and wizards." which is true since that is the type of setting that many DMs choose to run in and that type of world is fully supported by the rules provided in D&D.

[Silva]

Planescape (I don't actually know what the genre is here)
I would say New Weird fantasy (see China Mieville), specially if Sigil plays a significant role in your campaign.

[GlenSmash!]

Is SCA a medieval reenactment group? The certainly use medieval style clothing, and try to replicate medieval style combat, among other aspects of medieval life, and yet creative anachronism is is right in the name, so admittedly there are non-medieval from the get go.

Likewise D&D is both medieval and non medieval. Which is fine.

[iTreeby]

Do people play Vampire: the Masquerade and say "it's pretty nice, but I've watched 'Dracula' on Netflix and it wasn't like that, are you sure it's actually a vampire story?".

I think previous versions of vampire the masquerade fell short mechanically of delivering on what the setting promises. I'm pretty interested to see if the newest version is any good though. But to answer your question, kinda yes?

Dnd is great at being dnd. Other systems can do dnd well too but if I were going to play a radically different setting than dnd's, I'd play a different system.

[Silva]

It wasn't particularly medieval even then though. Even putting aside the extent to which early D&D was full of modules that blurred fantasy and sci-fi (there's at least two crashed space ships), one of the core setting features is a fictional pantheon of gods, all widely believed in, each followed largely individually, with networks of shrines, temples, and religious organizations for each.

This tracks exceedingly poorly to medieval social structures.

Then there's the focus on monsters. If you look at more medieval works you don't really see many of them. Take chivalric fiction, where there's the occasional orge or dragon, sure, but also lots and lots of enemy knights and enemy soldiers, where the pile of corpses that some warrior hero has accumulated ends up being something like a dragon, a giant, two ogres, twenty five enemy knights, sixty miscellaneous civilians, and eight thousand Saxon warriors. D&D adventurers meanwhile end up with a very long list of a wide variety of monsters, often with a particularly large pile of orcs and goblins.

Then there's the settings. Yes, the medieval period was in the shadow of Rome in a lot of ways, but by the high medieval period pretty much all of Europe was pretty densely settled, and by the time you start getting to D&D style material culture (e.g. full plate, rapiers, some of the ships) there's a mass deforestation crisis happening (without the development of coal mining basically all the forests would be gone and a lot of people would have died of coal), there's a pretty dense network of towns and cities surrounded by yet more small villages, surrounded by yet more small extended households. D&D settings though? It's all borderlands and wilds, frontiers, ruins long abandoned instead of scraped for resources, with the very occasional city.

That's before getting into the way that the base assumptions of D&D include some really gonzo elements. Planes of existence? The great wheel? Bizarre fantasy monsters based on random sets of poorly made plastic toys? A magic system clumsily pulled from Dying Earth (an odd setting to be sure)? The whole concept of a clean split between divine and arcane magic? That's all really weird, and it's just been copied enough that the weirdness doesn't stand out.
This post is perfect. Bravo, sir.

[ad_hoc]

The fact that so people on game forums try to say these kind of things as implied insults always bugs me considering how many other people have had great games, it just comes across as scoffing at people for "having fun wrong" or something becasue they'd rather do a little bit of tweeking and refulffing for game they and their group already know rather than spend half the campaign teaching the mechanics of a whole new game to their group.

It's more that people do this and then complain that D&D sucks at it.

[sophontteks]

It's based on the medieval era.
It has strong fantasy elements.
It therefore is a medieval fantasy game.

All the examples are things within Medieval fantasy, but they do not define the genre.

[Darth Ultron]

D&D has never been a pure medieval fantasy. It has always been a renaissance ''level' at least, just going by the items and equipment available.

More then that though, it was not made to be ''European" or "Earth before 1400 or so" at all. The setting is more the North American Frontier about 1600, but with no gun poweder and magic.

[Asmotherion]

Most worlds have a medieval setting and medieval politics, but modern age people and anachronisms in it. The King's authority is more questioned than it realistically would, Proven Magic users are accepted and less feared/procecuted, and diferent races of humanoids look to live together without trying to necesserally conquer each other. Religion is also a personal thing.

Overall, I believe most D&D worlds are meant to represent a world or worlds were magic etc were the analogy to technology (and other races were real), and we never realy grew out of medieval style, but we're still in the equivalent of the 21st centuary.

[Anonymouswizard]

The fact that so people on game forums try to say these kind of things as implied insults always bugs me considering how many other people have had great games, it just comes across as scoffing at people for "having fun wrong" or something becasue they'd rather do a little bit of tweeking and refulffing for game they and their group already know rather than spend half the campaign teaching the mechanics of a whole new game to their group.

Coming as one of the people who says these sort of things, if you're using D&D to play, for example, Space Opera, then you're limited or adding in setting elements just to have D&D bits in it. Not to mention that using D&D is just inherently more work.

What I have to do to run Generic Space Opera with D&D:
-Work out how Wizards fit in
-Work out how Clerics fit in
-Work out how Druids fit in
-Work out how Rangers fit in
-Work out how Paladins fit in
-Work out how Bards fit in
-Work out how Sorcerers fit in
-Work out how Bards fit in
-Work out how Monks fit in
-Find or homebrew firearms and lasers rules
-Find or homebrew spaceship rules
-Find or homebrew computer rules

What I have to do to run Generic Space Opera with Traveller:
-Houserule laser battery packs to be internal rather than belt or back mounted.
-Homebrew energy shield rules.

How wow, turns out spending £20 and learning 2d6+stat+skill versus Target Number is a lot more work than shoving magic into a setting to allow more character options than 'Fighter or Rogue' and homebrewing rules for all futuristic technology I want to add.

Now I get the desire to not have to learn something with as many options as GURPS or Eclipse Phase, but there's a lot of simple systems out there for almost every genre you can think of. Using D&D for things D&D is terrible at is essentially saying 'I don't want to find a system that'll make this idea enjoyable, I can just mutilate the idea to fit it into D&D'.

(For the record my RPG collection includes everything from 'iron age celts' to 'crazy transhumanism', with my favourite games generally falling into the near future or past with maybe a bit of D&D style fantasy.)

Hey, I want to run a steampunk setting. I could use D&D and work around all the magic in the system, I can use Victoriana and just ask people to only play human nonmages, or I can use Space 1889. You're essentially telling me that instead of buy Space 1889 (or Fate, or Savage Worlds, or some other generic) you'd rather mess around with trying to shoehorn a magicless setting around a game that assumes almost every PC will have magic?

I'm off to plan a game of Victoriana. It'll be much more awesome than running magical steampunk in D&D, because the system is designed with that in mind. Pick up your d6s and let's form some pools!

[Knaight]

It's based on the medieval era.
It has strong fantasy elements.
It therefore is a medieval fantasy game.

Parts are based on the medieval era - parts very much aren't. About 2/3 of the MM is classical myth for instance, there's some clear western influences, there's some science fantasy influences (much diminished in more recent editions), so on and so forth.

To use a non-D&D example, the Dominion series isn't a medieval fantasy game. It's a fantasy game, and there are multiple nations in it that are really medieval (Marignon is basically fantasy Spanish Inquisition, Bogarus is pretty much the Kievan Rus), but the presence of so much stuff from other eras and places makes it not medieval. The same applies to D&D, which has a lot of classical and iron age influence, because it pulls broadly from fantasy mostly instead of history*, and while most of that fantasy was historically rooted the history it was rooted in varied pretty highly.

*The polearm list is just Gygax being a historical polearm nerd, and there's a few other points that are more history influenced.

[sophontteks]

Parts are based on the medieval era - parts very much aren't. About 2/3 of the MM is classical myth for instance, there's some clear western influences, there's some science fantasy influences (much diminished in more recent editions), so on and so forth.

To use a non-D&D example, the Dominion series isn't a medieval fantasy game. It's a fantasy game, and there are multiple nations in it that are really medieval (Marignon is basically fantasy Spanish Inquisition, Bogarus is pretty much the Kievan Rus), but the presence of so much stuff from other eras and places makes it not medieval. The same applies to D&D, which has a lot of classical and iron age influence, because it pulls broadly from fantasy mostly instead of history*, and while most of that fantasy was historically rooted the history it was rooted in varied pretty highly.

*The polearm list is just Gygax being a historical polearm nerd, and there's a few other points that are more history influenced.
Influences don't change the genre. It just defines its style within the genre. D&D doesn't have to be based on another medieval fantasy to be medieval fantasy. It's been around a long time and has its own weight defining what the genre is.

The OP literally reads that because its not a fairy tale or because its not folk lore, its not medieval fantasy, as if these things do not take from other influences as well. As if there is some 'pure' medieval fantasy that all other medieval fantasies must aspire toward. And as if taking your own route, and taking influences from other cultures and times somehow bastardizes it.

Fact is, its based on medieval era, and it has fantasy elements. That's all it needs to be medieval fantasy. It's not a narrow definition.

[Theodoric]

D&D and especially the Forgotten Realms are noticeably American (like how Middle Earth is, especially in some parts, very English). There's just something about the underlying value structure, societal structure, etc. that's very a-historical-European. The superficial texture of D&D's very (Euro-)mythical but under the surface the underlying assumptions almost fit an Old West setting more.

[Knaight]

Fact is, its based on medieval era, and it has fantasy elements. That's all it needs to be medieval fantasy. It's not a narrow definition.

"It's based on the medieval era" is a much stronger claim than "it's partially based on the medieval era", and while D&D meets the second definition (slightly) it really doesn't meet the first. Calling it medieval fantasy fundamentally misrepresents the style of fantasy that it is.


As if there is some 'pure' medieval fantasy that all other medieval fantasies must aspire toward. And as if taking your own route, and taking influences from other cultures and times somehow bastardizes it.
I'm not calling it bastardized medieval fantasy, or calling "pure" medieval fantasy aspirational. It's a neutral genre descriptor, and in all honesty if I'm the one using it it's probably somewhere below neutral at this point. It's also a descriptor that gets less and less useful the more other tangentially related genres are rammed into it. D&D fantasy is a genre on its own, kitchen sink fantasy an alternate descriptor for D&D itself, so on and so forth.

There's a pretty huge difference between something like the Deyrini series, Ars Magica, or the more medieval portion of the thinly-disguised-historical-fiction fantasy subgenre and something like D&D or the Dominions series. Both are good, but being able to classify them seperately is helpful.

[Enixon]

You're essentially telling me that instead of buy Space 1889 (or Fate, or Savage Worlds, or some other generic) you'd rather mess around with trying to shoehorn a magicless setting around a game that assumes almost every PC will have magic?



Well, in this example, it's a choice between saying "Okay guys, this is going to be a Victorian steampunk game, so I'm only allowing humans for your race and the only caster class allowed is Artificer, which has been refluffed to be a steampunk gadgeteer, also you can use the firearms from the DMG" when pitching the game, or purchasing a whole new game system, learning it well enough to feel comfortable GMing it, and teaching it to my group.

I think in this case at least I'd probably just use the house ruled D&D, unless I happened to take an independent interest in a particular Steampunk game of course.


Some people will find one option a better fit for their group, some will find the other works better, it's the way people on game forums seem to get downright offended when they hear that someone made up a few house rules to make their group's game of choice work in a different genre that irks me.

[Finback]

D&D is a medieval fantasy* game.

* for a specific value of medieval fantasy, n.

[Draken]

"Huh. I'm going to use this to run a political thriller space opera." - DMs in 2018

Guilty as charged.

[Marcloure]

I feel like D&D is based on a time way closer to the fantasy of Ancient Greece, Egypt and Persia, but with plate armor and some medieval kingdoms added to it.

[Ignimortis]

Coming as one of the people who says these sort of things, if you're using D&D to play, for example, Space Opera, then you're limited or adding in setting elements just to have D&D bits in it. Not to mention that using D&D is just inherently more work.

What I have to do to run Generic Space Opera with D&D:
-Work out how Wizards fit in
-Work out how Clerics fit in
-Work out how Druids fit in
-Work out how Rangers fit in
-Work out how Paladins fit in
-Work out how Bards fit in
-Work out how Sorcerers fit in
-Work out how Bards fit in
-Work out how Monks fit in
-Find or homebrew firearms and lasers rules
-Find or homebrew spaceship rules
-Find or homebrew computer rules
!

Classes are tools, not identities. Of course, that approach works better when there are tons of classes for all imaginable concepts. But still, magic-users are some sort of Psion/Biotic/Psyker/Gifted, maybe operating on a Power Point system instead of slots. All of these classes use some sort of space magic, either unfocused and versatile (spells), or focused and class-constrained (Monk's Ki abilities).

The thing with adapting a well-known system isn't only that you don't need to learn the rules. It's also about assumptions. If your group actually wants something like D&D in power level and lethality and all those neat things, then it might be easier to shoehorn stuff into D&D than to sift through ten systems and spend 50 hours adapting the closest one to how it should be.

[Sigreid]

What D&D is is a medieval styled fantasy game. Meaning the life style within the world is meant to be, or at least was originally meant to be superficially medieval. From there it's always gone full rogue imagination. Heck, while some of the classic monsters are indeed based loosely on various creatures of myth and legend, several of them were based on little plastic toys the creators had around for some reason.

When you get right down to it I think the creators were thinking "Lets take this medieval tech fantasy war game and make a game where people can be the individual heroes. Yeah, with swords and sorcery and petty gods and damsels in distress and oh ooh oooh Dragons! Yeah, Dragons!! And we'll do all of this stuff primarily in underground complexes that are basically puzzles and battles for the players to solve because that's a much more controllable situation for the guy who is running the challenges."

[Anonymouswizard]

There's a pretty huge difference between something like the Deyrini series, Ars Magica, or the more medieval portion of the thinly-disguised-historical-fiction fantasy subgenre and something like D&D or the Dominions series. Both are good, but being able to classify them seperately is helpful.

This. People saying D&D agent medieval fantasy are like people saying Star Wars isn't science fiction, we believe that it doesn't hit more than the superficial aspects of the definition.

As one example, I don't think I've ever seen a proper feudal system in D&D, for instance, even with the large number of absolute monarchies running around. I get way, but they didn't really disappear until the end of the medieval era, and not even then for some countries.


Classes are tools, not identities. Of course, that approach works better when there are tons of classes for all imaginable concepts. But still, magic-users are some sort of Psion/Biotic/Psyker/Gifted, maybe operating on a Power Point system instead of slots. All of these classes use some sort of space magic, either unfocused and versatile (spells), or focused and class-constrained (Monk's Ki abilities).

The thing with adapting a well-known system isn't only that you don't need to learn the rules. It's also about assumptions. If your group actually wants something like D&D in power level and lethality and all those neat things, then it might be easier to shoehorn stuff into D&D than to sift through ten systems and spend 50 hours adapting the closest one to how it should be.

Fine, if you want to run D&D with a skin.

Also, Perle vastly overestimate how hard learning most systems is. IME it comes out closer to five hours, less if you're willing to use cheat sheets. But this is off topic.

[Knaight]

Classes are tools, not identities. Of course, that approach works better when there are tons of classes for all imaginable concepts. But still, magic-users are some sort of Psion/Biotic/Psyker/Gifted, maybe operating on a Power Point system instead of slots. All of these classes use some sort of space magic, either unfocused and versatile (spells), or focused and class-constrained (Monk's Ki abilities).
So now that's been rammed into the setting, because D&D has it. That's the main issue with adapting it - either you cut huge sections of the material, or you leave them in and have to distort the setting to fit, an infinite variety of settings compressed to fit a game not made for most of them. THis happens to some extent even with genuinely generic systems (I'm talking GURPS here, and others at comparable or even higher levels of genericness), but it happens a lot more with a system that isn't generic.

[Unoriginal]

In a way, D&D is about as medieval as the Conan's stories by Howard.

You have people in plate armors, kings, castles, etc next to dinosaures, demons and wonderous mechanical inventions, and it's not supposed to be the Middle Age.

[Mordaedil]

This. People saying D&D agent medieval fantasy are like people saying Star Wars isn't science fiction, we believe that it doesn't hit more than the superficial aspects of the definition.

As one example, I don't think I've ever seen a proper feudal system in D&D, for instance, even with the large number of absolute monarchies running around. I get way, but they didn't really disappear until the end of the medieval era, and not even then for some countries.


Well, Star Wars doesn't have much of any science and features more spiritual elements than scientific ones and is often classified more often as Space Fantasy, given how loose it is with its science or the workings of its technology, to the point where they take care to never feature paper, in order to not break immersion in its fantasy world.

The problem is that specific labels tends to confuse people and make libraries and other registries a literal nightmare to navigate, so we often throw a lot of stuff under a single umbrella term just to make the bookkeepers happy.

Thus, Star Wars usually lands in the science fiction section of the library and D&D lands under fantasy (no distinction like medieval in a library, because it gets complicated when you have Harry Potter next to Lord of the Rings)

[ad_hoc]

This. People saying D&D agent medieval fantasy are like people saying Star Wars isn't science fiction, we believe that it doesn't hit more than the superficial aspects of the definition.


Star Wars isn't science fiction, it is science fantasy.

Star Trek is science fiction.

[Anonymouswizard]

Star Wars isn't science fiction, it is science fantasy.

Star Trek is science fiction.

My point.

Star Wars is superficially Science Fiction (which, to be honest, over here is always grouped with fantasy for sorting purposes, it'll be the 'SF&F' section if not just the Science Fiction one). In the same way D&D is wearing the skin of a medieval fantasy setting, but isn't one.

Can it be used for one? Well, yes. But that's not what it is by default.

[Mordaedil]

Star Wars isn't science fiction, it is science fantasy.

Star Trek is science fiction.

I know it's an easy slip-up, but it's Space Fantasy. Science Fantasy implies something entirely differently and it is akin to the most boring doctorate journal into the function of bodycells.

[JellyPooga]

The problem with D&D is that it isn't one setting; it's a grab-bag of stuff, from Tolkeinesque high-elves living in their citadels hidden from the realms of men, to Howardian reaches of Cimmerian mein, beast-filled jungles, pirates and sorcerers, to the bustling melting pot cities of Rennaisance Europe, to the wild, unexplored frontiers where chivalrous knights hunt dragons and brave explorers carve out new territories and so on and so forth. There's a place for fairies and witches, there's a place for multicultural societies, there's a place for forgotten cities and reclusive races and more; you just have to pick which part of the "world" you want to play in. That's the point; it's not "medieval fantasy", but it has elements of it. It's not Middle Earth, nor Hyborea, nor Hogwarts, any more than it is any other fiction you care to name but it has elements of them such that with just a little bit of imagination, you can tell a story that might fit the style of those things.

So yeah, after a fashion I agree with the OP; D&D isn't medieval fantasy. It's more than just that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem with beauty of D&D is that it isn't one setting; it's a grab-bag of stuff, from Tolkeinesque high-elves living in their citadels hidden from the realms of men, to Howardian reaches of Cimmerian mein, beast-filled jungles, pirates and sorcerers, to the bustling melting pot cities of Rennaisance Europe, to the wild, unexplored frontiers where chivalrous knights hunt dragons and brave explorers carve out new territories and so on and so forth. There's a place for fairies and witches, there's a place for multicultural societies, there's a place for forgotten cities and reclusive races and more; you just have to pick which part of the "world" you want to play in. That's the point; it's not "medieval fantasy", but it has elements of it. It's not Middle Earth, nor Hyborea, nor Hogwarts, any more than it is any other fiction you care to name but it has elements of them such that with just a little bit of imagination, you can tell a story that might fit the style of those things.

So yeah, after a fashion I agree with the OP; D&D isn't medieval fantasy. It's more than just that.

FTFM. When I play D&D or build settings, I'm not trying to emulate any particular genre or historical setting or any other thing. I'm trying to find fun things that I can hook together with some semblance of verisimilitude. I love the strange, the fantastic, the unexpected. The dissonant. The "how did that get there?" The "what might be over the next ridge?" For me, D&D provides a variety-tolerant foundation where I can have all those things without needing to learn a dozen "focused" rule systems.

[greenfunkman]

I mean, it's a world where you can have blunderbuss-using anthropomorphic hippos in spaceships fighting devils invading from a planar rifts in the background while in the foreground, a willy elf thief-slash-chosen one of a deity, an half-orc wizard, a small-town-hero who get powered by anger and a kobold with the power of music fight a telepathic fish with tentacles who existed before the gods on top of a skull-shaped temple.

That game sounds EPIC.

[Louro]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Warriors, knights, bards, clerics, barbarians...
Kings, feudalism, armors, swords, catapults...
Where all those things come from? The future?

Now add all the classical mithology and you have tales of sword & sorcery, also known as medieval fantasy. Expanded further with classic D&D stuff and evolved through 40 years of existence.

Star wars is science fiction. It is a space opera, a sub genre allowed to skip science in favour of adventure and action.

[greenfunkman]

Star wars is science fiction. It is a space opera, a sub genre allowed to skip science in favour of adventure and action.

Plus wizards. The Jedi are space wizards.

If you've got magic in your setting, I call it fantasy.

[Unoriginal]

Star Wars isn't Space Opera. Star Trek is Space Opera.

Space Opera is the SF version of Soap Opera, it doesn't remove the science.

Star Wars is Space Fantasy because it's a story about magic samurai and weird creatures IN SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE. There is almost none of the science-fiction's "using the story to explore a facet of science/our potential future" stuff, aside maybe one or two ethical questions about the clones and the whole "underequiped rebels vs a crushing, oppressive government".

[Grey Watcher]

The issue is that "medieval fantasy" is, in my experience, a much broader term than that. It's why there are so many more specific terms (eg "swords and sorcery", "high fantasy", etc.). Just "medieval fantasy" includes everything from Tolkien to the Brothers Grimm to Final Fantasy to Game of Thrones to goodness knows what else.

And yeah, D&D lends itself a lot more readily to a Saturday morning cartoon than "how a real world medieval peasant might have thought things worked."

That's not to say you can't dial back the fantastic elements to something a bit more down to earth (to a point), but doing so does require your players to specifically buy into it and say "OK, my Kenku GOO Warlock/Vengeance Paladin/Whisper Bard multiclass character is going to have to wait on the bench a while longer. You're up, Elven Enchanter!"

[Unoriginal]

On that subject, I really hope they make a new D&D cartoon.

Maybe if the upcoming movie isn't terrible, the suits at Hasbro will consider a safe investment and free light one.

[Louro]

Star wars is actually medieval fantasy. Just change the horses for spaceships, the swords for lightsabers and wizards for jedis.
Voila!
A classic sword & sorcery tale of good vs evil.

[Toofey]

Back to OP's question I thought he was asking based on the title. I'm pretty sure if you strip out all of the fantastic elements D&D is based in the Renaissance. You look at the ships, the weapons list (more obviously in older editions where the weapons lists are more detailed) the beginnings of firearms, and the existence of fine plate, and you see a very Renaissance world. You add in the assumption of long distance trade being ubiquitus, which is the case in most settings and... you need caravans to guard, and you get right there historically. In previous edditions you even saw settings for discovering the new world, and the other 'cultural' settings from 2nd ed look very much like the expectations from that time period.

[Unoriginal]

Yeah, D&D is late Middle Age/Early Renaissance on many ways.

It should be noted that at the time of Gygax, and even today, a lot of the pop culture assumptions about the medieval period were actually things that happened in the Renaissance/Early Modern period (a misconception strengthened by many Renaissance/Early Modern writers attributing anything bad about their time period to the Middle Age)

[JackPhoenix]

Star wars is actually medieval fantasy. Just change the horses for spaceships, the swords for lightsabers and wizards for jedis.
Voila!
A classic sword & sorcery tale of good vs evil.

Well, you can exchange laser swords for... normal swords..., add dragons, and you'll get Eragon.

But neither is sword & sorcery. Nor medieval.

[FieserMoep]

Its high fantasy (as in pretty much everything is larger than life and in some way "unrealistic"/magical) with a very strong emphasize on a group going out to do adventure or quests - often even consciously.
As to the theme of the world, it draws very strong inspiration from the European middle ages. Those cover a few hundred years and there is not even a clear cut for the epoch at large so it bleeds over into other time frames too. Ultimately though it is open to pretty much ANY cultural inspiration and that is quite a big part of it, for it enjoys contrasting the known and established with the unknown and exciting. In that regard its somewhat of a timeless limbo though that also depends on "where" or in "what" setting you play. In the end the setting is not even linked to DnD as Faerun and Eberron etc. highlight. Faerun just happens to be the "standard" DnD gets shipped with. But flaying through outer space on a ship in Spelljammer is just as much DnD as anything else.

Thus, from the Design of the Game itself, I'd come full circle and reiterate my initial statement. DnD is about playing characters that are larger than live, draw their power from the supernatural and (consciously) go on an adventure/quest. The emphasize is on combat, for in the end its a legacy dungeon crawler still and thus its high fantasy and additionally can be much more depending on setting you attach.

PS: It is important to keep in mind that Genre-Characteristics are not black and white. As for the Star Wars topic, its easy to identify soft-scifi and high fantasy characteristics for example.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Preface: I am not putting down D&D or the way people play it, I'm just making an observation about the game

When I got into D&D a couple of years ago I had an expectation of a medieval fantasy world. I've always adored knights, castles, princesses, dragons, and spooky wizards. But now that I'm well versed in the game as a player and a DM I have to say that I dont think the base system and implied setting of D&D 5e is really a medieval fantasy game at all. Theres nothing essential about its medieval or ancient elements.

Every time I try and create an adventure where the setting is medieval, infused with fairy tale whimsy, etc it feels as though players stick out very strongly. Almost every class has at least some minor magical power, the multitude of races necessitates a cosmopolitan feel to almost every place, and even the way spells work do not jive well with fairy tales at all. (Who ever heard of a witch who could only charm someone for an hour for example?). The way parties tend to hash out and compared with standard quiet towns on the border of the weird wilderness creates a ridiculous image where half the party is about as monstrous looking as they monsters they are fighting.

The monsters of D&D draw upon folklore, but at this point most of them are so far removed from that folklore that it really doesnt matter. Giants in all kinds of medieval myth and tales are incredibly solitary creatures, usually with magical powers for example.

Again, these arent necessarily criticisms but I do think that they are interesting given the way D&D is almost universally portrayed and thought of as a world of knights, castles, kings, and wizards. I actually think that D&D later went on to create settings that I think fit its implied setting much better, and those are very popular (Dark Sun, Planescape for example)

Anyone feel the same? Or have you made D&D work with your concept of a medieval world (or maybe your concept of a medieval world differs from mine)

Have you tried Ars Magica? It's medieval AF.

[GreyBlack]

Preface: I am not putting down D&D or the way people play it, I'm just making an observation about the game

When I got into D&D a couple of years ago I had an expectation of a medieval fantasy world. I've always adored knights, castles, princesses, dragons, and spooky wizards. But now that I'm well versed in the game as a player and a DM I have to say that I dont think the base system and implied setting of D&D 5e is really a medieval fantasy game at all. Theres nothing essential about its medieval or ancient elements.

Every time I try and create an adventure where the setting is medieval, infused with fairy tale whimsy, etc it feels as though players stick out very strongly. Almost every class has at least some minor magical power, the multitude of races necessitates a cosmopolitan feel to almost every place, and even the way spells work do not jive well with fairy tales at all. (Who ever heard of a witch who could only charm someone for an hour for example?). The way parties tend to hash out and compared with standard quiet towns on the border of the weird wilderness creates a ridiculous image where half the party is about as monstrous looking as they monsters they are fighting.

The monsters of D&D draw upon folklore, but at this point most of them are so far removed from that folklore that it really doesnt matter. Giants in all kinds of medieval myth and tales are incredibly solitary creatures, usually with magical powers for example.

Again, these arent necessarily criticisms but I do think that they are interesting given the way D&D is almost universally portrayed and thought of as a world of knights, castles, kings, and wizards. I actually think that D&D later went on to create settings that I think fit its implied setting much better, and those are very popular (Dark Sun, Planescape for example)

Anyone feel the same? Or have you made D&D work with your concept of a medieval world (or maybe your concept of a medieval world differs from mine)

Ever since about 3rd edition, D&D has had more of a dungeon-punk/early Renaissance aesthetic more than a true Medieval aesthetic. It's far less about lords and ladies and more about adventures through early modern cities hunting werewolves and ratfolk than about going into the wilderness to hunt dragons and giants. Which is fine; it speaks to a shift in focus in the zeitgeist of the hobby, just really not medieval.

[Joe the Rat]

Star wars is actually medieval fantasy. Just change the horses for spaceships, the swords for lightsabers and wizards for jedis.
Voila!
A classic sword & sorcery tale of good vs evil.
Mostly, yes. It's Feudal Japanese Fantasy in Buck Rogers Drag.